Has any one seen a good comparison of IQ between the E-3 and Canon 40-D? I suppose this depends a bit on the lens so for example the E-3 with 12-60 vs canon 40-D with 17-55 ef-s?
A friend af mine and a long time E-1 user got his E-3 a month ago and says it's great. We were planning to meet and compare it to my Canon 5D. According to him the ISO performance is good and in general just a very good camera ..but so are the D300 and D40.
Personally I think Olympus is making a mistake by having the big glass so expensive. Check out the price of the 300/2.8!! This price policy makes the only real advantage of the 2x crop much less interesting.
Yea the high grade stuff is expensive. The aspect that appeals to me is that 12-60 or 14-54 lenses which seem to be solid performers. Also (if it is not too expensive) the 14-35f2 might be very interesting. But anything on the long end that is beyond the 50-200 is insanely expensive.
I get the impression the E3 is definately a huge hit for Olympus and in many ways a "game changer" for the perception of the 4/3rds system. I expect that when Olympus gets around to adding more fast prime lenses, many more will buy into the system. I may add one to shoot alongside my 5D due to these benefits not offered by my 5D:
1) 4/3rds is an "ideal" format which enlarges to standard print sizes with no to little waste. Thus the 10MP E3 could be compared to a 12MP APS or full frame camera once the later images were cropped for standard size prints. This would also make it much easier to compose images which need to be printed at standard sizes.
2) In body IS of between 3-5 stops is a big deal and would allow the use of lower ISO's and/or higher F-stops/lower shutter speeds for better image quality under conditions that previoulsy would not be possible.
3) The 4/3rds system allows for greater depth of field when using lenses wide open compared to larger sensor based cameras. This is important, particularly combined with number 2 above, when shooting in very low light as increased DOF is often needed in exactly this scenario. The reverse situation is that acheiving creative use of shallow DOF is difficult with such a small sensor.
4) Pro Build quality with "weather resistance" so good as to be practicaly weather proof.
5) Articulated "Live View" lcd screen very useful for studio setups at low or high angles. I wish it had been implemented for better use of "live" subjects as I get the impression that its really too slow to use for Portraiture. This is the one point which has prevented me from buying the E3 thus far. I want a camera which I can hold at waist level and shoot people just like I can with my Hasselblad.
6) All of the above for $1699 is a real deal which no other camera offers.
To start with:
Zuiko 300mm f/2.8 E-ED costs $5,895. To get the same reach with a 40D, you need a Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM which costs $5,300. Yes, the Zuiko is insanely expensive, but all super-telephoto lenses are.
Have a look then at Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 E-ED. The price for that one is $1,950. The Canon 200mm f/2.0 (same reach again) isn't on the market yet, but I think we can be very sure that it will cost well above $2,000. The Nikkor variety is $4,500 btw.
If you go for the medium level glass from Olympus, the prices are really nice, and the 50-200 doesn't really have much competition.
You can compare image quality at one of the pixel-peeper places, I believe it's www.imaging-resource.com, who have tested both. There's also some guy at dpreview who has compared it to the D300, I belive. Look at the Olympus DSLR forum.
But all of these cameras deliver excellent quality. What's important is how you feel using them, and if the feature set of each camera is according to your needs.
Commercially, the E-3 seems to be a big success, and for the first time in many years, Olympus is attracting owners of other brands.
With the superb build quality of the E-3 and the lenses, the excellent image quality, the feature-set and the sharp lenses as well as well planned lens line-up, Olympus is hard to beat for a medium-level DSLR system at the moment, although other cameras are good as well.
But when it comes to insanely expensive lenses.... no, they can't really compete. There are so many of those around
I guess what concerns me about the oly system is being able to find lenses along the line of the 70-200f4L ($500) and 85f1.4 ($600). The wides and mid range they seem to have covered with the zooms (esp the 14-35f2) but they could use a low light (i suppose hte leica 25f1.4 is suppose to fill that void).
