[ Rubbish Thread ] Why so many people use canon rather than olympus?

[CTN]

I dumped Canon for Olympus in 2006 . Never looked back since...ok admit sometimes missed the better noise control in Canon, but only sometimes

Oly colours and superior & cheaper (yes, they do come cheaper & gooder) lens is what turns me on:bsmilie:

 

[wildcat]

Why are people always taken in by that...the APS sensor isn't that much larger than FourThirds/Micro IF you do the math of vertical and horizontal separately!

The biggest difference in the size is in the horizontal, and that's only due to the difference between the 4:3 and 3:2 ratios, but vertical height is only the smallest of difference, a measly 1.8mm difference for Canon, 2.7mm difference for Nikon between FourThirds and APS-C!

I guess that makes me an idiot follower who spent 4 months waiting for the Panasonic G1 (a m43 system) and using it for a year before spending another 2 months researching between various Canon and Nikon systems and "blindly" err... selecting the D5000 as opposed to say, a D90 or a D300, or for that matter a 40D or 450D, without deliberation? Actually I continued to take photos with the G1 for about a month (and after that, with the GF1) but I was bought over by the D5000 the moment I took it out after buying a second hand for no purpose other than "try it out" because I felt there were limitations with the m43 system.

Of course if you had been following the m43 threads from it's inception (i.e. since the G1 came out), you'd notice that I've been one of those who have been neutrally presenting the pros and cons of both the Olympus and Panasonic systems (to the point where we had to reverse the, pardon me, extremist viewpoints of the Olympus users and present a more balanced comparison between the two systems).

Naturally I turned an idiot the moment I bought and changed to using Nikon system.

Doh.

 

[bousozoku]

I guess that makes me an idiot follower who spent 4 months waiting for the Panasonic G1 (a m43 system) and using it for a year before spending another 2 months researching between various Canon and Nikon systems and "blindly" err... selecting the D5000 as opposed to say, a D90 or a D300, or for that matter a 40D or 450D, without deliberation? Actually I continued to take photos with the G1 for about a month (and after that, with the GF1) but I was bought over by the D5000 the moment I took it out after buying a second hand for no purpose other than "try it out" because I felt there were limitations with the m43 system.

Of course if you had been following the m43 threads from it's inception (i.e. since the G1 came out), you'd notice that I've been one of those who have been neutrally presenting the pros and cons of both the Olympus and Panasonic systems (to the point where we had to reverse the, pardon me, extremist viewpoints of the Olympus users and present a more balanced comparison between the two systems).

Naturally I turned an idiot the moment I bought and changed to using Nikon system.

Doh.

I don't think he or anyone else is saying that. If you did research, you can't be counted with the people who follow suggestions without merit. I've seen way too many people just buy Canikon bodies because someone said something that might not even have been true. I watched the same thing happen with longtime Apple computer users in the mid-1990s when their friends said that Apple was going out of business.

 

[night86mare]

Why are people always taken in by that...the APS sensor isn't that much larger than FourThirds/Micro IF you do the math of vertical and horizontal separately!

The biggest difference in the size is in the horizontal, and that's only due to the difference between the 4:3 and 3:2 ratios, but vertical height is only the smallest of difference, a measly 1.8mm difference for Canon, 2.7mm difference for Nikon between FourThirds and APS-C!

"my glass isn't that much smaller than yours, IF you do the math of vertical, horizontal and depth separately.

see, height difference a measly 1.8cm, horizontal difference a measly 3 cm, depth a measly 4 cm.... never mind that your cup is like, 3 cm by 4 cm by 5 cm..."

The sensor's area is about 30–40% smaller than the APS-C sensors used in most other cameras.

you can of course make a statement that there are benefits to the size, but claiming that a sensor isn't that small because you can break it down into its dimensions is.............. :sweat::sweat:

 

[Mikefellh]

see, height difference a measly 1.8cm, horizontal difference a measly 3 cm, depth a measly 4 cm.... never mind that your cup is like, 3 cm by 4 cm by 5 cm..."

You're confusing "cm" and "mm"...I said 1.8mm, not 1.8cm (or 18mm)...it's 10 times the difference.

you can of course make a statement that there are benefits to the size, but claiming that a sensor isn't that small because you can break it down into its dimensions is.............. :sweat::sweat:

APS users claim their sensors are SO MUCH BIGGER than FourThirds, but comparing height and width differently shows there really isn't that much difference, and most of the difference is because of the 3:2 to 4:3 ratio.

