Non-digital Olympus vs Nikon vs Canon advice

After many years of using first an OM-1 then an OM-10 (which unfortunately died a painful and permanent death 3 years ago), I am at a loss as to which new (old) camera to buy...

I do not do digital..please don't go there.

Having only used Olympus before, can someone impartially tell me what the major differences/ benefits are between Olympus/ Nikon/ Canon...and why my new purchase should be one over the others?

And, where would be the best place to look for a non-digital, SLR one when I'm ready to buy?

Thanks!

well if your looking for film camera nikon and canon still make them. I am not sure as to the major differences but i am sure with a little research at both websites you can find out. if your talking old cameras, Canon has always been cutting edge. Their are some old film pro's here some place if you can find them.
May I ask why you do not do digital?

You asked:
"May I ask why you do not do digital?"

I have borrowed a few digital cmaeras, and they all seem to have this "delay" thing when you press the shutter button....You press it, and there us a second or two delay, then the picture is taken.
I do not like that...I want to catch what I want *as* it happens...not 1 or 2 seconds later...

And since I have used a regular SLR for over 30 years, I am extremely comfortable with them, know how they work (well, the Olymous ones anyway).

Us "old fogeies" don't adapt to this new technology, you know....

fatpossum wrote:

I have borrowed a few digital cmaeras, and they all seem to have this "delay" thing when you press the shutter button....You press it, and there us a second or two delay, then the picture is taken.
I do not like that...I want to catch what I want *as* it happens...not 1 or 2 seconds later...

That's an anomaly probably due to poor lighting making the camera want flash. The only time I've had a digital camera do that is in those conditions. There are ways to bypass that problem.

It's an inaccurate comparison if you don't know how to use the camera.

Among other specialties, I shoot sports and for that I require fast response (I've got a Nikon D80). Not even using burst mode, I can shoot as quickly as I can keep hitting the shutter button. Try that with a film camera. And with the Nikon D3, you can get up to 11 frames per second. At that rate, you'd be changing the film every three seconds.

Well, not to disagree with you, but these were used both inside (I used to tak pictures of adoptable animals at a local animal shelter) as well as outside.

I got the same results, with two seperate cameras.

Now, having said *that*, I'm curious, and interested, to hear why a digital camera is better than a regular SLR.
Keep it to real-world applications, I am not interested in "because it's new and cutting edge and has all these bells and whistles"....

I have a 18 year old CD player, and a 28 year-old Nakamichi cassette deck (BION) that still work fine, no need to get a new one just because it's all "shiney and new"...

Possum, it is not really a bells and whistles thing although many of the newer cameras have plenty. The added advantages to digital are numorus,but the big things. cost of film, cost of printing, being able to review images before you print to pick out the ones you actually like even while you are still in the field. you can delete bad images right off the batt if they didn't turn out. these asvantages go for all digital cameras regardless of the bells and whistles. if you had shutter lag it was probably the camera trying to tell you the light was bad or something to that degree. I am also a nikonian and i can tell you when I push the button it takes the picture and if I have it on continuous, it will take many pictures with in seconds. with moving subjects like kids or animals, you almost can't miss the shot. I started out with a 35mm film camera, now i own two dslrs

I dunno...maybe I need to go somehwre and try out some digital ones.

Have any suggestions?
Other than Best Buy??

I do mostly scenic, and weird stuff like fungus and so forth.

John gave a good list of advantages. My main reasons for preferring digital over film:

• Instant feedback on a shot. I can review any shot as soon as it's taken. I can even zoom in to extreme detail.


• I can delete any shot in-camera.


• Shot capacity. With a 2Gb card, I can get over 160 of the largest and highest resolution shots my camera offers. Changing a card takes 3-5 seconds (essential in shooting sports).


• Variable ISO. From one shot to another, I can switch from 100 ISO to 3200 ISO or any value in between. The Nikon D3 can shoot cleanly up to around 28,000 ISO.