I'm not sure if I used imaging resources correctly but it comparing hte 40d to the e-3 it seems that (at least jpeg processed image) the iso 3200 was very soft. The 1600 seemed much close to the canon and low iso images seemed fine.
I guess feature wise the the 40d and oly both have what I would expect. To me the oly plus is lower distortion zoom and better dust removal/in body is. The 40d allows me to use my old contax lenses, better selection of mid tele primes (I'm generally do not use long tele) and probably better commercial support (third party software).
how is the olympus supplied software and/or olympus usa for service ?
E3 was designed to compete with the likes of 30D/40D and D200/D300 and E3 is without doubt the best 4/3rds camera yet. The lens range is dominated by 3 tiers of zoom lenses as opposed to primes, as soon as some of the top tier lenses are refitted with SWD for fast AF, Olympus will get to the primes.
Principle problem for Oly is that they started again with the lens suite and it takes time to introduce an entire range. The highest priced lenses that are 'always' quoted when comparing prices have a good deal of hand construction and hand polished glass, hence the price. Generally needs can be sufficed with 12-60 and 50-200, thats 24mm to 400mm EFL in 2 lenses. Since 4/3rds is by comparison a short register many other lenses can be retrofit via adapters, but not EOS system glass.
Somebody on anther fora posted these results from DIWA
Color/Exposure
1) Color Fidelity: E-3 > D300 > 40D
2) Color Sensitivity: D300 > 40D > E-3
3) White Balance Accuracy: E-3 > 40D > D300
4) ISO Sensitivity: E-3 > D300 > 40D
Noise/Sensitivity
5) Signal/Noise (Green Channel)
(ISO 100) D300 > 40D > E-3
(ISO 200) D300 > 40D = E-3
(ISO 400) D300 > E-3 > 40D
(ISO 800) D300 > E-3 > 40D
(ISO 1600) D300 > E-3 > 40D
(ISO 3200) E-3 > D300 > 40D
Acceptable S/N (Green Channel > 36db)
D300 <= ISO 800
E-3 <= ISO 400
40D <= ISO 400
6) Grain Size: D300 > E-3 > 40D
7) Dynamic Range (Luminance)
(ISO 100) 40D > E-3 > D300
(ISO 200) 40D > E-3 > D300
(ISO 400) 40D > E-3 > D300
(ISO 800) 40D > E-3 > D300
(ISO 1600) 40D > D300 > E-3
(ISO 3200) 40D > D300 > E-3
Acceptable DR (Luminance Channel >= 8)
40D <= ISO 3200
E-3 < ISO 800 (almost)
D300 <= ISO 1600
8) Acceptable Tonal Range (>7bits)
E-3 <= ISO 1600
D300 <= ISO 1600
40D <= ISO 800
But does it really NEED to be so expensive? Canon's 300mm f2.8 IS L costs only $3,900, is a stellar performer and produces twice the image circle of the Oly 4/3'rds lens.
No, there is no way that the Oly 300mm f2.8 needs to so expensive. They are pricing it based on the APS-equivalent competitor (as you imply), so that the benefits of the 4/3rd system accrues not the user (i.e. being able to use smaller, less expensive lenses) but to Olympus through excessive mark-ups over cost in the pricing system. As was rightly suggested by another, it really defeats the purpose of the 4/3'rd system.
Edited by Lotusm50 on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:58 PM GMT (Reason: grammer!)
Lotusm50 wrote:
But does it really NEED to be so expensive? Canon's 300mm f2.8 IS L costs only $3,900 is a stellar performer and produces twice the image circle of the Oly 3/4'rds lens.
No, there is no way that the Oly 300mm f2.8 needs to so expensive. They are pricing it based on the APS-equivalent competitor (as you imply), so that the benefits of the 4/3rd system accrues not the user (i.e. being able to use smaller, less expensive lenses) but to Olympus through excessive mark-ups over cost in the pricing system. As was rightly suggested by another, it really defeats the purpose of the 4/3'rd system. ...Show more →
I have no idea what the production cost of the Zuiko 300 is, and frankly, it doesn't interest me. What interests me is what it will do on my camera. It does the same thing on the E-3 as a 600mm f/5.6 does on a 5D, providing the 5D is 2 stops more light sensitive, which I doubt. Is the Oly combo cheaper? Yes, it is. Is the Oly combo lighter? Yes, it is. Is the Canon image quality superior? Possibly, slightly. Would my customers notice? No way!
