[papillon_65]

I want to thank you people for the excellent Olympus photos. If I were not shooting Pentax and were not somewhat put off by the 4/3 format, I would definitely give that system a serious consideration.

There is an Olympus shooter that lives near me and shoots many of the same subjects. Interestingly, her results seldom resemble mine. Part is due to a different philosophy in regards to PP, grads and such, and part is due, I think, to the Olympus image processor. BTW...I consider her work to be pretty incredible. For a look-see:

Flickr: Konejita's Photostream

She shoots primarily with the Zuiko 9-18/4-5.6.


Steve

Steve, thanks for the link, her work is excellent as you say. I have the 9-18mm and it is an excellent lens, very small and lightweight for a wide angle but very sharp. I don't use it as much as I should and will probably sell it because 12mm is usually wide enough for me. I noticed she is also using an E-30, a very nice camera but one I couldn't get on with due to it's heavy AA filter, it obviously suits her well.
Much as I enjoy my Olympus cameras, Olympus are migrating everything to m4/3's so buying into Oly DSLR's is probably not a good move now, unless you would be happy with the Pro-spec E-5 (which is not cheap but is excellent IMHO).
This is why I bought the K-x, Oly will not be producing lower level DSLR's anymore and I have no need for a larger, heavy, weathersealed body, however good it is.
I do shoot with m4/3's cameras (the G1 and EPL-1) and they are excellent and will get even better. As soon as the af on the Pens matches a DSLR (it's not far off now) then I think a lot of people will be using them.

[stevebrot]

Yes, a "different philosophy in regards to PP" for sure. Her work is heavy on the PP, but usually to beautiful ends. She to is very talented, and has that Olypus system shining. Thanks for the link.

JT

I have shot the same subject as she, on the same day, with similar composition, and try as I might, I can't match her look. Even with the most outlandish PP, I can't manage the crispness or vibrance of her shots. I did spent quite a bit of time studying her work and figured out how to improve my own stuff quite a bit for our local waterfalls, however. The key is to bump the luminance of certain colors as opposed to just manipulating the white balance, contrast, and saturation.

The Fall, Winter, and early Spring light in places like the Columbia River Gorge is very deficient at the warm end of the spectrum. As a result, mosses, leaves, and even rocks end up looking dull and subdued. Unfortunately, those seasons are the best time of year to shoot there. I have learned that bumping the luminance of green and yellow and to a lesser extent orange and red really helps. Sometimes it also helps to dampen the blues as well.


Steve

[elg]

TI'm not quite sure what you mean here Erika? I think you may be referring to the viewfinder type. The E-1 is definitely a DSLR with a mirror. ...

Apologies. My bad.
I confused E1 with E10 and E20, which were its predecessors. They were very well built, but their sensors were quite small, and they had beam splitter prisms instead of flipping mirror. I had E10.

Cheers,
Erika

[papillon_65]

Apologies. My bad.
I confused E1 with E10 and E20, which were its predecessors. They were very well built, but their sensors were quite small, and they had beam splitter prisms instead of flipping mirror. I had E10.

Cheers,
Erika

No problem Erika, I believe they both had very nice lenses on them but are very slow to operate by todays standards.
The E-1 can be found here for anyone interested. It's probably the most over-engineered DSLR ever built in terms of build quality, but I'm not complaining. They can be picked up for peanuts now but are still great cameras. Tiny lcd, 5mp, sedate write times but stick a good lens on it and it still shines. It's very much revered in the Olympus community by a plenty of people and can be picked up very cheaply. Some people are even hoarding spare bodies. Ironically it has better dynamic range than a lot of newer Oly cameras.

[Ash]

I have shot the same subject as she, on the same day, with similar composition, and try as I might, I can't match her look. Even with the most outlandish PP, I can't manage the crispness or vibrance of her shots. I did spent quite a bit of time studying her work and figured out how to improve my own stuff quite a bit for our local waterfalls, however. The key is to bump the luminance of certain colors as opposed to just manipulating the white balance, contrast, and saturation.

The Fall, Winter, and early Spring light in places like the Columbia River Gorge is very deficient at the warm end of the spectrum. As a result, mosses, leaves, and even rocks end up looking dull and subdued. Unfortunately, those seasons are the best time of year to shoot there. I have learned that bumping the luminance of green and yellow and to a lesser extent orange and red really helps. Sometimes it also helps to dampen the blues as well.


Steve

Konejita is quite talented. She excels in landscapes.
It may be personal taste, but she does seem to go for the super-saturated look - certainly creates lots of drama to her scenes anyway. Very impressive.

