Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: I was surprised...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default I was surprised...

    I just received my Canon 5D Mark III and noticed that it is smaller than my E-5. I expected a full-frame camera to be larger than my E-5.

    However, I also purchased the Canon 70-200mm f/2.5 lens. I had heard it was large and heavy, but it must weigh 4-5 times the weight of my 50-200mm lens which has twice the reach of the Canon.

    I am going to have to go to the gym and work out if I am going to carry this thing around.

    Seeing I can't afford another Canon lens, my E-M1 with my 12-60mm lens will be going with me for the wider angle shots.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY on the Hudson River
    Posts
    3,229
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    wow its that heavy! and 1000 bucks more to get IS on that one too.. Im sure glad OLY has in body IS... I use my canon mainly for BIF only so I guess I dont need IS, but its amazing how much more for same lens with IS than same lens without
    OMD EM-1, m12-50MM, OLY 12-60MM, OLY 50MM macro, EC-14, Nikon D7200 and D7100, Nikon 300MM F4 PF Nikon 1.4X II Nikon 80-400MM AF-S- G, Sigma 150-600MM C, Sigma 17-50MM
    Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimusny/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by JimUSNY View Post
    wow its that heavy! and 1000 bucks more to get IS on that one too.. Im sure glad OLY has in body IS... I use my canon mainly for BIF only so I guess I dont need IS, but its amazing how much more for same lens with IS than same lens without
    If I had to pay the "New" price for the camera and lens, I don't think I would have gone for it. Fortunately, I got a pretty good deal on a reconditioned camera directly from Canon with a one year warranty. They didn't have a used or reconditioned lens I wanted, so I purchased this used from KEH. Both the camera and lens look like new and both seem to work like new as well.

    I did go for the lens with the IS. I agree with you, I like the way it is built into the body on Olympus cameras. I wonder if Canon could not do this because of Olympus patents.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by lkeeney View Post
    If I had to pay the "New" price for the camera and lens, I don't think I would have gone for it. Fortunately, I got a pretty good deal on a reconditioned camera directly from Canon with a one year warranty. They didn't have a used or reconditioned lens I wanted, so I purchased this used from KEH. Both the camera and lens look like new and both seem to work like new as well.

    I did go for the lens with the IS. I agree with you, I like the way it is built into the body on Olympus cameras. I wonder if Canon could not do this because of Olympus patents.
    Canon and Nikon started with image stabilized long lenses before digital happened, circa 1994-1995, so the stabilization system HAD to be in the lenses. Olympus didn't start with image stabilization until 2005ish.

    G

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Canon and Nikon started with image stabilized long lenses before digital happened, circa 1994-1995, so the stabilization system HAD to be in the lenses. Olympus didn't start with image stabilization until 2005ish.

    G
    I didn't realize the image stabilization feature was that old.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Canon and Nikon started with image stabilized long lenses before digital happened, circa 1994-1995, so the stabilization system HAD to be in the lenses. Olympus didn't start with image stabilization until 2005ish.

    G
    Actually, Olympus had a fixed lens camera with a stabilized lens that was announced in 2000, the Olympus C-2100UZ (http://www.dpreview.com/products/oly...ts/oly_c2100uz), and its sibling the E-100RS. I picked up my C-2100UZ in April 2002, when Olympus started selling them at firesale prices ($500) through Circuit City. I still have the C-2100UZ, and take it out occasionally.

    Now, Olympus actually used a Canon lens with IS in the lens in the C-2100UZ/E-100RS. Canon and Sony also had long zoom cameras of the same era with the same lens. Eventually, Canon decides to stop licensing the lens to Olympus/Sony.

    In 2007, Olympus releases the fixed lens camera SP-550UZ with sensor shift based IS. Later in the same year, it releases the E-510, which is the first Olympus DSLR with sensor shift IS. I have owned both of those cameras, but I have since sold them.

    Frankly, until I got the Stylus-1 and E-M5 this year, the C-2100UZ's IS was still more usable than the DSLR/mirrorless IS, since the viewfinder in the C-2100UZ was stabilized. With DSLR's, the sensor shift IS will not stabilize the viewfinder, and I find using the LCD at arms length is a lot less stable than using a viewfinder. IIRC, the first few implementations of IS did not have an option to start stabilization when you 1/2 press the shutter.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,185
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 193 Times in 145 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Well, actually, at least the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is lighter than the Olympus 35-100 f/2.0, which is supposed to be its main competitor (the f/2 vs f/2.8 helping to compensate the Canon's high ISO/depth of field advantage).

    Personally, I think that the weight of the E-3/5 was one of Olympus' major failures with 4/3. They should have kept it at the same size/weight as the E-1.
    Olympus E-M1 Mk II
    7.5mm f/2.0 - 12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.2 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.8 - 45mm f/1.8 - 56mm f/1.4 - 9-18mm - 14-150mm II

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Meissner View Post
    Actually, Olympus had a fixed lens camera with a stabilized lens that was announced in 2000, the Olympus C-2100UZ (http://www.dpreview.com/products/oly...ts/oly_c2100uz), and its sibling the E-100RS. I picked up my C-2100UZ in April 2002, when Olympus started selling them at firesale prices ($500) through Circuit City. I still have the C-2100UZ, and take it out occasionally.
    ...
    I was focusing on interchangeable lens cameras, not fixed lens cameras. There were several fixed lens cameras made in the 2000-2005 range that included IS.