 

[night86mare]

You're confusing "cm" and "mm"...I said 1.8mm, not 1.8cm (or 18mm)...it's 10 times the difference.




APS users claim their sensors are SO MUCH BIGGER than FourThirds, but comparing height and width differently shows there really isn't that much difference, and most of the difference is because of the 3:2 to 4:3 ratio.

have you ever heard of a 3mm by 4mm by 5mm cup?

m4/3 is 30-40% smaller than aps-c.

that is a FACT that doesn't need to be discussed.

now, if i am 30-40% smaller than someone, would that be significant? thanks.

 

[wildcat]

I don't think he or anyone else is saying that. If you did research, you can't be counted with the people who follow suggestions without merit. I've seen way too many people just buy Canikon bodies because someone said something that might not even have been true. I watched the same thing happen with longtime Apple computer users in the mid-1990s when their friends said that Apple was going out of business.

Nope, but if you read in context, I was quoting dawgbyte77 who has presented 5 points (which I agree with him) and added one more point about the sensor size. Then comes someone who wonders why people are always taken in by sensor size difference between APS-C and 4/3 (and in addition, claims it's insignificant which the goat has already replied in detail).

I take it that he was implying something

 

[wildcat]

have you ever heard of a 3mm by 4mm by 5mm cup?

m4/3 is 30-40% smaller than aps-c.

that is a FACT that doesn't need to be discussed.

now, if i am 30-40% smaller than someone, would that be significant? thanks.

Sorry, I can only relate to bra cup sizes. Can you repeat the above in terms of A, B, C, D and double Ds pls?

30-40% is a B compared to what arh? :dunno:

 

[night86mare]

Sorry, I can only relate to bra cup sizes. Can you repeat the above in terms of A, B, C, D and double Ds pls?

30-40% is a B compared to what arh? :dunno:

i am too scared to talk about anything vaguely pornographic now.

can we change topic to something that has nothing to do with women and their body parts? :lovegrin:

 

[wildcat]

i am too scared to talk about anything vaguely pornographic now.

can we change topic to something that has nothing to do with women and their body parts? :lovegrin:

:bsmilie: completely understand.

I don't suppose we can compare weiners, frankfurters, German bockwursts, and Jumbos.. since sausage sizes can vary significantly depending on which culture it comes from (oh and for info, weiners are from Vienna, and has no reference to their weenie sizes).

 

[giantcanopy]

Why are people always taken in by that...the APS sensor isn't that much larger than FourThirds/Micro IF you do the math of vertical and horizontal separately!

The biggest difference in the size is in the horizontal, and that's only due to the difference between the 4:3 and 3:2 ratios, but vertical height is only the smallest of difference, a measly 1.8mm difference for Canon, 2.7mm difference for Nikon between FourThirds and APS-C!

i am seriously not too bothered about comparing canon vs oly vs others etc etc but you rasied an arguement that left me wondering ( and also n86m )

why are you comparing the absolute change in millimetres without taking into context the size of what you are comparing ( in this case digital sensors ) ? a 1.8mm difference betw my car length and another seems immaterial, but a 1.8mm for digital sensors is a different yardstick.

ryan

 

[night86mare]

I don't suppose we can compare weiners, frankfurters, German bockwursts, and Jumbos.. since sausage sizes can vary significantly depending on which culture it comes from (oh and for info, weiners are from Vienna, and has no reference to their weenie sizes).

ok, let me resize sausages to compare the relative size:

right one is 64% of the left one...

remember, it's just a few mm less here and there...

 

[wildcat]

ok, let me resize sausages to compare the relative size:

right one is 64% of the left one...

remember, it's just a few mm less here and there...

Missing two meat balls for better size comparison but it's okay, I can visualize. I mean the size, for comparison. Significant, right? Mikefellh needs more comparison? I mean, we can't come out and take out hot dog and compare (assuming you are at Toronto) but even my gf says it's significant. Sensor size, I mean.

 

[bousozoku]

Nope, but if you read in context, I was quoting dawgbyte77 who has presented 5 points (which I agree with him) and added one more point about the sensor size. Then comes someone who wonders why people are always taken in by sensor size difference between APS-C and 4/3 (and in addition, claims it's insignificant which the goat has already replied in detail).

