File :-(, x, )
Olympus Evolt E-500 Anonymous
hey /p/

I found a pretty good deal on a Olympus Evolt E-500 with 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, and a 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko EZ Zoom Lens, Sure they are both slow, But what does /p/ think? is it worth it?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
How good of a deal are we talking here?

Generally, Olympi (and their 4/3 kin) are fail, but if the deal is like "$5 for the set!" then go for it.
>> Anonymous
E-500 is quite noisy at ISO 1600 compared to Canons and the viewfinder is small, but other than that it's not a bad camera. Probably the only worthy one Olympus made before the current E-410/510.

As for the bundled lenses, they're quite good compared to other manufacturers' kit lenses (especially the 40-150/3.5-4.5 one, which is sadly discontinued now in favor of a slower one), but don't expect pro quality. If you need really good ones, you'd better go for Canon or Nikon, since pro-level lenses for Olympus are scarce and expensive.
>> Anonymous
>>60489

I think it's like $400 for it all new

>>60512

What about the Pentax K100? I've heard a few good things about it, and the fact it's backwards compatible with older lenses rock, considering I have quite the assortment of lense sitting in my storage (all K mount)
>> Photoshop-kun !!cBJbNBorLte
Advantages:
-Small and lightweight
-"Typical Olympus color rendition"
-Fast-in-use and well thaught out ergonomics
-Great LCD
-Flawless operation in -20 degree Celsius weather (add wind chill on top of that)
-Accurate and concistent autofocusing with all Olympus lenses and very few issues with front/backfocusing
-The battery runtime is good (enough (?))
-The dynamic range is good (enough (?))
-The pricing is about to hit rock-bottom with the recent introduction of the E-410 and E-510
-You can mount the brilliant Leica D Summilux 25mm. f/1.4 and the image stabilized Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm. f/2.8-3.5 on it (although you loose the function of the aperture ring (must use control wheel on the body to change the aperture in "A"-mode) and mode-2 IS when mounted on an Olympus camera body).

Disadvantages:
-ISO800 and up looks like shit
-The viewfinder is small
-No ISO displayed in the viewfinder
-"4:3 is the wrong geometry for printing and is not as estethically pleasing as 2:3"
-Olympus charge a high-ass premium for their (TIPA award winning) top grade lenses and other accessories and you're constantly getting pestered by asshat 4/3-hating techtrolls.

Many people say the Zuiko Digital 14-45 and the old non-blue band 40-150 are the best two lenses in any currently available dSLR twin lens kit from any maker; the 40-150 in particular gets much praise. Sure, the 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 are sharper, faster, better built, has focus range indicator windows, are water tight, has less geometric distortion and cromatic abberations, but at ~three times the cost, they're not ~three times better. I happen to own an E-500 /w the 14-45, so you can safely disregard everything I just said, because talking about a camera one owns automatically makes one a fanboy, blind to the features and benefits of every other brand, supposedly.
>> Anonymous
>>60489
The 4/3rd system is valid and a good idea, even if I would rather it were the 3/2nds system. While all the rest I hear are fail, I've heard the old Olympus E-1 was good and nothing but praise for the newest Olympuses.
>> Anonymous
>>60513
Oh, and yeah, OP, if you've a bunch of Pentax glass around, get the K100D or K10D. Lenses decide the body, usually, not the other way around.

Besides, IMO, Pentax DSLRs are the best being made now you can get, with the caveat that I don't know too much about the new Olympuses, which do pique my interest, and the exclusion of the Sigma models, because all I know about those is OMG FOVEON. I've also heard really great things about the old Konica-Minolta DSLRs. I would easily include Nikon on this list, but lossy compression on RAW files is the stupidest idea anyone has brought to the DSLR table.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60524
I just don't like the system from a conceptual standpoint. I like big sensors. While yeah, limiting yourself to a 2x crop sensor brings down the weight and cost, it also gives you a corresponding drop in image quality. And the fact that the whole system is designed around that 2x crop means that there's no way to grow if someone ever comes up with a really cheap way to make full-frame sensors.
>> Anonymous
>>60527
>I like big sensors.
So does everyone, but I don't think you'd want to lug a Hasselblad around to do documentary style photography.

