Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chose, [Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Olympus]
- Thread starter BrentGambrell
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The main appeal of 4/3 is Zuiko glass.
Not only are the semi-pro and pro ZD lenses excellent optically - they are also so compact and *reasonable*!
The venerable ZD 14-54+50-200 combination covers a the entire 28-400 mm range, and fits in my small camera bag. At the same time, these lenses are weather-sealed, reasonably fast, and in terms of sharpness, MTF, etc compare very favorably with Canon L glass.
I know I will miss my Zuikos after I switch to Canon.
I went for Canon.
Originally, this was because Canon offered the first affordable dSLR with the 300D. I bought this camera, and have expanded the line up ever since to the point where I am heavily financially committed to the Canon EOS system. Prior to digital I was using a Yashica system, but that was so cheap there was no real financial penalty.
Now, at work I use Nikons because they've always used Nikons. I still prefer my Canons, and there's been some comments at work in the difference between my own EOS 1Dmk3 and the work D200/300/700s and their ability to produce the shots we need. My reason for preferring the Canons is simply the feel in my hand, and my own ease of use of the system - probably because I've had an EOS camera welded to my hand for 6 years.
Currently using an EOS 1D Mark III, EOS 20D, EOS 1000D, EOS 1N RS & 70-200 f/2.8L IS UM, 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, 50 f/1.2L USM, 15 f/2.8 Fisheye. On the way I've bought and sold a whole stack of other Canon kit.
Originally, this was because Canon offered the first affordable dSLR with the 300D. I bought this camera, and have expanded the line up ever since to the point where I am heavily financially committed to the Canon EOS system. Prior to digital I was using a Yashica system, but that was so cheap there was no real financial penalty.
Now, at work I use Nikons because they've always used Nikons. I still prefer my Canons, and there's been some comments at work in the difference between my own EOS 1Dmk3 and the work D200/300/700s and their ability to produce the shots we need. My reason for preferring the Canons is simply the feel in my hand, and my own ease of use of the system - probably because I've had an EOS camera welded to my hand for 6 years.
Currently using an EOS 1D Mark III, EOS 20D, EOS 1000D, EOS 1N RS & 70-200 f/2.8L IS UM, 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, 50 f/1.2L USM, 15 f/2.8 Fisheye. On the way I've bought and sold a whole stack of other Canon kit.
But again, they go in front of a sensor that's smaller than everyone else, you lose at least a stop to a stop and a half to an APS-C sensor of the same generation and another stop and a half or so to a 35mm sensor. I also happen to think micro 4/3rds is going to kill actual 4/3rds.
Repeat after me "crop is not magnification." Now, "crop affects depth of field," and finally "megapixels in a crop affect diffraction."
*cough* *sputter* *cough* *cough* *sputter*
For any arbitrary measurement, a four-fold increase in sample size is generally needed to improve the signal-to-noise ratio by a factor of two.
Yes, I am a scientist
What I have said means that given a similar chip manufacturing process, you need to go to a full-frame sensor in order to get your one stop improvement over a 4/3 sensor.
APS-size sensors are only marginally larger than what 4/3 system uses (and that primarily because of the difference in aspect ratio). Here is a picture that illustrates my point:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/SensorSizes.png
If you look at any E4x, E5x, or E3 reviews on dpreview.com, you will see that 4/3 sensors are in the same ballpark as the comparable APS ones. Not better, of course, but not even a half stop worse.
Largely as expected.
I do not really understand the point you were trying to make about diffraction - in fact, it makes no sense to me. The linear size of photosites themselves (2.1um for E3, 2.3um for Nikon D300) are similar for APS and 4/3 cameras. As for the lens aperture size, any Canon lens stopped down to f22 is going to diffract, and any 4/3 lens stopped down to f22 is going to diffract. But if we are talking about these lenses "sweet spot", then their diffraction characteristics are going to be largely similar in any reasonable shooting scenarios.
As for DOF, that argument also does not hold water, sorry. If you want an extremely shallow DOF on 4/3, there is a whole family of f2.0 Zuiko glass available. Something like a Zuiko 14-35 f2.0, for example. Or the 50mm f2.0 Macro. Even with my lowly 14-54 f2.8-3.5 I never had problems isolating my subjects from the background. Again, 4/3 is largely similar to APS cameras in this respect.
