New 5.1 MP Olympus!!!!!!!!

[Jeff]

If the information is correct that this new model would use the Kodak
5.1 MP sensor ( KAF-C5100E) then it wouldn't be a full frame 35mm.
From the KAF-C5100E data sheet

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/ccd/kaf5100ce.shtml

the sensor has an active area of 17.8 mm(H) x 13.4 mm(V). This
would correspond to a focal length multiplier of 2.02 if you are trying
to keep 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm. That 4/3" size mentioned in Phil's
report is a vidicon tube equivalent, and does not directly refer to the
sensor dimensions.

There is quite a bit of interesting information on the data sheet. For
example, we're told the sensor has 71db of dynamic range. That's
on the order of an honest 12 bits, which would be very cool.

If someone had the link to the data sheet for the sensor used in the
E10, one could do some interesting comparisons of what this
hypothetical new model would do for us.

Jeff

Theres a new post about a 5.1 MP Olympus coming out in Feb 2002!

Well, they will be announcing it in Feb 2002... it won't start
shipping until summer 2002, and if the E-10 is any indication, give
them a couple of months before availability ramps up. I'm guessing
16 to 18 months before a lot of us will have the chance to play
with one. Hang on to those E-10's in the meantime.

5.1 megapixels isn't really a big deal over 4.0 megapixels, even
today. By next summer, there will likely be several 5MP cameras in
the sub-US$2000 range. The big news is the size of the imager:
almost 35mm in size, which is unheard of today at the projected
price point of US$1620 including lens. There may only be a 1.1x
focal length multiplier vs. the Canon D30's 1.6x, the next closest
camera in terms of price (and that's 2x the cost).

Even though there is only a 25% increase in pixels, I hope the
sensor size (and thus the sensor element size) means that we get
very high quality pixels. With the E-10, shrinking a 2240x1680
photo down to 1120x840 or smaller makes it look a lot "nicer".
Noise is removed, minor focus imperfections are removed, etc. I'd
love to have that kind of quality across all 5 million pixels, and
not have to reduce it to 1.25 million pixels to eliminate
imperfections. High ISO (ISO3200, please!) pictures should look
cleaner than what the E-10 can produce too.

With interchangable lenses!

I'm still debating the merits of this... Olympus has nowhere near
the lens selection or third-party support that Canon and Nikon
enjoy. If I want an interchangeable lens SLR, would it not make
sense that I select a mount that offers the widest availability?
Olympus certainly isn't in the running in that respect.

I planned to hang on to my E-10 for two years (Nov 2000 to Nov
2002). We'll see A) what's out on the market at that time, and B)
if I can even hold out that long. ;-)

 

[Jason Busch]

Hi Yvan,

"I personally don't care about the availability of a lens system.

What really counts for me is that this lens system offers the focal ranges I need."

So, if the lens system offers the focal ranges you need, wouldn't you want it to be available?

Jason Busch

 

[Yvan]

So, if the lens system offers the focal ranges you need, wouldn't
you want it to be available?

I believe that there will be no major availabilty problem. And as Olympus has already claimed that it's new lens system will be an open system, there is a fair chance that independent manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. will also produce lenses for Olympus new camera.

 

[Edward A. Platkin]

If Oly is going to have interchangeable lenses, I hope they first solve the problem of keeping the sensor clean. Reading posts of D1, D30 people indicate that cleaning the CCD isn't easy. It's far more delicate than any lens surface. Having a fixed lens, while somewhat limiting, sure beats hell out of sweating over a dirty CCD.

 

[Jason Busch]

Hi Yvan,

This would be nice. I wonder if the lenses will be twice as much as current Olympus lens prices.

Jason Busch

 

[Michael Luna]

Hi Guys,

I don't know about you all but I'm getting exceptional quality from my E-10 and making money from it at the same time. I have ad's for my clients running in national magazines that look as good as the things shot in medium film format sitting right next to them.