[stevebrot]

Konejita is quite talented. She excels in landscapes.
It may be personal taste, but she does seem to go for the super-saturated look - certainly creates lots of drama to her scenes anyway. Very impressive.

I think part of her success is the willingness to be on site at first light. There is one photo on her Flickr account taken at dawn at Crater Lake in the snow. She got there well before sun-up and waited for the light in what had to have been pretty uncomfortable conditions.


Steve

[Ash]

I think part of her success is the willingness to be on site at first light. There is one photo on her Flickr account taken at dawn at Crater Lake in the snow. She got there well before sun-up and waited for the light in what had to have been pretty uncomfortable conditions.


Steve

That kind of dedication has been well rewarded in her fine results. She has the heart of a true photographer.

[northcoastgreg]

I spent a fair amount of time with both of your photos and agree that the 12-24 shot is generally more pleasing, though I suspect that the images would have been more similar if done at the same time. Quality of light varies according to the amount of cloud cover

While it is true that, at least some ways, they would have been more similar if shot in identical light, I still suspect the IQ difference would have been about the same. The DA 12-24 pano was shot at 2:00 pm on June 11, while the kit lens pano was shot in the middle May at 4:10 pm. The 12-24 shot was a jot more than two stops underexposed compared to the kit lens shot (DA 12-24: 1/1000sec f8; DA 18-55: 1/125 f9.5). The two stop difference is largely explained by the use of a polarizer on the 18-55, which generally cuts light by about two stops. I don't think it would be plausible to suppose that the polarizer worsened the color rendition of the kit lens shot. The general effect of a polarizer is to improve the color, not worsen it.

Now I've shot 1,000s of pictures with both lenses, and it's precisely in non-optimal light (such as middle of the day in June), where the differences between the IQ of the two lenses is most striking. In my experience, the glare of mid-day sunshine off of snow is more than the 18-55 can handle. The DA12-24 does a much better job of taming the glare.

There is also the matter that the 12-24 shot is technically overexposed by at least 1.5 stops. That gives a greater sense of luminosity to the lake surface and brighter and more vibrant color there, but at the expense of foreground detail in the snow.

Thanks for the input. I think you are right relative to the monitor used for viewing them. On my calibrated iMac monitor, the DA 12-24 exposure appears spot on, and the differences between that pano and the 18-55 pano are quite significant. On an uncalibrated HP monitor at work, the differences between the two images aren't so striking and the DA 12-24 image does appear a stop or more overexposed.

For what it's worth, when I had a 3x5 test print of the DA12-24 image made by WHCC, it came back about at least a stop underexposed.

[Pentaxor]

While it is true that, at least some ways, they would have been more similar if shot in identical light, I still suspect the IQ difference would have been about the same. The DA 12-24 pano was shot at 2:00 pm on June 11, while the kit lens pano was shot in the middle May at 4:10 pm. The 12-24 shot was a jot more than two stops underexposed compared to the kit lens shot (DA 12-24: 1/1000sec f8; DA 18-55: 1/125 f9.5). The two stop difference is largely explained by the use of a polarizer on the 18-55, which generally cuts light by about two stops. I don't think it would be plausible to suppose that the polarizer worsened the color rendition of the kit lens shot. The general effect of a polarizer is to improve the color, not worsen it.

Now I've shot 1,000s of pictures with both lenses, and it's precisely in non-optimal light (such as middle of the day in June), where the differences between the IQ of the two lenses is most striking. In my experience, the glare of mid-day sunshine off of snow is more than the 18-55 can handle. The DA12-24 does a much better job of taming the glare.



Thanks for the input. I think you are right relative to the monitor used for viewing them. On my calibrated iMac monitor, the DA 12-24 exposure appears spot on, and the differences between that pano and the 18-55 pano are quite significant. On an uncalibrated HP monitor at work, the differences between the two images aren't so striking and the DA 12-24 image does appear a stop or more overexposed.

For what it's worth, when I had a 3x5 test print of the DA12-24 image made by WHCC, it came back about at least a stop underexposed.

we appreciate the image comparison you did for both lenses. I myself did some past comparisons between the two lenses. and from what I had noticed, it didn't matter if you shot those images on different month or time of day as long as you have enough good lighting.

I did some photo comparisons before done on the same day and at the same time and the difference is the same as what I had seen in your photos. what I noticed is that the kitlens don't exactly render foliage as good as the 12-24. and the resolution (aside from sharpness and contrast) is not as good at midrange and infinity as well.

[stevebrot]

On my calibrated iMac monitor, the DA 12-24 exposure appears spot on, and the differences between that pano and the 18-55 pano are quite significant.

On my calibrated Samsung, the foreground snow with the DA 12-24 is pretty much blown.

