> For what your trying to shhot ( people etc in adverse lighting) I'd try to
> go a good flash first. I understand what your saying about teh noise. If a
> flash image is acceptible that's the most cost effective.
Actually I have a flash that is quite good. In the situation I described
(tech talk shooting) I had to deal with a former electric power
transformation substation; the ceiling is about 8 meters high, plus it
is not white. So using a flash indirectly was not an option, and direct
flash light was not possible as well (it would have disturbed the
"show", and I was not close enough either (I was shooting with a 300mm
zoom lens (full format equiv.)).
> Your not really
> saying where your budget is at..
You're right -- I am rather trying to figure out how big or small my
budget would have to be :-) I ran into situations where low light is an
issue quite often in the past, but I could mostly solve it with ISO 100
and looooong exposure times. But as soon as it comes to movement
(people) in low light, that's of course not an option. I would need:
Body, fisheye (can be cropped, no full circular necessary), and one or
two lenses that cover a zoom range of about 28 - 300 (FF equivalent). I
have no clue how much I would have to invest here, especially regarding
the outstanding quality of my Zuiko lenses. For instance, my 14-54 has
literally no barrel distorsion in the widest zoom position and is
> The expense is way bigger then just the
> camera body as you'll need a lens or two malso an da few other periferals. I
> would check to see if Olympus has somethig already or on te horizon that
> will get you out of teh box before switching to Canon or Nikon unless your
> looking for an excuse to do so.
I'm absolutely aware about the fact that it's not only the body to be
bought... Actually, I have a 16mm (FF equi.) fisheye (excellent), a
28-108mm (FF equiv.) zoom lens (excellent) and a 80-300mm (FF equiv.)
zoom lens (OK, but not perfect), a system flash and a wireless remote
control, and of course stuff like additional batteries, white-balance
filter in the right size and so on. All this was expensive, and I love
my camera, but it's just not the best choice for low- or even
available-light-photography. Olympus sticks to the Four Thirds sensors
(which is a good thing because they make good cameras, and they are
really good for a variety of photography types). But -- noise is
something Canon and Nikon seem to handle better, from all what I have
heard and seen. So, waiting for a "better Four Thirds camera" does not
seem to solve that noise problem for me, because it's simply a
characteristic of the rather small FourThirds-sensors.
In fact, I don't care too much about brands, so I don't need an excuse
for switching :-) I just need better low-light performance, and Olympus'
top-model (E-3) is not the answer here, I'm afraid.
> Anyway all the newer or more recent models
> both FX and DX have much improved noise issues at higher iso's.. With FX
> doing the best but costing more of course.
I'll have to investigate what the lower-priced Canons and Nikons can do,
and how much good lenses (not the kit lenses) put on top monetarily.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your response!