Were you comparing lenses of the same maximum f-stop on the 40d & E3?
you2 wrote:
I found the 40d view finder a *lot* brighter and a little more comfortable to the eye (not sure why - maybe because I'm used to 35mm aspect ratio). The E3 view finder was very good - but definitely a bit dimmer.
I saw that my posts (SecondFocus) over at Luminous Landscape were part of the discussion so I thought I would jump in.
First let me say that I have not even touched a 40D so I can't make any direct comparison. I can only give you my impressions from using the E-3.
I happened to walk into a pro camera store and met the Olympus reps doing a demo. I seldom go into stores but was early for an appointment close by. The Olympus 4:3 aspect ratio was of interest to me as was the idea of the entire development of a built for digital system.
At the store I was impressed with the pro lenses that would specifically fit my shooting needs. These were the 12-60, the 50-200 and the f2 lenses. With the comparative multiplier of 2x, these would give me a broader and longer range than Canon lenses with much less physical size and weight. In my typical work circumstance for this system, I am flying around the country and juggling two bodies and lenses with a bag at my feet or on my shoulder. So size and weight are a big issue. By the way, I was also aware of the reputation of the Zuiko lenses being very sharp. On the E-3 I liked the ergonomics, the viewfinder and generally what I saw. But I was not going to leave Canon without some real reasons.
So Olympus was considerate enough to send over an E-3 and the 12-60 lens so I could be it to work on a couple of shoots I had coming up. These were feature shoots for two different magazines so it would be very typical for me.
Before the shoots I had 2 days or so to look the system over. I found the menu system and operation very simple and did no more than thumb through the manual and read a few specifics. I shot a few casual shots of a friend who stopped by and then I was amazed. The camera produced the best out of the camera files I have seen as compared to my 30D, 1DMkII and 5D. Even the on camera flash was exceptionally good, something I would have never thought of using.
So it was off to do my shoots. These were in a health club gym shooting a top fitness model for a workout series for seven issues in 2008 in one magazine. I also did another cover shoot for another magazine and a feature story for a third, all in the same gym over three days. The lighting at the gym was typical with overhead fluorescent and daylight from the front windows. My shoots were strobed with Profoto and an additional Elinchrom here and there.
The results; The Olympus system produced the best photos (RAW) straight out of a camera than I have seen except for when I use the Mamiya 645AFDII with a Leaf digital back. Even with AWB (although I did shoot a reference chart) the colors were right on and just beautiful. The skin tones were amazing and perfect. Contrast and shadow detail excellent. And the photos were sharper again than any of my Canon's.
Because of the superb files, post processing time was minimal. I processed in Lightroom with some minor tweaks I know I need for the magazines and that was about it. Final skin blemishes were done in CS2 and actually had the files not been so sharp I would have had less to do. The files were too good!
The viewfinder is big and bright and much better than the 30D and maybe the 1DMkII. The 5D does have an excellent viewfinder so both are good. Focus was fast and right on. The LCD is the first LCD (except for the Leaf) where I was actually able to tell what I was shooting and make some real judgments about it. I did not really try out Live View to any extent, so I have no opinion other than to say I can see it's value.
I very much like the 4:3 aspect ratio, it really is the way I see. It is much more like my Mamiya and I would really enjoy not cropping to fit 8x10's and 11x14's for a change. And there is a 3-dimension feel to photos shot in medium format that you can also see with the Olympus. That is a really big plus for my work.
I don't know about comparing the E-3 to the 40D but compared the the 5D I think the Olympus is the winner for my work. And when you compare prices the Olympus is just a bargain.
So that is my opinion. Any questions, let me know.
Did you (or have you) noticed any issues with focus being off?
What software do you use ? (You mentioned CS2 and lightroom - is the software supplied by olympus sufficient to edit and store or do you need both cs2/lightroom?)
Which lenses have you used and how do you feel about them ?