Don't believe me?
Check these images out:
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p777497179/e1acbee56
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p777497179/e14823289
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p1021282566/e2ce5aeee
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p887868332/e21775dd1
These are shot with the 14-54 and the 50 Macro.
Note that I am not a 4/3 fanboy by any measure. I did say that I am switching to Canon in the near future, as you remember - and I am doing it because I want to have an upgrade path to a full-frame camera. I want that extra stop of sensitivity, I want a wide-angle tilt-shift lens, and I love large, film-era-style viewfinders.
But 4/3 format has its definite advantages, and it is definitely not as terrible as you might imagine. In fact, the E3 is a pretty darn nice body.
I found this post interesting, because I wasn't at all familiar with the MTF measurements. After doing some homework, although incomplete, I have the following comments.
a. Isn't the Canon EF100mm-400mm F3.5-5.6 L with Image Stabilising a near equivalent to the 200-400VR? Or is there an issue with aperture?
b. I'm not sure how you're comparing MTF details between Canon and the Nikkor lenses. If you're relying on the manufacturers' MTF details, then the Luminous Landscape website says this:
Either way, I appreciate the post, because otherwise I wouldn't have learnt about this whole measurement system.
That's not what I get from the samples on DPR using my Mk I eyeballs, I see about a stop's difference in noise from the E410/E510 samples versus APS-C.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp
The dynamic range isn't all that either, though that's an Oly issue, not a 4/3rds format issue...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page18.asp
The pure math says based simply on size that you lose about .79x over APS-C, but that doesn't take into account density or heat, which will worsen the measurement in real life- so about a stop seems pretty accurate.
10MP at 4/3rds is going to diffract sooner than 10MP at APS-C is going to diffract sooner than 10MP at 35mm.
For instance, for an 8x10 print, 4/3rds is diffraction limited at f/13, APS-C at f/18 and 35mm at f/32.
(Calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm)
You do gain some DoF advantages on the smaller sensor, but the other disadvantages mean I haven't done the math to see if they offset at the distances I normally shoot and frankly there's not enough of a range of camera resolutions in 4/3rds to be all that pertinent anyway.
Crop factor isn't the same as magnification- so you're left with a maximum focal length of 150mm at f/2- that's simply not competitive with a 400mm f/2.8 lens- a "whole family" of f/2.0 glass seems to consist of a three lenses unless I'm missing something? It seems you go from a 300/2.8 equivalent to a 600/4 equivalent, with nothing in between. For my shooting, I skipped the 300/2.8 in terms of distance and the 600/4 in terms of speed, and the lens selection simply isn't there for 4/3rds.
(Source: http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four-Thirds)
So to get the same field of view and depth of field as a 400/2.8, you'd need a 200/2, right? I don't see one. A 200/2 equivalent would need to be 100/1.4 as well, Unless I'm missing something?
Again, it doesn't work for most of my photography.
Not even close- the 200-400VR is only slightly down from a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 or 600/4, the 100-400IS is better than the Nikon 80-400VR, but not in the same class as the super-tele primes. Both the 100-400IS and 80-400VR are "Prosumer" lenses with similar price points and target audiences and variable apertures (don't let the "L" designation or gold ring fool you) and while they're reasonable for what they are, they're not top-of-the-line professional lenses, the 200-400VR is. Plus you get to shoot in half the light at 400 or use a shallower DoF, both important considerations for wildlife shooters where these lenses are targeted.
Nikon and Canon both provide 10 and 30 lines/mm (Both done off the optical formulae, not actual measurements) Zeiss goes 10, 20 and 40mm, so it's a more difficult comparison, but you can still compare center to edge performance, just not resolution in an apples-to-apples way over all three.
Also, Reichman is wrong- Nikon publishes MTFs on its international lens site, not just the Japanese site and has done so for a number of years. Here's the 400VR's:
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/index.htm
You may find this article also helpful:
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/how_to_choose_a_lens.html
MTFs don't show color fall-off, but are otherwise a reasonable data point in lens selection.
