Pixel Perfect wrote:
The main area of concern for me is compared to FF like the 5D is the 4/3 system can't offer the creative shallow DOF. Even their fastest f/2 lenses act like f/4 lens equivalents on FF. You'll never get the magical super shallow results an 85 f/1.2 could say.
I think more people should look at a two-system solution.
I waffled on buying into Four Thirds for a long time because the sensors are noisy, the viewfinders are (were) small, and there's no way to replicate the DOF results even from my modest primes on my 5D, like my 85/1.8 or 50/1.4, or even my workman 28-75/2.8. The FT system has a few really important downsides that prevents me from hocking all my Canon gear.
But the positives about FT are very attractive to me: small cameras and tele lenses, an anti-dust system that apparently works, Olympus ergonomics and build quality, and pixel density and viewfinder framing that makes even my old OM 135/3.5 into a moderate tele, or a 50-500 or 300/2.8 with a handful of TC's into great wildlife lenses.
Instead of selling off my Canon system and miss the DOF, ISO3200, and overall resolution, I simply bought an E-410 with Olympus' "twin lens kit". I now have a tiny DSLR with two tiny (yet optically-impressive!) lenses that cover 28-300mm. I can fit the whole kit and a 50/1.8+adapter in a Think Tank Chimp Cage (you know, the case that's designed to hold JUST a 1D body). And if the KatzEye focus screen I have on order ends up making manual focus a pleasant experience, I'll likely spring for some super telephotos... you know, an Olympus 200/4, or a Nikon 300/4.5, or maybe even a Tamron 300/2.8 and a 1.4x TC.
But I digress. Olympus' system certainly has some weaknesses. There is no 5D or D3 or 1DMk3 or 1DsMk3 for the Olympus system. But the E-410 is an absolutely tiny camera with some tiny lenses available, and the E-3 is a great compact weather-sealed body that can do some really neat tricks. Use them for what they're good at, and bring your Canikon system for things they aren't.
Personally, I'm loving finally having a camera the size of a P&S strung around my neck that can do most of what my 5D can do. The E-410 is the best digital P&S camera ever made, IMHO. And it makes a pretty nice SLR system, too.
Thats my point. Your remark is not accurate. Take a 5D and a D2X, frame the exact same landscape shot with both and the equivelent lens which results in the same framing for both, and the D2X will not give more detail simply because it has a higher pixel density. Its the output resolution(MP) of a camera which determines detail rendition, not the input resolution(Pixel Density).
I.G.I. wrote:
If you say so it ought to be "right".... indeed only a genius in rhetoric can put P&S, the ubiquitous 5D and MF Digital Backs in the same sentence.
In case in your universe exist something like D2x you may try and compare 5D with in terms of detail rendition relative to pixel size.
Comparing image results from cameras positioned at distinctly different price levels could be misleading, especially from a manufacturer infamous with their product line stratification.
You don't mind if I consider Bjorn Rorslett as a more authoritative source, do you?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thats my point. Your remark is not accurate. Take a 5D and a D2X, frame the exact same landscape shot with both and the equivelent lens which results in the same framing for both, and the D2X will not give more detail simply because it has a higher pixel density. Its the output resolution(MP) of a camera which determines detail rendition, not the input resolution(Pixel Density).
Not at all. I like Bjorns reviews, have used them for years and read this particular review way back when the D2X was released. He shows a different FOV compariosn to begin with and then demonstrates my point by equalizing the FOV further down. Any advantage of the D2X over the Canon in this last example example is NOT due to pixel density. In his example, the difference is due to the Canon lens used as well as DOF differences between shooting with a cropped sensor camera vs a Full Frame sensor camera.
The FACT remains thus, and this is quoted from my previous link.
"if the output pixel resolution is the same and the FOV is the same, image content will be drawn with the same number of pixels."
In laymans terms, that simply means that given two different size sensors of the same number of MP where both are presented with the same FOV, any details in the frame will use the exact same number of pixels. For what your saying to be true, the smaller sensor with a higher pixel density would have to use more pixels to render the same detail as the larger sensor. This cannot be if the FOV and MP are the same. The math simply will not allow it to happen! No doubt there are many other factors such as lens quality, DOF,sensor design, image processing, ect. but pixel density is not a factor on its own.
