Olympus EVOLT E-510 review.
Sounds to me like a good camera. I like that it's compact, economical, and that it has image stabilization built into the body so it's available for all lenses. (Though some claim it's more effective when built into the lens.)
Alex inserted:
"CCD's are smaller than a 35mm negative, on most bodies I've looked at, Nikon, Pentax, and I think Cannon, there is a scale factor to apply, can't remember exactly, but its almost like a 1.2* magnification."
Indeed. More than that, actually, most cameras have around a 1.5 factor, which makes wide angle an issue with old lenses. (This is what they call the "APS sized sensor".)
The Olympus cameras has a special format (called 4/3 for no good reason), which has a 2.0 extension factor. A 50mm lens has a view like a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.
Canon 5D is currently the only camera in a reasonable price range with a full frame sensor. Which means that it utilizes the frame fully, but also that it's a bigger issue if a lens has poor corner performance.
36 comments:
Hey, photography! That reminds me, Eolake, I have some old SLR (film) camera equipment. Since I don't want to invest much time or energy in "getting rid of it," but I don't just want to throw it away, I'm a little bit up in the air about what to do. I have lenses, a light meter, and the body (a Minolta), all of "professional" but not super-high grade for their time -- which was, unfortunately for me, pre-digital.
Anythoughts?
I guess eBay, but you're not likely to get much.
Or you could give it away.
It appears that analog technology becomes very valuable in approx. 15-20 years after its digital replacement has been introduced.
Sound recording equipment from the 1970s, which people threw out in the junk pile in the 1980s, cost fortunes these days. And it's not just for nostalgia either. People buy it for the sound quality.
My point is that right now is the worst possible time to get rid of film SLRs.
I have a lot of old SLRs around, but mostly because I really like the way they look.
I think it's doubtful if you can make better image quality with a 35mm camera than even an entry-level 10MP DSLR like the Nikon D40x. Most likely not even as good.
What about the lenses? Do the old non-digital-camera lenses fit the new digital camera bodies?
On the whole they work fine.
On some wide angle lenses there are slight quality issues because they're not optimized for a digital sensor. But mostly you'd not notice anything, is my guess.
Your Minolta lenses might fit the Sony cameras.
CCD's are smaller than a 35mm negative, on most bodies I've looked at, Nikon, Pentax, and I think Cannon, there is a scale factor to apply, can't remember exactly, but its almost like a 1.2* magnification.
Of course my old lenses aren't even autofocus.
"I think it's doubtful if you can make better image quality with a 35mm camera than even an entry-level 10MP DSLR like the Nikon D40x. Most likely not even as good."
It's not always a question of better. Different is reason enough. Besides, "better" is a rather subjective idea, isn't it?
When Edison introduced the gramophone people said its sound quality was indistinguishable from live source. This phenomenon has since become known as psychoacoustics. What we think we hear and what actually gets pumped through the air are two very different things.
You'd think people would have learned since then. Apparently not: When Compact Disc (audio CD) was introduced in the 1980s, you heard that exact same statement again.
Late in the 1990s the audio industry had finally figured out that CD quality is not "quite" comparable to live sound. To solve the issue, it was discovered that most of the quality problems go away if sampling frequency is raised from 44.1 kHz to 192 kHz. When the industry is about to make this step, something happens that no one was able to predict: An inferior audio format (in terms of sound quality), MP3, becomes the de facto standard.
I'm sure camera technology will in the future go through all sorts of phases of analog renaissance, 3D, back-to-basics, ultra-high-res, etc. ... ad infinitum.
Think bicycles. After the space-age, carbon, ultra light frame models, all of a sudden the old clunkers from the 1950s are cool again. At least in this corner of the world.
"When Compact Disc (audio CD) was introduced in the 1980s, you heard that exact same statement again."
Yes! I heard that too in Denmark. It's ridiculous. Like all players had perfect sound. (regardless of amp and speakers too.)
