Is E300 Worth To buy in IT Show?

[tOGGY]

Hi Chancy, I think you and all the other thread contributors have got many nails hammered rightly into the issue. Johnny has a spread to chew over and decide what really applies to him in his situation to save on cost (his stated concern).

We are all trying our best with our 2 cents worth of user experience to help/enlighten him to buy the right camera for his own purpose. Your comments and the comments of others are very relevant indeed in this thread. Johnny need also to ask if he missed any 'vital' relevant issues raised that he has somehow not even considered in his cost equation.

I am not brand crazy. I just wants to shoot with equipment so that I can get my toughest customers satisfied and surprised

To your BTW poser 1 - I combined the 1D with the 35mm F1.4 to get the low light stage shots. The USM on the fast lens, 45 focus point and higher buffer helps quite a bit. High ISO setting is often needed if even a tiny flash is not allowed. I still miss shots if I am not alert. I still get unconfortable it when those whom I missed asked me what happened. Usuallly it is my fault.

Thanks for your BTW answer 2. I am unfamiliar with the whole range of lenses that fit the 300E.

Honestly, the E300 dark view finder is tough on my poor eyesight. Realising this, I did not try very hard to play with the camera after a short while due to my personal limitations. Proper framing and understanding that I got the focus before firing is critical for me. Died before when I compromised in these areas and I would not like to repeat it again. :sweat:

 

[raycsk]

I would like to seek the kind co-operation of all to help our fellow newbie make the right choice. Valid as it seems comments from both pro and against the E300. I would like to draw the attention of all to the fact that we all have differ as follows:

- How we use cameras
- What we like to shoot
- Our spending power and perception of value of money e.g S$100
- The lens range we intend to build
- Our individual level of profiency and intended level of improvement
- Our tech savyness
- Perceived benefits of various features

I may be offending some folks here by saying that this is somewhat becoming like a Oly bashing thread.

All I ask is please be objective in your postings to help our frinds here make the right decision be it Canon Nikon Oly or even Seagull

Happy shots

 

[tomcat]

Honestly, the E300 dark view finder is tough on my poor eyesight. Realising this, I did not try very hard to play with the camera after a short while due to my personal limitations. Proper framing and understanding that I got the focus before firing is critical for me. Died before when I compromised in these areas and I would not like to repeat it again. :sweat:

Strange :think: ... I have never noticed that the E300's viewfinder is dark... or that it's noticeably darker than those of the D60, 10D or 20D. Unless we are talking about total darkness, I have never had difficulties framing a shot sufficiently for autofocussing even in dimly lit environments... even with my increasingly deteriorating eye-sight due to old age. :embrass: Or are you talking about trying to focus manually in dimly lit environment?

 

[Evilmerlin]

- How we use cameras

Point and shoot loh! Mainly outdoors photography.

- What we like to shoot

Mountains, rives, lakes! Birds!

- Our spending power and perception of value of money e.g S$100

Not much, I'm a student who will now be surviving on grass after that 11-22mm purchase....

- The lens range we intend to build

For me, what I have now will probabaly be it. Might add a macro lens sometime in the future, big might though.

- Our individual level of profiency and intended level of improvement

Definately amateur

- Our tech savyness

I consider myself to be pretty tech savvy actually.

- Perceived benefits of various features

1. Dust Reduction - big benefit, I've seen the complaints and various methods of cleaning sensors and they just plain freak me out.

2. Size - moderate to big benefit, I like my equipment to feel substantial yet not so heavy to the point of incapcitating me. My old CP5700 had that in spades and the E-300 does too!

3. Lens range - Not needing many different lens to fill my needs a big plus for me! Quality is also important!

Anyway, like what the guy at the Oly E-300 workshop said "I'm a camera man...not a photographer!" I love taking photos(maybe thats why I can't draw....) but I also love the thrill of playing with equipment!

