Olympus E-3: Initial Impressions
Sunday 12 October 2008 Filed in: Reviews
Well,
Canon did as predicted at Photokina: finally
producing the Canon 5D Mark II and pretty much
fulfilling expectations if not hopes. Much more
resolution. A bigger, better screen. Supposedly
better high ISO performance. The downsides: the
autofocus system has been left untouched. Weather
sealing is perfunctory: enough to put it on the
brochure, but not enough to give anyone confidence to
risk a $2700 USD camera in the rain or at the beach.
I’ll get one, for sure. For landscapes and portraits
it is, on paper at least, the top of the
leader-board. But, alas, the handicapped and
antiquated autofocus system and its continued
vulnerability to the elements means that it cannot be
a one-stop solution for all my photographic needs.
Step up to the plate: an Olympus E-3. Sporting a sensor only half the size of the 5D Mark II and a relatively paltry 10 megapixels, it has something that other four-thirds cameras do not: probably the best weather sealing on the market (of any camera), a brilliantly fast autofocus system, and a decidedly large viewfinder. The smaller sensor means that the focal length of a lens needs to be multiplied by 2 to give its equivalent length on a camera with a full-frame 35 mm sensor such as the Canon 5D Mark II. Thus, a 50-200 mm f2.8-3.5 lens is the equivalent of a 100-400 f2.8-3.5 lens used on a 5D: a definite plus for things like wildlife photography. In addition, the E-3 comes with image stabilisation built into the camera body. Sounds good so far – but how did it pan out in the flesh so to speak.
I’ve had the E-3 for less than two days, so this is simply a record of my immediate impressions. Read More...
Step up to the plate: an Olympus E-3. Sporting a sensor only half the size of the 5D Mark II and a relatively paltry 10 megapixels, it has something that other four-thirds cameras do not: probably the best weather sealing on the market (of any camera), a brilliantly fast autofocus system, and a decidedly large viewfinder. The smaller sensor means that the focal length of a lens needs to be multiplied by 2 to give its equivalent length on a camera with a full-frame 35 mm sensor such as the Canon 5D Mark II. Thus, a 50-200 mm f2.8-3.5 lens is the equivalent of a 100-400 f2.8-3.5 lens used on a 5D: a definite plus for things like wildlife photography. In addition, the E-3 comes with image stabilisation built into the camera body. Sounds good so far – but how did it pan out in the flesh so to speak.
I’ve had the E-3 for less than two days, so this is simply a record of my immediate impressions. Read More...
Canon 70-300 DO Lens: Good Concept, Shame about the Contradiction
Sunday 11 May 2008 Filed in: Reviews
A recent
review of the Canon 70-300 DO lens in
Popular Photography has prompted me to
report my own experience with this much-maligned
lens.
A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.
Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).
First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was. Read More...
A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.
Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).
First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was. Read More...
Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L vs Canon 24-105 mm f4 L IS
Saturday 08 March 2008 Filed in: Reviews
There is
probably no more frequently asked question on
photography forums than what is the better lens when
comparing Canon's two professional mid-range zooms.
These discussions are invariably circular and pretty
much get nowhere, like an old married couple arguing:
"he said..." "she said..." "he said..." etc,
ad
infinitum. Typically they end
up confirming what we already know at the start: the
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L is one stop faster and somewhat
bigger; the Canon 24-105 f4 L has image stabilization
(IS) built into the lens and has more reach on the
long end. They are both built like tanks. They both
cost a similar amount (maybe not an arm and a leg
when you consider their quality, but the equivalent
of a hand and a few toes anyway). One's tempted to
say, "You pays ya money and you makes ya choice."
But what choice should you make? Read More...
But what choice should you make? Read More...