Yes, I think you're missing something: the 200 mm f/2 lenses cost an arm, a leg and a first-born. The OP was asking about entry-level dslrs. For most things, Olympus has a full lens line-up.
Regarding noise, for normal ISOs, the Olys are pretty much on par, the dynamic range is a little less (8.2 EV), about half an EV to 1 EV less than the competition. Again, for consumers, I don't think this is much of an issue. Keep in mind that a Canon 30D, a very decent camera, has a dynamic range of 8.4 EV at ISO 100.
I'm not saying that Olympus has the right camera for you, but for a consumer or even many enthusiasts, the points you mention are moot to irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Right now I shoot Nikon and have no plans of switching to Olympus.
No, I answered the OP directly- my response to Valiar was in response to my notes about 4/3rds and myself, therefore it's a perfectly valid response. Also, you're probably aware that you can rent plenty of expensive Nikon lenses at a number of places, and a full lens line-up for ME includes super-teles, and since the response was to a point about 4/3rds not being for me, it's a valid response.
Again, I was directly responding to a point made about why the 4/3rds system wasn't right for *me*, but I'd argue that many enthusiasts are quite picky about noise and DoF if many of the postings here are to be believed.
Interesting stuff. To be honest, the wildlife photographers I know use super-tele primes. In fact, from what I've read, even 400mm is considered a little bit at the wide end for serious wildlife photography.
But yes I agree, based on what pros and various articles have said, that the 100mm-400mmIS lens is more of a 'prosumer' lens due to its lower levels of sharpness, and famous 'dust pump' zoom action etc. It might not put me off buying one for when I go on safari in Africa though. But for bird photography the 400mm f/5.6 prime is considered a far better (and actually cheaper) option for optical quality.
Alas, we're off topic, but it's been educational.
OK, I'll bite.
First of all, look carefully at the pages you have linked to.
In particular, look at the noise-vs-ISO plots. Carefully.
As you can see, there is not all that much difference between the cameras they have been comparing.
Of course, it is not obvious to me that standard deviation of luminance value for an in-camera processed JPEG file is an accurate measure of sensor noise.
Still, it is amusing that you have chosen to link these particular pages.
But now let's look at RAW dynamic range.
Let me quote the DPR numbers for RAW dynamic range directly.
Olympus E510:
"The most we could achieve using Adobe Camera RAW was a total dynamic range of 9.6 EV although the last stop of this appears to have almost no color information."
Canon 400D:
"The best we could achieve (with some pretty extreme ACR settings) was just over 10 stops total dynamic range..."
While a half-stop advantage is nice, it is *nowhere* near the (physically impossible) 1 to 1.5 stop difference you have been claiming.
Another illustrative example is the APS-C Pentax camera that is being tested together with 400D and E510. It has significantly more sensor noise and less DR than either the Canon or the Oly. What this means is that the particular sensor chip quirks will generally have more influence on the measurement outcome than the small difference in linear size between 4/3 and APS.
Also note that I am not touching the issue of in-camera JPEG dynamic range. That will, obviously, be very much software-dependent.
.79x of what exactly? And how did you come up with this number?
The area of a 4/3 sensor is 225 mm2. The area of a Canon APS-C sensor is 329 mm2, i.e. it is 31.6% larger. Which means that the signal-to-noise ratio advantage of the Canon sensor, given that the manufacturing process/substrate is similar, and the image aspect ratio is the same, is sqrt(1.316). A whopping 14%.
This is the "pure math" treatment.
OK, enough with this nonsense.
Go shoot some pictures instead.
After all, I presume you are the pro photographer here. I am just a lowly physical chemistry PhD.
Peace
No, look at the actual pictures, since that's what you'd be using and that's the best head-to-head comparison you'll see online. If you look at the stamp shots and the dark patch shots you'll see the noise differences quite clearly- and general and chroma noise are visibly worse in the 4/3rds samples.
I haven't seen other direct comparisons so of course I link to the ones I've seen. If you have better direct comparisons please share them.
Actually, you appear to be somewhat reading challenged- I've been claiming noise differences in stops based upon the DPR sample images, not dynamic range differences which I said were an Olympus issue, not a 4/3rds issue (however the D40 seems to come out at 10.1 to 11 EV in Imatest results) and just not that flattering to the Oly cameras.