 

[jpcc]

Mmm, regarding dark viewfinder, i think it would be especially
obvious for those who came from the manual focus era (errr, yours truly )

there is enormous satisfaction to manually focus a 50/1.8 with an FM2 .

It is true, my Canon friend told me this when he looked at the viewfinder
many moons ago.

I would say that for DSLR of current vintage (early 2005) that is under $2000,
all makes are equipped with a small and dim viewfinder, if you compare
to the reference standard of cameras made in the 70s.

:bsmilie:

 

[Evilmerlin]

The viewfinder look dark to me initially(coming from an EVF background) but after awhile(like 2 days of use..) got used to it and didn't think much about it.

 

[chancy]

Hi Chancy, I think you and all the other thread contributors have got many nails hammered rightly into the issue. Johnny has a spread to chew over and decide what really applies to him in his situation to save on cost (his stated concern).

We are all trying our best with our 2 cents worth of user experience to help/enlighten him to buy the right camera for his own purpose. Your comments and the comments of others are very relevant indeed in this thread. Johnny need also to ask if he missed any 'vital' relevant issues raised that he has somehow not even considered in his cost equation.

I am not brand crazy. I just wants to shoot with equipment so that I can get my toughest customers satisfied and surprised

To your BTW poser 1 - I combined the 1D with the 35mm F1.4 to get the low light stage shots. The USM on the fast lens, 45 focus point and higher buffer helps quite a bit. High ISO setting is often needed if even a tiny flash is not allowed. I still miss shots if I am not alert. I still get unconfortable it when those whom I missed asked me what happened. Usuallly it is my fault.

Thanks for your BTW answer 2. I am unfamiliar with the whole range of lenses that fit the 300E.

Honestly, the E300 dark view finder is tough on my poor eyesight. Realising this, I did not try very hard to play with the camera after a short while due to my personal limitations. Proper framing and understanding that I got the focus before firing is critical for me. Died before when I compromised in these areas and I would not like to repeat it again. :sweat:

Hello Toggy,

Thank you for your clarifications.

I believe you are coming in from the point of buying into a comprehensive system and doing so with the long-term perspective. I also honestly believe when providing humble opinions to help, that the product that meet all your high-rez, low-light, ultra decisive / accurate AF, low noise requirements do not lie with the 3 models (E300, 350D, D70) with the associated kit lenses Johnny is considering.

It is obvious to me that Nikon & Canon's highest end offerings will meet the criterias you spec'd now, you've already mentioned a 1D class camera in your latest reply. I am already aware that the current iterations of the E-System isn't up to the mark in the areas you criteria'd for but shine in the areas that E300 owners have highlighted or commonly encounter. As important, neither do the E-series operate at the competitors price point, The system has grown to be more than useful for the majority of us & for some on dpreview good enough to be used professionally in their area of work.

The major names of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Konica Minolta are evolving at various stages of DSLR imaging. All are established players in the photo industry; growing the comprehensiveness of a digital-specific photography system is critical for them to stay competitive & survive.

I apologise unreservedly to Johnny if my responses have not directly addressed his concerns.

Cheers,

 

[ykkok]

I remember, years ago, nobody actually look at Olympus digital as a serious camera. Only recently, when other competitors slowly evolving their cameras and lenses towards digital-specific, then only they realise how true is the 4/3 system.

I salute Olympus for taking a bold step forward, designing a completely new 4/3 format for the digitals.

 

[ch5800]

This thread is certainly getting heavy

The original title: "Is E300 Worth to Buy in IT Show?"
The answer is Yes, bcos it is a great offer for people who want to buy E300 now.
If the question is "Is E300 Worth to Buy?"
Then there is simply NO answer. Each camp will have very rock solid reasons,

technological, market strength, price advantage, re-sale value etc etc that one
who first trying to enter the dSLR world will never be able to jugde anyway.

I once ask myself that question too. Immediately I got a headache.