I know that when I used a Miamya 7 - I esp like the short dof of the 150f4. You mentioned 3d effect but with the 4:3 camera I would presume that the entire frame is (for the most part) in focus ?
I did download the latest version of Olympus Studio. My first view with it showed amazing RAW file display but I really did not have time to explore it. I knew I was going to have to deliver one of my shoots very quickly. Knowing that Lightroom was a fast solution, I downloaded that and spent my time coming up to speed with it. I usually use Aperture but there is no E-3 update yet. I must say that I did find the toolsets in Lightroom excellent and might changeover to it entirely. I will explore Olympus Studio another time.
I did export my selects from Lightroom as PSD files and I used CS2 to edit skin blemishes. Then I ran an action to output my finals for delivery.
I only used the 12-60 and it was excellent. Had I shot with my 5D I would have done this shoot with my 24-70 so the Olympus gave me a little longer reach (24-120) which I found useful. And the 12-60 is comparatively inexpensive.
As for the 3 dimensional effect I am inclined to think that it might be better shadow detail perhaps, I also did not have any problem with blowing out highlights here and there now that I think about it. So I am not sure why, but I do see it. But there is a realism to the photos that I miss in the standard "35mm" digital.
Let me state that I am no equipment geek. I don't take time to shoot charts and compare edge sharpness. I almost never go into camera stores and only consider new gear if I think it might actually improve something I am doing or give me a competitive edge. I don't want to take the time to learn new systems or software unless there is a compelling reason.
I really depend on trying gear first hand and looking at my results.
I'm not worried about charts - my real concerns are
a) Some people suspect focusing module might have an issue
b) Some people report banding (even at iso 400) if the image is dull or dim
--
From a cost weight perspective the e-3 comes in at around $2500 with 12-60 and the canon 5d @ $2800 with 24-105 and the 40d with 17-55is @ $1999 - weight is within 200grams of each other.
--
I realize that the comparisons are not completely fair and do not want to go into details here but (a) and (b) are real concerns to me.
--
I'm not a 'serious' photographer but I do enjoy my contax c/y (aria) and in moving to digital i'm pondering the issue of getting simlar iq remaining low weight and having a camera with a decent view finder (hence the reason I will not consider the e510 and not very happy with the rebel - even though they do address the weight issue).
--
I do like to do night city scape and i'm a little concern the e-3 will have banding.
I just don't know what to believe in some of these reports, there are a lot of arm chair photographers out there so I don;t know what to tell you.
I had not heard any reports of banding, but that doesn't mean anything. I did not experience any. If the image is dull or dim then I don't know if the problem would be the camera or the photographer?
I read some of those focus issues and I am not compelled to believe that a lot of the testing by these guys on the boards is poorly done or poorly interpreted. I had no problems.
The 40D as a sub-frame design is just not a consideration for me. I just don't like those small viewfinders. And as far as internet reports go, I keep reading about the 24-105 being soft and other reports saying it is just great. I am not in the market for it, I have the 24-70 so good enough. I don't know anything about the 17-55is.
I switched from Canon 5D+L lens setup to E-3/Olympus. Couldn't be happier. I think Olympus has an excellent lens setup for my needs and don't regret the move at all.
you2,
You worry too much. For every new camera launched, from any manufacturer, there will always be photographers reporting problems. Just search for "I'm very disappointed" or "I'm jumping ship" at the dpreview forums. Few cameras have been welcomed with such enthusiasm as the E-3, from Oly-users and other photographers alike.
Only you can decide what suits you, but from a quality point of view, image or otherwise, I wouldn't worry about the E-3.
Oly users suffered somewhat with the older iterations of 3 point AF, now they have access to a vastly superior, albeit more complex AF system I think some are running into trouble handling it. Out of something in the order of 1,000 frames I have maybe 6 that gave me cause to think, on at least 2 its how I handled the problem.
I have finally got around to doing a blog post about my shooting with the E-3 and the 12-60 lens. You will also find some photos from a couple of my shoots with the system which were for actual magazine features.