    G

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    This has been a great history lesson for me. I didn't get involved with photography until I retired about 13 years ago, so I missed out on a lot of the history of cameras, lenses, and photography in general.

    I realize much of this happened since I retired, but when I first started in photography I wasn't deeply involved in the inner-workings of the hardware. I was just taking photos.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I was focusing on interchangeable lens cameras, not fixed lens cameras. There were several fixed lens cameras made in the 2000-2005 range that included IS.

    G
    I'm curious, since my memory is there was a longer period until the SP-550UZ where there was no stabilization. When I ultimately decided on the E-1 for my DSLR, I had kept going back and forth between the E-1 and the Konica Minolta 7D with the E-1 having the general image quality, weathering sealing, toughness, and satisfied users compared to the K-M having image stabilization based on sensor shifting, and a lot of users that seemed to need to go through the return process several times until they found a body that worked.

    Besides the C-2100UZ and E-100RS, what IS cameras did Olympus produce until the SP-550UZ and E-510 came out in 2007? The super-zoom replacements (C-720UZ, C-730UZ, C-740UZ, C-750UZ, C-765UZ, C-770UZ, SP-500UZ) for the C-2100UZ did not have stablization. As I said, the SP-550UZ had it. I know on some of the cameras, Olympus has a feature that just bumps up the shutter speed (and ISO as well) until you would not see the effect of not having a stabilized sensor.

    Since I wanted the feature, I did keep track in those days of the various Olympus p/s or enthusiast cameras, and I specifically bought the E-510 as a pre-order to get the IS.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Meissner View Post
    I'm curious, since my memory is there was a longer period until the SP-550UZ where there was no stabilization. When I ultimately decided on the E-1 for my DSLR, I had kept going back and forth between the E-1 and the Konica Minolta 7D with the E-1 having the general image quality, weathering sealing, toughness, and satisfied users compared to the K-M having image stabilization based on sensor shifting, and a lot of users that seemed to need to go through the return process several times until they found a body that worked.

    Besides the C-2100UZ and E-100RS, what IS cameras did Olympus produce until the SP-550UZ and E-510 came out in 2007? The super-zoom replacements (C-720UZ, C-730UZ, C-740UZ, C-750UZ, C-765UZ, C-770UZ, SP-500UZ) for the C-2100UZ did not have stablization. As I said, the SP-550UZ had it. I know on some of the cameras, Olympus has a feature that just bumps up the shutter speed (and ISO as well) until you would not see the effect of not having a stabilized sensor.

    Since I wanted the feature, I did keep track in those days of the various Olympus p/s or enthusiast cameras, and I specifically bought the E-510 as a pre-order to get the IS.
    The most memorable fixed-lens camera to me in the 2003-2004 time frame with IBIS was the Konica-Minolta A2. It was simply a terrific camera with excellent, discrete controls, a very good lens, and many advanced features. I used one for a couple of years. It was one of the best of the 8Mpixel 2/3" sensor cameras.

    G

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    The most memorable fixed-lens camera to me in the 2003-2004 time frame with IBIS was the Konica-Minolta A2. It was simply a terrific camera with excellent, discrete controls, a very good lens, and many advanced features. I used one for a couple of years. It was one of the best of the 8Mpixel 2/3" sensor cameras.
    Yes, there were various cameras with AS (Minolta and then Konica-Minolta and now RIP) and OIS (Panasonic). I don't remember if there were fixed lens cameras with IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon) in this time period other than the Canon 2MP camera that used the same lens as the C-2100UZ, but there were the lenses each shipped with IS/VR.

    But between the C-2100UZ/E-100RS (2000) and the SP-550UZ (2007), there were no Olympus cameras with stabilization.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Meissner View Post
    Yes, there were various cameras with AS (Minolta and then Konica-Minolta and now RIP) and OIS (Panasonic). I don't remember if there were fixed lens cameras with IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon) in this time period other than the Canon 2MP camera that used the same lens as the C-2100UZ, but there were the lenses each shipped with IS/VR.

    But between the C-2100UZ/E-100RS (2000) and the SP-550UZ (2007), there were no Olympus cameras with stabilization.
    The only Olympus fixed lens camera I found interesting at that time was the C8080WZ. Had one for a while. It had a great lens and the usual excellent Olympus image processing, but the abysmal EVF, very poor and imprecise manual focusing, and ridiculously complicated menus killed it for me. I sold it pretty fast.