Of course when they later had different price ranges of CD players, suddenly there was a difference again. "All players are equal, but some are more equal (and expensive) than others."
Exactly! It's quite funny.
DVD Audio (192 kHz) and SACD (different encoding, but equivalent to 192 kHz) were pushed as the replacement for CD. Record companies were hoping that we would all buy our favourite records, now for the third time, in this new format. Alas, people liked MP3 better. No physical disk and (often) no payment. Yes, inferior sound quality, but who listens to music sitting still in their living room anymore anyway?
Digital cameras will prevail because it frees us from developing film. But just like vinyl records have seen a come back, so, too, will film. And traditional SLRs.
OK, so can I sell some of these lenses or not? :)
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/final_id/For%20Sale/ForSale001_final_id.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/final_id/For%20Sale/ForSale007_final_id.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/final_id/For%20Sale/ForSale019_final_id.jpg
I'm just wondering what you current photographers would think of them. I have a little snapshotter digital, but that's as fancy as I ever want to get again.
As Thoreau said, simplify simplify.
"But just like vinyl records have seen a come back, so, too, will film."
Just for fun: TTL, I'll make you a bet: in 2017, if more film is used than now, I will buy you a meal in the most expensive restaurant in Copenhagen.
FI, the small ones you'll be lucky to sell, and the large one you'll be lucky to get more than $30, I think.
"Just for fun: TTL, I'll make you a bet: in 2017, if more film is used than now, I will buy you a meal in the most expensive restaurant in Copenhagen."
The meal sounds like a great idea but do you have any other bets that I could actually win? ;-)
The transition from film to digital is still obviously underway. What I envision happening is film will disappear almost completely during the next 3-5 years. Then in 2017-2020 it will enjoy a renaissance among artists, hobbyists, collectors, parapsychology researchers, etc. :-)
The renaissance may not match current usage, which due to the unfinished transition is still quite big.
OK, that's the bet then.
I think it might happen except for one thing: film factories are very, very difficult and very, very expensive to run. It would be near impossible to run one for a niche market.
I am most disappointed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
On similar topic, I actively troll through junque stores (you know, junk but they think it's antiques) for "vintage" razors. Gillette Super Speeds, Techs, Rangers ... you know, like grandpa used, you stick a double-edged razor blade in there, lather up with a brush, scratch away! I much prefer the shave that these things give, and there's a dedicated internet following of "shave geeks."
The interesting thing is, that shaving implements took the same trajectory as the other technologies we're discussing here. Up to about 1972 everyone used the old "double edge safety razor" as described. (Of course, that in itself was an improvement over the straight or "cut-throat" razor, which is essentially nothing more than a kitchen knife with a hinge). Then Gillette invented the Atra, and subsequently the Atra, Sensor, and Mach3. For marketing reasons, they convinced us to forsake traditional soaps for propellant cans, and "one blade pulls it up while the next cuts it off" (both of which "improvements" are horrendous irritants).
So all those shavers out there gave up on the old methods and embraced the new. In about twenty years, however, revisionist history hit, and the nascent shave geek movement was born. So now there's a growing population of people who seek the pre-1970s "cool" razors of grandpa's ilk, either to collect and display them or, like myself, because we prefer to use them.
Now if only film geeks would catch up to shave geeks, and to my need to redistribute my worldly possessions.
FI - Careful, you're talking to a guy who likes the vibrating shavers. They just scare me.
I had a look for my old body on e-Bay, a Ricoh XR-P. Mines a bit worn, and though usable was better for spares or repair. A good one went for about $20. Not much for a camera I bought for 200GBP (and fixed later for 100GBP).
Funnily enough, there is an episode of Firefly where the cinematographer took one look through his brand new lens, and new it would not give the look needed. He went back to a 60's vintage multiple element which flared all over the place to get the cowboy movie feel.
As you say there is a place for these things. Pinhole cameras and sun-prints are still popular hobbies.
