Olympus for professionals..........

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by rackingsaint

I'm starting to lean more toward the "Big Two" now.

If you're planning to shoot much JPEG (as opposed to Raw), you might also want to consider the Fuji S5 Pro. Fuji's DSLRs take Nikon lenses and have had a lot of effort put into making the JPEG reproduction be as nice as possible. They also have Fuji's fancy sensor that handles bright highlights better than regular sensors. Wedding photogs are Fuji's main market.

While the Fuji produces what are said to be some of the best looking JPEGs you can get, the unusual sensor arrangement makes it more difficult to do Raw processing.

Also, the Fuji is basically a 6 megapixel camera, and stretching that to 16x20 might not give the resolution that you're looking for.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by rackingsaint

I've been reconsidering my Oly choice as well.
I know its not the camera that makes the portrait......several shots with my Panasonic proves that. I want something with some speed and capable of taking photos that may later be blown up to , say, 16x20.

Most any of the DSLRs out there will print 16x20, provided you don't get overzealous with the crop tool.

Originally Posted by rackingsaint

I'm basically choosing Canon over Nikon to cut down on being overwhelmed. If you think that's a bad idea...please tell me. I want to make the best investment.
I'm not interested in full frams as I don't believe I'll need to go that far.

I'm thinking along the lines of a Canon 40D or 50D and adding a 5DMII further on in the future.
If you have suggestions along those lines in regards to Nikon...please...share!
Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge.

If you like the Canon options more, then buy Canon. Everybody is different.

The double-digit bodies aren't a bad choice, but you may want to look at a used 5D (not mark 2), if you really want to do portraits. As with any camera, the lenses will make the difference. I'm not intimately familiar with Canon's lineup, but I'm pretty sure they have some primes that will do well for you no matter your body choice.

[Raigoki]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

So you like to shoot portraits. Forget your budget, full frame, IS in the body, Oly, Canon and Nikon for the moment and ask yourself these questions.

Which camera you know of is widely used for portraits and weddings (people photography)?
Which camera will give you details, good skin tones and excellent large (16x20) prints?
Which system have better choices in portrait lenses?

If you know this camera then you know the brand you will pick your DSLR.

You may not afford or need this camera now but at least you know what to look for.

i somehow disagree about this post. brands doesn't affect good portraiture... lighting does. however, olympus/zuiko doesn't have f/1.4 lenses... (not sure about sigma).

[kentuckyranger]

Well, you wanted a professional photographer who uses Olympus, you got one.

I've shot with Olympus cameras and glass since 1978 so I have a very good understanding of what Olympus is all about.
I could spend most of this reply to tell you why for the last 31 Years I never changed to Nikon, Canon or any other manufacturer, but that's not going to help you here.
I do agree with you that if I had to chose another camera, it would be Canon.
Nikon is more of a consumer camera, even the high end dSLR's are in my mind, the full monty of bells and whistles to attract the rich kids, let the flaming begin... ;O)

One other thing.
If you're going to be shooting professionally and you're not shooting in RAW format, please stop reading this post and go somewhere else...

OK, that aside here we go.
First, a little lesson in 4:3.
While the other big names are going for full frame CCD's and uber large pixel counts, Olympus took a step back and asked themselves, do we really want to stay with the old school, or do we want to design a camera from the ground up.

First, the problem with full frame.
In the old days, everyone focused on getting everything they could out of their lenses, Olympus included.
They designed their cameras to take full advantage of the focal plane so you got pretty much 100% of the image the lens projected onto the film.
The drawback to this has to do with optics and distortion.
While everyone else is sticking to the old ways and most are making cameras with 35mm CCD's, Olympus took the stand that this is a new frontier and we need to rethink how we're going to do this.
That's where the 4:3 standard was born.
Why make people pay huge amounts of money for a full format lens and CCD that in the end, professionals will have to crop anyway because there's just no getting around the distortion factor at the edge of the lens.
Instead, we'll eliminate that factor all together.
Now don't ever think Olympus makes cheap glass, on the contrary.
Zuiko lenses have been the cutting edge standard in the medical industry for a very, very long time and are the benchmark that others strive to emulate.