The polarizer may make more of a difference than you think. I quit using them a few years ago with my digital cameras due to dullness and color cast on landscape scenes, particularly mountain shots with snow. It may be the quality of my filter, so as with so many things, YMMV.


Steve

[Pentaxor]

On my calibrated Samsung, the foreground snow with the DA 12-24 is pretty much blown.

The polarizer may make more of a difference than you think. I quit using them a few years ago with my digital cameras due to dullness and color cast on landscape scenes, particularly mountain shots with snow. It may be the quality of my filter, so as with so many things, YMMV.


Steve

it could be the quality of the filter. sometimes people would ask what's the difference between a $100 filter to that of a $5 one.

I'm not fond of filters either and as you mentioned, it makes look images dull. although I should mentioned that it's a cheap one that I used.

as far as UV or plain lens filters, I stopped using them and only use them for the purpose of extra security.

[RioRico]

I can't see how comparing to other kit lenses makes the comparisons "incomparable"

I did not refer to other kit lenses. Comparing the DA18-55 to lenses costing much more is not really useful. Porsche vs Pontiac doesn't tell me much I don't already know. Comparing m4/3 to APS-C systems is about as useful as comparing APS-C to FF -- not very. MY PICKUP HAS MORE CAPACITY THAN YOUR SUV! Right. Comparing the outputs of various image processors CAN be useful, but probably says more about the processor technologies than about the lenses used. Which is why I didn't buy Olympus a couple years back, because their JPG engine didn't get no respect. Zuiko glass is great. But comparing an m4/3 kit to a PK kit just isn't useful IMHO.

Yes, we can compare apples and oranges. But what will we learn? That they are different? What else? I prefer apple pie and orange sherbet, not vice-versa. I love my OM 50/1.8 and my Macro-Tak 50/4 (1X) but I don't compare them, they're in different realms. My DA18-55@55/5.6 is not in the same realm as my Tomioka 55/1.4. I already know that. And the Tomioka cost much less.

What can we say about the DA18-55? Some more expensive lenses may have better optics -- how much better, is debatable. Some people get professional results from the DA18-55 and some people don't. Some think it sucks and some don't. I'll use other lenses more, but I won't shitcan my DA18-55. As I've said, it's like abortion: if you don't like it, don't get one.

If the thread has outlived its usefulness for you the answer is simple....don't read it.

Sorry, I don't do flame wars.

[papillon_65]

I did not refer to other kit lenses. Comparing the DA18-55 to lenses costing much more is not really useful. Porsche vs Pontiac doesn't tell me much I don't already know. Comparing m4/3 to APS-C systems is about as useful as comparing APS-C to FF -- not very. MY PICKUP HAS MORE CAPACITY THAN YOUR SUV! Right. Comparing the outputs of various image processors CAN be useful, but probably says more about the processor technologies than about the lenses used. Which is why I didn't buy Olympus a couple years back, because their JPG engine didn't get no respect. Zuiko glass is great. But comparing an m4/3 kit to a PK kit just isn't useful IMHO.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Oly jpeg engine doesn't get any respect? It's pretty much acknowledged as the best jpeg engine about in almost all of it's models. As for comparing apples to oranges I compared a kit lens to other kit lenses of a similar focal length, not better lenses, so I also don't know where you are coming from on that one either?
I've got experience of plenty of kit lenses and the 18-55mm (my two copies) doesn't stand up to any of them, YMMV.

Yes, we can compare apples and oranges. But what will we learn? That they are different? What else? I prefer apple pie and orange sherbet, not vice-versa. I love my OM 50/1.8 and my Macro-Tak 50/4 (1X) but I don't compare them, they're in different realms. My DA18-55@55/5.6 is not in the same realm as my Tomioka 55/1.4. I already know that. And the Tomioka cost much less.

See above

What can we say about the DA18-55? Some more expensive lenses may have better optics -- how much better, is debatable. Some people get professional results from the DA18-55 and some people don't. Some think it sucks and some don't. I'll use other lenses more, but I won't shitcan my DA18-55. As I've said, it's like abortion: if you don't like it, don't get one.

I've already got two and I've made it quite clear how I view them. I won't be keeping them. As I said, if anyone likes theirs then good luck to them, I'm offering an alternative view as a user coming from other manufacturers, nobody should have a problem about that, it's all about balance. I'm not going to praise a lens if I don't think it's very good.

Sorry, I don't do flame wars.

No but you made a post with words to the effect that we should stop debating this, "take a dump" was the attractive expression you used. A few of us have been quite happy to debate the point the OP raised, so why should we shut up because you don't agree with some of us? I'd call that an attempt at derailing a civilised debate. No need for it, or any profanity, as far as I'm concerned. This thread is meandering in it's own quiet way, if you're not happy with it then you know what to do.

