File :-(, x, )
Camera advice Anonymous
Looking into saving up for the Olympus EVOLT 410,the E-500, or the Nikon D40. I shoot alot of low light, macro, landscape, and wildlife photography so which do you think would be best.
>> Anonymous
in before Pentax
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
*deep breath*

in before Olympus sux
in before D40 sux no autofocus
in before D80
in before Used D50 or D70s
in before Canon XTi
in before A camera with extrem fast shutter speed
in before get a Leica
in before get a Hasselblad
in before ButterTrap Sony

*end breath*
>> Anonymous
In all seriousness, Olympus sucks for real.
>> Anonymous
>>112762
Yeah. They feel more toylike than the D40.
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
in before Nikkei DLN 9000A
>> Anonymous
TRUE HDR

(someone failed to get in before on that one)
>> Anonymous
>>112783

Yeah, it's become a meme because of that deviantart HDR fag.

But TRUE HDR isn't a 'what camera should i buy' meme. -_-
>> Anonymous
>>112788

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
>> Anonymous
>>112783
Camera that does TRUE HDR
>> beethy
>>112788
i can has a meme?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112800

Yeah.

Deviantfag is fag.

I kid. I kid.

...shit... wasn't i meant to kill everyone on Flickr if TRUE HDR became a meme?
>> beethy
>>112802
killing Flickr is a bad thing?

i cant wipe those fucking TRUE HDR cat pictures from my mind
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112808

hahahhahaha, that seriously made me laugh.

Now i can't really shake them either. Got they were a travesty.

The fuckin suck up comments just made them worse.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>112808
>>112810

Enjoy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna_greece/1764112101/
>> Anonymous
Here's a real gem off there:

southwest girl says:
you are right the pebbles in the front look awesome
i love your subtle use of the hdr anna
great series

As subtle as suprise buttsecks. More like.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I'm looking at>>112812
and I want to gouge my goddamn eyes out. Why the hell would that bitch HDR a fucking cat? Fuck you intertubes. FUCK YOU. Fuck i just get pissed off when I get on the internet nowadays.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112832

The TRUE HDR cat was my favourite out of her work. Normally I'd have to be on drugs or extremely ill to see that sort of thing, but this way I can see it all the time and then feel ill straight afterwards. Marvellous.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>112842
Well I never thought of it that way, HDR is the waking acid trip.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112750
>Looking into saving up for the Olympus EVOLT 410,the E-500, or the Nikon D40. I shoot alot of low light, macro, landscape, and wildlife photography so which do you think would be best.

Both of the Olympi suck for low light. Small sensor = more noise at higher ISO than the equivalent larger-format camera. Also, the selection of lenses sucks--there's no equivalent of Nikon or Canon's cheap 50/1.8. They've got a 50/2.0 for like $500, but that's a 100mm-equivalent telephoto on Four Thirds.

The D40 sucks for low light too. It's got reasonable high ISO performance, but it can't autofocus with any Nikon lens faster than f/2.8 and its viewfinder makes manually focusing a huge chore.

So I'd recommend getting a D50 if you've got your heart set on the Nikon system. Alternately, have you considered Canon? The Rebel XT and XTi are around that same price point and have no problem autofocusing Canon's $80 50mm f/1.8.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>112750
I own both of the Olympus cameras you listed, and they're a mixed bag for your purposes.
Low light? E-500 sucks, E-410 not so much, but Canons are still half a stop better regarding noise.
Macro? There are just four macro lenses for Olympus and only one of them isn't expensive, but all of them are superb. Also, this where having a 4/3 sensor helps (smaller sensor = more DoF).
Landscape? Olympus 11-22 is sharp and awesome for landscapes, but it's the only reasonably priced wide lens. No wide primes and no alternatives yet unless you use adapters and focus manually.
Wildlife? There are light and cheap long telephoto zooms, plus IS if you save up $100 more for the E-510; but kinda slow AF in every camera except E-3 may limit you when shooting fast-moving animals.

>>112878
>the selection of lenses sucks--there's no equivalent of Nikon or Canon's cheap 50/1.8.
On the other side, I bought an almost-equivalent of Nikon's 17-55/2.8 for a *thousand* dollars less. And how does this matter for macro, wildlife or landscapes?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112897
>And how does this matter for macro, wildlife or landscapes?
It doesn't. The options on any system for macro, wildlife, and landscapes more or less equal, so I ignored them and discussed the bit where there's a clear winner.
>> Anonymous
>>112897

Canon and Nikon have more *choice* though. This lets you tailor it perfectly to your needs.
>> Anonymous
>>112900
And Olympus is a clear winner for using old MF lenses, for example. Which still doesn't matter for OP.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112910
and sony has a longer line of useable lenses than canon, whats the point?

oh and they all AF. NIKON.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112910
>And Olympus is a clear winner for using old MF lenses, for example. Which still doesn't matter for OP.
No, sorry, that's not an argument. You're either not understanding your own (and my) argument or you're deliberately trying to annoy me by bringing up something completely irrelevant.

What you mentioned was something the OP doesn't care about. What I was talking about was things that the OP cares about, but which weren't relevant to *this particular discussion*. I.e., the OP cares about those things, but they're equally good, so they can be ignored in a discussion of which system is better.

Here, I'll try to make an analogy:
Op: I want five dollars and not to be punched in the stomach. Should I talk to Steve or Jim?
Me: Well, if you go with Steve, he'll definitely punch you in the stomach. Jim'll punch you in the stomach, but not as hard. Have you considered talking to Leonard? He won't punch you in the stomach at all.
You: Yeah, but I talked to Steve and he gave me five dollars, and he did it with a smile. Then he punched me in the stomach. How does this relate to getting five dollars?
Me: They'll all give you five dollars. The only difference is how much of a punch in the stomach you get.
You: Yeah, but I'M NOT WEARING ANY PANTS.

See how that's just a non sequitur?
>> Anonymous
>>112928

Fucking win. Well done, sir.
>> Emiya Shirou
>>112928
You lost me.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112928
BUT IM NOT WEARING ANY PANTSU
>> Anonymous
That's a TRUE HDR post by ac if I ever saw one.
>> Anonymous
>>112928
So who's Leonard?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113024
A former CIA spy played by Bill Cosby.
>> Anonymous
>>113028
Also a really bad movie. Look it up on IMDB and then get it for a drinking party. You'll need the buzz to tolerate it.
>> Mesh !!/BUEfj+JBnB
>>112750
400d