Our local drugstore is down from two fixtures of film to two shelves in one fixture. You have a choice of Kodak or Fuji 800asa in 4 packs or 1 packs.
Even the disposable (recyclable) cameras are digital, albeit a plastic lens and 20 imgages of memory.
O, I didn't know they had those yet.
I like my Oral-B Pulsar toothbrush (seriously), and my Gillette vibrating razor. I just resent that they jack up the price something fierce for each generation.
About razors: when I finally figured out, that the problems were caused BY the innovations, I was able to have a normal day and shave like everyone else. I have thick whiskers and thin (sensitive) skin, and had spent a lifetime searching for solutions. I had, in fact, in order to appear "professional" at a traditional office workplace, concocted a horribly convolute regimen that combined electrics and blades at about a 32-hour (not 36!) interval: Sunday night as close as possible with a blade (ouch!), Tuesday morning with an electric (micro-screen kind, Remington or Braun), Wednesday again with an electric (rotary kind, Norelco) by taking a long lunch break, Thursday look bad (don't schedule any major clients), Friday morning as un-close as possible with a new blade. Every use of a blade was a new cartridge ($2 a pop!) and took about half an hour for adequate skin and beard preparation, including use of hot water for face and ice-water (yes, ice from the kitchen refrigerator) for rinses. Every use of an electric also required preparation with unguents, salves, powders. No shaving from Fri-AM to Sun-PM. It was elaborate and hell.
Other solutions? 1. Grow a beard. 2. Look bad (some offices allowed this; most employers had an "attitude" about my lack of "proper respect for the workplace"). 3. Become self-employed.
Things I've tried, to improve the shave, include ALL brands of cartridge that I can find; ALL brands of cream, gel, foam, lotion, etc., that I can find; ALL brands of after-shave, soother, ointment, that I can find; hypo-allergenic steel blades; hot and cold water, hot and cold compresses, hair conditioner, and a zillion other home remedies for softening the whiskers, smoothing or lubricating or easing the skin, etc.
Then I found out, from the internet shave-geek community, that the following two things were the problems: 1. propellants in the cans are an irritant; 2. "one blade pulls it up, the next blade cuts it off" means the following: A. the whisker then sneaks back INTO its pore below the surface, and therefore might easily become ingrown; B. pulling up can result in the second blade removing a little circle of skin right around the up-pulled follicle. So, no canned stuff and only single blade razors.
In other words, the INNOVATIONS had CAUSED more problems than they had solved. Were I to travel to a desert island and had to bring only limited shaving implements with me, it would be a set of single-blade disposables (like the Bics that usually are made with white handles and yellow heads). One blade, no cans: that solves the problem.
Aside from those two technologies, I also indulge in a variety of improvements, but all are for the "pleasure" and luxury of it, none are mandatory. I like traditional English creams and soaps; I use a badger-bristle brush to whip the lather and pummel the whiskers into shape; I use several passes with the razor (lather, shave, repeat) in order to cut "like a scythe, not like a hoe" and yet still get gentlemanly close; I wear a mild scent applied in a moisturizer after shaving; I wash with a milled soap; etc. But all those things are just frills. The principles are: no cans, one blade (which necessitates several passes). And I'm happy.
The whole regimen -- get up, turn on the water, take a full shower with soap and shampoo, dry, whip the lather, apply and shave, lather and shave again three or four times, wash face, dry, apply moisturizers, get dressed -- takes me between 18 and 24 minutes, usually. I have timed it on multiple occasions. If I want to be luxurious, I can take up to 35 minutes. If I am going quick, I can shower AND SHAVE adequately in about 10.
I'm an evangelist for these "new" old shaving techniques now. My face is smooth. It is never irritated, not even down around the Adam's apple, where I go at it vigorously (with skill) to remove all the whiskers. I have no ingrown hairs. I smell great. Women like the baby-face experience. I can attend normal work settings in a normal manner. I enjoy collecting vintage razors and trading them at shave-geek internet dens. I can go immediately from a shave straight out to the yard and whack weeds without that old familiar burning itching on my neck when I sweat and get dirty.
