So I jumped off the four-thirds train

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
I love Olympus and the quality of Zuiko lenses, but it was time for me to go. I was beginning to get disappointed in the lens lineup, too much DOF, and my pockets aren't deep enough for the fast stuff, so I am ditching my E-300/Leica 14-50mm IS combo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2185866&enterthread=y

I picked up a Sony A200K/18-70mm kit today for $499. I am probably going to get the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and a nice, but inexpensive Minolta zoom next week.
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Still couldn't stand a jump to Canon, eh? :p

I was thinking seriously about the XSi, but I still did not like the way the Rebel feels in my hand. I think the 40D is a fabulous camera but it is too pricey for me at the moment. I'm also a bit disappointed that C&N have not included IS in the body.

I think the A200K feels nice in my hand, and it has pretty good specs for such an inexpensive camera. I've made some nice images with a lowly Olympus camera so I think I will do okay with it. :p

I'm also not going to make a huge investment in Sony glass, so switching brands later on if I so decide to do so is not going to be a big deal.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
some guy copied your post and is trying to sell your camera on 4/3 photo!
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
some guy copied your post and is trying to sell your camera on 4/3 photo!

No, that's me. :p

Fourthirdsphoto.com is run by idiots. The rules that they have implemented for FS/FT were my suggestion, but the admin there basically said I was an idiot when I first suggested them.

Also, the site isn't big enough to force users to pay for membership to sell items. Traffic has declined drastically since they started to charge.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: fanerman91
May I suggest... Nikon?
Did you miss the part where he mentioned buying a Sony A200? :p
 

Heidfirst

Platinum Member
May 18, 2005
2,015
0
0
welcome to Minolta/Sony :)
the A200 is great value, no doubt about it & Sony imo are definitely going to be a solid no. 3 in the next 18 months with more & more stuff coming onstream in MAF/Alpha mount from both them & 3rd parties.

If you haven't already found it & are looking for a forum have a look at http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: tfinch2
I love Olympus and the quality of Zuiko lenses, but it was time for me to go. I was beginning to get disappointed in the lens lineup, too much DOF, and my pockets aren't deep enough for the fast stuff, so I am ditching my E-300/Leica 14-50mm IS combo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2185866&enterthread=y

I picked up a Sony A200K/18-70mm kit today for $499. I am probably going to get the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and a nice, but inexpensive Minolta zoom next week.

Welcome to the Alpha system! I saw that price on the A200 at a local store in the paper this morning and was amazed. Plus, only $599 for the A300. Not bad!

Why are you considering the 50/1.4 instead of the much cheaper but still highly regarded Minolta 50/1.7? The reason I ask is that most people I've seen online have stated that the difference between the two does not really justify the price differential. The Minolta can be had for $50-75 at an auction (I've bought and sold a few of them, and they are resilient lenses). If you don't want to invest too much in glass, I thought I'd throw out the suggestion for you.

Which Minolta zoom are you looking to buy?
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: tfinch2
I love Olympus and the quality of Zuiko lenses, but it was time for me to go. I was beginning to get disappointed in the lens lineup, too much DOF, and my pockets aren't deep enough for the fast stuff, so I am ditching my E-300/Leica 14-50mm IS combo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2185866&enterthread=y

I picked up a Sony A200K/18-70mm kit today for $499. I am probably going to get the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and a nice, but inexpensive Minolta zoom next week.

Welcome to the Alpha system! I saw that price on the A200 at a local store in the paper this morning and was amazed. Plus, only $599 for the A300. Not bad!

Why are you considering the 50/1.4 instead of the much cheaper but still highly regarded Minolta 50/1.7? The reason I ask is that most people I've seen online have stated that the difference between the two does not really justify the price differential. The Minolta can be had for $50-75 at an auction (I've bought and sold a few of them, and they are resilient lenses). If you don't want to invest too much in glass, I thought I'd throw out the suggestion for you.

Which Minolta zoom are you looking to buy?

I am looking at the Minolta 50mm f/1.7, but I haven't totally made up my mind yet. I do see the value has gone up considerably to around $125-150 on eBay. If I could get one for $50-75, I'd be all over it.

As for the zoom, probably the 28-135mm f/4-4.5 or 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. I'll have to see how the 18-70mm kit lens performs.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: tfinch2
I love Olympus and the quality of Zuiko lenses, but it was time for me to go. I was beginning to get disappointed in the lens lineup, too much DOF, and my pockets aren't deep enough for the fast stuff, so I am ditching my E-300/Leica 14-50mm IS combo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2185866&enterthread=y

I picked up a Sony A200K/18-70mm kit today for $499. I am probably going to get the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and a nice, but inexpensive Minolta zoom next week.

