Those wonderful Olympus lenses...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http/forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=12317645


Sheesh! - a 500 GBP lens on a 1000 GBP camera - and STILL the Oly maniacs
won't admit that there's a problem!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.

The guy didn't return.

No mention of possible filter problems.

He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
methodically investigated post..)

Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.

Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.

It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!

So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.

Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
indeed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1108814815.939127.211190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.
>
> The guy didn't return.
>
> No mention of possible filter problems.
>
> He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
> either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
> darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
> methodically investigated post..)
>
> Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.
>
> Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.
>
> It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
> gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
> sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!
>
> So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
> is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.
>
> Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
> indeed.


You miss the point - there has been an awful lot of hoo-hah in the Oly forum
about the expected new lenses from Olympus (expressed in the usual
nauseating manner of the Askey forums - 'Sweeeeet', Awesome' etc etc) and a
good deal of bashing anyone who demurs from the forum stance that
Olympus-photographic-equipment-is-manufactured-in-heaven-by-Angels-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-just-a-demon-incarnate.

One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
seem to work very well!

But, apparently not - and (as they doubtless chuckle in the Olympus
boardroom) 'A foolish Olympus owner and his money are very easily parted"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No doubt about it, those shots do show signs of vignette. I wonder if the
guy had any sort of filter mounted on his lens. Possibly he did, and
possibly that was the cause.

Technically good shots otherwise - absolutely no signs of "banding", so, at
least, we can be certain they weren't taken with a 20D

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37omkiF5fbdb7U1@individual.net...
> http/forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=12317645
>
>
> Sheesh! - a 500 GBP lens on a 1000 GBP camera - and STILL the Oly maniacs
> won't admit that there's a problem!

When I read that thread in the forum, it looked like that they _do_ admit
the problem. Look you're always going to have a couple of people that will
never admit any flaw with anything they've purchased, as if it makes them
lose face to ever do so. But most people are not so sensitive, and are more
interested in solving the problem then denying it exists.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1108814815.939127.211190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
chrlz@go.com wrote:


> Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.

Especially since the E1 has the option to switch on automatic
shading-compensation in camera. (or you can do it aftwerwards on the
PC, automatically.)

Lourens

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

> One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
> prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
> have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
> seem to work very well!
>


You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will tell
you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
line-up.This 'problem' is mainly at 54mm wide open as well.


The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
setting to compensate, which this newbie user didn't have turned on. Can't
blame the camera when the users won't read the manual! Also unless the
contrast is SUPER cranked it's hard to even see.

You did leave out his coment:

"I migrated south (in pixels that is) from the 20d and find the E-1
enviroment just right! Wonderful camera and a pleasure to use."

Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not going
to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never going
to use though..

--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37q881F5hrsr2U1@individual.net...

> You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will
> tell
> you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
> line-up<

Fair enough - but it's a 500 GBP 'dog', that's a lot of money to pay for a
substandard lens.


> The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
> setting to compensate<

So, are you saying that Olympus were aware from the outset that the Four
Thirds system had inherent problems, and built a compensation device into
their camera?- what about the 300? - does that have the fault rectification
built in as well?


> Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not
> going
> to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never
> going
> to use though<


I'm posting purely as someone who is looking to buy a DSLR in the very near
future - and who wants to get the best value for money (which means far more
than just initial price) possible.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Careful, your (big) chip (on your left shoulder) is showing

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:24:28 -0000, "Knild" <knild@venturenet.com>
wrote:

>
><chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
>news:1108814815.939127.211190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.
>>
>> The guy didn't return.
>>
>> No mention of possible filter problems.
>>
>> He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
>> either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
>> darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
>> methodically investigated post..)
>>
>> Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.
>>
>> Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.
>>
>> It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
>> gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
>> sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!
>>
>> So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
>> is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.
>>
>> Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
>> indeed.
>
>
>You miss the point - there has been an awful lot of hoo-hah in the Oly forum
>about the expected new lenses from Olympus (expressed in the usual
>nauseating manner of the Askey forums - 'Sweeeeet', Awesome' etc etc) and a
>good deal of bashing anyone who demurs from the forum stance that
>Olympus-photographic-equipment-is-manufactured-in-heaven-by-Angels-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-just-a-demon-incarnate.
>
>One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
>prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
>have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
>seem to work very well!
>
>But, apparently not - and (as they doubtless chuckle in the Olympus
>boardroom) 'A foolish Olympus owner and his money are very easily parted"
>