All because I reject the innovations that Gillette foists on us. Nearly all the internet resources for shaving are somehow founded upon marketing of new products -- King of Shaves, a UK brand, in fact has a video on YouTube that still adopts the unfortunate new assumptions, that (among other things) more blades is better and digging in (like a hoe) during one pass is effective. In fact, I'm still using Gillette brands, for razor and blades, they just cost me almost nothing.
Oh, did I mention that? My average shave costs me (after the initial investment of $20 for a razor handle) US$0.14. That's fourteen cents. I've worked it out, at the cost of a tube of nice cream divided by how many uses, plus one flat double-edged blade at about .10 each in a twenty-pack (and I get about three or four shaves to a given blade). Previous to finding the shave-geek vintage regimen, I was spending upwards of $2 PER SHAVE. That's $12 a week, $600 a YEAR! No WONDER Gillette wants me to adopt their "innovations."
Well, all that has very little to do with photography. I see Eolake wears a beard. I do too, sometimes, but I have to admit that being able to shave nicely actually gives me something I like to get up and enjoy. It's a little indulgence, and also a Zen zone in the morning before everyone else in the house is all up in my face about who's going to vacuum the closets. Some people have said that my beard is smokin' sexy -- reds, yellows, blacks, whites, browns in perfect mottle -- but maintaining it is still more hassle than it's worth, now that I know how to perform the "traditional" or vintage wet shave.
Geeze, looks like I saved a lot of headaches. I tried rotating heads early on. Didn't like. Adopted a twin blade early on, and thought I liked it.
Gilette did send me a Mach3. I hated it, it's floppy head did not contour to my face at all. Back to the Sensor Excel twin blade.
I used badger bristle early on, but I am so short sighted that I was shaving by touch, and had a stubbly sink to deal with, so I opted for shave in shower.
As for creams? I hate perfume, and have reactions to citrus soaps, so I've been on a bland (Dove, PureSimple) soap forever.
Still, I like my OralB Pulsar, that definitely works for me.
I will back off to a single blade, see how that goes.
As for cost. Blades are now in secure shelves, and are stamped by the store so they know where they came from. Turns out, at $20 for 20 blades, there is a thriving black market economy in them, and people would pull a dozen packs from the shelf to sell them in the flea market. Now to pay for criminals and those who buy from them I have to be subjected to ear splitting alarms every time I get my requisites, and I have to turn a knob 20 times to tractor the box out.
I always wanted to try an open razor, just never had the nerve.
EO - I assume you didn't know there were disposable digitals.
There are actually hacks available so you can download the photos at home, and open up the memory capacity. You do need to jury rig a connector to them.
Alex: I'll send you my old Sensor stuff if you want it. Are you in USA? If so, email me at final underscore identity at yahoo dot com. If you're worried about an "open" razor, I can say that I, too, felt it might be a "bed of nails" with only ONE nail, and therefore might cut in. But I found out that this is not an issue at all. It's kind of magical, how the head of the razor doesn't allow the blade to sink in to the skin as you might think it would. You should look up "shave my face university" at ShaveMyFace dot com to learn more.
Sorry for the hijack ... :)
Hmm, "open", it's not an expression it's a fact. An old fashioned cut-throat is an open blade. Never had a kitchen knife that fine, but still...
I think Wilkinson Sword still sold blades for the safety razors when I started, but you couldn't get the razors (easily).
This discussion has reminded me of a chapter in a book by Ben Elton - Dead Famous. It's a spoof murder mystery based on Big Brother. There was a guy analyzing people based on their toothbrushes.
One contestant had a plane 1980's looking tooth brush, and it was decided that he was the biggest poser of them all, deliberately hunting down the old ones.
I've heard that big company executives in the USA never have beards because the public distrusts men with beards. Very weird.
