Olympus DSLR

I haven't. The 4/3 system was intriguing to me - mostly because you can get an 300 equiv 2.0 lens for a decent price. AND size.

 

It's alright...I'm the only one using a Sony DSLR.

Maybe we can find someone in here using Pentax, and the three of us can start an Alternative camera club!

It's like driving a Mazda or VW when everyone else has a Toyota or Honda...Canon and Nikon are the ubiquitous top sellers, so by default more people will buy one even if another camera might serve them better, have better features, better ergonomics, etc. Of course, they got that way by having excellent products and supporting the lucrative pro market...but now they've reached the level where they sell just for having the name on the front - no marketing needed.

Consider yourself special - you made a unique decision, going with a different camera that worked for you. Who cares what everyone else shoots with...long as you're happy!

 

Hey...a Checker! Very cool choice of car - and unique unless you were driving around New York City in the 70s or 80s! I've always liked the civilian versions of those.

I'm in the same boat as you...the road less traveled that is. And I know about 'different' car choices - I drive a wagon. Who drives those anymore?! I used to drive an SUV...back in 1989-1994, before they were called SUVs (and it was the real truck-frame, 4-bolt-main, locking diff off-roader variety straight off the Savannah). I sold it as soon as the 'SUV' craze took off and every soccer mom had to have one. I got really into sporty european station wagons, and am now on my second one...I certainly don't pass too many on the road - and the few wagons I do see are usually conservative mommy-mobiles...so having one that has AWD and goes like stink is the perfect stealth mobile!

And I still have a cell phone without a camera on it. Crazy, huh!?

I was fairly torn between the Oly and the Sony when I was shopping - I didn't like the ergonomics of the Canons, and the Nikons were nice but both pricey and missing one option I really wanted...the Oly and Sony both worked, and I tried them both out - ended up going with the Sony because of the slightly simpler live-view implementation that was faster in operation and easier to use, and the fairly cheap lens options (the whole cheap Minolta back catalogue). I liked the Olys too though - the kit glass and a few of the cheaper lens options were actually very nice glass, better than most kit stuff including the Sony.

 

The Switch on live view? A very nice option, I would have to agree. If they had re-released an A900 with it I might have been hooked, but again, the rental availability kind of got me....

But it has been nice having some kind of AF on live view rather than none at all. Still trying to figure out why I can go past 100% on the LV screen tho'.

As for Olympus, the lack of wide/normal fast primes kind of did me in. And the fact that their version of the 70-200/2.8 (which is one stop faster) is $500+ more expensive than Nikon's, and the smaller sensor design....while daylight photos won't show it, available light favors larger sensors for less noise. Sometimes I wish they would stop the MP wars and concentrate on microlenses or improving the Foveon idea....

 

Yeah...I actually use OVF 90% or more of the time, but having the option of live view was pretty important for me, especially for my night shooting, slow shutter stuff, astrophography, etc. When the camera's on a tripod, especially when it's pointed at a funny angle, I don't like having to lean down and stick my eye to an eyehole down by my waist! The live view, combined with the variable-angle LCD, makes that type of work a cinch. And moreover, though most manufacturers are offering live view, IMHO the Sony version is the most effortless and simple to use - throw a switch, less than 1/4 second later, you're in live view, half-press the shutter and the AF works exactly the same as in OVF mode and is just as quick, and press the shutter for an instantaneous snap, rather than a bunch of flipping mirrors and black LCD screens. For a macro photographer, the Canon implementation might have advantages - since you can use the main sensor to obtain the image and zoom in on the live view shot - but since I don't do much macro work, I prefer to have the speedier AF and lack of shutter/mirror delays.

Why you CAN go past? Meaning zooming in? I suppose their live view option must be similar to Canons, in that you can zoom in while using live view to check your focus on a finer level.

Yeah...I don't really need Canon's huge lens collection - though the selection is nice for picking out the one or two lenses you really want. Same with Nikon, which has the next largest collection of lenses. For me, the Minolta lens collection was vast enough (3rd largest) to let me get a newer Sony-badged lense tuned for digital as a walkaround, then pick up stuff like low light primes from the Minolta collection for pretty cheap - I paid $65 for my 50mm F1.7 AF lens...and it's flawless condition. Plus, like all of my lenses, it's stabilized! (Another advantage for the in-body stabilization cams). The Tamron 200-500 was cheaper for the Sony too, since it didn't require stabilization in-lens - so for under $800, I can get that big reach I wanted.

Boy, you got that right! The Olys, and my A300, won't do as well with regards to noise as the Canons and Nikons. But they are still far better than P&S cams in that regard, and still leaps-and-bounds over film. I think we're spoiled, in fact. I worry alot less about noise and grain than I do about preserved detail and the quality of the noise. I have nothing against a nice, uniform luminance noise in a shot, as long as all the details are sharp. It's the big ugly chroma blotches that hurt. Fortunately, my camera seems to do fine through ISO1600, with the chroma only stepping in noticeably at ISO3200.

I would love to hit the wall in the MP race, and have a little dose of reality set things straight! It's ridiculous to keep raising the MP number for marketing purposes and getting worse performance in half-a-dozen areas just for the sake of some minor resolution gain. In fact, I was originally thinking of getting the A350, which has the 14MP sensor, but decided that the A300 was just plenty of resolution, and the slightly less densely packed sensor might have a slight advantage with higher ISO noise. Noise isn't the only issue either - fringing, blooming, bleeding, blown highlights, limited dynamic range - all things that are becoming worse as the MPs keep getting higher.

 

LV zooming: Yes: The Edsel could zoom in a 5x or 10x anywhere on the image (the 10x was basically 100%), Nikon's LV has multiple levels of zoom, and apparently the last two are beyond 100%, why I have no idea.

I used this feature on the Edsel to perfect focus on the castle during the DPPP fireworks. I loved the images the Edsel made but it has to autofocus when I need it to. Or when it's supposed to. But at times when I could MF using LV, I did, and it worked great. I know I made the right decision to switch, and can't wait to see if the news that an "N" model will be released in June in time for the Olympics. A sports shooter on sportsshooter today has an article that details why he switched from Canon to Nikon, and gee, it was the Edsel that did it.


But yes- having those Minolta lenses is a plus, and actually they probably won't fail like older Canons would because most of them use the camera to drive, rather than having a built in motor like all the Canon EOS EF lenses and the new Nikons (all the lenses that a D40/60 can use to AF). Plus the 135/1.8..... but hey, Sony has a (still being built) 35/1.4 unlike..ahem...ahem..the "N".

 

Welcome to the boards Hoany!

 

Indeed - welcome Hoany! And welcome to the Alternative Camera Club. Hey Kiki...we've got a third member!