Frankly 5.1 megapixel does not bring enough to the table...I'm waiting for a full 8 MP (11 x 17 @ 300dpi) before I make a change. (Yes, it's true my E-10 is in for repair right now... a little pixel fixin) but this is truly a remarkable camera and for all but full 2 page spreads this camera does the trick!

For those who live in the forum and never venture to the home page:

Theres a new post about a 5.1 MP Olympus coming out in Feb 2002!

With interchangable lenses!

OM2 days again!
--
John Mason - Lafayette, Indiana, USA

 

[Bich]

If Oly is going to have interchangeable lenses, I hope they first
solve the problem of keeping the sensor clean. Reading posts of D1,
D30 people indicate that cleaning the CCD isn't easy. It's far more
delicate than any lens surface. Having a fixed lens, while somewhat
limiting, sure beats hell out of sweating over a dirty CCD.

Something has always puzzled me about this problem of dirty CCD: is it not possible to built the CCD with a thin slide of glass (easy to clean) before it for protection? and if you could remove the lens of the E10 there would still be the prism.
Jacques.

 

[jono slack]

Hi Brian - thank you for rescuing me!

With reference to the imager:
if it's 33.9mm, and the aspect ratio is the same as the E:10 (rather than 35mm)
it'll be 33.9X25.425 861sq mm
whereas 36/24 = 864 sq mm
which is even closer.

I rest my case

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4/3" sounds to me like 35 mm...

You're wrong. It's definitively smaller!

Not by a whole lot though... 4/3" = 33.9mm

What is the benefit of having 6-MP-cameras with 35mm-size-sensors,
if the current 35mm-interchangeable lenses are - in terms of
optical resolution - way behind digital camera lenses.

I don't think this is true for a lens of decent quality. Assuming
1800 vertical pixels across 24mm on the above 4/3" sensor, that's
only 37.5 lp/inch. It is not unusual for SLR lenses to have a
higher resolving power than that. There is no doubt in my mind
that a full-frame 6MP sensor will give you "real" data on each
pixel, and not have reached the physical limits of the lens in
front of it. I believe this will hold true at least up to about
12MP (e.g., 4000x3000) for 35mm. Of course, at that end of the
spectrum, it is usually not the lens or the CCD that limits image
sharpness and quality. You'll need an absolutely stable,
vibration-free camera and virtually perfect focus to achieve tha
resolution.

 

[JK Jordan]

Something has always puzzled me about this problem of dirty CCD: is
it not possible to built the CCD with a thin slide of glass (easy
to clean) before it for protection? and if you could remove the
lens of the E10 there would still be the prism.

If they still use the prism, they could very well seal the CCD from dust. This would be better than adding another piece of glass for a seal - besides the expense and increased chance of internal reflections, each glass/air interfaces kills about 4% of the light.

JKJ

 

[jono slack]

Hi Yvan

In 14 months time the 5.1Mp sensor is going to be old hat.

That doesn't mean that it won't match the needs of the majority of
the people. In other words: not everyone is chasing behind the
latest resolution!

I coudn't agree more - but if we're talking of finding a reason to upgrade from the E-10, then I can't see that this is going to be much of an advantage

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4/3" sounds to me like 35 mm...

You're wrong. It's definitively smaller!

4/3 = 33.9 mm
With reference to the imager:
if it's 33.9mm, and the aspect ratio is the same as the E:10 (rather than 35mm)
it'll be 33.9X25.425 861sq mm
whereas 36/24 = 864 sq mm

that looks like 0.34% to me

and
there will be 6Mb cameras around long before then with full 36/24
sensors.

What is the benefit of having 6-MP-cameras with 35mm-size-sensors,
if the current 35mm-interchangeable lenses are - in terms of
optical resolution - way behind digital camera lenses. Mounting a
35mm-lens on a digicam is like mounting bike wheels on a car. I
would prefer to have a lens system specially designed for the
appropriate CCD-sensor. It will allow not only to have
high-resolution lenses, but also to build them smaller and faster
(in terms of max. aperture).