Another big issue with camera manufacturers is the pixel war.
In all the years I've been producing images I would have never given digital imaging a second look until manufacturers got above the 3mp boundary.
The first digital camera I ever owned was a Canon Powershot and it had 3.2mp.
I wasn't about to spend huge amounts of money on a dSLR until the technology proved itself worthy.
That didn't happen until the 8mp barrier was broken.
As far as I'm concerned and I have the prints to back me up, anything between 8~10mp is perfect for pro shooting, unless you want to make huge prints or you work for an ad agency where your work will end up on a Billboard.
Of course if you do that kind of work you have to spend the money on large format landscape cameras with 24+mp costing $20k or more (Lens not included).

Allot of manufacturers of dSLR cameras are compatible with their older lenses and yes, you have to manually focus them.
After all, auto focus wasn't around back then and pro shooters had to take the time to focus like everyone else.
I read so many blogs and article where photographers want the split circle focus screen for their dSLR but I say, WHY?
As far as using old glass on a new dSLR, I have a bunch of old lenses that I take out and play with and the focusing isn't that bad, if you remember the old days.
It takes time to get it right and allot of the younger photographers don't have that memory.
I remember when I used to shoot weddings with my Oly OM-1, Gaawd what a fiasco that was.
Then when I got my OM-2s I thought I was in heaven, Aperture priority was a Godsend.
Now all I had to concentrate on was focusing, the camera took care of the rest.

The Olympus E system has the fastest auto focus I've ever seen and that means less missed shots, especially events like birthdays and weddings.
Professional photographers in this area live by word of mouth so if you miss the really cool, huggy, grab a hanky aunt flow because this shot is so beautiful kind of images, you're sunk.

Another big drawback to dSLR cameras is dust getting on the CCD.
Olympus, thinking outside the film camera box, took this into consideration as well and came up with the award winning wave cleaning system.
Every time you turn the camera on it sends a hyper sonic wave through the CCD, knocking off any dust or dirt that might have accumulated.
Many manufacturers are just now catching up to that big issue because they where so focused on big CCD's and mega pixels, they lost sight of the fact that DUH, Film isn't running through our cameras anymore and the CCD might need to be kept clean...

If you really want to spend smart money the I'd go for the E-3, I did.
After spending about 4 hours at the camera store looking at what everyone had to offer, it's the one I chose for many reasons.
Canon is a wonderful camera line but a bit pricey.
Nikon in my mind, is living off its name and that's a shame because they really used to be a big contender but I digress, I don;t want to turn your thread into an argument over who has the longer lens... ;O)

The Olympus E system is a really tough camera and the E-3 even boasts water and dust resistance and I can attest to the fact that it is very much so water and dust resistant.
This is great for weddings and birthdays because sometimes kids and adults get carried away with their beverages, as well as wedding cake.
The E system is also tough, as well as Olympus Zuiko lenses, another area where weddings can get a little physical, especially the reception...

Some have brought up the fact that it's not the camera but the photographer.
I agree that if you stink as a photographer it doesn't matter what camera you buy.
But if you're good at your craft, shouldn't you have the best tools for your trade?

It's true that I can take a point and shoot camera, well, for that matter the camera in my iPhone, and take some really cool compositions, but the quality just isn't there.
I could show up to a wedding with my iPhone and get some really cool angles but at the end of the day most would be crap in my mind because the clarity, sharpness, DOF, focus etc just wouldn't be there.

Now for the big ending, if you're still reading.
The answer to why you don't hear more out of professional photographers who use Olympus is this, satisfaction and the comfort of owning the best and not having to prove it to anyone.
Olympus doesn't need someone like Ahston Krutcher to make all the upper middle class feel special for owning that kind of camera.
Olympus relies on it's customer base, the true professional who is happy with the product and is too busy perfecting their art to be bogged down arguing Pixels and CCD size.
I'm probably the only Olympus pro user who will take this much time explaining this because we're just happy with what we have.
Why? because it works, as you'll quickly find out if you decide to go with Olympus equipment.

If you have any questions feel free to PM me.

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by Raigoki

i somehow disagree about this post. brands doesn't affect good portraiture... lighting does. however, olympus/zuiko doesn't have f/1.4 lenses... (not sure about sigma).

Brand doesn't affect good portraiture?

Brand implies choices of bodies, lenses and accessories. So why do portrait and wedding photographers prefer FF or MF bodies and f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses? The choices of 50mm to 200mm lenses (FF portrait lenses) and their signatures are important factors for a portrait photographer.

Try shooting with a Hasselblad and a DSLR under the same lighting and see which one is better! Otherwise, just compare a Canon 5D2 with 85 f/1.2 against a Nikon D3 with 85 f/1.4.