[Cambo]

It's not an issue of shots being ruined. I'm not claiming that the 18-55 "ruins" shots; I'm merely pointing out that better glass will produce better results. Many of us find the differences to be more than worth the significantly greater prices we have paid for better glass. That's why we're willing to pay significantly more to upgrade our lenses.

To get a general sense of the better results one gets from higher end glass, compare the following two panoramas of Discovery Point at Crater Lake:

DA 18-55mm II @ 18mm:



DA 12-24mm @ 21mm:



Now granted, these aren't perfect, scientific comparisons, as the photos are taken more than a year apart with somewhat different light. But you can't explain the striking difference in the colors by the lights alone. I took thousands pictures with 18-55 and never got the kind of colors I capture all the time with DA 12-24. Crops of both panos tell even more strongly in the DA 12-24's favor:

DA 18-55mm II ~1:2 crop:



DA 12-24mm ~1:2 crop:




Now while the 18-55 didn't ruin the pano, it is obviously outclassed by the DA 12-24 pano. The kit lens produces a nice result; the DA 12-24 produces significantly better results.

I don't mean to disparage the kit lens or suggest that it will "ruin" everyone's photos. As I pointed out in my first comment in this post, the 18-55 is not a bad lens, merely a mediocre one. I wish only that there be some truth in advertising about the 18-55. It's not a great lens; it's not even particularly good lens: it's an average lens capable of decent but rarely spectacular results. Photographers with real talent, if they want to max that talent out and make the best of their gifts, probably should be using better glass. I know I missed a number of opportunities to get better results because I didn't think I could afford superior glass. Now, being familiar with what better glass can do, I know better.

Old pre-WA Kit lens = $139.00 Cdn.
DA 12-24 = $899.00 Cdn.

Wow...a lens 4x's the price will outperform it...

Many apples and oranges here.
Much comparison of incomparable items.
True, the 18-55 doesn't have the pristine optics of much costlier lenses.
Yes, its images can be pumped in PP, for better or worse.
No, not everybody likes (or has a good copy of) the 18-55.
This argument has outlived its usefulness.
Zzzz...

Shove over...you're hogging all the covers...

I did not refer to other kit lenses. Comparing the DA18-55 to lenses costing much more is not really useful. Porsche vs Pontiac doesn't tell me much I don't already know. Comparing m4/3 to APS-C systems is about as useful as comparing APS-C to FF -- not very. MY PICKUP HAS MORE CAPACITY THAN YOUR SUV! Right. Comparing the outputs of various image processors CAN be useful, but probably says more about the processor technologies than about the lenses used. Which is why I didn't buy Olympus a couple years back, because their JPG engine didn't get no respect. Zuiko glass is great. But comparing an m4/3 kit to a PK kit just isn't useful IMHO.

Yes, we can compare apples and oranges. But what will we learn? That they are different? What else? I prefer apple pie and orange sherbet, not vice-versa. I love my OM 50/1.8 and my Macro-Tak 50/4 (1X) but I don't compare them, they're in different realms. My DA18-55@55/5.6 is not in the same realm as my Tomioka 55/1.4. I already know that. And the Tomioka cost much less.

What can we say about the DA18-55? Some more expensive lenses may have better optics -- how much better, is debatable. Some people get professional results from the DA18-55 and some people don't. Some think it sucks and some don't. I'll use other lenses more, but I won't shitcan my DA18-55. As I've said, it's like abortion: if you don't like it, don't get one.

Sorry, I don't do flame wars.

No kidding...

No but you made a post with words to the effect that we should stop debating this, "take a dump" was the attractive expression you used. A few of us have been quite happy to debate the point the OP raised, so why should we shut up because you don't agree with some of us? I'd call that an attempt at derailing a civilised debate. No need for it, or any profanity, as far as I'm concerned. This thread is meandering in it's own quiet way, if you're not happy with it then you know what to do.

This is now at the point of being crazy...for $139.00 brand new ($60-80 used) the kit lens is phenomenal.

Yes, my $1,800.00 FA* 28-70 is better...



Cheers,
Cameron

[Ash]

Old pre-WA Kit lens = $139.00 Cdn.
DA 12-24 = $899.00 Cdn.

Wow...a lens 4x's the price will outperform it...



This is now at the point of being crazy...for $139.00 brand new ($60-80 used) the kit lens is phenomenal.

Yes, my $1,800.00 FA* 28-70 is better...



Cheers,
Cameron

We'll have none of this logical talk here now.