So instead I went to take a look on those kind of photos that people can take
with the simple kit lens and those possible lens that I could actually afford
now and will buy. The result is WOW, I don't think I reached that level yet. So the

constraint is not the camera setup yet but ME ME.

So for me
1. I like the Color of Olympus directly from the cam,
2. A bag that once contain my C5050+Metz flash to hold my E300 + Kit Lens + (Sigma 55-

200mm or FL-36) + Canon 250Filter + 2 extra battery + RM-1 that I feel comfortable to

bring around Singpapore + travel (yes with my wife and kid going along)
3. I will actually change the lens in the field

If you want me to say good things about Canon and Nikon, I can.
If you want to hear about how each company abandon certain system along their product

line,check the web, you get all the stories. Company and technology change some time

and the pain of incompatibility is a necessary evil.

Look at this: Bill Gate said more then xxx MB in the computer is never necessary,
DOS user joke about Windows, Windows user joke about linux, olympus joke about AF in

SLR. So don't be too sure about anything in this fast changing world.

Can that 4/3 E-300 last you two years for you to learn a lot that you want with dSLR?
The answer is YES.

So whichever model you choose, be proud of what you choose and the kind of photo you

get out from it. Just show them to those who claim that his/her camera 'can' do this

and 'can' do that, then you are happy man!

My 2 cents view.

 

[tOGGY]

Hello Toggy,

Thank you for your clarifications.

I believe you are coming in from the point of buying into a comprehensive system and doing so with the long-term perspective. I also honestly believe when providing humble opinions to help, that the product that meet all your high-rez, low-light, ultra decisive / accurate AF, low noise requirements do not lie with the 3 models (E300, 350D, D70) with the associated kit lenses Johnny is considering.

It is obvious to me that Nikon & Canon's highest end offerings will meet the criterias you spec'd now, you've already mentioned a 1D class camera in your latest reply. I am already aware that the current iterations of the E-System isn't up to the mark in the areas you criteria'd for but shine in the areas that E300 owners have highlighted or commonly encounter. As important, neither do the E-series operate at the competitors price point, The system has grown to be more than useful for the majority of us & for some on dpreview good enough to be used professionally in their area of work.

The major names of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Konica Minolta are evolving at various stages of DSLR imaging. All are established players in the photo industry; growing the comprehensiveness of a digital-specific photography system is critical for them to stay competitive & survive.

I apologise unreservedly to Johnny if my responses have not directly addressed his concerns.

Cheers,

Hi Chancy, I find you very gentlemanly indeed. :thumbsup:
All of us think differently and have different experience. It is not the camera body which is expensive. But the lens is another big item. If all the bodies can use the same set of lens, it is quite a big saving. Yeah the 1 D is very good indeed, but for long exposure, it is not good at all. It is not meant for that. But hey, my EOS 3 film body can do the trick with the same lens. So system thinking is important cost saving IMHO even for a newbie. Some wants it, some says no need. But often they are not so experienced and failed to consider future need.

But there is nothing wrong with buying the 300E esp if there is a ready market for used. The camera is not mean, for the price point and performance for a 35mm. As you have mentioned, Zuiko lens sytem is another expansion avenue for it. Who knows, Oly may come up with their 1DmarkII body at 3K and everyone jump wagon. It is not chancy ...oops :bsmilie: , it may just happen. Then we will be so happy that you will have the last laugh...for the widen competition will bring the cost down.

 

[Evilmerlin]

Its E-300!!! not 300E!!!

Ok, I'm just ranting here...hahahahah

 

[chancy]

Who knows, Oly may come up with their 1DmarkII body at 3K and everyone jump wagon. It is not chancy ...oops :bsmilie: , it may just happen. Then we will be so happy that you will have the last laugh...for the widen competition will bring the cost down.

Hello Toggy,

The greatest satisfaction comes not from seeing whose ship is sinking or which is overloaded But doing your part by sharing what you know when someone has the courage to look beyond the mainstream fence to knock on the your door asking for an opinion.

