File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Tell me /p/, how much does this camera suck?
>> Anonymous
It doesn't, at least considering the price. The main problem is getting lenses for it, plus canonfags who whine about the absence of $2000+ full-frame cameras in the Olympus system.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Slightly worse high-ISO noise than other cameras in its class.

Lack of cheap fast primes, or a legacy of used equipment.

No possibility of an upgrade path to a larger sensor (I.e., I'm a canonfag who whines about the absence of $2000+ full-frame cameras in the Olympus system)
>> Anonymous
>>157694
>Lack of cheap fast primes
There's a cornucopia of cheap fast primes you can put there with adapters, but focusing manually is hard (unless you have a magnifier eyecup, a split focusing screen and/or a modchip, or shell out $1600 for an E-3)

>or a legacy of used equipment.
Thanks to canonfags whining about the absence of $2000+ full-frame cameras in the Olympus system, there's already quite a lot of used equipment on the market, and sometimes really cheap. I got my 14-54/2.8-3.5 for $200 and my 11-22/2.8-3.5 for $350.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157699
>I got my 14-54/2.8-3.5 for $200 and my 11-22/2.8-3.5 for $350.
Yeah, but what I'm talking about is more along the lines of "I picked up my 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 at a flea market for $40" range. There's lots of used equipment, but there's not a lot of old and tired but still serviceable used equipment stretching back to the 80s (or, in Nikon's case, the 50s).

I will amend my other argument: Lack of cheap fast primes that can autofocus and don't require a cumbersome annoying adapter to use.

That being said, the Four Thirds system will give you (more or less) the same image quality that you can get with the other systems out there. They lack in the high end, and they lack in the legacy, but they have cheaper f/2.8 zooms than the big guys, and their low-end cameras have a size/weight advantage (especially when coupled with a delicious pamcaek). If the guy had asked how much the XTi sucks, I'd have been able to give him just as many reasons.
>> Anonymous
AS much as you.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157703
Eh, how are adapters cumbersome and annoying? You just put them on the lens once and from there it's no harder than using a native-mount manual lens. (Unless you're talking about this crazy shit on the pic, lol)

>they have cheaper f/2.8 zooms than the big guys
Curiously, Olympus is probably the only manufacturer that doesn't make f/2.8 zooms. They're all variable f/2.8-3.5, or constant f/2 for ZOMFG INSANE PRICES.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157713
>Eh, how are adapters cumbersome and annoying?
They're just another damn thing you have to deal with. I guess they wouldn't be that bad if you got an adapter for each one of your weird lenses and appropriate Four Thirds rear caps, but it just seems like a hassle to me.

There's a good chance I'm just more easily annoyed than you are.
>> Anonymous
>>157719
My two adapters are kept on the two lenses I use frequently. And when I experiment with weird soviet stuff I have a drawer full of, changing adapters isn't annoying, it even adds to the excitement xD

As for rear caps, 4/3 caps are interchangeable with OM caps and even most Pentax caps, so there's no problem.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157728
Do you have to do stop-down metering when doing that?
>> Anonymous
>>157732
Of course. The lenses in question are fast primes I use for portraits and low light shooting, so I rarely close the aperture to less than f/2.8.
>> Anonymous
you should just admit olympus sucks
>> Anonymous
>>157749
you should just admit you fail at trolling
>> Anonymous
>>157758

still made you post didn't it

i win
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
The body could do with weighing more, and having heavier glass.

Its 1/2 the weight of mine! Made it impossible to hold without blur.
>> Anonymous
>>157694
25mm f2.8 pancake is soon to come out and for only $250 ish


>>157690
i have one. i like it alot. the image stabilization is really nice and works pretty well from the little test i did in my room (hardly in depth) but theres plenty of lenses out there for them if your willing to spend some extra money and from what ive heard olympus is know for good glass so thats a plus.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e510-review/
i read this over a couple of times before i got it. so theres some more info there thats not coming from a cannon fag or an olympus fag or a nikon fag or anything.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157787
>still made you post didn't i? i win
I was totally going to point that out, but then realized it would just make you win harder.

I hate the Internet sometimes...
>> Anonymous
lack of cheap fast primes that autofocus
>> Anonymous
25mm wont?
>> Anonymous
Sucks so hard it could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch / tow ball.

It came in behind Nikon D40 even in a few magazine comparos. It is therefore made of fail.