I look a ton better with a beard. A short one, because otherwise it's scraggly.
"look up "shave my face university" at ShaveMyFace dot com"
I find the site, but not that section.
Ooops, sorry, University is under the Forums. Here's a direct link, guests can read, and register (free) in order to post:
http://www.shavemyface.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=17
Alex:
Oh, possible misunderstanding: if by "open" you mean cut-throat or straight razor, then that's not what I'm using either. I'm using a "safety" razor -- a mechanical handle that is shaped like a T, designed to hold a two-edged small (1 cm x 2 cm?) rectangular traditional razor blade.
Straight razor (called a "cut throat" in parts of UK):
http://www.executive-shaving.co.uk/shaving/dovo-of-solingen/95585.jpg
Safety razor:
http://www.executive-shaving.co.uk/shaving/safety-razors/bf.jpg
The "bed of one nail" comment was meant to apply to the SAFETY. I've never tried a STRAIGHT or CUT THROAT, and I use a SAFETY daily (sometimes twice a day!). :)
Safety razors used to have a lot more styling to them than any of the newer disposable, or changeable head razors we see today. I seem to remember them all being chrome or stainless steel.
I like the idea of a "britva", a cut-throat. Having a strop strap hanging along side the sink, and one of those art deco mirrors on the extendo-arm. Probably the razor would have an inlaid bone handle, very ornate.
I remember Michael Palin having a shave in "around the world in 80 days" by a blind barber with an open razor. He said it was the best shave he'd had. I wonder if that is true.
I don't think the barber has to be BLIND to give you a good shave ... :) ... but the best shaves are going to be had from traditional techniques and skilled hands. I had a "Turkish" barber in Rome, and my face remained baby-butt-smooth for 48 hours, with no complications. His last step was to shish-kebab me!
Whu??
Heh. I found a clip that makes clear what it's all about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSmRjlY8rdA
Time 3:38 and following. :)
What's that do to the follicles?
I dunno. The flambee is mostly applied to areads where there's peach-fuzz -- around the outsides of the ears, for example -- but it has something to do with massaging the whole face, too.
TTL said...
"What I envision happening is film will disappear almost completely during the next 3-5 years."
The end of all this silver chemical processing will do no harm to the environment!
Sensor Excel is also my steady choice. I would've stuck with the "simple" Sensor, but my old razor handle needed replacing. What I like about it is the following:
- excellently rotating head
- no more irritation than I'm ready to put up with
- these thin blades clean very easily under the water flow, while the previous twin blades got clogged up something fierce very fast.
But I'm very thankful to the recent male fashion trend of "unshaved yet not bearded", which allows me to shave only every two days.
Now, if I were dating, things might be different! Gotta keep those cheeks soft under the touch. ;-)
I might have chosen the single blade approach, but they need some handling, and I'm not too much at ease with that. Ain't a type of blade I've touched without managing to get hurt with it at least once. Even a chainsaw, but that was by inadvertently touching the hot exhaust.
Nice touch from a smooth shaver, F.I. That email address of yours is crystal clear... for a human being!
"big company executives in the USA never have beards because the public distrusts men with beards."
Suuure. Abe Lincoln looked like Osama Bin Laden, and for good reason. While Ol' Dubya has a baby-face to match his angelic heart, bless him.
"How would Jesus shave", I wonder?...
"I look a ton better with a beard. A short one, because otherwise it's scraggly."
"Scooby-Doo, where are you???" :-D
You're not one for the Khomeyni islamist style, then? By the Prophet's pointed beard, I bet you don't even veil the women on your web site! Be careful, other men might look at them...
Say, Final, that was a very FLAMBOYANT way to have a close shave. (A bit too close, perhaps?)
All in all, I find this thread EVOLTing. :-)
BuyTV, Episode 076, Product Feature,
OLYMPUS EVOLT E-510
The Olympus EVOLT E510 digital SLR is a great camera to help you evolve as a photographer
Post a Comment