I take it that he was implying something

I just thought that it was silly, since we all know that the usable surface area and pixel pitch is what matters. APS-C has more surface area so it will hold more pixels at the same pixel pitch. Canon have done that with their 18 MP APS-C sized sensor to equal Four-Thirds' 12 MP sensor in density, right? I suspect it's going to take everyone working together to go further.

ok, let me resize sausages to compare the relative size:

right one is 64% of the left one...

remember, it's just a few mm less here and there...

i am too scared to talk about anything vaguely pornographic now.

Sure you are. :bsmilie:

 

[wildcat]

Canon have done that with their 18 MP APS-C sized sensor to equal Four-Thirds' 12 MP sensor in density, right?

Oh. Now I remember why I chose Nikon instead of Canon already. Yes, it's called Pixel Density. It's all coming back to me slowly...

 

[Mikefellh]

why are you comparing the absolute change in millimetres without taking into context the size of what you are comparing ( in this case digital sensors ) ? a 1.8mm difference betw my car length and another seems immaterial, but a 1.8mm for digital sensors is a different yardstick.

I DID qualify the measurements with the words vertical and horizontal in my reply.

 

[boonsong]

Used both canon and olympus. Switch to Olympus on blind faith. Went back to Canon without regrets...

Here are my views from an event shooter. Every camera systems has some flaws. I picked the one with lesser flaws that I can live with. End of story.

1) Purple banding, not noise
I can live with noise. Its the purple banding that kills. It become so natural for those Olympus zealots (zealot= people who defend without thinking) to slam other camps for talking about noise. Unlike noise, purple banding isn't so easy to PP away. Here is an original image. Nothing fantastic composition wise.

That was taken with an E-3 and a 14-54mk1 lens. This happen with a E-510 too. Don't ask me about the post-e3 cameras. Talking with some of the olympus users whom I sold my gear to, it appears to me that they still have this problem.


2) Refusal to produce affordable low light lens
These purple banding occurs usually at ISO800 and above at slow shutter speed. Don't ask me why I never use flash-- if you are asking me why you probably don't know how to use one!!!

In low light situations, only idiots will insist on a zoom. Unfortunately, Olympus choose to ignore the needs of the users and (to protect its F2 zooms which the 14-35, is pathetic, at focusing?) not produce primes. Now I not asking for a F1.something prime. F2 will do nicely. However the company prioritize aesthetics over function and come out with silly f2.8 primes which I can cover with zooms..


3) Poor autofocus in low light
With or without infra-red assist from flashlight, Olympus's auto-focus is crap. Enough said. And please don't talk to me about manual focus. I can't for my life, focus with my 5D mark 1's viewfinder-- I definitely can't do it with my E-3. I don't even want to talk about E4xx, E5xx and E6xx...

Focus is great when there is enough light though.

4) Poor software
How many event shooters out there actually use Studio/Master to organize the photos?
I am not sure how good the new viewer software is. Hopefully it is better.

5) Not listening to users-- e.g. E-3 Battery Grip issues.
Run out of battery juice? Use Panasonic high-capacity AAs! Only in Emergencies!

So where do you find high capacity Panasonic AA batteries in emergencies?!


Conclusion
Fix the purple banding artifacts, fix the poor software, fix the autofocus issue and start listening to users. And while you are at it, make ISO1600 decent for users. Sorry but I simply have no taste for photos with flash and zero ambient light...

Fix all these problems and you get your market share. Yes, nobody can beat Olympus jpeg-engine, but its like running a high power engine on a set of worn tires with all these flaws.

And I an Olympus slammer? I have been approached by friends who want a good quality vacation camera--and I always suggest a pen series or a lumix lx3... and also, I won't bother writing all these if I didn't care.

BTW, nice photos post in the earlier posts, but you can use any camera to shoot anything if you can put it on a tripod and the subject can wait. Photography equipments are all about limitations...

 

[elgkh]

Conclusion
Fix the purple banding artifacts, fix the poor software, fix the autofocus issue and start listening to users. And while you are at it, make ISO1600 decent for users. Sorry but I simply have no taste for photos with flash and zero ambient light...