Well if we agree that the imager is the same size, then this argument isn't relevant because the new OLY lenses are going to be almost exactly the same as 35mm (not quite however).

Sounds like a pretty robust argument for keeping your E-10 to me

 

[jono slack]

Hi Ger

Well I hope you're right, but It sounds to me like they are thinking of bringing out something to aim at the kind of person who'd currently be buying a budget SLR. Which certainly isn't the way the E-10 is built.

But I'm trying to look for advantages here, and I can't see any -

1. if you want more pixels - 5.1 ain't enough

2. if you want interchangeable lenses - you wouldn't buy Oly (least I wouldn't)

3. If you want a bigger imager - then the above two factors would put you off the olympus.

And that's even if they sort out their replay/software problems.

I think the E-10 is a bold design, which has some fundamental advantages, and (as an aside) fabulous ergonomics.

But I KNOW that if I go for a digital slr later with interchangeable lenses, I'll be looking toward Nikon, Contax, Canon - and not towards Oly:

Who wants to buy a set of lenses, which, judging by Oly's past history, will be neither the devil of 35mm nor the deep blue see of the small sensor, and which will only be relevant whilst sensors stay at 4/3". Uh-Oh.

kind regards
jono slack

Summer, that's about right but with this lead-time I’d bet
the camera will be actually on sale before it is officially
launched.

What Olympus are doing is what Nikon used to do with all their
leaks - stir up interest and when customers know something is
arriving they can better make a judgment on their current camera
replacement and budget accordingly. It throws a wobbly in Nikon's
plans for a similar instrument expected this fall - I am one who
will not rush out to buy this, even though it is what I want now,
if Oly are actually making something similar, I’ll want to
compare so I’ll wait until that time – if I bought the
Nikon for instance – which I would have immediately without
this announcement from Kodak/Olympus.

With that in mind I’d imagine they are seriously looking at
the vast semi-pro, working pro and serious amateur market and
I’d definitely expect the quality to be on a par with the
E10. There are signs and post which suggest that Olympus are
actually listening to us, if so then they will not produce anything
less than the E10. As I said in another post weeks/months ago the
E10 is so made that I’d not be surprised if Olympus were the
first to bring out interchangeable lens on this class of machine
with no x-factor multiplication.

It sure looks as if this is happening.

 

[jono slack]

Okay Yvan

too bad for Brian (this is not a polite way of putting it, are you an angry person?)

Anyway - If we take your argument about lenses, then surely the E-10 with a sensor 1/4 the size of the new camera will have even more advantages?

I still maintain my scepticism - Non standard interchangeable lenses from Oly, tied to a specific size of sensor - doesn't sound like a wise career move to me.

And if it's cheaper - I just can't see how they can maintain the build quality of the E-10.

Uh-Oh

kind regards
jono slack

Not by a whole lot though... 4/3" = 33.9mm

Too bad for you that 4/3" is NOT the diagonal of the CCD-sensor.
It's only a reference value which has nothing to do with the real
diagonal size of the CCD. The 4/3" sensor from Kodak KAF-5100CE
( http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/ccd/kaf5100ce.shtml ) has a
chip size of 19.8 to 14.6 mm which gives a diagonal of
Sqrt((19.8^2)+(14.6^2)) = 24.6 mm.

But that's the total chip size and NOT the effective pixel area.
The effective pixel area measures 17.8 x 13.4 mm which gives a
diagonal of 22.28 mm.

 

[jono slack]

Wow Yvan

and you'll take a chance on that? with OLY's history of starting things up and then changing all the rules?

Doesn't sound good to me.

kind regards
jono slack

So, if the lens system offers the focal ranges you need, wouldn't
you want it to be available?

I believe that there will be no major availabilty problem. And as
Olympus has already claimed that it's new lens system will be an
open system, there is a fair chance that independent manufacturers
like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. will also produce lenses for
Olympus new camera.