[Elmo]

I shot Olympus OM professionally for many years, many years ago. I now use Canon and where pratical I still use my OM glass over L glass on the Canon's with an adapter. The problem with the current Olympus line is it is limited. As a pro you do not need to be limited by products made for your system.

I chose Canon because it had the widest rang of equipment I might use. At that time Nikon's offerings were limited and behind the times. Only within the pas year or so has Nikon started coming out with state of the art equipment.

Another reason for choosing one of the big two is equipment rentals.

[windrider86]

I dont know. Olympus is my only camera of choice. It suits me and my photography needs very very well. I have numerous lenses, both om and af. You do have choices of what you can use as well. There are adpaters if you wanted to say use a Canon lens. There are also numerous other manufacturs who produce four/thihrds lens
The om lenses were not diffcult to use and produce very high quality images.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by windrider86

I dont know. Olympus is my only camera of choice. It suits me and my photography needs very very well.

Yup. And if this is true for you, there's no reason not to go with Olympus.

There are adpaters if you wanted to say use a Canon lens.

I don't think anybody's actually come up with EOS -> 4/3rds adapters that allows you to control the aperture. Canon EOS lenses do not have an aperture ring, any more than Nikon G lenses do. Typically, you're stuck at shooting wide open, from what I hear. What should be prevalent and available (but isn't) is a Canon FD/FL -> 4/3rds adapter, but the lower number of four-thirds users who want to adapt anything other than OM is probably not a big enough population to have made it worth someone's time to do so, which I find infuriating. Because FD/FL adapters are already out there for µ4/3s.

There are also numerous other manufacturs who produce four/thihrds lens.

Sadly, there are only two: Panasonic(/Leica) and Sigma. And the Panasonic lenses, iirc, will do stabilization correctly on Olys, but Oly lenses may not stabilize correctly on Panasonic bodies. Not sure, might be the other way 'round. The four-thirds website lists all the four-thirds lenses. Tamron and Tokina have yet to see the four-thirds light.

[Raigoki]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

Brand doesn't affect good portraiture?

Brand implies choices of bodies, lenses and accessories. So why do portrait and wedding photographers prefer FF or MF bodies and f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses? The choices of 50mm to 200mm lenses (FF portrait lenses) and their signatures are important factors for a portrait photographer.

Try shooting with a Hasselblad and a DSLR under the same lighting and see which one is better! Otherwise, just compare a Canon 5D2 with 85 f/1.2 against a Nikon D3 with 85 f/1.4.

In my honest Newbie Opinion, cameras are just tools. also, beauty is subjective. FF bodies are just bodies with no or little crop factor. that doesn't affect how good a photographer you are or how you want your images to be seen. Beauty is subjective, Brand is also subjective.

but as for kentuckyranger's post... i stand corrected.

[Raigoki]

Originally Posted by kentuckyranger

Well, you wanted a professional photographer who uses Olympus, you got one.

I've shot with Olympus cameras and glass since 1978 so I have a very good understanding of what Olympus is all about.
I could spend most of this reply to tell you why for the last 31 Years I never changed to Nikon, Canon or any other manufacturer, but that's not going to help you here.
I do agree with you that if I had to chose another camera, it would be Canon.
Nikon is more of a consumer camera, even the high end dSLR's are in my mind, the full monty of bells and whistles to attract the rich kids, let the flaming begin... ;O)

One other thing.
If you're going to be shooting professionally and you're not shooting in RAW format, please stop reading this post and go somewhere else...

OK, that aside here we go.
First, a little lesson in 4:3.
While the other big names are going for full frame CCD's and uber large pixel counts, Olympus took a step back and asked themselves, do we really want to stay with the old school, or do we want to design a camera from the ground up.

First, the problem with full frame.
In the old days, everyone focused on getting everything they could out of their lenses, Olympus included.
They designed their cameras to take full advantage of the focal plane so you got pretty much 100% of the image the lens projected onto the film.
The drawback to this has to do with optics and distortion.
While everyone else is sticking to the old ways and most are making cameras with 35mm CCD's, Olympus took the stand that this is a new frontier and we need to rethink how we're going to do this.
That's where the 4:3 standard was born.
Why make people pay huge amounts of money for a full format lens and CCD that in the end, professionals will have to crop anyway because there's just no getting around the distortion factor at the edge of the lens.
Instead, we'll eliminate that factor all together.
Now don't ever think Olympus makes cheap glass, on the contrary.
Zuiko lenses have been the cutting edge standard in the medical industry for a very, very long time and are the benchmark that others strive to emulate.

