The Olympus e-3 is here.

[jlcharles]

How about the lens system. I'd love to have a 300mm f/2. Isn't going to happen on any system. Except Olympus makes a 150mm f/2 (300mm equivalent) and it's only $2200. Not too bad.

Plus with an adapter, you can mount your old OM series lenses.

I am a Canon owner, but I like the offerings of the other companies as well.

The fanboy bs has got to stop. The way some of these comments have gone, you'd think the CEO of Olympus (or Sony in the other thread) had run over your dogs.

 

[cube]

Nikon has a 200mm f2 VR. That makes it 300mm equiv.

There's also a manual 300mm f2, if you can find one.

 

[jlcharles]

The Nikon is also $3800.

To use your words, the manual one is uncompetitive on arrival.

The 35-100 f/2 is pretty sweet as well. Although pricy.

How about slapping a bigma on one of these and getting a 100-1000 equivalent FOV? Or a sigma 300-800 and getting a 600-1600?

Olympus is turning this into a very nice system, although it's probably not for someone like you who cares more about specs than producing photographs.

 

[compuwar]

300 mm correspond to 600 mm on FF, the same maximum focal length Nikon and Canon offer. Needless to say that the Olympus lens is a lot, lot cheaper than either of the 600 mm cannons. And faster.

(Note: I'm using a Nikon.)

Yes, but my 400/2.8 on an APS-C body is the same 600mm field of view and I can add a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter (I'm not a fan of the 2x TC) and get acceptable pictures at longer ranges (840/4 and 1020/5.6.) Olympus only offers a 1.4x TC, so I'm dropping an additional $7200 to go past 840mm on the Olympus system to get the Sigma 300-800/5.6.

I have two more longer primes, 500mm and 600mm to choose from with Nikon or Canon. The 500/4 gives me 750/4, 1050/5.6 and 1275/8 equiv., and the 600/4 gives me a 900/4, and 1260/5.6 equivalent-- so actually if you're going to compare apples to apples, both Nikon and Canon offer more range on their crop factor bodies with their lenses. (I'm pretty sure I'd have stability issues with the 600 plus the 1.7x, so I'm omitting it from the comparison.)

Now throw in the fact that I own one and rent either of the other two in most major metro areas for the Nikon and Canon systems and it just simply doesn't make sense for me and my type of shooting. Neither does a view camera- and I've spent a lot more time cleaning dust out of 4x5 and 5x7 film holders. I'm glad 4/3 works for some people, it's a non-starter for me.

The 1200-1700mm was available until 1999 on special order for $75000.

That's about $24,000 less than the price of the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 prime. I've only seen one being used in field conditions. The photographer either had the sales to justify it or the money to spend.

My 400/2.8 AFS-II was an ROI justified purchase. If Sigma ever releases the 300-500/2.8 I'll be knee-deep in spreadsheets.

How about slapping a bigma on one of these and getting a 100-1000 equivalent FOV? Or a sigma 300-800 and getting a 600-1600?

The Bigma is f/6.3 on the long end and while it's a stellar lens for its price, it's not in the same league as the primes from Nikon or Canon and I'd assume Olympus. I own one, and when it was all I had to shoot I made do and missed lots of shots due to the slow speed. It's 1/3rd of a stop slower than the 300-800.

 

[cube]

The Nikon is also $3800.

To use your words, the manual one is uncompetitive on arrival.

The manual one, which is giving you 450mm f2 equiv. has no equivalent in any other system.

 

[milozauckerman]

The E-3 is an interesting camera, but rather expensive for what it is. Put the street price at $1000-1100, and we're talking.

I'm about to hit submit on my 5D order, but I've spent some time looking at the two nearest Nikanon competitiors. IMO, the K10D + Pentax 31/1.8 + 16-54/2.8 (or whatever that range zoom is from Pentax) is probably the best value among crop-sensor cameras. You've got excellent lenses right there, plus access to decades of K-mount and screwmount lenses.

Olympus doesn't really offer much - a line-up of zooms that are small for what they are, but still larger than standard 35mm primes. I would be far more interested in Oly bodies if they'd put some R&D into a three-lens set of fast, 4/3 primes - those could be downright tiny.

 

[OreoCookie]

Yes, but my 400/2.8 on an APS-C body is the same 600mm field of view and I can add a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter (I'm not a fan of the 2x TC) and get acceptable pictures at longer ranges (840/4 and 1020/5.6.) Olympus only offers a 1.4x TC, so I'm dropping an additional $7200 to go past 840mm on the Olympus system to get the Sigma 300-800/5.6.

Yes, you're right, one should take the crop factor into account, at least for Nikons. Since professional Canon bodies have been FF for quite some time, I don't think your argument is particularly fruitful as most people who have these kinds of lenses also have a FF body to go with. For Nikon lenses, you're right.

Now throw in the fact that I own one and rent either of the other two in most major metro areas for the Nikon and Canon systems and it just simply doesn't make sense for me and my type of shooting. Neither does a view camera- and I've spent a lot more time cleaning dust out of 4x5 and 5x7 film holders. I'm glad 4/3 works for some people, it's a non-starter for me.

That may very well be, but I think Olympus has covered 95 % of the viewing angle range (7-300 mm, corresponding to 14-600 mm on FF) -- which is more than sufficient for most applications.

 

[Clix Pix]

In shooting professionally, flexibility is key. Nikon and Canon shooters can walk into camera shops which cater to professionals and rent lenses and bodies as needed; as far as I know, these same shops do not offer Olympus, Pentax, etc., as rental bodies and lenses.

 

[srf4real]

I think you're correct Clix Pix in most places. I hope that the introduction of the E3 helps to change this... in a best case scenario the 4/3 system will continue to catch on and be more pro friendly while Nikon and Canon will always do well. Who can complain about the competition! It's what makes these guys innovate new technologies and spend that money on r&d... bring the prices down, make lighter more durable bodies and lenses, and so on. Only a camera manufacturer doomed to fail ignores what the other guy is doing.

 

[compuwar]

Yes, you're right, one should take the crop factor into account, at least for Nikons. Since professional Canon bodies have been FF for quite some time, I don't think your argument is particularly fruitful as most people who have these kinds of lenses also have a FF body to go with. For Nikon lenses, you're right.

Canon also makes professional crop factor bodies, and since the crop factor bodies put more pixels on the tighter angle of view, I think you'll find most folks who shoot at 400, 500 and 600 with primes aren't shooting full frame bodies. Certainly, almost 100% of the bird and wildlife shooters that I encounter in the field who are shooting Canon are on crop factor bodies.

Now, you may be technically correct in the statement because it also covers old film bodies left at home, but they're certainly not attaching them to their supertelephoto primes where I see them shooting. In fact, when I shot my avatar picture, I was one of only 3 Nikon shooters out that day, and everyone else (about 8 other photographers) was shooting crop factor Canon bodies except the local TV cameraman doing a story on the Eagles and us, who had a Sony Betacam. That's pretty representative of all the places I shoot where I see long Canon glass- I can't recall seeing a "full frame" Canon with a supertele since everyone pretty-much went digital.

That may very well be, but I think Olympus has covered 95 % of the viewing angle range (7-300 mm, corresponding to 14-600 mm on FF) -- which is more than sufficient for most applications.

But we weren't talking "most applications-" I don't think there's a DSLR manufacturer out there who doesn't have something for "most applications."

Also, once you've dropped $6000 or more on a lens, you're generally talking specialization. Specialists often prefer tools that are outside of the normal range. As I said before: I'm glad 4/3 works for some people, it's a non-starter for me.