 

[jono slack]

Hi Michael

I'm usually all up for the latest gadget, but I really agree with you here - this new camera sounds to me like you'll stand to lose a lot, and to gain very little - I'm not sure that I need a full 8Mp, but I sure as hell want more than 5!

kind regards
jono slack

I don't know about you all but I'm getting exceptional quality from
my E-10 and making money from it at the same time. I have ad's for
my clients running in national magazines that look as good as the
things shot in medium film format sitting right next to them.

Frankly 5.1 megapixel does not bring enough to the table...I'm
waiting for a full 8 MP (11 x 17 @ 300dpi) before I make a change.
(Yes, it's true my E-10 is in for repair right now... a little
pixel fixin) but this is truly a remarkable camera and for all but
full 2 page spreads this camera does the trick!

For those who live in the forum and never venture to the home page:

Theres a new post about a 5.1 MP Olympus coming out in Feb 2002!

With interchangable lenses!

OM2 days again!
--
John Mason - Lafayette, Indiana, USA

 

[aee]

And that's even if they sort out their replay/software problems.

They'd better have user-upgradeable firmware this time. If the firmware transfer fails (e.g., batteries die), the camera must have a bootstrap in ROM which can restart a firmware transfer. That solves the problem of users killing their cameras when trying to upgrade the firmware.

 

[Pat Glenn]

But, on the other hand, You have no problems with the Olympus lenses on the E-10. History may repeat itself. If it does, and they lick the dust problem, we'll just have to figure we paid research and development costs when we bought the E-10. And wouldn't it be cool if the existing E-10 auxiliary lenses could be used on the new camera? (I'm not sure I'm being clear here, if I'm not, let me know).

Pat

Hi Ger
Well I hope you're right, but It sounds to me like they are
thinking of bringing out something to aim at the kind of person
who'd currently be buying a budget SLR. Which certainly isn't the
way the E-10 is built.

But I'm trying to look for advantages here, and I can't see any -

1. if you want more pixels - 5.1 ain't enough

2. if you want interchangeable lenses - you wouldn't buy Oly (least
I wouldn't)

3. If you want a bigger imager - then the above two factors would
put you off the olympus.

And that's even if they sort out their replay/software problems.

I think the E-10 is a bold design, which has some fundamental
advantages, and (as an aside) fabulous ergonomics.

But I KNOW that if I go for a digital slr later with
interchangeable lenses, I'll be looking toward Nikon, Contax, Canon

• and not towards Oly:

Who wants to buy a set of lenses, which, judging by Oly's past
history, will be neither the devil of 35mm nor the deep blue see of
the small sensor, and which will only be relevant whilst sensors
stay at 4/3". Uh-Oh.

kind regards
jono slack

 

[Jeff]

As pointed out in another post, the data sheet on the 5100 sensor
gives some important information. For example, the aspect ratio is 4:3,
and the active size of the sensor is 17.9mm by 13.4mm (if I remember
correctly). Thus it is not close to being a full frame 35mm, but rather
about 1/4 of the size.

Jeff

With reference to the imager:
if it's 33.9mm, and the aspect ratio is the same as the E:10
(rather than 35mm)
it'll be 33.9X25.425 861sq mm
whereas 36/24 = 864 sq mm
which is even closer.

I rest my case

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4/3" sounds to me like 35 mm...

You're wrong. It's definitively smaller!

Not by a whole lot though... 4/3" = 33.9mm

What is the benefit of having 6-MP-cameras with 35mm-size-sensors,
if the current 35mm-interchangeable lenses are - in terms of
optical resolution - way behind digital camera lenses.

I don't think this is true for a lens of decent quality. Assuming
1800 vertical pixels across 24mm on the above 4/3" sensor, that's
only 37.5 lp/inch. It is not unusual for SLR lenses to have a
higher resolving power than that. There is no doubt in my mind
that a full-frame 6MP sensor will give you "real" data on each
pixel, and not have reached the physical limits of the lens in
front of it. I believe this will hold true at least up to about
12MP (e.g., 4000x3000) for 35mm. Of course, at that end of the
spectrum, it is usually not the lens or the CCD that limits image
sharpness and quality. You'll need an absolutely stable,
vibration-free camera and virtually perfect focus to achieve tha
resolution.

