Winner - Best Inexpensive DSLR

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Paul

Well you get what you pay for, though I agree that the long fast lenses look expensive. Good lenses last a lot longer than the bodies, so come closest to living up to the word 'investment'.

Not if you buy product from someone who hasn't shown a willingness to preserve their lensmount across generations and technologies. Your 4/3 system lenses were originally promoted as being a system that would be supported by multiple vendors. But that hasn't happened at all, and your excellent, expensive lenses will only outlive your current body if Olympus stays in the DSLR business. If Olympus were to bail on DSLRs, you'd have around $3500 worth of white elephant paper weights, once your current DSLR no longer cut the mustard.

Frankly, above all else, that's the value proposition with the Nikon system - at least the pro-caliber gear. A long term commitment to your lens investment, from a company that remained competitive AND COMPATIBLE, across manual focus film, autofocus film, and Digital, for 45 years. And I own some lenses from 40 years ago, bought by my father for his Nikon Photomic FTn, that are still entirely useable - not JUST useable, but still excellent, today, on a D200 or D2X as well as the Nikon F5-based Kodak DCS-760 that is my current DSLR.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by llpoolej

I don't think it is a system for everyone. I am not a big woman. I watched a friend hauling her 300mm for her Canon and I asked if her husband was her sherpa. Lord knows I would need one. I can't imagine dragging that thing around. I am not a serious birder and if I were, the C/N systems would probably be necessary for the longer lenses

This brings up an important advantage of a system with a legacy mount, such as Nikon or Pentax. Supposing I want to "dabble" in shooting birds. Well, buying a current 400-500mm lens for a new system will cost thousands of dollars. If I was a pro, making my living shooting birds, I'd just pay it. But, if I have a Nikon or Pentax, I can go on the 'bay, and pick up an older, but surprisingly good, manual focus 400mm or 500mm lens for something like $100 or less, and have something useful. This won't be as good as the current $2000 offerring from Canon, but it's enough for me to get up the learning curve and enjoy shooting birds. If I THEN decide that bird shooting will become a serious avocation, I can invest in a current, state of the art super tele. Or, as is more likely, I will decide that this bird photography is something I might do once in a blue moon, I have the lens that can get it done, and I don't mind that it spends 99.9+% of the time in the closet, because I bought it for $85 including shipping on ebay.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

Not if you buy product from someone who hasn't shown a willingness to preserve their lensmount across generations and technologies. Your 4/3 system lenses were originally promoted as being a system that would be supported by multiple vendors. But that hasn't happened at all, and your excellent, expensive lenses will only outlive your current body if Olympus stays in the DSLR business. If Olympus were to bail on DSLRs, you'd have around $3500 worth of white elephant paper weights..

Dougie, this is nonsense. How could Olympus have preserved their lensmount across generations? They stopped dabbling in the film SLR business a long time ago, and OM lenses (all manual focus) would just be a curiosity on a digital system.

If Olympus goes bust tomorrow, then so be it. I don't suffer upgraditis (much ) and will enjoy using the E-1 (which is rather solidly built) for a long time to come. Of course, that is not going to happen and new 4/3rds systems (including from other vendors) and new components are very likely to be announced at PMA in less than two weeks time.

Frankly, above all else, that's the value proposition with the Nikon system. A long term commitment to your lens investment, from a company that remained competitive AND COMPATIBLE, across manual focus film, autofocus film, and Digital, for 45 years. And I own some lenses from 40 years ago, bought by my father for his Nikon Photomic FTn, that are still entirely useable - even still excellent, today, on a D200 or D2X as well as the Nikon F5-based Kodak DCS-760 that is my current DSLR.

Nikon preserved their interest in SLR and kept compatibility over this period - good for them, unlike for example the nbr 1 SLR manufacturer who changed mounts. These things happen.

However, they are still feel inclined to introduce new lenses specific to the DX format sensors. Why did they do that? Surely they're not COMPATIBLE (your emphasis) with Nikon film cameras (or, heaven forbid - Nikon's fabled digital FF system)?