>While yeah, limiting yourself to a 2x crop sensor brings down the weight
And size. Both which are key factors in how the camera handles, which (in part) determines how one shoots.

>it also gives you a corresponding drop in image quality
It gives some more noise, sure, but noise isn't a real issue, at least not as much as people treat it as. Old film emulsions often had equal to or more grain than point and shoots have noise at the same ISO. People produced images stunning enough that some specks of silver didn't matter. People do it today with digital cameras and noise at high ISOs.

And as far as general image quality, people said the same thing when photographers outside of the studio and landscape applications moved to 35mm.

>there's no way to grow if someone ever comes up with a really cheap way to make full-frame sensors.
But see, you're assuming that full frame is what everyone would go for if it wasn't for the cost. I don't think that's the case. Smaller sensors have definate advantages (smaller physical size bodies and lenses, more depth of field) over larger sensors, and vice versa. Different applications.

I see sub-APS-C and APS-C sensors becoming the new standard, regardless of cost; full-frame cameras partially filling in the role of Medium Format film camera for landscape and studio work, and digital Medium Format cameras being for when people really want the best image quality and are willing to send $30,000 to Sweden. I don't know of too many people working in digital large format, but I imagine they do it more for the view cameras than for the size. I'm not the only one who has this analysis; I've heard it several different places.

Your Rebel provides perfectly acceptable images at any ISO, doesn't it? Especially after running Noiseware or something, right?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60535
>And size.
Actually, the E500 is slightly larger than my Digital Rebel XTi. And the Nikon D40s are even smaller than that. Granted, the E500 saves you a whopping .1lb in weight, but I think my spine will survive that crushing weight for at least a little while longer.

And yeah, blah blah blah, cameras are always getting smaller and more convenient at the cost of image quality. The point I'm trying to make is that the 4/3 system doesn't offer anywhere *near* the convenience benefit to justify using it over a system designed around a 35mm size.

Now, if it were, say, the size of the Pentax Auto 110 with that level of quality? Hells yes, sign my ass up. But when the high-end camera in your line gets *almost* as good quality as the *low* end of the competitors? And the camera's actually a smidgen bigger? And the weight advantage is minimal?

Yeah, screw that.

It's certainly a good enough camera that you can take great pictures with it, but there's no real compelling reason to choose it over Canon or Nikon, and a whole host of compelling reasons not to.
>> Anonymous
>>60589
I'm guessing the additional size comes from the stuff needed to work live preview. Also, if one takes into account the lens, a four-thirds camera probably is smaller than your Rebel. The new E-410 is smaller, without a lens, than the Rebel, without a lens.

And I'm not speaking about the particular cameras, but the respective merits of 4/3rds versus larger sensors. Simply put, a four-thirds sensor is good enough, as is APS-C. People doing more documentary or otherwise candid work would be better off choosing a hypothetical four-thirds camera and people doing more staged work- portraiture, landscape, etc- would be better off with a hypothetical APS-C sized sensor. Either one will work. The same goes for full-frame, although the larger sizes needed for wide-angle lenses would be a disadvantage for some work.
>> Anonymous
One feature of the 4/3 I use a lot: you can mount almost ANY SLR lens in manual mode on a Four Thirds camera via adapters; while, for example, you cannot mount anything else than newer Nikon lenses on a Nikon body or else goodbye metering and/or infinity focus.
>> Anonymous
>>60611
You could buy a D200 or Better camera and still get metering.. Though the older lenses generally suck on digital camera's, As most of them have horrible CA, and ghosting issues.