• Easy ability to adjust for any color-temperature.


• Burst-mode shooting without an expensive motor-drive. (Also essential for sports. Not essential for photographing pets, though it can come in handy.) I get 3fps with my D80, but a D3 can get up to 11fps. John recently posted a page for a DSLR that can do around 60fps.


• Ease of backup. In film, the negative is the only copy of the original shot. In digital, it's easy to make backup copies in seconds. Some cameras now have two card slots. The second slot can be used to double the number of shots taken or can be used as an instant backup of the first card.


• Last but not least: Ease of editing the image. I can do in minutes what could take hours or days in film.

Possum, I'm a lot like you in not caring to be on the bleeding edge of technology. I'm running XP Pro on an eight-year-old Pentium 4 PC. I've still got my collection of cassettes and vinyl LPs. I change cars, on average, about every 12 years.

I'd probably be pretty resistant to change over to digital if I were heavily invested in film equipment and I was happy with the work I was doing with film. Luckily I had nearly no investment in film equipment when I went looking for a new camera. My sister, however, did have a considerable investment in film equipment but she made the leap gladly. The advantages in getting the shot, total workflow, and control over the image in postprocessing are all (IMO) overwhelming inducements to switch. Your mileage may vary.

Personally, I resisted the "switch" up until just a couple of years ago. Mostly, I refused to be baited by gimmicks which is what I considered digital photography to be. But now, I no longer even own any film cameras for many reasons. Here's my main reasons for switching.

Cost: When considering film pricing and processing, my first DSLR paid for itself within a few months of purchasing. As an example: I recently photographed a swim meet for a local swim club. I shot around 1200 frames, and had I shot this in film it would have ran me at least $300 if not more. Not to mention the time I would have spent scanning, color correcting, etc.

Demand: The way people use photos has largely changed in the recent/past few years. People these days want photos to e-mail, put on websites, etc.

Support: In my area, few labs are available for processing. The few that do just scan the negatives and print them digitally so you really don't get a silver halide print anyway.

Quality: When shooting film, I shot in 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5 formats. My D200 shoots sharper images than I ever got from any of the film formats.

Control: Since switching to digital, I have complete control over my images from start to finish. My photography is no longer at the mercy of a lab. When I lived in Spokane, we had 2 decent labs and I had to travel downtown to drop-off and pick-up. All the while hoping they used fresh chemicals, got the masking, cropping, and color correcting the way I want it.

Quite honestly, my photography has improved more in the last couple of years than it did in more than 20 years before that. This is mainly because I can shoot freely, anytime, and as much as I want without the hassle and expense of dealing with film and labs.

Anyway, that's my 2 centavos.

fatpossum wrote:

I have borrowed a few digital cmaeras, and they all seem to have this "delay" thing when you press the shutter button....You press it, and there us a second or two delay, then the picture is taken.
I do not like that...I want to catch what I want *as* it happens...not 1 or 2 seconds later...

It just dawned on me that the digital cameras you used may have been point-and-clicks. Or were they DSLRs?

I've found that most digital point-and-clicks have an annoying delay in general. So many times I've taken shots of tourists with their own camera (a point-and-click) and the camera didn't shoot when I pressed the shutter but when I thought it was done and I lowered the camera. Using a point-and-click I usually end up getting their feet and I have to reshoot.

At having to do a reshoot, the people usually look skeptically at me. One person actually said, "You're a real photographer?" My reply: "Yeah... when I have a real camera."

Anyhow, I hope the indictment of digital wasn't based on a point-and-click.

Hmmm...OrcaBob and FloppyDog...interesting, definitaly "food for thought"..

A few questions more, please...

1. I do a lot of Macro-focus stuff...fungi and weird insects...as well as telephoto stuff too
(yeah, i'm not good with proper terminolgy..I still don't know what the proper name of the big-computer-part-that-sits-on-he-desk is actually called..I call it "the computer"

Are there lenses for these purposes with digital cameras?