[BigB]

Exactly. If Oly stops making 4/3 bodies, doesn't mean my equipment just stops working. I've not come anywhere near reaching the limits of the E-300, and won't as a hobbiest for a while. A 14-54 + 50-200 will suit many needs of many people at great quality. If I do reach a point where abilities are limited by body, then an upgrade to something more substantial will be warrented if Oly hasn't provided.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Paul

Dougie, this is nonsense. How could Olympus have preserved their lensmount across generations? They stopped dabbling in the film SLR business a long time ago, and OM lenses (all manual focus) would just be a curiosity on a digital system.

Actually Paulie, THIS is nonsense. My Manual Focus Nikon F-mount glass is HARDLY a curiosity. They are superb, eminently useful optics that I would stack up in most cases against the current offerrings. This is especially true in the area of primes, where my 22 year old 20mm f2.8 AI Nikkor and my 90mm Tamron SP f2.5 Macron are my MOST used lenses TODAY. And my 50mm f1.4 AI is a superb fast portrait lens in digital.

The smaller digital sensors have made things trickier at the wide end, but, my 20mm lens went from an optic I used occassionally with film, to my standard medium wide in digital (It's a 26mm equivalent on my DCS-760, and would be a 30mm equivalent on a D200). And at the long tele end, the smaller sensor actually makes the older teles even BETTER, and MORE useful than they had been.

The fact is, the Zuiko primes were pretty much just as good as the Nikon primes, and were the mount still preserved, with full functionality, those lenses would NOT be mere curiousities in the digital space. I'd still be using my 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses as my main lenses if I could have had them on an E-1, with full metering and auto diaphragm preserved. I would also have bought a new super-wide, optimized for the sensor. BUT, because nobody cared to tell me if I could retain the usefulness of the OTHER lenses I had, and cared to use, I never bought into the system.

As for the issue about making DX-specific lenses going forward - I have no problem with that, as the folks who will buy them don't have or don't much use the older film cameras that have any issue with them. The folks who need full frame coverage have a huge smorgasbord of wonderful optics to buy, either new, or on the used market. The important thing is, the mount, and the functionality of the older lenses (which is what makes up the lion's share of the investment) is fully preserved in any current higher-end Nikon body.

[llpoolej]

Of course anything is possible and Oly deciding to pull out of the DSLR business is a possibility. I don't see it as a likelihood. With Canon, you really have to decide to go full frame or their other dslr's. Can't switch the digital lenses onto the FF ones without issues. My Canon lenses I had for my old TL Canon don't work with the new Canon's, which left me free to decide on any system. Had I had nice glass for C/N, I probably would have gone the direction of the lenses

The thing is, I feel I have spent alot less on my lenses than I would with another system. I don't need quite as many. My 14-54 came with the camera, and those two together were a total of $900(a year ago almost exactly) Then I purchased the Sigma, which was cheap, both price wise and quality wise. Not a bad buy for the $$ spent though. Sold it for what I paid for it. I paid $749 for the 50-200 and $379 for the 50mm macro. I also have three OM lenses to use with the OM adapter that came with the camera. Again, the legacy lenses are *OK* but not as good as the digital ones

So, I have $2000 invested in my whole system lenses included. That is 14mm-400mm. That is the aging pro body(which I am anxiously waiting for the replacement)

I buy my clothes the same way. No need to go to the off brands when you can get the name brands cheaper, if you wait for the sales.

I have nothing against any of the systems. I think they all have their strengths. I do think that Olympus takes a rap that isn't always fair. Though, if something is repeated often enough it becomes "truth".