Another big issue with camera manufacturers is the pixel war.
In all the years I've been producing images I would have never given digital imaging a second look until manufacturers got above the 3mp boundary.
The first digital camera I ever owned was a Canon Powershot and it had 3.2mp.
I wasn't about to spend huge amounts of money on a dSLR until the technology proved itself worthy.
That didn't happen until the 8mp barrier was broken.
As far as I'm concerned and I have the prints to back me up, anything between 8~10mp is perfect for pro shooting, unless you want to make huge prints or you work for an ad agency where your work will end up on a Billboard.
Of course if you do that kind of work you have to spend the money on large format landscape cameras with 24+mp costing $20k or more (Lens not included).

Allot of manufacturers of dSLR cameras are compatible with their older lenses and yes, you have to manually focus them.
After all, auto focus wasn't around back then and pro shooters had to take the time to focus like everyone else.
I read so many blogs and article where photographers want the split circle focus screen for their dSLR but I say, WHY?
As far as using old glass on a new dSLR, I have a bunch of old lenses that I take out and play with and the focusing isn't that bad, if you remember the old days.
It takes time to get it right and allot of the younger photographers don't have that memory.
I remember when I used to shoot weddings with my Oly OM-1, Gaawd what a fiasco that was.
Then when I got my OM-2s I thought I was in heaven, Aperture priority was a Godsend.
Now all I had to concentrate on was focusing, the camera took care of the rest.

The Olympus E system has the fastest auto focus I've ever seen and that means less missed shots, especially events like birthdays and weddings.
Professional photographers in this area live by word of mouth so if you miss the really cool, huggy, grab a hanky aunt flow because this shot is so beautiful kind of images, you're sunk.

Another big drawback to dSLR cameras is dust getting on the CCD.
Olympus, thinking outside the film camera box, took this into consideration as well and came up with the award winning wave cleaning system.
Every time you turn the camera on it sends a hyper sonic wave through the CCD, knocking off any dust or dirt that might have accumulated.
Many manufacturers are just now catching up to that big issue because they where so focused on big CCD's and mega pixels, they lost sight of the fact that DUH, Film isn't running through our cameras anymore and the CCD might need to be kept clean...

If you really want to spend smart money the I'd go for the E-3, I did.
After spending about 4 hours at the camera store looking at what everyone had to offer, it's the one I chose for many reasons.
Canon is a wonderful camera line but a bit pricey.
Nikon in my mind, is living off its name and that's a shame because they really used to be a big contender but I digress, I don;t want to turn your thread into an argument over who has the longer lens... ;O)

The Olympus E system is a really tough camera and the E-3 even boasts water and dust resistance and I can attest to the fact that it is very much so water and dust resistant.
This is great for weddings and birthdays because sometimes kids and adults get carried away with their beverages, as well as wedding cake.
The E system is also tough, as well as Olympus Zuiko lenses, another area where weddings can get a little physical, especially the reception...

Some have brought up the fact that it's not the camera but the photographer.
I agree that if you stink as a photographer it doesn't matter what camera you buy.
But if you're good at your craft, shouldn't you have the best tools for your trade?

It's true that I can take a point and shoot camera, well, for that matter the camera in my iPhone, and take some really cool compositions, but the quality just isn't there.
I could show up to a wedding with my iPhone and get some really cool angles but at the end of the day most would be crap in my mind because the clarity, sharpness, DOF, focus etc just wouldn't be there.

Now for the big ending, if you're still reading.
The answer to why you don't hear more out of professional photographers who use Olympus is this, satisfaction and the comfort of owning the best and not having to prove it to anyone.
Olympus doesn't need someone like Ahston Krutcher to make all the upper middle class feel special for owning that kind of camera.
Olympus relies on it's customer base, the true professional who is happy with the product and is too busy perfecting their art to be bogged down arguing Pixels and CCD size.
I'm probably the only Olympus pro user who will take this much time explaining this because we're just happy with what we have.
Why? because it works, as you'll quickly find out if you decide to go with Olympus equipment.

If you have any questions feel free to PM me.

this is one heck of a great info! thanks for sharing your thoughts on olympus cameras!


here in the philippines, we have an olympus club. try visiting Welcome to OlyClub
might find some interesting topics there. (although some threads there are in my native language [Tagalog])