Which is why I said it was a manufacturer issue rather than a format issue.
[/QUOTE]
Pixel pitch for the same megapixel camera on the different sized sensors- it obviously changes slightly based upon which sized APS-C you're talking about- but seems to be a fairly good indicator of photon noise limited sensor performance.
It depends a lot on what you shoot, when and where. For small birds, 400's not really long enough- but there are trade-offs to consider- a 600/4 needs twice the light of a 400/2.8 (which is the longest 2.8 prime - the new Sigma 300-500/2.8 zoom is looking very interesting though.) During the long days of summer, and with larger subjects, the 400 gives you a much longer shooting day, and with a 1.4x TC is pretty close to a 600/4 prime in terms of IQ and reach. Some folks prefer the lighter 500/4, some the 600/4 for its reach. I don't mind the extra weight of the 400/2.8, and I'd prefer to have the light since I'm shooting a high pixel density body most of the time and I can go to a 1.4x or 1.7x TC when I have the light and need the reach.
It's a decent lens for its price, and if you can deal with the aperture limitations it's well-worth it for a big trip. I recommended it last to a friend who was doing an Alaska trip and he came back with great Bear and Moose pictures, and wouldn't have been able to travel with a larger or faster lens if he'd been able to budget it. Even the Nikkor 80-400VR isn't a poor choice for its price range, though mine's been lent out for two or three years now, and I think I've shot with it twice in that time because I hate to give up the extra IQ and shallower DoF of the 400 prime.
This is starting to be more than mildly amusing.
Guess how do they come up with the numbers on the plots? Do you even understand what these numbers are (and for that matter, what "standard deviation" means)?
These numbers are the quantitative measure of "blotchiness" of these dark patch shots you have been referring to. As in, the DPR staff actually *measured* how much noise there is on these dark patch shots. Yes, the same dark patches that they show you fragments of.
And, sure enough, there is more noise in the high ISO E510 samples than in the high ISO 400D samples. You can clearly see it on the plots. It is just that the difference is not as dramatic as you want it to be.
My point is that this particular experiment is really not a direct comparison of sensor noise, because each camera's demosaicing, noise reduction, and JPEG compression algorithms come into play.
However, if the noise difference were as dramatic as you claim it to be, no smart software could have saved the poor E510 from slaughter. To check me on this, just look up any recent compact camera review on DPR. Then compare its numbers to the 400D and E520. The beauty of DPR is that they are quite consistent with their methodology, so everything is directly comparable.
I am sorry, it does not look like you have any idea what you are talking about here.
DPR's methodology for determining DR is very simple.
They shoot a graduated wedge. Then they stretch the resulting RAW file in ACR, and see how many gradations they can see before either clipping (on the bright side), or fade-to-noise (on the dark side) occurs.
On a fundamental level, this experiment is equivalent to a direct sensor noise measurement. The reason I have quoted this result is because DPR staff use RAW to run this comparison, thus removing the difference in software from the equation.
When measured this way, under controlled conditions, the 4 cameras mentioned in the review you have linked have largely the same DR. And the E510 is not even the worst of the pack.
Throwing in some numbers from a measurement performed in a different manner, and under different conditions, is really not relevant, because the numbers will not be directly comparable. This is *not* how you design experiments.
But let's hear what DPR has to say about D40's RAW DR:
"The best we could achieve was just over 10 stops total dynamic range (although with no guarantee of color in highlights)".
It looks like the E510, which crams a whopping 10MP into that smaller sensor, comes within 1/2 stop of a 6MP APS camera. To be frank, I am quite impressed with Matsushita engineers. Really.
And I don't mean to say anything bad about the D40. Apart from the lack of focusing motor in the body, it is a nice little camera, and I would prefer it over Oly's E410/420 any day. But not because of noise or DR.
Can you give me a definition of what "photon noise" is?
As for the pixel pitch, sensor area, and their relation to signal-to-noise ratio - see one of my previous posts in this epic thread.
The difference between 4/3 and APS cameras is marginal.
Yes, larger pixels are better.
Yes, larger sensors are better, because more of the larger pixels fit.
Yes, Olympus have made a business blunder by assuming that FF sensors will never be cheap enough to be mass produced.