I'm really fond of Olympus equipment in general and I think they make some great gear and exceptional lenses. No doubt one of their cameras will find its way into my bag someday. But I do not think we should be spreading inaccurate statements and your statement that higher pixel densities result in finer detailed landscapes is simply not true.
I.G.I. wrote:
Comparing image results from cameras positioned at distinctly different price levels could be misleading, especially from a manufacturer infamous with their product line stratification.
You don't mind if I consider Bjorn Rorslett as a more authoritative source, do you?
At last, today I had the possibility to try the E-3 for a few minutes. I can only say one thing: this is it! I thought it would be difficult to make a camera that gave a better "feel" than the E-1. They've done it, and the moment I buy mine, my other cameras will probably mostly be gathering dust. I'm seriously considering selling most of my Nikkors, and just keep a couple of fast primes for those special occasions when I need that.
I was in the store about an hour ago, and took a look at your prints. The same young lady that you took pics of was behind the counter. She showed me the pics that you printed out and I am impressed. I cannot believe that these pics, especially the ISO 3200 pic of the camera bags are straight out of the E3 without any PP. The E3 keeps the detail, no smearing. I admit that I get caught up with the 200% pixel peeping games as well. I can imagine with a minimal use of NR from Noise Ninja/Noiseware etc the ISO 3200 prints will look fantastic in an album. I am definitely buying the E3. I brought a CF card as well and took some shots in the store and I cannot believe how good the IS is on the E3. With my Oly cams I rarely shoot over ISO 800, not because I am scared to but just my shooting needs. So if the E3 can produce files like this at ISO 1600/3200, I will put the high ISO debate out of my head forever.
Robert Watcher wrote:
Got a chance to test shoot the new Olympus E-3 this evening. I mainly wanted to feel the camera in hand and play with the controls to see how intuative they are. Also, 2 concerns for my style of shooting are Image Stabilization and decent 1600 and 3200ISO PRINT quality
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?
jamesf99 wrote:
Curious. What is this supposed to mean?
There is an ongoing issue with the Forum where the last post on a page or the first post on a page requires 1, 2 or even three posts to cause the initial post to show up. I just got lucky and happen to draw the short straw this time.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
There is an ongoing issue with the Forum where the last post on a page or the first post on a page requires 1, 2 or even three posts to cause the initial post to show up. I just got lucky and happen to draw the short straw this time.
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? ...Show more →
Interesting points, but the conclusions you reach from them do not necessarily follow.
jamesf99 wrote:
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? ...Show more →
lol doomed, this guff has been going on for years now....At 1.92x its really little different to APS C, more especially the Sigma (1.72x) and Canon (1.62x) variety, excepting its probably better able wide open. As to the future of FF135 you are more optimistic than me. As it stands FF135 is just 1% of dSLR sales to Canon and far from a raging success. According to Rob Galbraith Nikon are looking forward to 8+% of sales for D3, more likely it will fall on its ass among the variety of FF135 choices to come with a new 5D, the Sony, and Leica's R10 saturating an already tiny market.
More to the point, this year Olympus will have successfully displaced Sony and Pentax for #3 place in dSLR sales and will be having its strongest year ever.
Kind of cool (for me) that my little informal review of the E-3 posted at http://rwoutsidethebox.com/?page_id=91 was picked up by the Photography Bay website and posted along with Olympus E-3 reviews by some of the other biggie review sites.
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? ...Show more →
Your first sentence makes sense, but on that background, none of the rest do. If the pictures look good, does anything else matter?
Does anyone know how much a Canon 180-500mm f2.8 IS lens costs, or the size? I'm thinking about picking one up.
Yes Jorgen it matters. It doesn't say Nikon or Canon.
The E3 is a fantastic camera. And there are some very good lenses that you can get with it. Unfortunately, the super fasts like the 1.2's or 1.4's , aren't there.
Olympus/Panasonic/Sony/Pentax may introduce a 36mm chip, but it's not going to be their bread and butter. It's certainly not Nikons, and its certainly not Canons. They would be better off trying to find markets that will actually sell cameras.
Is Oly doomed, far from it. Do Olympus need to reinvent themselves. Yes they do somewhat. The E3 took far too long to come out. I think Oly would do well to release a 4/3rds compact point-and-shot. They know how to make great cameras in this particular market, evidenced by the excellent C-8080 and C-7070.