The lens that has the same FOV as as a 5D with the 300/2.8, is the Zuiko 150/2.0. I know which one I would rather pay for, and which one I would rather carry to a mountain top.
4/3 isn't the answer to all questions asked by anybody, but for certain purposes, which includes travelling, trekking and any situation where I need a compact, well-built system that doesn't break my neck if I have to carry it for a day or two, it's the best there is (with the possible exception of Leica M).
Does the Zuiko 300 need to be that expensive? Possibly not, but lenses produced in small quantities (Zuiko 300) tend to be more expensive than lenses produced in large quantities (Canon 300). If I want to complain about prices of lenses that I'm not going to buy, I prefer to complain about Leica. That gives me more dollars to complain about
you2 wrote:
I'm not sure if I used imaging resources correctly but it comparing hte 40d to the e-3 it seems that (at least jpeg processed image) the iso 3200 was very soft. The 1600 seemed much close to the canon and low iso images seemed fine.
I guess feature wise the the 40d and oly both have what I would expect. To me the oly plus is lower distortion zoom and better dust removal/in body is. The 40d allows me to use my old contax lenses, ...
You can use the Contax (CY) lenses on the Olympus as well. Cameraquest has an adapter. Here's their list of 4/3 adapters:
Contax/Yashica, Nikon, Olympus OM, Leica R, Pentax 42 Screw Mount, Pentax K, Minolta MD, Rollei SL, Exakta, and Topcon Lenses.
If a major bulk of your photography will be at ISO3200, the E-3 is probably not your camera, and neither is the 40D. Canon 1DIII or Nikon D3 would be much better for that, and even the 5D.
On the other hand, the E-3 will give you in-body IS, saving at least 3 stops (up to 5 according to Olympus), with lenses such as the Leica 25/1.4, Sigma 30/1.4 and Zuiko 50/2. 3 stops take you all the way from 3200 to 400, providing your subject doesn't move too much.
Lotusm50 wrote:
But does it really NEED to be so expensive? Canon's 300mm f2.8 IS L costs only $3,900, is a stellar performer and produces twice the image circle of the Oly 4/3'rds lens.
No, there is no way that the Oly 300mm f2.8 needs to so expensive. They are pricing it based on the APS-equivalent competitor (as you imply), so that the benefits of the 4/3rd system accrues not the user (i.e. being able to use smaller, less expensive lenses) but to Olympus through excessive mark-ups over cost in the pricing system. As was rightly suggested by another, it really defeats the purpose of the 4/3'rd system.
Edited by Lotusm50 on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:58 PM GMT (Reason: grammer!)...Show more →
as you posted around the same time you probably missed my comment on why this particular lens is so expensive.
there are several lenses in 4/3rds with fascinating prices, im sure there's some canon glass that display that phenomena too.
Cherry picking the fascinating and claiming that to be the norm for the system just isnt going to wash. And you cant on the one hand dismiss oly for having a smaller image circle and simultaneously dismiss its advantage in reach at 600mmEFL/2.8 with a body that after all has IS.
If your life is about shooting with a 300/2.8 lens then you can probably save some going some place else, but system wide i suspect it pretty much comes out the same.
The E-3 body definitely looks intriguing. I handled one the other day and it definitely has the right "feel" to it. Still a smaller and darker viewfinder compared to the Canon semi pro and pro stuff.
I also hear that the high ISO performance still isn't anywhere near as good as Canon/Nikon. From what I understand, it is largely a digital processing issue rather than a sensor issue, and if you shoot raw and do all your own noise reduction you can largely overcome the limitation, but there is something to be said for a camera that will produce decent jpg's without using photoshop.