But claiming that 30% of additional sensor area results in 1 full stop of signal-to-noise ratio improvement is ludicrous.
I will sign off for good with one final DPR link - that to an Oly E3/Nikon D300 studio scene comparison.
Yes, I do like the D300 shot slightly more.
Yes, the difference between them is at best marginal.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page26.asp
OK, I'll bite.
First of all, look carefully at the pages you have linked to.
In particular, look at the noise-vs-ISO plots. Carefully.
As you can see, there is not all that much difference between the cameras they have been comparing.
Of course, it is not obvious to me that standard deviation of luminance value for an in-camera processed JPEG file is an accurate measure of sensor noise.
Still, it is amusing that you have chosen to link these particular pages.
But now let's look at RAW dynamic range.
Let me quote the DPR numbers for RAW dynamic range directly.
Olympus E510:
"The most we could achieve using Adobe Camera RAW was a total dynamic range of 9.6 EV although the last stop of this appears to have almost no color information."
Canon 400D:
"The best we could achieve (with some pretty extreme ACR settings) was just over 10 stops total dynamic range..."
While a half-stop advantage is nice, it is *nowhere* near the (physically impossible) 1 to 1.5 stop difference you have been claiming.
Another illustrative example is the APS-C Pentax camera that is being tested together with 400D and E510. It has significantly more sensor noise and less DR than either the Canon or the Oly. What this means is that the particular sensor chip quirks will generally have more influence on the measurement outcome than the small difference in linear size between 4/3 and APS.
Also note that I am not touching the issue of in-camera JPEG dynamic range. That will, obviously, be very much software-dependent.
.79x of what exactly? And how did you come up with this number?
The area of a 4/3 sensor is 225 mm2. The area of a Canon APS-C sensor is 329 mm2, i.e. it is 31.6% larger. Which means that the signal-to-noise ratio advantage of the Canon sensor, given that the manufacturing process/substrate is similar, and the image aspect ratio is the same, is sqrt(1.316). A whopping 14%.
This is the "pure math" treatment.
OK, enough with this nonsense.
Go shoot some pictures instead.
After all, I presume you are the pro photographer here. I am just a lowly physical chemistry PhD.
Peace
Here we go. I'm surprised that the Mod hasn't closed this now meaningless thread - "My (insert favorite brand here) is better than everything else because (insert some ultra-vague concept here)"...
It's all about the photographers talent...
It is even worse than that - it is more along the lines of "your (insert favorite brand here) is the worst thing in the observable universe because (insert faulty reasoning here)"...
Usually I don't feed the fanbois, but in this case I could not resist.
It is genuinely funny when people continue arguing their point, even after being presented with evidence to the contrary.
There was a Nikon D90 on display at our last user group meeting, and I was intrigued by the fact that it is capable of HD video.
I also heard that there was a roughly equivalent Canon available, I think it was the EOS 5D Mark II, but I could be wrong. I've been using Canons so I'm disposed that way.
A guy I was discussing this with while we looked over the Nikon said he would be staying with Olympus for now due to the legacy lens issue.
I also heard that there was a roughly equivalent Canon available, I think it was the EOS 5D Mark II, but I could be wrong. I've been using Canons so I'm disposed that way.
A guy I was discussing this with while we looked over the Nikon said he would be staying with Olympus for now due to the legacy lens issue.
No, it's getting tiring, from your "range of f/2 lenses" and not quite right grasp of DoF issues to the incessant nitpicking, it's clear your fan position uber alles is tainting your thinking.
Yes and yes- but thanks for your concern
Yes, and while DR is bounded by noise, the type of noise exhibited by a system, as well as contrast you can have two cameras with the same DR that exhibit different noise characteristics, which is why looking at the noise differences provides a better idea of the boundaries than simply knowing the threshold for read noise (the lower bound of DR.)
Different noise patterns are more or less pleasing to different people- the noise is as I see it, and I couldn't care less what a single instantiation of a system produces (your attempted projection of "want" is silly)- overall I see the different noise of 4/3rds producing an equally pleasing image at a stop or so given the samples that are there. You'd have to do a lot more comparisons and bounce around between reviews to get to "this system" from "this camera."
Here's what the Imaging Resources folks had to say in their DR section on the E-510 that's particularly relevant (since they do actual testing with Imatest)
If we're going to be nit-picky buttheads (and it seems you may be) then you really don't EVER get a comparison of sensor noise, because the ADCs, tonal curves and a bunch of other stuff gets in the way. Noise reduction reduces noise, so the 4/3rds body has to have that much noise- JPEG and demosaicing produce artifacts, but I've not seen them mistaken for noise, perhaps you can show some examples to substantiate your claim?
Once again, absent other comparisons that give comparable head-to-head results over multiple systems it's difficult to come up with better data, so you can either complain that the data are incomplete or skewed, or accept that it's "directly comparable." doing both side-by-side is disingenuous.
1. It is equivalent to one aspect of noise measurement only- you can have two cameras with similar dynamic ranges which have quite different noise characteristics.
2. You're really not as educated as you position if you believe that using ACR "removes the difference in software from the equation."
For all your posturing on experimental procedure you surely are aware that ACR changes exposure values on raw files on a per-camera basis without the ability to "turn off" this feature? While it technically "removes the difference in product" it surely changes the software path and more importantly the results on a per-camera bases- not even a per-manufacturer one.
You can run several different raw converters on the same raw file and come up with not only different conversions, but even different pixels being converted- with closed-source software it's quite involved to test and see if Adobe does anything anywhere near equivalent when dealing with the same raw file format, let alone between raw file formats.
To assume that ACR acts in any way consistently over anything more than different raw files from the same camera shows a vacuous understanding of raw converters and raw file conversion, let alone ACR itself.
Yet they don't all have the same noise characteristics- hence the disclaimer from even those who perform such evaluations regularly that the quantitative data are not completely illustrative of the empirical results.
1. I'm not designing an experiment, I'm showing that the data change based on measurement, but that the relative measurements tend to produce results in the same relative quantities.
2. There are a bunch of Imatest results for various cameras, surely you're familiar enough with the Web to not need to be spoon-fed the apples-to-apples links?
Yet if we accept that one or more stops of dynamic range performance equate to read noise levels at the floor, to quote Imaging Resources again"
"The net result was that the E510 performed rather poorly when compared against most current DSLR models, with a full f-stop or more less dynamic range than anything currently on the market."
Perhaps not so ludicrous if you take off the fanboy shades.
Nobody argues with Compuwar and wins, at least not in Compuwar's eyes.
I hear ya though Valiar. If you'd just made some bogus claims about Nikon being the best thing ever and that the new Nikon line would actually be able to cure Hepatitis C or something like that, you'd have saved yourself some time.
I like Olympus cameras, they're really nice and nobody can refute that. As you say, the engineers at matsushita have really done themselves proud with the 4/3rds concept. Bringing what shoudl be a completely crippled sensor size so close to the performance of sensors that are larger and supposedly "better" is no small feat. Just imagine what they could do with an APS-C or FF sensor.
You've outlined and backed up your arguments well, but some fanboyists aren't interested in logic and evidence, but rather Nikon and Canon are better just because is all they hear. It's been entertaining to read the exchange nonetheless!
SLC
I hear ya though Valiar. If you'd just made some bogus claims about Nikon being the best thing ever and that the new Nikon line would actually be able to cure Hepatitis C or something like that, you'd have saved yourself some time.
I like Olympus cameras, they're really nice and nobody can refute that. As you say, the engineers at matsushita have really done themselves proud with the 4/3rds concept. Bringing what shoudl be a completely crippled sensor size so close to the performance of sensors that are larger and supposedly "better" is no small feat. Just imagine what they could do with an APS-C or FF sensor.
You've outlined and backed up your arguments well, but some fanboyists aren't interested in logic and evidence, but rather Nikon and Canon are better just because is all they hear. It's been entertaining to read the exchange nonetheless!
SLC
I ended up with an E-500 2 lens kit on closeout for $499 and love it! I'm happy I didn't settle for the tiny, uncomfortable Nikon D40.
The whole thing reminds me of the Kodak vs. Fuji film back in the day...
Heck, I still love taking pics with my Polariod AND my Kodak Pocket 110!
(no more film, though - runs off crying...)