CKrueger
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 06, 2005
Total Posts: 2646
Country: United States
|
 Re: My Oly - I'm In Love | |
jamesf99 wrote:
There's no doubt that the pictures look great so thanks for posting.
I'm curious though, are you considering this your main camera now or as a P&S? I can see using this as a P&S or maybe a backup camera that produces great quality, but the 4/3 system is doomed IMO. The sensor size is too small to go anywhere, and I think the direction, as many of us have known for a long time is "back to" FF. The first APS-C P&S is going to be released soon (providing much more real estate than the tiny Oly 4/3 chip) and would make me wary of investing much in the "system". Oly, Panasonic, etc. will be left behind unless they move in the FF direction of Canon, Nikon, and Sony will ultimately follow suit soon.
What are your thoughts on longevity and does knowing it's not going to last much longer worry you?
The E-3 isn't much smaller than the 5D, so it's not like it's something to be carried when you don't want to haul the heavy gear.
How can you say the "sensor is too small to go anywhere"? You said yourself the pictures look great. That's still the whole point of a camera, isn't it? Or are 100% crops the new product we're after?
Back only a few years ago, you could have similarly have said that APS-C is a dead end, because the 10D was just as noisy as the 1Ds, and had much lower resolution. The 10D was obviously state-of-the-art in terms of image quality (noise, DR, etc). Given this was the best Canon could do, APS-C obviously wouldn't go anywhere; we'd all be using FF sensors in a few years because they're so much better, and there would be a heap of APS-C lenses on eBay for $20. Only that didn't happen.
Four Thirds isn't much smaller than APS-C. APS-C is much smaller than FF. Here's an exercise that might be illuminating for anyone who thinks FT is much smaller than APS-C: get a ruler and draw a line 35.8mm long, a line 22.2mm long, and a line 17.3mm long. The first line is the width of a 5D sensor. The second line is the 40D. The third line is the E-410/E-510/E-3. The scale of the difference is rather surprising, isn't it? If one were to call Four Thirds "tiny", you'd certainly have to call APS-C tiny as well.
Also note that Four Thirds sensors are actually larger than the 40D's sensor vertically. The 4:3 ratio is better than 3:2 for printing 8x10's, worse for printing 4x6's.
Larger sensors are better. That's a given. You either get more pixels (print bigger) or lower noise. But consider that the E-3 can print a 243ppi 10x15", or a 122ppi 20x30". Compare that to a 259ppi 10x15" or 108ppi 20x30" from a 40D. Effectively the same. The 40D's advantage is, of course, lower noise. But if the E-3 has enough resolution and low enough noise for your uses (and don't forget you get IS with every lens), what's the big deal?
If the advocates of various cameras systems spent half the time printing images as they did staring at 100% crops, camera forums would be a much quieter place.
Personally, I'm happy to shoot both. I've got a full Canon system with a 5D and 350D, an E-410 with a couple tiny zooms, and a few OM primes that I can mount on either. I bring the 5D when I need its resolution, noise performance or low-light AF tracking (not often) and bring the E-410 when I don't. In a few years when I imagine even the lowest-end bodies are capable of making decent ISO12800 prints I doubt I'll need a "big" body at all. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if someday I throw all my DSLR gear away for a P&S that beats my 5D in every area.
|