Fix all these problems and you get your market share. Yes, nobody can beat Olympus jpeg-engine, but its like running a high power engine on a set of worn tires with all these flaws.

And I an Olympus slammer? I have been approached by friends who want a good quality vacation camera--and I always suggest a pen series or a lumix lx3... and also, I won't bother writing all these if I didn't care.

BTW, nice photos post in the earlier posts, but you can use any camera to shoot anything if you can put it on a tripod and the subject can wait. Photography equipments are all about limitations...

Sadly, I doubt that the marketing factor can be overcome, even with a super-duper camera that's better in every way.

 

[innerzen]

Used both canon and olympus. Switch to Olympus on blind faith. Went back to Canon without regrets...

Here are my views from an event shooter. Every camera systems has some flaws. I picked the one with lesser flaws that I can live with. End of story.

1) Purple banding, not noise
I can live with noise. Its the purple banding that kills. It become so natural for those Olympus zealots (zealot= people who defend without thinking) to slam other camps for talking about noise. Unlike noise, purple banding isn't so easy to PP away. Here is an original image. Nothing fantastic composition wise.

That was taken with an E-3 and a 14-54mk1 lens. This happen with a E-510 too. Don't ask me about the post-e3 cameras. Talking with some of the olympus users whom I sold my gear to, it appears to me that they still have this problem.


2) Refusal to produce affordable low light lens
These purple banding occurs usually at ISO800 and above at slow shutter speed. Don't ask me why I never use flash-- if you are asking me why you probably don't know how to use one!!!

In low light situations, only idiots will insist on a zoom. Unfortunately, Olympus choose to ignore the needs of the users and (to protect its F2 zooms which the 14-35, is pathetic, at focusing?) not produce primes. Now I not asking for a F1.something prime. F2 will do nicely. However the company prioritize aesthetics over function and come out with silly f2.8 primes which I can cover with zooms..


3) Poor autofocus in low light
With or without infra-red assist from flashlight, Olympus's auto-focus is crap. Enough said. And please don't talk to me about manual focus. I can't for my life, focus with my 5D mark 1's viewfinder-- I definitely can't do it with my E-3. I don't even want to talk about E4xx, E5xx and E6xx...

Focus is great when there is enough light though.

4) Poor software
How many event shooters out there actually use Studio/Master to organize the photos?
I am not sure how good the new viewer software is. Hopefully it is better.

5) Not listening to users-- e.g. E-3 Battery Grip issues.
Run out of battery juice? Use Panasonic high-capacity AAs! Only in Emergencies!

So where do you find high capacity Panasonic AA batteries in emergencies?!


Conclusion
Fix the purple banding artifacts, fix the poor software, fix the autofocus issue and start listening to users. And while you are at it, make ISO1600 decent for users. Sorry but I simply have no taste for photos with flash and zero ambient light...

Fix all these problems and you get your market share. Yes, nobody can beat Olympus jpeg-engine, but its like running a high power engine on a set of worn tires with all these flaws.

And I an Olympus slammer? I have been approached by friends who want a good quality vacation camera--and I always suggest a pen series or a lumix lx3... and also, I won't bother writing all these if I didn't care.

BTW, nice photos post in the earlier posts, but you can use any camera to shoot anything if you can put it on a tripod and the subject can wait. Photography equipments are all about limitations...

This is definitely a most honest comments that I have read so far, Olympus should see this post, I share your sentiments. Although I don't have your problem most likely because I don't shoot in dim light but I agree with what you said. I like your honest and passionate way of saying them.

I had considered jumping ship myself , half because all my friends use Nikon (where I can share accessories etc) and the other half I want the high pixel for large prints. Did a research with my printer friend and surprisingly Olympus came out very well. Olympus do perform in 'good light' or sufficient light. The other thing I wanted faster AF but did an assessment on Nikon and found my equivalent system would weight double (in FF D700) so I held back. I would not consider Aps as my printer friend showed me Olympus were equal (in fact near better) to it. Many may forget as my printer friend said Olympus is a full Digital system where their digital lens "shoot straight and send more information to the sensor".

I am sorry banding occur, I would change system too. Come September will be my next consideration.

 

[night86mare]

BTW, nice photos post in the earlier posts, but you can use any camera to shoot anything if you can put it on a tripod and the subject can wait. Photography equipments are all about limitations...

...............................................