And is there a place to use a tripod on the bottom of them?

2. What are your suggestions for the best (within reason...)allowing for XYZ megapixels (is that right?)..as I understnad the higher the mega-pixel number, the more fine-grain your image.

3.Since I have never been able to master ther "art" of putting photos from my cell phone (rare) onto my computer, how the *** am I going to be able/ how much of a pain will it be to do this with a digital camera?
I bought the proper "USB" cable...hooked it to the phone, then to the computer...and zip, nada, nothing...doesn't even realize anything is plugged into it.
This is a fairly new computer too...Windows operating system, not a Mac.

I don' lak teknologee....

hey possum first off, there are several macro lenses per camera manufacturer. one of the guys in here actually does some incredible macro photography.
second. and i have yet to find a DSLR without a tripod screw set.
your second question is almost un answer-able. many of the "best" cameras may not be best for you. unfortunatley it really comes down to feel & cost for the most part. A nikon D3x (nikon's most expensive camera) is great for modeling and still work, but you will not find it in a sports photographers hands where as the older D3 is thought to be one of the best. what is usually thought to be best is to try these cameras out and get the best you can afford. Do not go by the Canon is better than Nikon or visa versa because when it comes down to it, your the one thats going to be handling it. I will say one thing about canons and that is if it is one of the rebel series of cameras, I would personally steer clear of it.
in todays build, i would not look to long at the megapixels, I have seen 6mp cameras give incredible 20x30 prints. that being said most of your cameras that you look at will be between 12 - 15. any of them will give you great images.

Hopefully Bob will pop in here with some megapixel advise as well

fatpossum wrote:

Hmmm...OrcaBob and FloppyDog...interesting, definitaly "food for thought"..

A few questions more, please...

1. I do a lot of Macro-focus stuff...fungi and weird insects...as well as telephoto stuff too
(yeah, i'm not good with proper terminolgy..I still don't know what the proper name of the big-computer-part-that-sits-on-he-desk is actually called..I call it "the computer")

Definitely your biggest mental hurdle would be the change in workflow and the issue of postprocessing. You won't need to become a computer epxert, but you will need to learn some image-editing tool. For starters, I'd recommend Photoshop Elements. It's inexpensive ($80 at Costco) but a powerful little package.

Are there lenses for these purposes with digital cameras?

Yes, there are lenses made specifically for digital cameras, but you can also use a lens made for a film camera. Greg is good at explaining that issue.

And is there a place to use a tripod on the bottom of them?

Yep.
You can even get tripods and monopods with quick-release mounts, so that you can keep the mount screwed onto your camera and lock the camera onto (or release it from) the tripod with minimal effort. No twist-twist-twist of the thumbscrew.

2. What are your suggestions for the best (within reason...)allowing for XYZ megapixels (is that right?)..as I understnad the higher the mega-pixel number, the more fine-grain your image.

"What camera is best?" is the eternal open-ended debate. As for the appeal of megapixels, Greg usually explains it best.

3.Since I have never been able to master ther "art" of putting photos from my cell phone (rare) onto my computer, how the *** am I going to be able/ how much of a pain will it be to do this with a digital camera?
I bought the proper "USB" cable...hooked it to the phone, then to the computer...and zip, nada, nothing...doesn't even realize anything is plugged into it.
This is a fairly new computer too...Windows operating system, not a Mac.

Once you hook up the camera to the PC (or slip the memory card into a card-reader), the operating system considers the camera or card just another storage device (i.e., hard drive with its own drive letter). Transferring is really easy. Usually the OS pops up a message saying it recognizes the new device... now what do you want to do with it?

Some image-processing software (Photoshop with the Bridge application, for example) will even do the transfer for you with minimal guidance from you. I usually prefer to handle the transfer myself, but that's a personal preference.