I have fine wine taste on a cheap beer budget. I am just a very good shopper and wait until I find it at the price I want to pay for it. I really want the EC-14 and when I find it for a great deal(and I will eventually!!) I will buy it. Then I will have 560mm of reach for not much $$$. And I won't have to sacrifice image quality

I like the system. I bought into it because it fits me well. I completely understand those who like other systems. I like other systems too! If I were going to change, it would be to the D200, again, I would have to put glass equivalent to what I use on it now though, as I doubt I could deal with the quality of the lessor glass. Glass does make a difference. As a *rule*, you get what you pay for. The 50mm 1.8 is an exception. Though the lessor quality glass is probably fine, I would expect it takes more photoshopping to get really nice results. With the slower lenses, it is harder to get sports action. With the slower lenses it is harder to achieve shallow depth of field ect; and so on

It always amazes me when I see someone buy a super nice body like a 5D and stick a cheap lens on it. Usually those are the same people who then complain about the camera being the problem


Oh, and I have to say though the 50mm 1.8 is not expensive, it isn't a cheaply made slow lens. That is what I mean by "cheap" both price, construction and perfomance.

Many of the 2nd party lenses for C/N are not "cheap" The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is about the same price as my 50-200 2.8-3.56. Image quality is probably very similar, though I would venture to say my Zuiko is much better built(and weatherproof)

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

The fact is, the Zuiko primes were pretty much just as good as the Nikon primes, and were the mount still preserved, with full functionality, those lenses would NOT be mere curiousities in the digital space.

A modern DSLR system released with manual focus lenses would be a curiosity and nothing more. And as you know, the old OM lenses can be mounted if required (I use it all the time), but in the end it's a pointless argument as you think that being able to directly mount old OM manual focus lenses (i.e. achieving the "full functionality" of the OM lens) is some sort of bonus. If it is then just leave the adapter in place and you have what you are asking for.

As for the issue about making DX-specific lenses going forward - I have no problem with that, as the folks who will buy them don't have or don't much use the older film cameras that have any issue with them. The folks who need full frame coverage have a huge smorgasbord of wonderful optics to buy on the used market. The important thing is, the mount, and the functionality of the older lenses (which is what makes up the lion's share of the investment) is fully preserved in any current higher-end Nikon body.

but the functionality isn't preserved. You are using a crop of the image circle of these lenses on a DX body. No doubt it actually increases it's relative performance, but it is not 'fully preserved'.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Paul

but the functionality isn't preserved. You are using a crop of the image circle of these lenses on a DX body. No doubt it actually increases it's relative performance, but it is not 'fully preserved'.

OK, if you prefer, the the functionality of my legacy lenses is actually enhanced, which is BETTER than preserved. On the other hand, it's NOT enhanced nor preserved in the Olympus system with the adapter, because the auto diaphragm is not preserved, as far as I know and nobody is marketing the adapter to potential customers. And I never said Olympus didn't keep the function - I said that they botched the marketing of the adapter. I was unable to find out how useful it would actually be, or even if I could obtain it, at the time I made my purchase decision.

And I'm NOT arguing a hypothetical. Olympus specifically lost a customer, me, by not marketing to my needs, and they could have EASILY kept me as a customer, by effectively designing and marketing the OM-mount adapter to preserve the functionality of my older Zuiko glass. I consider the older MF glass to be FAR more than a curiosity. As in the Nikon system, these lenses, with their ENHANCED functionality, to use your term, are STILL my bread and butter. And I'm most assuredly not alone in this.

And that's why Olympus is a distant third in the DSLR market, IMHO. Because they failed to bridge to their legacy, which they EASILY could have done, while retaining ALL of the strengths of their 4/3 system. There was ZERO reason not to design and effectively market the OM-mount adapter to do that. They failed to do so when it would have mattered in 2003-2005.

[llpoolej]

Doug, you seem so bitter. Do you just want to make sure to get the word out that Olympus is just not a system worth owning

Surely you can appreciate that no system is perfect or suited to every photographer's need.