Welcome to the Alpha system! I saw that price on the A200 at a local store in the paper this morning and was amazed. Plus, only $599 for the A300. Not bad!

Why are you considering the 50/1.4 instead of the much cheaper but still highly regarded Minolta 50/1.7? The reason I ask is that most people I've seen online have stated that the difference between the two does not really justify the price differential. The Minolta can be had for $50-75 at an auction (I've bought and sold a few of them, and they are resilient lenses). If you don't want to invest too much in glass, I thought I'd throw out the suggestion for you.

Which Minolta zoom are you looking to buy?

I am looking at the Minolta 50mm f/1.7, but I haven't totally made up my mind yet. I do see the value has gone up considerably to around $125-150 on eBay. If I could get one for $50-75, I'd be all over it.

As for the zoom, probably the 28-135mm f/4-4.5 or 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. I'll have to see how the 18-70mm kit lens performs.

Wow, the 50/1.7 is that much these days?? I just saw a 50/1.4 sell for $225. Maybe Sony will wise up and reintroduce the 50/1.7.

I've read many good things about the 28-135, but I've also seen lots of reports about copies going bad (focusing mechanism? can't remember). It's also quite heavy. You might also consider the newer 28-105. It's less expensive and has more than a few people who like it (no personal experience, just read something on dpreview lately).

I have a 28-85/3.5-4.5 for $50 if you want that one. ;) [24-85 is better but more $$]
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Check Craigslist; I picked up a Minolta 50/1.7 (with a Minolta 35mm SLR attached to it) for $40.
 

gar655

Senior member
Mar 4, 2008
565
0
71
Hmmm, going from a relatively fast and really high quality lens to what is quite possibly the worst kit lens ever produced in the quest of shallower DOF???

Based on the lenses you suggest you're going to buy the only shallow DOF you're going to get is with one of the 50mms.

You can get a Zuiko 50/1.2 MF for your E300. Maybe the older version of the 40-150 and when used properly can give a pretty shallow DOF. Sigma 30/1.4 maybe.

I can understand jumping off the 4/3 train I just can't understand jumping into something like the A200 and cheap lower quality lenses.

Gene
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: gar655
Hmmm, going from a relatively fast and really high quality lens to what is quite possibly the worst kit lens ever produced in the quest of shallower DOF???

Based on the lenses you suggest you're going to buy the only shallow DOF you're going to get is with one of the 50mms.

You can get a Zuiko 50/1.2 MF for your E300. Maybe the older version of the 40-150 and when used properly can give a pretty shallow DOF. Sigma 30/1.4 maybe.

I can understand jumping off the 4/3 train I just can't understand jumping into something like the A200 and cheap lower quality lenses.

Gene

Been there done that with manual focus. It's nearly impossible with the 4/3 system because the viewfinder is so small. It's not like we're talking about a 35mm split prism viewfinder here. Shallow DOF is difficult to do on the 4/3 system unless you're using an f/1.4 lens or a telephoto.

I've owned a wide selection of 4/3 lens in my time:

14-45mm kit
40-150mm kit
35mm f/3.5 macro
50mm f/2 (nice and sharp, but I don't have time to wait 5 seconds for this thing to autofocus)
14-54mm f/2.8 (very good all around lens, but DOF is too wide)
50-200mm f/2.8 (very nice but too big)
Sigma 24mm f/1.8 (a soft, slow focusing joke)
Leica 14-50mm (basically the same lens as the 14-54 but with IS)

and I've found that I've had to compromise too much for every single one that I owned. I thought about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but 60mm is an awkward focal length. Not wide enough for street shooting, but too short for portraits. I considered the Leica 25mm, but I'm not going to spend $900 for a normal f/1.4 lens that can only achieve f/2.8 DOF on the 4/3 system.

Speaking of the worst kit lens ever, I found it quite sad that I was playing around with it and the A200 in my dark living room last night, and it focused faster than my old E-300 ever did in broad daylight with high quality glass.

The only thing I will miss about the Olympus is often times JPEGS straight out of the camera require no post processing. The colors were wonderful.

These are the cameras I looked at:

Canon XSi (didn't like the way it felt in my hand)
Canon 40D (too expensive for me at the moment)
Nikon D80 (Almost had me, but no in-body IS was the deal breaker)
Sony A200K (I considered the A350K but 10 MP is plenty and I'm not all that interested in live-view)
Pentax K200D (I feel that Sony will be around longer if I decide to stick around)

I wasn't even remotely interested in the Nikon D40/D40x/D60 lineup.

