Studio SLR

P

princeclan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
339
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Do you think an Olympus E3 or E30 would be a good studio camera?

As people often say the low light shots arent as good with a four thirds sensor due to size and the noise is greater. But in a studio i could pretty much control the light to factor out this negative point.

Or would i be better with something with an APS-C sized sensor (canon 40d, sony a700, pentax k20d, nikon d90 etc)

Matt
 
I have an E-3, and find it great for studio work. On here though, in the main you're unlikely to get anyone else to agree with me on that point! :)

I guess to a certain extent it also depends what else you want to do. The E-3 is a good all round camera, and performs well in most environments - even when using high ISO, contrary to popular myth. It's not in the same league as the Nikon D700 and latest Canon offerings though.
 
As you say, in a studio you can control the light and work at base ISO and your camera should be fine for regular stuff.

But you can also do the same with something like a full frame Canon 5D2, and that will blow your Olympus clean away if you were to compare big prints. But like I say, for regular stuff the 4/3rds format is quite capable, and of course it has its own unqiue benefits (which is presumably why you bought it ;) ).
 
HoppyUK said:
As you say, in a studio you can control the light and work at base ISO and your camera should be fine for regular stuff.

But you can also do the same with something like a full frame Canon 5D2, and that will blow your Olympus clean away if you were to compare big prints. But like I say, for regular stuff the 4/3rds format is quite capable, and of course it has its own unqiue benefits (which is presumably why you bought it ;) ).
Click to expand...

Hi,

What unique benefits do they have? (havent bought it yet)

Matt
 
princeclan said:
Hi,

Do you think an Olympus E3 or E30 would be a good studio camera?

As people often say the low light shots arent as good with a four thirds sensor due to size and the noise is greater. But in a studio i could pretty much control the light to factor out this negative point.

Or would i be better with something with an APS-C sized sensor (canon 40d, sony a700, pentax k20d, nikon d90 etc)

Matt
Click to expand...

As has been said . It all depends on what you want and expect from it.

If your shooting in a studio enviroment for yourself ie personal use or for familey and friends and are not planning on blowing shots up fr the side of building . then YES it would / is fine for this
imo

mind alot will depend on how you use whatever it is in your hands:naughty:


md:thumbs:
 
princeclan said:
Hi,

What unique benefits do they have? (havent bought it yet)

Matt
Click to expand...

Slightly smaller. If that's an advantage. That's it basically. There are other benefits, and they are real, but they all have a downside (equally real). You can argue this all day.

Basically the small sensor gives more reach and enables lower f/number lenses, but it is always fighting noise and the sharpness requirements really push the lenses. Olympus has some great spec f/2 lenses, but the prices are high (and they're not very small!). You also get two stops more depth of field with 4/3rds format compared to full frame, if this is an advantage to you.

Olympus has always been 'different' and this has worked very well for them in the past. But being different in this case, just for the sake of it, doesn't seem to be doing it - 4/3rds cameras have a tiny market share.

If you haven't committed to a system yet, I would choose Nikon and the D90 from your list. But I have a Canon 40D and am very happy with it indeed, plus they're going for very good prices right now.
 
Thanks for the replies!!

Been thinking about full frame but dont know if there would be any benefit to a good aps-c

Would i ever see a real benefit in a studio by using a full frame instead of a good apsc from the list in my first post. If not i may as well save a ton of cash

Matt
 
Like it has been said tons of times already.... it depends on the output.

I shoot on full frame and I love it. For what I do it's absolutley ideal but I would not want to go birding with them!

Full frame does give an advantage for me because the sensor is larger. The files are bigger but the detail allows me to blow the images up to 100-200% in photoshop for working with fine detail.

I also love the colour rendition I get from the 5D. It will still shoot up to ISO 1600 when required but for people pics I still think they take some beating. :)
 
So a Canon 5d would be a good move then. Only problem is you cant buy em new anywhere these days and no way i want to pay over 2k for the mk2 version.

Matt
 
It's the law of diminishing returns with full frame, but it would be hard to argue that something like a 5D2 with some choice prime L lenses would make the ultimate studio outfit.

But the cost is huge, and unless you are printing very big a lot of the time you will be hard pressed to see the advantage over crop format.

I think it is easier to argue in favour of 1.5x crop (Nikon) or 1.6x (Canon) and the comprehensive system of cameras and lenses offered by those makers, over the significantly smaller 4/3rds format, than it is the argue the benefits of full frame.

There's no doubt that the most choice and best value for money lies with crop format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top