 

[charlie gast]

I really don't care about an extra megapixel. What gets me jazzed is the extra sensitivity,lower noise,and larger imaging area so that I don't have to buy a $1800 wide angle lens to get an equivalent 28mm view angle. Also the fact that Kodak has superior smoothing software to Oly. I can't think of a better pair of companies to produce an absolutely fantastic camera!!
Charlie

 

[jono slack]

Hi Jeff

thanks - I twigged that - but I don't think it makes any difference to my basic arguments. i.e. non standard lenses, only a small incremental increase in the number of pixels - but there again, if they get the build quality and ergonomics right, as they have done for the E-10, maybe.

kind regards
jono slack

Jeff

With reference to the imager:
if it's 33.9mm, and the aspect ratio is the same as the E:10
(rather than 35mm)
it'll be 33.9X25.425 861sq mm
whereas 36/24 = 864 sq mm
which is even closer.

I rest my case

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4/3" sounds to me like 35 mm...

You're wrong. It's definitively smaller!

Not by a whole lot though... 4/3" = 33.9mm

What is the benefit of having 6-MP-cameras with 35mm-size-sensors,
if the current 35mm-interchangeable lenses are - in terms of
optical resolution - way behind digital camera lenses.

I don't think this is true for a lens of decent quality. Assuming
1800 vertical pixels across 24mm on the above 4/3" sensor, that's
only 37.5 lp/inch. It is not unusual for SLR lenses to have a
higher resolving power than that. There is no doubt in my mind
that a full-frame 6MP sensor will give you "real" data on each
pixel, and not have reached the physical limits of the lens in
front of it. I believe this will hold true at least up to about
12MP (e.g., 4000x3000) for 35mm. Of course, at that end of the
spectrum, it is usually not the lens or the CCD that limits image
sharpness and quality. You'll need an absolutely stable,
vibration-free camera and virtually perfect focus to achieve tha
resolution.

 

[jono slack]

Hi Pat

I don't have a problem with the E-10 lenses, in that they aren't new lenses, just add-ons. Mind you, I naively felt that having got the E-10 so right, OLY might just carry on and use the lenses for the next cameras - but if these have interchangeble lenses I just can't see it happening.

If the lenses for the new oly are going to be as good as the E-10 lenses, they are going to be at least $1000 a piece and if they aren't that good - what's the point. As the sensor is so much bigger, the lenses will be (for an equivalent quality) as well.

It seems to me that whichever aspect of this you look at it aint good:

want more pixels - then there'll be lots of cameras with more than 5 Mp
want interchangeable lenses - you're better off with Nikon or Canon or Ziess

want a bigger sensor - your better off with the new Contax or Pentax which should be out way before the Oly
want a smaller sensor - the E-10 already has it.

I could go on!

kind regards
jono slack

Pat

Hi Ger
Well I hope you're right, but It sounds to me like they are
thinking of bringing out something to aim at the kind of person
who'd currently be buying a budget SLR. Which certainly isn't the
way the E-10 is built.

But I'm trying to look for advantages here, and I can't see any -

1. if you want more pixels - 5.1 ain't enough

2. if you want interchangeable lenses - you wouldn't buy Oly (least
I wouldn't)

3. If you want a bigger imager - then the above two factors would
put you off the olympus.

And that's even if they sort out their replay/software problems.

I think the E-10 is a bold design, which has some fundamental
advantages, and (as an aside) fabulous ergonomics.

But I KNOW that if I go for a digital slr later with
interchangeable lenses, I'll be looking toward Nikon, Contax, Canon

• and not towards Oly:

Who wants to buy a set of lenses, which, judging by Oly's past
history, will be neither the devil of 35mm nor the deep blue see of
the small sensor, and which will only be relevant whilst sensors
stay at 4/3". Uh-Oh.

kind regards
jono slack