We're working on a project for school where we're combining a Flir thermal infrared camera with a RGB camera to fly aerial photography. We have a mapping aerial camera, but the power draw/size was just too big to fit in a Cessna (which is what we really need to get this system into) plane, so we're now using a Canon Rebel TS with the 28mm 1.8 lens. So I have that here because I'm working on software to trigger both of these cameras and time stamp etc. Point is, I've really gotten a chance to play around with a Canon camera for the first time. My GF, as you may know, shoots Nikon and I have always been an Olympus fan myself. So right now there's one of all three here haha. So camera menu UI's isn't something, that imo, would make or break a decision to go with one brand vs another. How to you guys like your accessibility to functions etc? Maybe I'm missing something but I find both Nikon and Canon to be counterintuitive and takes forever to get used to where as the first time I picked up my Olympus (and the first time I picked up a digital SLR at all actually) I was able to quickly and easy set up all basic settings. I mean it's so simple, the status screen is actually the menu. You just hit ok and move to whatever setting you want and change it. Or there are customizable shortcut buttons that can be used for common functions. That picture is the simplified view too. There's another one that breaks it up into probably double the boxes with other less common settings (plus what you see there as well). So having used all three now fairly extensively I would rate them olympus>Nikon>Canon
damn it!!! I was so close to getting you to switch to Nikon. Though i must say, i am lovin that 28mm lens
Yeah...also if you've only used the canon rebel line you haven't really experienced a proper canon interface. You have to get up to at least the prosumer models 20d/40d etc all controls are very accessible and usually can be changed while shooting without even looking away from the viewfinder.
You can change more then like aperture/shutter (or exposure), iso, af points through the viewfinder on high end canon's? I know my Olympus can change all the default button functions which are everything above + wb, flash, metering through the viewfinder. Nikon is just the very basics, I don't even think there was a way to change iso that I recall (or maybe I'm just not aware). Do they change higher end?
Yes, iso, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, metering mode, focus points, exposure comp, etc...plus much more that you can change without moving away from the viewfinder (AF-on, backbutton focus, mode, ae-l, af-l)
So basically what you all are saying is that with Nikon and Canon you have to pay big bucks to get the same features that Olympus provides on all it's cameras? p.s. I can't be 100% sure it's still the same with their current generation of cameras. But in the e-410, 510, e3 etc series, this stuff all was the same across the board, so expect that hasn't changed.
pfftt, but you have to take your eye away from the viewfinder no? Wouldn't it be better without having to do that? just a click of a finger, and your good to go.
Which I believe is pretty much all the Canon/Nikon high end bodies can change through the viewfinder.
I'm confused why you think looking at the back of the lcd display to change settings on the fly is a good idea?
Yes, excalty...then why would you still shoot with the Olympus,if you didnt have to take your eye away from the Viewfinder?
Something tells me that all current cameras in the canon lineup have these features....Its great though that Olympus also has these features even though the hobbyist is their target market.
It's true. I really wish they'd come out with an actual high end body. But fact of the matter is that the E3(E5) is really only comparable to a mid-range canon/nikon body at best. It makes me sad because I think as a system they really could compete with Nikon and Canon. I think that the fact that the entire system being designed from the ground up to be digital gives it an advantage and that the Olympus bodies really don't do justice to some of the pieces of glass that they have to go with it. And now with the explosion of the micro 4/3rds system I can't ever see that ever happening. And in fact, it could very well mean discontinuing the evolt SLR series entirely.
They need to ditch the 4/3 and manufacture a full frame sensor to start. Plus they would need to completely revamp their lens lineup and provide a flash system that can compete.
Yes, they need a full frame version for sure (which would be designed for a real high end body). I don't think they need to ditch 4/3rds entirely. It's comparable and has definite advantages vs an APS-C sensor. I think 4/3rds matches up pretty evenly there for low-mid range bodies. I disagree about revamping their lens lineup. I think the zuiko digital lenses are the thing that makes the system worth it. The fact that they're fully digital and designed with only that in mind gives them an advantage, I mean some of them even have firmware on the lens! Would they need to expand their lineup? Definitely. But not revamp. I can't comment on the flash system. I haven't had much experience with it myself, nor have I read much on it.
How is firmware on a lens an advantage? Also only having a digital lens lineup is a MASSIVE disadvantage. Canon and Nikon also have a lot of digital specific lenses in their lineups. But they also continue with the lens lines which are designed for their full frame bodies. It is much cheaper for a manufacturer to design and build lenses for digital only as they can be made in a smaller form factor (smaller lens bodies, smaller apertures, smaller elements) and why they can make a lens like the 14-35 f2.0 so cheaply. Olympus has pretty much screwed themselves from ever producing a body with a sensor larger than the 17.3x13mm 2.0x crop.
I can't see this ever happening... since it hasn't happened yet. Too little too late for Olympus methinks.
How is it not an advantage? Digitally designed lenses are "smarter" then their non-digital counter parts. Rather the camera sending a signal to the lens to change the aperture and hope that the lens does it, it's much better to have the lens be able to smartly verify this and then return a signal to the camera confirming that this was accomplished. This is only at it's most basic level. Either way, the digital thing is neither here nor there. What makes a lens worth more or less money is the amount of time and precision that goes into making the optics. Digital vs non-digital (analog? haha) is trivial compared to that. Based on what I've read and technical specifics the Zuiko Digital line of lens optically and comparable to any Nikon/Canon lens at the same price point.
I didn't know that the current electronic lens technology used by the industry leaders was so woefully inadequate. I am pretty sure that two way communication already exists within the current lens lineups for any manufacturer for autofocus, metering, relaying lens data such as focal length and aperture back to the body. While I agree that the precision of the optics is a main factor of cost you must also consider that the image circle these lenses are designed for is half that of the industry leaders which is why they can make such great lenses for the price point. It is great if Olympus only ever wants to make their 17.3x13 sensor as this line-up would be pretty much unusable on a body which requires a larger circle of illumination. Based on reviews and IQ tests that I have seen its a shame that the sensor can't do these lenses justice. At this point they are way too late in the game anyway to even make a scratch in the professional market. Sony has tried over the last few years they still have not made a dent.