I think the point of this thread was that The Rebel XT won best entry level DSLR, which may be very well the case(it being the best entry level dslr). Someone else said that they felt the Oly E-500 was a better entry level DSLR for the value of the two lens kit. Which may or may not be the case

I am sure olympus is terribly sad to have lost a customer and honestly, I am sure you are one of many that were upset that the legacy lenses lost their functionality on the new system. I do believe there were alot of PO'ed canon users when they changed their mount to make a superior AF lens system.

I think this is the direction Olympus hopes to go. To make a superior digital lens system. There are always unhappy people with change. That is probably why so many die hard film users feel that digital is the devil!

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by llpoolej

Doug, you seem so bitter. Do you just want to make sure to get the word out that Olympus is just not a system worth owning

Surely you can appreciate that no system is perfect or suited to every photographer's need.

I think the point of this thread was that The Rebel XT won best entry level DSLR, which may be very well the case(it being the best entry level dslr). Someone else said that they felt the Oly E-500 was a better entry level DSLR for the value of the two lens kit. Which may or may not be the case

I am sure olympus is terribly sad to have lost a customer and honestly, I am sure you are one of many that were upset that the legacy lenses lost their functionality on the new system. I do believe there were alot of PO'ed canon users when they changed their mount to make a superior AF lens system.

I think this is the direction Olympus hopes to go. To make a superior digital lens system. There are always unhappy people with change. That is probably why so many die hard film users feel that digital is the devil!

I never said that. I think that the Olympus is an EXCELLENT and INNOVATIVE system, that is probably doomed to failure by idiotic marketing at the marketing 101 level. And when it fails, it will be a loss for everyone. And that will be sad.

[llpoolej]

You know, I have to agree with you on the idiotic marketing. I have honestly thought of contacting them and applying for a sales job. They sure seem to need sales reps! Why they do not do some of the cool things that C/N does with the workshops, I will never know. There isn't even an Oly dealer within 200 miles of me and I don't live in the boonies. I went to one store in Nashville, that was an authorized dealer and they almost spit while talking about Oly and obviously, had no idea about the system, AT ALL.

That to me is Oly's fault. Where is their sales reps?? Why aren't they visiting these stores and *selling* the system

I don't think the end is in sight for 4/3ths though. Sales are fairly robust and profits are up. (I will find the article) Hopefully they will get a clue as I obviously have a vested interest in their success.

[dougjgreen]

My frustration with Olympus is that it would have been TRIVIALLY EASY for them to preserve the legacy OM customer base, with a fully functional and well-marketed adapter, that would not have forced them into ANY compromise concerning the technical merits of their 4/3 system. I never said that the system itself had significant shortcomings, only that their marketing of it did. And I fear that their marketing incompetence is killing it,

But the time for them to have retained their legacy was the period from 2-3 years ago, until now, when most serious photographers started to make buying decisions about DSLR systems. By now, it may be too late.

[dc2]

If I were to take a guess I would think canon/ nikon and oly will be with us for a long time .
Not to sure about others.
Just my opinion

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

But the time for them to have retained their legacy was 2-3 years ago, when most serious photographers started to make buying decisions about DSLR systems. By now, it may be too late.

True for the 'serious photographers' who were making decisions a few years ago, but the Olympus strategy (if they actually have one...) is to actively target those who are moving into the DSLR arena and don't have legacy lenses (as I pointed out earlier in this interesting thread). Probably a sensible move as there will always be new 'serious' photographers coming into the marketplace who don't happen to have legacy lenses. If they cease to exist then manufacturers may as well close shop .

[llpoolej]

I think at this point, what they are doing is the smartest thing they can. Starting with the entry level base. And the niche market(E-330 live preview deal) Those people grow into more advanced systems. I don't think they will sway alot of pros from other systems simply because it is too expensive to switch! Not to mention there isn't anything current that would touch a D200/D2X- 5D/1D series.

Even if they come out with an uber camera(and I think they will come out with something I am thrilled with) I don't see many dropping their C/N gear to change systems. Maybe a few will, but, it won't be in droves

The future for non N/C is getting the entry level and having them move into their pro offerings as they desire more camera. I just don't see them taking pros from other systems.