    G

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    659
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Haha, and here I am, still waiting to find 8080 for up to $50 to give it a try.
    When they came out, I believe they were around $900...way out of budget of college student living on his own.
    Cameras:E-5; E-3; E-1; E-620; GH-1
    Lens: 12-60mm 50mm f/2; 50-200swd; Ex-25; 70-300; 40-150mkI; 35mm f/3.5; 25mm f/2.8; 14-140 u43
    Lights: Fl36Rx2; Fl50R; FL50; Elinchrom 2x400ws radio controlled.

    Click on the image to see my Facebook page
    And while you are at it, Like it if you like it

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick, Canada
    Posts
    3,358
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Congrats on the new setup Lawrence ! I have the same camera but the sigma version of the 70-200 OS. Lovely setup, especially for portraits. Albeit heavy.
    Charles

    Canon cool aid, but soft spot for Oly :-D

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowa2 View Post
    Congrats on the new setup Lawrence ! I have the same camera but the sigma version of the 70-200 OS. Lovely setup, especially for portraits. Albeit heavy.
    Thanks. I didn't want to brag about a Canon camera on a Olympus website, but I photographed a concert with it on Sunday, and shot about 150 images. In every image my subject was tack sharp except for one where the camera focused on the wall behind her. I assume this was my problem, and not a camera problem.

    Yes, the lens is a little heavy, but even after shooting with it for an hour, I would not complain about the weight. I think the weight adds to the stability of the whole system.

    One thing I did notice is the 70-200mm lens does not shoot wide enough to get the whole stage from where I will be standing to photograph the ballet performance, so I will have my trusty E-M1 with the 12-60mm lens handy for taking the wider shots.

    If anyone is interested in seeing some of the images from this concert shoot, the photos are on my dropbox here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gvf9yy9z1...J8LZQjwSa?dl=0
    Last edited by lkeeney; 10-15-2014 at 09:46 PM.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    "I think the weight adds to the stability of the whole system."
    This is a very good point. I get much steadier shots with my Canon 400/5.6 on my E-M1 than I do with the mFT 75-300. The little Oly is so light I feel it just flops around uncontrollably. Without the E-M1's IBIS it would be all but useless on the long end in anything but really good light.
    I don't see your comments as bragging. What you experience is reality and has every reason and right to be discussed here or anywhere else where there are truly interested people/photographers.

    Concert shots.... well, the proof is in the pudding, I would say.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Bradley View Post
    I don't see your comments as bragging. What you experience is reality and has every reason and right to be discussed here or anywhere else where there are truly interested people/photographers.
    I personally happen to agree with you. However, on some forums this would be considered as trying to start a camera war.

    I am not trying to compare my 5D Mark III with my E-M1. Because of the BIG difference in price between the two there is no way to compare them. It is just that each one has certain advantages, and I will use both of them because of these advantages.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Right. Apples and oranges, or if you prefer, tomatoes and tomahtoes...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick, Canada
    Posts
    3,358
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Oh and Lawrence, the Canon is 3.3lbs, while the Oly is 2.19lbs
    Charles

    Canon cool aid, but soft spot for Oly :-D

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowa2 View Post
    Oh and Lawrence, the Canon is 3.3lbs, while the Oly is 2.19lbs
    And the 70-200mm f/2.5 lens I put on it makes the total weight about a hundred pounds, but it is sure a stable combination.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by lkeeney View Post
    If anyone is interested in seeing some of the images from this concert shoot, the photos are on my dropbox here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gvf9yy9z1...J8LZQjwSa?dl=0
    Nice pics. I like to shoot live music too. My wife and I love Heavy Metal and went to a show last week in San Antonio. The venue doesn't allow cameras that are physically large so I removed the grip from my EM5 and attached my Oly 45 f/1.8 lens. I tried to use the 75 but they wouldn't let me bring it in. I have the Nocticron but that is physically larger. So the 45 it was and they allowed it.

    Both of the bands have powerful women singers. Here are the links if you'd like to see. They are not as tack sharp and the lighting was really crazy. Very low and they kept shining red, green and blue lights on the ladies.

    http://www.spitlerphoto.com/Music/Delain-2014/
    http://www.spitlerphoto.com/Music/Xandria-2014/

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,007
    Thanks
    386
    Thanked 62 Times in 56 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    a couple of great series Joe !!!
    David

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Nevada
    Posts
    4,208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: I was surprised...

    Quote Originally Posted by jgspitler View Post
    Nice pics. I like to shoot live music too. My wife and I love Heavy Metal and went to a show last week in San Antonio. The venue doesn't allow cameras that are physically large so I removed the grip from my EM5 and attached my Oly 45 f/1.8 lens. I tried to use the 75 but they wouldn't let me bring it in. I have the Nocticron but that is physically larger. So the 45 it was and they allowed it.

    Both of the bands have powerful women singers. Here are the links if you'd like to see. They are not as tack sharp and the lighting was really crazy. Very low and they kept shining red, green and blue lights on the ladies.

    http://www.spitlerphoto.com/Music/Delain-2014/
    http://www.spitlerphoto.com/Music/Xandria-2014/
    Great series of shots. I like the colored lights to view in person, but I hate them for photographs.
    Lawrence

    All of the images I post are open for critique. Feel free to modify one of my images if it helps the critique.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •