# Should I switch



## Leo4 (Oct 9, 2010)

Ok so we have a Canon EOS-1d Mark IIN in the shop now and I have been wanting a full frame sensor, or atleast I thnk I do. Heres my background. I have bben shooting models alittle but I mainly do automotive and landscape/cityscape. I like to blow pictures up, alot. I have been shoot Olympus for 8 years now, first digital camera set-up. I would sell all my Olympus stuff including the OM-stuff and make a complete system change to Canon. 

For my style of shooting do I really need a full frame camera and is this camera really worth leaving what I know and changing systems?



If I dont go with this camera I plan on a E3 soon.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 9, 2010)

Firstly the E3 is obsolete. The E5 was just released and presents a huge step up in quality from what I've seen so far.

Secondly what do you think you gain with a full frame sensor? Canon's full frame cameras offer you insane megapixel counts, but first ask yourself why you need it. What do you do with the photos? Insanely high resolutions require insanely expensive lenses, so the move to full frame for more resolution is far from trivial.

Nikons full frame cameras offer mostly incredibly noise free pictures, great if you're doing handheld shots in dark places like weddings, churches etc. Not quite sure if it would benefit landscapes.

What part of shooting cars and landscapes do you think will benefit from a full frame sensor? Landscapes stay still, so have you considered getting into panoramas? Stitching images to produce say 150mpx single frames?  One of the major drivers to switching to full frame is the noise or the depth of field, and neither of those apply to your typical landscape photo. 

It doesn't sound like changing systems will suddenly make you able to take any better pictures.


----------



## Leo4 (Oct 9, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Firstly the E3 is obsolete. The E5 was just released and presents a huge step up in quality from what I've seen so far.
> 
> Secondly what do you think you gain with a full frame sensor? Canon's full frame cameras offer you insane megapixel counts, but first ask yourself why you need it. What do you do with the photos? Insanely high resolutions require insanely expensive lenses, so the move to full frame for more resolution is far from trivial.
> 
> ...


 

I dont want HD video so the E5 is out of the running. 


No I havent played with panarama or stiching. Im just wanting to blow up my pictures bigger. I notice alittle distortion on the photos when I blow them up now. But as of what I have read so far Im not going to gain anything from switching. So Im going to stay Olympus, buy some lenses I want and get the E3 I want. Give my e600 to my wife.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 10, 2010)

It's nonsense to discredit a camera because of a feature it has that you won't use. Most DSLRs these days have HD video including the latest top of the line offerings from Nikon and Canon. The E3 is now 3 years old and not a worthy investment unless you can get it second hand or at a huge discount. 

The 12-60mm is an excellent step up from the 14-42mm. My girlfriend just went that way and it gave her E320 a new lease on life. 

Panoramas may be the way to go, landscapes don't move quickly and are trivial if not perfect for this application. I've got a 40" wide print of a landscape hanging on my wall printed at 300ppi. With panorama software and a combination of several exposures I ended up with a 40megapixel tac sharp image. 

If you have photoshop play around with the panorama feature in that. If not check out AutoPanoPro, it's also got a free 30 day trial.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 10, 2010)

The 1Dmk2n is not full frame, i have one and they are good but a 5Dmk2 would be better for what you want to shoot, 1Dmk2 is more of a PJ sports camera


----------



## Leo4 (Oct 11, 2010)

Ha well I was ready to just do it and use a Leica 35mm/250mm lenses on it. And the camera sold so Im staying Olympus.


----------



## Don Kondra (Oct 11, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Firstly the E3 is obsolete. The E5 was just released and presents a huge step up in quality from what I've seen so far.


 
What a load of crap Garbz, normally your advice is spot on.

The E-5 isn't even on the shelves yet and you've written off the E-3...

And your experience with Olympus comes from a budget E-320 that cost what ?  $300 brand new four years ago ? 

And you are calling "nonsense" to the OP for discrediting a camera ? 

Leo > you don't say what model you're shooting now but a used E-3 for ~$650 is still as capable today as it was three years ago.

The E-5 is an obvious upgrade if you have $1700.

Full frame is going to cost even more.

Canikon might have a small advantage for landscape work with their smaller crop factor.  

As usual it comes down to how much do you want to spend ?

And don't forget to factor in the cost of lenses... 

Cheers, Don


----------



## Leo4 (Oct 11, 2010)

Yeah the more I think about it Im glad I didnt move over.


Ive been shooting Olympus since the E1, I went a month with Nikon and hated it. So after thinking about it I would probbly have hated the Canon aswell. 


Ive got a E3 coming in on trade so its mine. 


Im currently shooting a E600. I will keep it as my back-up and for my wife (she loves it).


Nice to see another Olympus user here. We are the minority by far. I get tierd of all the experts telling me how Olympus sucks and blah blah blah.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 12, 2010)

Don Kondra said:


> What a load of crap Garbz, normally your advice is spot on.
> 
> The E-5 isn't even on the shelves yet and you've written off the E-3...
> 
> And your experience with Olympus comes from a budget E-320 that cost what ?  $300 brand new four years ago ?



Call me crazy but if someone comes onto a forum talking about switching systems and on top of that considering going straight into full frame, a 3 year old superseded camera is not something I'd recommend just for the sake of saving a few dollars. The E3 is a perfectly capable camera, as is my D200, but I wouldn't buy either of them if I couldn't get them at a decent discount given they are ... 2007 technology. Great cameras yes, and I never proclaimed they are not, but effectively obsolete for a new buyer, and cheap cameras to boot.  

I mean half the people on this forum posted questions asking if they should wait for Company X to release as yet unplanned and undisclosed product Y, yet here we're talking about production ready equipment. I can't honestly recommend buying an E3 if an E5 can be afforded, or if there's a justifiable cost saving. Also I've used E3s a few times with friends at the photoclub. My girlfriend owns the budget camera, it's not my only exposure to Olympus.

Honestly Don your comments are uncharacteristically rash.


----------



## Don Kondra (Oct 12, 2010)

Hmmmm, I just checked my records and it appears my BS filter had exceeded it's maximum daily limit 

Cheers, Don


----------



## Garbz (Oct 13, 2010)

Right.......

Apparently so has your ability to have a discussion.


----------



## pompomsa (Oct 13, 2010)

Hi, Leo4!

I'm just new at this group, and I'd like to throw in my 2 cents-worth of ideas. Here are some considerations you might want to look into:

(1) Changing brands means buying into a system (e.g. Olympus to Canon, and accessories);
(2) The more recent the technology, the better images you have, generally speaking;
(3) Consider the costs you will incur initially and over time as you expand your "trade";
(4) Since you're spending to upgrade anyway, think about shifting from film, if you're watching costs on film and developing, besides, the digital counterparts are getting much more affordable as we speak;
(5) With digital, you have a much wider array of effects applicable to your images through the use of available softwares; and
(6) With image quality out of the way, you may need to get re-acquainted with this technology from square one.

Best regards!


----------



## Don Kondra (Oct 13, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Right.......
> 
> Apparently so has your ability to have a discussion.


 
Oh we can "discuss" till the cows come home but I think it's pointless if we don't know how much the OP is willing to spend.

And from Leo's last post it appears he's upgrading to an obsolete camera 

Cheers, Don


----------



## Leo4 (Oct 13, 2010)

Yeah Im going to buy the antique E3 and use the change left from not buying the Canon and buy a FL-50R. I can get new E3's for $650-700 right now. Thats a really good deal to pass. 

For my film system Ive decided on a N80 with a 28-80mm and 70-300mm. 



Most mainstram consumers can't understand why some people choose anything besides brand A or B. It the same thing that I choose Land Rover over Toyota. But every Toyota owner is a expert on how my vehicle isnt as good as theirs. Even though they have never dirven or owned a Land Rover product.


----------



## Don Kondra (Oct 13, 2010)

Hi Leo,

Those prices aren't in US dollars are they ?  Or is that your "cost" ? 

In all fairness to Garbz, I was just picking on him cuz of the "obsolete" comment and would not place him in the group you mentioned...

Cheers, Don


----------



## Leo4 (Oct 13, 2010)

Sleezbay



Aka ebay


Since Olympus like to undercut their dealers its cheaper for my to buy new Olympus invetory from adaroma than with my dealer account. :er:


----------



## Don Kondra (Oct 13, 2010)

Last I checked a new E-3 was still going for ~$1000.  Adorama doesn't even list it anymore ?  B&H is $1012.  

I paid $650 for a used E-3 a couple of months ago. (4400k on it) 

Although I have bought a body and a few lenses off ebay I prefer to purchase from the FourThirdsPhoto.com | Home

At least the seller isn't a complete stranger 

Cheers, Don


----------



## Garbz (Oct 14, 2010)

Don Kondra said:


> In all fairness to Garbz, I was just picking on him cuz of the "obsolete" comment



Bloody E-3 Owners 

In any case Leo you make your own decision. I don't know how I came across as a bad guy, as all I was trying to say is that if the budget stretches it and E5 would have been nice. In any case E3+ flash is a more "useful" purchase. 

By the way one thing I always find strange is that despite Olympus making the smallest cameras, their FL-50R is bigger than the Nikon SB-900, leading to a very interesting looking combination:


----------



## Leo4 (Oct 14, 2010)

Yeah but the FL-50 kits ass. Its huge but works like a champ. Same with the FL-36


Yeah the E3 plus a good flash is more valuible to me than HD video. :er: My ipod can shoot video. :lmao:


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 14, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Right.......
> 
> Apparently so has your ability to have a discussion.


 
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::thumbup:


----------



## Garbz (Oct 14, 2010)

Leo4 said:


> Yeah but the FL-50 kicks ass.



True that! :thumbup:


----------



## christian.covert (Oct 20, 2010)

I have a friend who is a photographer in Austin and he switched from Nikon to Canon because of the difference in color tone. He shoots models by way to.


----------