Buy only when you have the need to, not the latest & greatest; else the one who laughs last won't be me

Cheers,

 

[ricohflex]

Hi,
Johnny,

Hmm.. many livid opinions by others. Natural defense reflex.

My message was in reply to you since you asked a question.
In my messages, I talk about the good and bad points of equipment/brands and not the members personally, I adhere to Forum Board's guidelines of [No Personal Attacks on other Forum members].

No, I am not from Canon booth in the IT show. :bsmilie:
I just happen to like good photo stuff (when they make it), whatever the brand.

Actually the number of L lenses I own do not feature.
The 10 L lenses I used as an illustration. If you already own a good set of lenses, it is tough to make a switch to another system for cost reasons. You only do so if the other system offers something or some feature that your present system does not have; and this feature you cannot do without.
(If you are a PRO, you have no choice)

Most Grand Prix or Sport professional photographers use Canon or Nikon for that reason - high speed accurate predictive autofocus, tough camera bodies and availability of FULL system backup, availability of long telephotos like 600 f4L, 400 f2.8 L (or equivalent Nikkor EDs) . These people make their living with the camera equipment so they choose wisely.

The point is Nikon, Canon, Minolta, ( I think Pentax too) realise that their users have invested a lot already into extra lenses and accessories. Thus what is the logic of creating a 4/3 system to make them buy a new range of smaller dimension lenses all over again? So these manufacturers did not.

It proved to be a wise decision. Long ago, the price of the CCD or CMOS sensors was high and they were small. To build it into a camera was costly. Consumers may not buy. When you are a camera manufacturer, this is a make or break strategic decision. In IT, technology races ahead at breakneck speed. What you think takes 10 years to realise is reality sooner than you think.

10 or 20 years ago Oly did try a foray into AF film cameras but the attempt failed miserably. So they know they have less to lose if they introduced a 4/3 system as there was little or no user base of AF Oly film camera users with many lenses.

I don't see a lot of Oly SLR telephoto lenses used by the PROs at major sports events. So the proof of the pudding is in the eating, no matter how much hot air we vent in these Forums.

But actually, even if the Oly digi SLRs fail eventually, it does not hurt Oly.
Consumer cameras is not their core strength. It is just a sideshow.
Oly is BIG in medical scoping.

In case you thought I dislike Oly, you may be mistaken. I like very much the Oly AF compacts like the Mju2 with the 35mm f2.8 lens (film type) and Mju V (film type) and their older rangefinders like 35 RC, 35 RD and 35 SP-N.


Camera body choice:
I think the Canon 1D MkII, 1Ds MkII, 1V(film) are good. Lucky PROs who can afford top prices can use these.

Canon 20D - just barely acceptable and only if I am in a good mood.

Canon 350D - tried it at IT show yesterday and today, not so good. Construction quality poor.
Canon can and should do better than that.

The design and form of the introduced-sometime-ago Minolta AF digi SLR was good. Construction quality looks decent. Lucky Minolta users.

Oly E300 -- I told you and I will tell you again. DON'T.

Nikon D70 - good value for money. A formidable mid-range model in its price range. Lucky Nikon users.

Size of digital sensor chip:
The size of the chip matters. It can be CCD or CMOS.
The bigger the better, up to the limit of image circle coverage of your current lens system. At any point in technology, if X MP can be fit into
the 4/3 chip, then >X MP can be fit into the bigger chips in Nikon or Canon or other brands SLR digicams.

Of course you could even make a 4/2 system if you like and insist on calling it a "full frame" system and proclaim that you have a "full frame" system now.
It is a game called bluffing yourself.

Thus in medium format, their bigger chip areas translate into much higher MP count. Also higher prices of course. But then who buys digi medium format SLRs or digi backs for medium format SLRs? PROs who got the budget and the high paying clients. They can afford it. No compromise.

