| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Olympus in the Pro realm?
Mike Burns, Photographer
 |
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 12:48 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> Ok, so this is not really going to be a rant but I am new on the SS site... Just got approved/paid yesterday.
I currently shoot with Olympus E-3, E-30 and an assortment of lenses/flashes.
My question is (remember I am new to this) would I be taken more serious as a sports photographer shooting with a Nikon or Canon?
I have yet to see anyone ring/cage side with me that is using an Oly.
Thanks for your comments and insight. |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> If they're judging your worth as a photographer based on your camera brand then I'd say that their opinion is pretty much worthless.
I wouldn't base any gear purchase on what the other kids are going to think about me. If it works for you, use it. It's just a box man. |
|
Brad Tollefson, Student/Intern
|
Aledo | TX | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> I personally do not feel that it matters in the least bit which brand of camera equipment that you use. As long as you act professional and take decent pictures you should do fine in the business.
I did happen to see for the first time that I remember in three years two people shooting professionally with Olympus cameras for the first time last weekend however. It is a rather rare sight so don't expect to be borrowing batteries when your's die during an event.
~Brad~ |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:05 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> The day I see Peter Miller show up with a disposable camera from CVS, I'll still nod and move over. Respect goes to the shooter not what he (or she) brings to the field.
Now the bigger question is, what will make your job easier? More consistent? Get backed up with loaners and programs designed to meet the needs of a working pro? Hold on to value so that when it's time to sell you can sell them fast and with max retained value? Those are the questions that you should consider when picking a camera system, not what the guy beside you is thinking about your Oly.
Worry only about your work product and what your editors/employers are thinking. |
|
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 1:24 PM on 10.16.09 |
| ->> Just don't put a point & shoot on a monopod. it's not necessary. |
|
Dirk Weaver, Photographer, Assistant
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 3:41 PM on 10.16.09 |
| ->> Good point Allen! |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 3:50 PM on 10.16.09 |
| ->> So, I am guessing that Allen and Dirk are not fans of the Oly? |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 4:04 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> Mike, that's not what they are saying. They are saying the same as above, if you act like a pro and your work shows it then it doesn't matter what gear you shoot with -- look at David Burnet's work shot with a $25 plastic Holga. He's had magazine double trucks with them.
The joke is you see a lot of people who have read the photography magazines that if you shoot sports you MUST have a monopod. And that leads to these tiny cameras and tiny lenses that pretty much anyone over the age of 12 can hand-hold being put on monopods.
The specs on the e-3 are not bad and if you turn out good work then, again, it doesn't matter. Look at the fact someone just did a book with an iPhone camera.
But do consider what Eric says. Look at the range of accessories, lenses and support you get with the system of your choice and see if it makes sense for you in the long run. Based on your needs you can use Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Leica, Hasselblad or whatever. If you think you will need the services of NPS or CPS or start doing remotes where you need wireless transmitters or you can't find the right cables for you cameras with Pocket Wizards etc. you may want to consider a system that gives you more of that. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 4:04 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> Somewhere in the Great Book of Photography I'm sure it says something like this:
Judge not, lest ye be judged by what ye attach to a monopod.
or
There's no need to hang a P&S camera on a stick except in a misguided attempt to look cool - or on rare occasion to attempt a Hail Mary overhead shot |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 4:10 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> George,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Like I said I am new here and not really sure about alot.
I know what you mean by a system that gives more of the support and extras. I have had issues with anything working with the Oly and thier flashes.
The only other company that I have found that makes lenses other than Zuiko is Sigma and I really like it but would like to have more of a variety.
Once again, thanks to everyone for thier input.
Mike |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 4:34 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> What's the best camera in the world?????
The one you have with you!!!! |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 4:52 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> The E-3 is a really impressive camera. The feature set is killer. The 2x 4/3 sensor means a hell of a lot of reach in an handheld package: E-3 plus 300 f/2.8 plus 2x equals handheld 1200mm f/5.7 Image Stabilized shooting.
Small sensor means smaller photon wells even though the E-3 has smaller circuits and better gates than earlier 4/3 cameras. On the 4/3 chip, it would be tough to get D3-like extreme high ISO results, and it shows some noise at 1600 and up.
Zuiko Glass is world-class. Focusing is swift. C-A-F without continually holding rear AF button is AWESOME, once you get used to it. Zuiko 7-14mm f/4 lens is impressive in rectilinear correction. 150mm f/2.0 lens is compact, and equals a 300mm fullframe in reach.