As for lenses, Amazon is practically giving away the Panasonic L1 for $800 with the fantastic Leica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 with OIS. The L1 is a bit of a quirky body, but either keeping it as a 4/3's backup or dumping it on ebay makes the lens a *very* good value.
I guess the sort of photography that I like the most is night/sunrise/sunset and the biggest concern I have is afternoon with high contrast. The very short review on dpreview (from the A700 review) suggest two things:
a) The E-3 has a very strong AA filter which (I presume) will result in lost resolution
(mostly a concern for pictures with sand/salt/and similar objects - for example this website has some pictures comparing D40 to E-3 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.ecpz.net/viewthread.php%3Ftid%3D20329&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=21&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3De-3%2Bvs%2B40d%26num%3D30%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.ubuntu:en-US:official%26hs%3DAtg
-- the sand seems more opaque in the e-3 images)
b) The E-3 does a bit of clipping when there is high contrast (might be a jpeg thing).
c) (Not sure about this) the E-3 might have problems with long exposures at night.
--
I'm not sure I understand Rob's post. It seems to suggest (if I read it correctly) that the 40D has the lowest performance with regards to signal/noise but I had thought that was the canon strong point (the weak point being the lens system)
--
I'm not overly concern about the high cost of some lenses as they are not an area of immediate interest. I am mostly concern with the 24-200 range which is well covered by the 12-60/14-54/14-35 group of zoom and the 55-200 (which is suppose to be an ok performer) (not sure if the 14-35 will be affordable but it seems the most interesting of hte group). But I would like to see a some primes perhaps 12f1.4 20f1.4 and 50f1.4
I think you are going to find that there is still noise in the higher ISOs on the E-3. At least that is what my results showed. If you can live with that and do not mind using a noise reduction program then it will probably be ok for you. It was not for me. Also there is no reason for the higher end Olympus glass to be priced the way it is. I do not care if a 150 F 2.0 is an effective focal length of 300mm on an E-3. Physically its still a 150 F 2.0 so it should be priced accordingly. Look at what 135 F 2.0 costs from Canon. Should Canon Charge users of a 40D more for it than the 5D or 1DS user for it because the effective focal length on a 40D is greater?
The Canon 135 F2 has 10 elements in 8 Groups and 2 US elements, it is not weather sealed.
The Oly 150 F2 has 11 elements in 9 Groups, 1 ED and 1 Super Ed element, so far pretty similar, but hang on......it also has a 3 position focus limiter switch and 3 focus stop buttons around the hood seat and a tripod foot. It is fully weather sealed.
The Canon lens is a "normal lens" built to a higher spec. The Oly Lens is built for professional use in mind with many usefull focus control additions. The two lenses are not at all comparable other than being of similar focal length..
The prices for oly long glass is not a concern (for me). Also it is in line with other low vol brands (such as pentax, sony, contax, ...). I think if the long glass becomes popular with regards to vol (i.e, sports) the price will likely drop to canon level.
Do folks have any comments on the performance of the zooms (such as 14-54/12-60) or the IQ of the camera (other than noise). Is clipping a big issue ? Is the strong AA filter going to significantly reduce resolution ?
you2 wrote:
Is the strong AA filter going to significantly reduce resolution ?
Perhaps slightly given that the Panasonic L10 most likely uses the same sensor as the E3 yet gives higher resolution when shooting RAW than the E3 per both Dpreview and PopPhoto(which has the L10 as giving resolution comparablle to or better than 12MP APS cameras). Speculation is that the L10 might use a weaker AA filter but I don't know for sure. Its just a pitty that Panasonic crippled the L10 in both marketing/packaging(only available with a lens at a high price) and poor RAW buffer size(only 3 frames of RAW buffer before you have to wait to take another shot).
Only one mention of the viewfinder so far. Any other comments?
For instance, how does it compare to the E-410 viewfinder? If it is not much better, then you should seriously doubt the usability of adapted lenses. It took less than 24 hours for me to liquidate my E-410 after trying it with a selection of OM and M42 glass.