Lens build quality:
Johnny - do yourself a favour and examine closely at the shop or from a friend the Nikkor ED lens or Canon L lens. Look at and feel the metal barrel, finish, overall build quality. See how silently and quickly it focuses.

Talk about build quality - look at manual focus Leica lenses whether M or R the same. This is the Benchmark Quality.

Some brands outsource their lens making and get say, for example, Sigma or Cosina or Tamron or (Tokina is one of the better ones) or some unknown OEM factory to make lenses for them. Sometimes the low build quality is obvious. It does not matter that they have "ED" printed on the lens too.
Then look closely at Oly digi SLR AF lenses. You know what I mean.

Have fun separating the wheat from the chaff!

 

[jjch_sg]

If you look at history, you will learn what is going to happen in the digital photography, especially in the area of consumer photography (not necessary professional photography). Popular film size format is shrinking, large format -> medium format -> 35mm format -> APS (but it never get enough popularity before replaced by digital camera). But within that, some format fail to survive.
Why the film size shrink? Because the key instrument in measuring quality never change - our eyes. The technology changes. In the past, in order to have enough detail to print a good photo, you need a large film size. When technology improve, a smaller film is sufficient to provide the quality people want. For a fixed output quality which consumer photography is chasing after, you can shrink the film size. The shrinking film size will make cost lower, more film can be loading at the same time, easier to transport etc. Therefore, before digital camera, 35mm is the MOST popular film format among consumer photography with APS film size growing.

I predict the same thing will happen. Since the start of digital photography, people are first started to chase for the "needed" quality. I am not sure how many megapixel is needed. But I think 40MP should do the job which should be first reached by a full frame sensor. Once we have reached that, people will start to look at smaller size equipment will same quality. With the speed of technology improvement, I believe the APS sensor size will be able to reach that quality objective without much issues. Therefore, Full Frame sensor is a transition technology only. I think that is the reason why Nikon still not introducing a FF DSLR. The smaller sensor size brings in smaller optics. Just look at the size difference between a 200mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/2.8. The smaller optics will be cheaper to make too, making it more available to general public. But the shrinking game will continue, next step will be have the 4/3 sensor reaching 40MP (or whatever needed to satisfy the quality need). The 4/3 optics will be even smaller, even lower cost to manufacture. Just like now, the previous medium format giant mostly fail to leap into the 35mm format. Some 35mm giant or APS giant will fail to leap into the 4/3 system.

I think Olympus is making a bet. Olympus knows that they will not be able to compet with Nikon and Canon head to head in the FF/APS format. They bet on how quick the technology will improve to a point that FF and APS sensors are not needed in consumer photography anymore (FF and APS will still be used in professional photography just like Medium format are still being used today). If it only take 5 or 6 year, Olympus may have a winner very soon. By that time, they will have a series of lens optimized for 4/3 system. But there is a risk. Olympus may have make the wrong choice to start. Today, the Olympus 4/3 system is way too big. They are not riding on the advantage of small 4/3 form factor. I think they need to come up with a body 35% smaller and lens 35% smaller. Consumer don't need f/2.0 lens. They need $300 f/2.8 lens that are 35% smaller.

Therefore, I think the dark horse is going to be Panasonic!!

Remember, most of the money earned by Canon and Nikon is NOT from the professional camera, it is from consumer camera (such as D70). That's why Fiat can buy Ferrari, Volkswagon can buy Lambo, Ford can buy Austin Martin. Maybe one day, Panasonic will buy Nikon and Canon.

 

[metalgear]

I've seen some sample shots of the e300 and wonder if the "punchy" colours seem a little over the top ? I have always been enamored with the oly colour signature from my 5050 and 8080, but some of the shots here look a little "strong".