Shadow or highlight metering is very impressive and amazing for imaging on high-contrast days for selective exposures.
Weathertoughness at under $2K point can only be matched by the Pentax K-7.
Weathertoughness is mind-blowing: http://theblindmonkey.com/2009/08/how-to-break-an-olympus-e3.html
Andrew did this WITHOUT a housing.
It's great to see a pro shooting with something other than Canon and Nikon. Welcome to the site!
(Me, I shoot/have shot/will shoot with just about anything and everything-Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and so on and so on...) |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 7:06 PM on 10.16.09 |
| ->> it's the indian not the arrow |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 8:03 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> Jack,
Thanks for your insight. Your correct though, I will shoot anything which is why I am asking. Neither Olympus, Nikon, Canon or anyone pays me to use thier equipment so my loyalty is to my clients and my wallet.
You hit the nail on the head with the high ISO issues with the E-3, that is where my problem lies. I shoot alot of low light stuff. MMA, Boxing, Bands that kind of thing. My buddy shoots with a 40D and his images just seem so much cleaner. That is the one reason I am doubting the Oly.
One last question, so when I watch the video on SSA, when they said a 300mm is fine, would that be the same as the 150mm in Oly?
Thanks again,
Mike |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 8:52 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> Mike,
That question is really up in the air (the one about the 300mm)
Because you don't know which camera the 300 is being used on. Is it a 1DMKIII with a 1.3 crop factor, a D1H with a 1.5 crop factor, a D2X with it's 1.5 or 2 crop factor in use, a D3 full frame?
It's really funny because in the "old" days of film a 300 was the standard down-court basketball lens of many. In the switch to digital with a 1.5 crop did they start using a 200mm down court? No, most people stuck with a 300 which was now giving the film equivalent of a 420-450 depending on the camera.
Like choice of camera it's a personal preference and what you can afford. Go to a football game and you'll see one person with a 600 next to a person with a 400 next to one with a 300 next to one with a 35mm tilt-shift lens (yes, that would be Laforet at the Super Bowl a few years ago).
So it's about what you are wanting to create and how tight you want to go. Some folks like to shoot a little loose and have room to play with the crop, others like to go in-your-face as tight as they can all the time and really compress the depth of field.
Experiment, borrow gear and try different lenses and see what works for you and your vision. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:19 PM on 10.16.09 |
->> Mike, welcome to the site.
I mean with with no disrespect, but I think it might be you who is a little to worried with what equipment your using and not so much other shooters.
You introduced yourself in a manner that sort of suggest you expect people should not take you seriously because of your gear. There is no need for that at all. I have no clue what 99% of the members on this site use, be it Nikon, Canon, Fuji etc and it doesn't matter in the slightest.
I respect people for their contributions to the site and their work. What brand of camera they use makes zero difference to me in that regard and I'm confident everyone else here feels the same way.
Use whatever gear works for you and remember that your fellow shooters are not going to think less of if you use Olympus nor would they think more of you if you used Nikon/Canon. Heck, I've seen a good number of very well respected shooters actually tape over the logo's on their equipment.
I know on some other internet discussion sites there can be sort of a junior high style hierarchy with the guys who have the most or most expensive gear being the "cool kids" but SS is not like that in the least.
None of those people who worry about peoples equipment are editors or clients so pay no attention to what they think. |
|
Andrew Kornylak, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 2:06 AM on 10.17.09 |
->> Mike - Keep your Olympus kit. The Zuiko lenses are second to none and you have one of the best weathersealed cameras made. Don't waste your time or money chasing around the latest gadgets (which you can expect from Olympus too by the way). Get out there and push the gear you have to the limit.
Also, if you must try new gear, rent!
akorn |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:48 AM on 10.17.09 |
->> I have thought on and off about the E3 and 300/f2.8 as a dedicated long lens combo alongside my other Nikon gear. I mean, ya gotta put SOMETHING on the monopod.
Now that I know there's a fellow Virginia using Oly, I might not be too embarassed to try it. |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 10:33 AM on 10.17.09 |
->> The E-3 is a great camera. I love it, I have used it with everything from the 35-100mm f/2.0 t0 the 8mm fisheye. I just rented the 150mm for next weekends football game. I will let you know how that works. I have the E-3, E-30 and my first Evolt 500. I do love Oly.
My only issue with them are the low light, high ISO problems I have been having with the mma shows that I do.
Thanks for everyones input and help. This site so far has paid for itself! |
|
Rob Bye, Photographer
|
Winnipeg | MB | Canada | Posted: 4:45 PM on 10.17.09 |
->> From a sports photographer's point of view, there are about as many pluses to the Olympus system as there are minuses.
When I was still using Oly gear (I joined SportsShooter while using the E-1), I found Olympus was terribly slow at introducing up-to-date camera bodies, and they offered _no_ support to pro users. They seem to have more than enough bodies now - I just don't know if their support is any better. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:33 PM on 10.17.09 |
->> Mike,
If you really care what everybody else thinks, then yes, you will be taken more seriously as a professional photographer if you shoot with Canon or Nikon as opposed to Olympus.
--Mark |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 9:43 PM on 10.17.09 |
->> I have shot with the E-3, I think it is an excellent choice and lots of good reasons to shoot with it and the Olympus line up of lenses. I have been published many times with the photos from those shoots.
For that matter in the last couple of years I have also been published with shoots from everything from a Contax G1 35mm loaded with Tri-X to a Leaf Afi with a Leaf back.
While I would probably not show up on an ad shoot with an old Digital Rebel, for the most part the camera system you choose is not as relevant as what you create. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 9:08 AM on 10.18.09 |
->> Actually Olympus does have a professional service program:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/oima_slr_ogps.asp
I don't know how new the program is, or anything else about it.
Olympus has their "Olympus Visionaries", a list that has some impressive names (including Magnum photographers and Pulitzer Prize winners) but I can't find a complete listing, just a few names here and there.
And a list of some pros who use Olympus:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_top_photographers.htm
I browsed the list quickly and the only sports photographer I saw was Rob Trnka. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:23 AM on 10.18.09 |
->> Some random thoughts:
Regardless of the brand, it's ultimately the nut behind the viewfinder that counts. The camera is nothing more than a electronic paint brush.
I sneared at the Olympus OM-1 when it came out 35 years ago.
I ended up owning one and it was the best selling 35mm in the US it's first year. Damn good products. The lenses are sharp!
Someone recently asked me about which camera to buy. She says she is serious about photography and wants to upgrade. She was sure she had to have a Canon. I told her to go to a camera storesand ACTUALLY look through the viewfinder, hold the camera, see how it feels, the controls, etc. When she talked to me the following time, she said the camera that felt the best etc was the Pentax K-7 and she was saving for one of those. So much for Canon.
The low light problem is a issue. Stay on here for a few days and you'll run into Yamil Sued, who shoots with both Canon AND Nikon. This guys shoots a lot of catalog work and finds both have advantages. Maybe you rent a Nikon or Canon for MMA.
The people who care what brand you shoot with aren't photographers - they are gear hounds and generally speaking couldn't make a good image if there lives depended on it.
Ultimately, it's about the work - not what brand of camera. If the camera allows you to capture you vision the way you want to capture it, then it's the best camera brand. If Olympus does what you want, then you're set. If not, then find something that does. But don't worry about the label.
There are a lot of portrait/wedding shooters that use Olympus. |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 8:19 AM on 10.19.09 |
->> Maybe I worded it wrong from the begining. I didn'r really mean taken more serious. I guess my issue is more of a problem? I don't know really.
My issue/problem is the high ISO issues with the Oly for what I shoot. That seems to be the bottom line. I guess that is why I do see more ring/cage shooters with the Nikon/Canon setups.
So, I want to thank everyone for thier input. It was really helpful. I am just thinking now I have to make the switch to Canon/Nikon if I want to shoot the high ISO's the fights are making me shoot.
Thanks again everyone. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:18 AM on 10.19.09 |
| ->> Mike, I understand the advice some of my colleagues are giving you about "it doesn't really matter what kind of camera you have" but that is somewhat off the mark. It seems from what you have said here about what you shoot (cage fighting) that high ISO's are a must. From most of the cage fighting set-ups I have seen I can understand that. The Olympus may be a fine piece of equipment for controlled light situations (portraits and weddings) but if it has poor high ISO performance (as you have mentioned) what good is it? You could be the best shooter in the world but I would humbly suggest that if the final product looks like crap, because of technical issues, no one cares what kind of talent you might be. Part of being a professional is being technically proficient. If I was concerned about the image quality my gear was producing I would be in the market for new gear. good luck to you. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 11:15 AM on 10.19.09 |
| ->> I guess I'm with Chuck on this. From images I've seen it appears Oly has made great strides in performance < ISO 1600. Once you get to ISO 3200, comparing what something like the Nikon D3 or D700 produce to Oly, I'm just not seeing how Oly is in the same league. For that matter, even my Canon 1dmkIII isn't in the same league. Like it or not, a full-frame low pixel sensor design provides a great technical advantage. So while, in general, I agree with the "it doesn't matter what brand you shoot with" talk, I have to say from what is out there on the market today if I were counting on high ISO images to put food on the table I'd give Nikon a hard look. Not because of the name but because they simply produce a technically cleaner product at higher ISOs and given sensor sizes I'm not sure how Oly makes up that ground. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:27 PM on 10.19.09 |
->> David,
You might remember that, back in the day, UPI adopted Olympus as their staff gear supplier. The experience was terrible. The DC bureaus constantly had a box of broken gear ready to be shipped off for repair.
I took a brand news OM-1 with a motor and a 180 f/2.8 out to a soccer match in Antwerp. It jammed after the first burst. I pulled my Nikon out of the bag and never touched the Olympus gear again.
--Mark |
|
Mike Burns, Photographer
|
Reston | VA | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 10.20.09 |
->> So, now becomes the task of coming to grips with what I have does not fit the need of what I shoot.
Anyone wanna trade? |
|
Eric Linsley, Photographer
|
West Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 9:04 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> I have a question for all the pros out there and I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread so I just figured I will continue with this one.
The question is why when I look at places to shoot for they all say you must have xxD or a mark 1,2,3 or whatever the Nikon's cameras are if the camera is not as important as the results that come out of it?
The reason I ask is because I have a Rebel XT. The glass I own is a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and also a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 9:52 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> What places would these be?
So called 'gear requirements' are usually designed to filter out moms with cameras and those shooting technically-poor images usually with inferior gear [that would be unusable or un-sellable]
That said, I've seen some pretty good pix made with a Holga, and some pretty awful ones made with a Canon 1DsMkIII |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 10:05 PM on 10.26.09 |
->> Eric,
I would be equally annoyed because I might show up with a medium format camera shooting film or with a digital back.... Would they figure that out?
Maybe buy a very used Canon 1D and hang on your shoulder. I am sure I have seen them for as little as $250. Maybe you will even find it better than your Rebel in some ways. Not everything is megapixels. |
|
Eric Linsley, Photographer
|
West Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 10.26.09 |
| ->> Yeah Ian I was thinking about going that way also. Thanks for the post |
|
Patrick Murphy-Racey, Photographer
|
Powell | TN | USA | Posted: 9:12 AM on 10.27.09 |
->> on a recent trip to the dungeon that is underneath Roberts in Indy, Jody remarked to me that the Sony Full-frame camera is really awesome and that many portrait shooters have made the switch in that direction and that they have both saved money and increased their quality.
I've got a 20x30" print in my office that I shot on a motorcycle trip last summer up in Labrador. It was shot with a G10 and it's stunning.
Olympus was one of the first companies to really see where things were headed a few years ago. They bravely bagged all their gear that wasn't ready for this century and set about to reinvent themselves. From what I see, it's going well for them and I don't think they're done yet. I think sometimes smaller companies can make changes faster and respond to new technology in ways that are often more difficult for larger ones.
Olympus was messing with liquid polymer batteries seven years ago... now we're starting to see that technology arrive in our phones and other batts... |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 2:01 PM on 10.27.09 |
->> ~15-20 years ago, American Photo used to have this feature on the last page of the magazine profiling a different pro's gear in every issue. Sometimes it was event oriented, sometimes it was their daily newspaper, mag, or freelance kit. Once they profiled a (French, I think) photographer who showed off six cameras and lenses that he used in his daily work.
His approach was to shop for lenses that he wanted to use, and then to buy affordable cameras to fit them --- so his kit included several Nikon FM2, FE2, or FA bodies with prime lenses, an Olympus with something, and a couple of non-1 EOS film cameras with the 20-35/2.8 and 80-200/2.8.
Certainly there are drawbacks to this --- compatibility is nice. On the other hand, if you have a system that works for most of your shooting, and is paid for, then perhaps dip a toe into a different system to meet the equipment demands that are left unanswered by the Olympus.
As your Olympus gear wears out you can choose whether to replace it, or whether to buy more heavily into the other system.... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|