Also except for wide angle lenses, Full frame ones don't seem to need to be much bigger (if at all). Which I guess can be a disadvantage, But you can use them to your advantage aswell. Its much easier to get places when people think you are press for example. There are disadvantages to that aswell in some cases, But overall I find it to be helpfull.
>> Anonymous
>>60618
>Also except for wide angle lenses,
Which are the staple of photography that is helped by small, flexible, lightweight equipment.

>Its much easier to get places when people think you are press for example
People tend to be somewhat ignorant when it comes to cameras. Even while carrying a dinky superzoom point-and-shoot without focusing rings or anything, I've had people mistake me for a press photographer, a wedding photographer, and even a police photographer (while not at a crime scene). They also tend to think it's a film camera. Anything that isn't flat, has a viewfinder, and has a lens that extends more than an inch past the body will get mistaken for a professional camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60592
The size advantage of 4/3 cameras really isn't that much. I still think that anything above pocket size might as well be a digital SLR. Carrying around my girlfriend's S5IS is no more convenient than lugging around my Rebel. I'm not willing to sacrifice a stop's worth of ISO at a given noise level for the negligible size and weight advantages that the 4/3 cameras give.

Now what would be win would be if they make a *non-SLR* 4/3 camera. Gimme that big, good-enough sensor, interchangeable lenses, and SLR response time in something the size of a large point & shoot. Slap on an articulated LCD like on Canon's SxIS and A6x0 lines for framing with the live-view. If they're feeling especially saucy, couple a rangefinder. *THAT* is a camera that would make me think seriously about investing in another lens system.
>> Anonymous
>>60645
Switching to another system (of currently produced ones, of course) when you already have some lenses is usually stupid regardless of which systems we're talking about. Unless the other system has some very specific things you absolutely need.
>> Anonymous
>>60618
Well, D200 is expensive, and still won't meter and will lose infinity focus on non-Nikon lenses AFAIK.

Also, why do older lenses suck? Since we use a cropped sensor, this means we use only the best part of the imaging circle, and a lens that has bad CA and blurred corners on a full-frame camera may actually yield better results on a crop-sensor one.
I often use an 1959-vintage Auto-Takumar 50/f1.8 lens that rivals both Olympus kit lenses and the 35/f3.5 macro prime in everything regarding image quality. Hell, even a couple old and cheap Soviet lenses I have look pretty good when stopped down a bit.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>60649
>Unless the other system has some very specific things you absolutely need.
Specific things like the hypothetical ones I mentioned in the post you're replying to?
Please see>>60645and actually read it this time before replying. Kthx.
>> Anonymous
>>60654
Well, they're hypothetical and I don't see anything too impressive about them. Removing the mirror and optical viewfinder won't make a camera considerably smaller and lighter than E-410 already is.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>60653
Its the coatings, And the fac that light has to hit the sensor at an almost 90 degree angle. Heres an example of an old Great lens that Doesn't hold up on Digital.

Nikon 180mm Ai F2.8 (MF)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70sCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:04:12 14:15:34Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1504Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>60621
>>Which are the staple of photography that is helped by small, flexible, lightweight equipment.

Smaller, "Less flexible equipment"

Also I do think DSLR's bring a huge advantage for Action, Sports, Night clubs, Things that a Point and shoot can't do, And for 90% of those types of shots, You will be using a telephoto lens (80mm +) Ultrawide lenses are better on large sensor camera's anyway, I have a Sigma 10-20mm on a Nikon DSLR (so 15mm) Which is pretty damn wide.
>> Anonymous
>>60660
D: Is that an uncoated lens? None of my old lenses exhibit CAs so bad, including non-multicoated ones.
>> des
>>60664
I've got late 70s/early 80s multicoated lenses that flare and CA pretty bad on dslr, and that's towards the end of big advances in coating tech. Sometimes the internal reflections of the lens are just pits on digital.
>> Anonymous
>>60664
I believe it is multicoated, Its the version just prior to the ED glass 180mm f2.8.