 

[nightpiper]

Most Grand Prix or Sport professional photographers use Canon or Nikon for that reason - high speed accurate predictive autofocus, tough camera bodies and availability of FULL system backup, availability of long telephotos like 600 f4L, 400 f2.8 L (or equivalent Nikkor EDs) . These people make their living with the camera equipment so they choose wisely.

did u watch the Olympics Games last year? base on your statement, u r saying all other brands owners r fools & didn't choose wisely (nikon included). why? becos Olympics Games was dominated by 'big white guns'. can i conclude that u r asking others to buy a camera/gadget based only on popularity of the brand & the 'loudness' of branding? seems to me thats what u r advicing. not really good advice in life.

The point is Nikon, Canon, Minolta, ( I think Pentax too) realise that their users have invested a lot already into extra lenses and accessories. Thus what is the logic of creating a 4/3 system to make them buy a new range of smaller dimension lenses all over again? So these manufacturers did not.

if your statement has any substance, can u enlighten me on why the DX lens exist? why the EF-S lens exist? & recently KM announced 3 'Digitally optimise' lens? so u shud really not buy any of those digital lens at all? Oly is trying to make this 4/3 'open format' so everyone can make it. sigma has lenses for it, & Panasonic will probably support the 4/3 with something else.

if this coincide with your definition of 'Full sys back up', so tell me how r u going to mount an EF-S lens on a 1D, or DX glass on film nikon bodies? is this your idea of a full sys? or is this a good sys?

I don't see a lot of Oly SLR telephoto lenses used by the PROs at major sports events. So the proof of the pudding is in the eating, no matter how much hot air we vent in these Forums.

in case u have lost track of this thread, johnny was asking for consumer E300. again, what u r suggesting is that, if its use by the pros, buy that brand. u can name me 101 bad points about E300 & i can name u 101 bad points about D70 or 300D/350D. i dun know if u realise, alot of this 'good stuff' is based on branding & marketing. emphasis is always on the unique features in a particular camera/gadget & never the downside of them. eg, an MP3 player.

there's really no one good solution to all the challenges faced by the photographer. like u mentioned, the 1D has lousy long exposure capability. so shud every one start to shun it & make a whole big deal out of it? u still remember how many natural reflexes were made to protect the 1D 4MP sensor? the same people r now saying the 1D II 8MP is king. there u have it, the proof of the 'eating is in the pudding'. (not the other way round) :sticktong:

Of course you could even make a 4/2 system if you like and insist on calling it a "full frame" system and proclaim that you have a "full frame" system now.
It is a game called bluffing yourself.

yep, & all other brands call it APS-C & not APS. (even 4/3 is APS-C). its not call "bluffing yourself", its call "co. r bluffing u". they brand it so beautifully & make everyone buys their new digital lenses despite owners have FF lenses.

Thus in medium format, their bigger chip areas translate into much higher MP count. Also higher prices of course. But then who buys digi medium format SLRs or digi backs for medium format SLRs? PROs who got the budget and the high paying clients. They can afford it. No compromise.

ya. but medium format also tries to make smaller sensor. look at the new Mamiya ZD, its sensor is not 645 dimension. again, u r telling others to buy a brand that can make big sensor. does it even make sense? 350D & 20D's CMOS is slightly bigger than Oly's but becos Canon can make FF, so every one shud buy 350D (for consumer grade). what kind of logic is this? if u have ever applied aggressive noise reduction on a E300 image, u will realised that its no different from canon. so what makes this 1.6x sensor better than this 2x sensor? nothing in particular but just becos one brand makes big sensors for their top of the line model.

Lens build quality:
....Some brands outsource their lens making and get say, for example, Sigma or Cosina or Tamron or (Tokina is one of the better ones) or some unknown OEM factory to make lenses for them. Sometimes the low build quality is obvious. It does not matter that they have "ED" printed on the lens too.
Then look closely at Oly digi SLR AF lenses. You know what I mean.

oh brother, i really dun know where u come from. r u asking others to look at the L lens & hi grade lens, then compare them with the kit lens? have u touch the canon 18-55mm kit lens? u sure u r giving the right comments? go take a look at Oly pro lens. its very well built & sealed, no diff from L or top grade Nikkor glass.

my conclusion:
get a camera that suits your needs. not based on big branding. microsoft is bigger but apple is no slouch either. u get my point mr ricohflex?

 

[nightpiper]

I've seen some sample shots of the e300 and wonder if the "punchy" colours seem a little over the top ? I have always been enamored with the oly colour signature from my 5050 and 8080, but some of the shots here look a little "strong".

u r born in the digital era, aren't u? if u have not seen the colours of a slide film, u ain't seen nothing yet. :bsmilie:

the closest colour to slide i've seen is the digital MF, next in line is the Oly DSLRs.

 

[AReality]

Those f/2.0 lenses are fake!!!


Yes, the above line is to catch your attention only. However, it's not entirely false. Read on.

f/2.0 is good. Fast lens, some may call it. But they failed to advertise the increase of depth-of-field. The sensor crop is 2x, compared to a full frame 35mm film. DOF increases by 2 f-stops also. Therefore, taking a photo at 25mm f/2.0 on the 4/3 system is equivalent to 50mm f/4.0 on full frame, with regard to DOF. With such DOF, don't expect much background blur.

So if you're a portrait photographer, & like background blur, u may like to reconsider.

However, 2x crop is not a bad thing too, at least for bird & wildlife lovers. a 300mm lens can have the same effect of 600mm.

 

[Bean]

f/2.0 is good. Fast lens, some may call it. But they failed to advertise the increase of depth-of-field. The sensor crop is 2x, compared to a full frame 35mm film. DOF increases by 2 f-stops also. Therefore, taking a photo at 25mm f/2.0 on the 4/3 system is equivalent to 50mm f/4.0 on full frame, with regard to DOF. With such DOF, don't expect much background blur

Photography is all about compromises, isn't it? You gain something here, you lose something there.

You did mention about the disadvantage of better DOF due to smaller sensor crop, but do not forget the advantages of faster lens...

• Need not as high ISO -> Better quality
• Better macro -> more DOF does not require smaller aperture thus having faster shutter speed means better for insect macro
• Telephoto as you have mentioned
• Smaller and lighter kit

Eventually, it boils down to the end-user what he really wants. Would you suggest someone not to buy consumer digicams just because he want to take portraitures?

There will be pros and cons in every system, the user must really find out what he wants.

 

[nightpiper]

f/2.0 is good. Fast lens, some may call it. But they failed to advertise the increase of depth-of-field. The sensor crop is 2x, compared to a full frame 35mm film. DOF increases by 2 f-stops also. Therefore, taking a photo at 25mm f/2.0 on the 4/3 system is equivalent to 50mm f/4.0 on full frame, with regard to DOF. With such DOF, don't expect much background blur.

So if you're a portrait photographer, & like background blur, u may like to reconsider.

However, 2x crop is not a bad thing too, at least for bird & wildlife lovers. a 300mm lens can have the same effect of 600mm.

neither did nikon, canon, minolta, sigma, etc mentioned about their increase in DOF. why nobody does a test comparing 1.5x, 1.6x, 1.7x with 2x sensor DOF? it has always been 2x vs FF. i really dun see much diff between a 1.5, 1.6, 1.7x sensor DOF as compared to 2x. the actual dimension difference of these sensors r very small.

so whats the hooha with such technical details? can accept a crop sensor but not 2x? really dun think its fair to compare 2x sensor with FF while the rest accept their crop sensor as normal & a standard. :dunno:

also not forgetting F stop is in relation to sensor size. digicams also have F2.8, F2.0 & even F1.8. its govern my a standard formula. unless we do a test on these sensors with the same FOV at 2.8 & examine their bokeh, otherwise, i think its a non-tested 'fact' about this DOF theory. u think?