You can't really diss the A200K. It has decent specs for a dirt cheap price, and the reviews back me up that it's a good camera.

EDIT: Plus, I never said I expected shallow DOF from the kit lens. It just happened to come with the package. What was I going to tell them? Take it out of the box because I don't want it? :confused:
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: gar655
Hmmm, going from a relatively fast and really high quality lens to what is quite possibly the worst kit lens ever produced in the quest of shallower DOF???

Worst kit lens ever produced? He specifically said Sony, not Canon.
 

Heidfirst

Platinum Member
May 18, 2005
2,015
0
0
Originally posted by: gar655
Hmmm, going from a relatively fast and really high quality lens to what is quite possibly the worst kit lens ever produced
It's definitely not 1 of the worst kit lens ever produced, it's generally been considered 1 of the better kit lens but admittedly the higher Mp DSLRs are now starting to show it's flaws.
Not unique though - even some previously well regarded lens of all types are now starting to be shown up, witness DPReview's comments about the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8.
It kind of vindicates Oly's decision to go with a whole new lens system from scratch & it may negate some of CaNikon's larger system claims if they have to start replacing/updating more lens too.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Heidfirst
Originally posted by: gar655
Hmmm, going from a relatively fast and really high quality lens to what is quite possibly the worst kit lens ever produced
It's definitely not 1 of the worst kit lens ever produced, it's generally been considered 1 of the better kit lens but admittedly the higher Mp DSLRs are now starting to show it's flaws.
Not unique though - even some previously well regarded lens of all types are now starting to be shown up, witness DPReview's comments about the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8.
It kind of vindicates Oly's decision to go with a whole new lens system from scratch & it may negate some of CaNikon's larger system claims if they have to start replacing/updating more lens too.

Ultimately, I think Oly's decision to go to a smaller sensor will be the fundamental flaw, as some people have suggested. Sony is producing a full-frame camera this year, and Nikon recently released their new pro camera with a FF sensor. Canon'ers aspire to either the 5D or the 1D series for more than just the abilities of those bodies -- the FF sensor has distinct advantages with larger photosites and more control over DOF.

I think it places Sony at an advantage, since they are building their lens lineup now. It's based on Minolta's lenses, of course, but they are introducing new designs and reintroducing old ones, presumably with longevity in mind. I think Canon has been resting on its laurels for awhile, and Nikon has taken advantage recently. That being said, neither of those companies has the resources of Sony, and anyone who doubts that advantage needs to learn about capital, which is another reason why Oly (and Pentax) is handicapped.

In the end, who cares though? I was shooting with my A700 this afternoon and captured the most beautiful smile on my daughter, and I will likely blow that picture up to 16x20 and frame it for the wall -- it's that good of a shot of her. Is there no better testament to photography than that? :)
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: tfinch2
I love Olympus and the quality of Zuiko lenses, but it was time for me to go. I was beginning to get disappointed in the lens lineup, too much DOF, and my pockets aren't deep enough for the fast stuff, so I am ditching my E-300/Leica 14-50mm IS combo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2185866&enterthread=y

I picked up a Sony A200K/18-70mm kit today for $499. I am probably going to get the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and a nice, but inexpensive Minolta zoom next week.

Welcome to the Alpha system! I saw that price on the A200 at a local store in the paper this morning and was amazed. Plus, only $599 for the A300. Not bad!

Why are you considering the 50/1.4 instead of the much cheaper but still highly regarded Minolta 50/1.7? The reason I ask is that most people I've seen online have stated that the difference between the two does not really justify the price differential. The Minolta can be had for $50-75 at an auction (I've bought and sold a few of them, and they are resilient lenses). If you don't want to invest too much in glass, I thought I'd throw out the suggestion for you.

Which Minolta zoom are you looking to buy?

I am looking at the Minolta 50mm f/1.7, but I haven't totally made up my mind yet. I do see the value has gone up considerably to around $125-150 on eBay. If I could get one for $50-75, I'd be all over it.

As for the zoom, probably the 28-135mm f/4-4.5 or 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. I'll have to see how the 18-70mm kit lens performs.

For a zoom you absolutely, positively cannot beat the value offered by the Minolta 28-75 f/2.8. It's a fantastic lens. Since that seems to be the rough range you're looking at, you really need to give that lens some serious consideration. I love mine and can't imagine giving it up.

ZV