I don' lak teknologee....:P

Understandable. Sometimes I don't like it either, and I'm an IT techie by education and over twenty years experience. My sister, a 30-year pro, teaches courses in photography and Photoshop and she's not a techie by any means. Just establish relationships with people who can guide you in their various specialties and you've got it made.

fatpossum wrote:

I do not do digital..please don't go there.

Possum,
I realize you set out to stay in the film world and not be beset by the digital folks. I hope you didn't feel besieged. It's just that not only are there some major advantages to digital, but your immediate situation is the perfect time to at least weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a jump to the dark side.

"Be one of us! Be one of us!"



But we'll still like ya if you stay in the film world.

Bob

Bob, I LOVE the graphic!

Possum; Delving into the digital world doesn't mean you must retire your film gear. One way to look at aquiring a DSLR is you're simply adding another tool to the tool bag.

Last year there was a young graphic designer in an art class I was taking with a very peculiar and effective work flow. He created some absolutely stunning gothic/mystical scenes and characters by hand in charcoal. He then scanned them finished them using Photoshop and Fractal Designer.

FloppyDog wrote:

Bob, I LOVE the graphic!

Thanks! Just for the record, it's not mine, but a linked movie poster.

It would be fun to try that kind of graphic, though.

"Once you hook up the camera to the PC (or slip the memory card into a card-reader), the operating system considers the camera or card just another storage device (i.e., hard drive with its own drive letter). Transferring is really easy. Usually the OS pops up a message saying it recognizes the new device... now what do you want to do with it?"

Oh, if only it worked like that...
When I hooked up my printer, that’s what happened…some prompt popped up that said “new device noticed’ or some such…then you could go through the steps to install.
When I connected the cable to the cell phone (a Motorola Razor) and then to the computer, nothing happened, no message popped up …
I did have the correct USB cable…*did* connect it to the right “hole” in the back of the computer…
Don’t say ask a friend…I have no friends….I’m a old, cranky, hygiene-challenged hermit…
Not really, but seriously, I don’t have anyone local *to* ask. Not going to call Geek Squad...
I have some pictures on my computer I got off a disk made from film negatives…it says “Snapfire image”
Will I be able to use that…?
Or have to buy that software that someone mentioned further up earlier?
Thanks for being patient with this ‘tard asking all these questions.

hey possum. I wanted to touch on the cell phone camera deal for a second since you had brought it up a couple of times.
with cell phones you have to understand that they are a secondary thought and not a main priority. Cell cameras started as a sales gimmick that turned into a standard, although most cell cameras are horrible. Transfering images from reader to PC or cam to PC is a very simple process.
Also you mentioned you do not have anyone to help walk you through the process, pretty much anyone here would be more than willing.

Possum,
FYI - Olympus does make some fine digital cameras. Alghouth I am not in the same realm as some of the excellent photogs on this board, I do love my Oly. I am getting ready to take the jump to the next level and make the move to the Oly E3.

When I firt got my OlyE500 it came with 2 kit lenses, 14-55 mm and a 40-150 mm, which bode well for portrait and macro photography out of the box. The only issue with the kit lenses is that they are not great under low light conditions.

The Oly has an interchangeable 4/3 lense system and has some fine qualities that some of the other folks have mentioned.

My $0.02

I too echo the sentiments, join us in the digital world!!

Good luck.

Try that with a film camera. And with the Nikon D3, you can get up to 11 frames per second. At that rate, you'd be changing the film every three seconds.

fatpossum wrote:

After many years of using first an OM-1 then an OM-10 (which unfortunately died a painful and permanent death 3 years ago), I am at a loss as to which new (old) camera to buy...

I do not do digital..please don't go there.

Having only used Olympus before, can someone impartially tell me what the major differences/ benefits are between Olympus/ Nikon/ Canon...and why my new purchase should be one over the others?

And, where would be the best place to look for a non-digital, SLR one when I'm ready to buy?

Thanks!

None of the above. Leicaflex all the way, man!