5D and the fate of APS and 4/3 DSLRs

[Jon Ragnarsson]

Olympus has some very interesting, NEW lens designs specifically tailored > for good MTF at high spatial frequencies and good telecentricity.

In fact, to resolve same detail with smaller sensor, SHARPER lens
is required. So oly are forced to develop lens sharper than 35mm
counterpart, which explains the high price of ZD lenses.

Will this nonesense never end? The Olympus Zuiko's are not more expensive than compareable lenses from Canon/Nikon. The exception is the 300/2.8, somebody at Olympus should be kicked in the nuts for that....

--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

in your dreams. The E1's only pro spec is the build quality and Oly was always known to build quality stuff. All other features are nowhere near pro spec such as AF, resolution, fps, processing speed, ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

The 'affordable full-frame DSLR' is no Holy Grail, as many people think. The only reason for full frame camera is convenience for the photographer who owns lenses tuned for 36*24mm sized image area. And of course for the manufacturers too, since they don't have to design a new set of lenses for smaller sensor.

Do you think the 70-200mm zooms were designed by choosing some random focal lengths?
Legacy lenses are THE reason for the quest for full-frame DSLR.

--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds
DSLRs.

CURRENT FourThirds DSLRs, perhaps. Still too simplistic.

Not current. This will always be the case. A larger sensor will either deliver much much higher resolution at the same DR and SNR or much better DR and SNR at the same or higher resolution.

-With 1:1 sensor, we can get swallower DOF with same lens.

What?

larger sensors allow more DOF control. Smaller sensors do not have any ability to overcome this drawback.

What makes you think that everyone wants LIMITED depth of field?
Many consider the greater DOF of FourThirds to be anadvantage.

Ah with the 5D i get about the same DOF as one can get with the E1 by simply cropping the same way and using the wider lens as well.

Sooner of later, all manufactures will release 1:1 DSLR with
$3000-$5000 range. APS DSLRs will survive with $500-1500 range, and
there are still special performance cropped-sensor cameras with
high shooting speed, such as D2h/x or 1Dmk2.

Pure speculation, and almost certainly wrong.

No speculation at all. Nikon will definately have one. Fuji probably also and KM might do one over Nikon to be first

24x36 cameras ARE astronomically expensive! The EOS 5D offers LESS
than the 20D for a whole lot more money - you pay a lot for the big
chip, and then sacrfifice WA performance (you can't use Canons
10-22 EF-S, which is an excellent WA solution). Even more so for
the Nikon D2x.

The EOS5D has almost everything better than the 20D except for the fps which is 3. How many fps does the E1 have ? The 5D was not made for fast sports shooters so 3fps is just fine. Buffer is huge.

BTW i am not saying that 4/3 is doomed. But in a way Oly was always the one fighting against everything and lost quite often. The E10/20 line was nice but also abandoned. The OM line was nice but no AF and also abandoned.

Problem with Oly is they decide to do something against mainstream and then if it doesnt pan out abandon it kind of like a child that is tired of playing with its toys.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[Molteni Bruno]

The Oly 4/3 system is going to eventually meet the same fate as the
Oly OM film system. The OM system was a stubbornly manual focus
system in an autofocus age. It had a loyal and enthusiastic--
albeit small-- fanbase. Eventually, it just died out...

No, it isn't correct.

The first OM camera see the light in the year 1973, many, many years before the first autofocus camera was built.
It was a system who turned pale all other system of those time.

So was not a manual focus system in an autofocus age but the best (or one of the best) manual focus system in manual focus age.

But (unfortunately) later on (20 years later ...) Olympus didn't believe in autofocus and so didn't do the swtch as other camera makers did.

ciao
Bruno

 

[DavidMillier]

The D30 was only affordable in the context of an outrageously expensive emerging market where traditionally early adopters get skinned.

The Nikon D50, Canon 350D and the new baby Pentax have reset cost expectations for a decent DSLR from around £2000 of a couple of years ago to around £500 mark.

This means that anything that is significantly more expensive than this will be scrutinised hard for value. The 5D will be sold for £2500 in the UK, 5x the price of the 350D.

I wonder how many of the masses will regard a 35mm sized sensor and 5 extra Mpixels worth the price of five 350d bodies...

Value is obviously a subjective thing but in my mind the 5D would be good value at say £1000 but not at £2500.

Likewise for the upcoming D200. I'm hoping it will be a high MP rival to the 20D rather than the 5D but I can't see how they could throw in an F6 derived body at much less than the 5D price so either specs or price have to give...

At last canon released 'affordable' full frame DSLR, another
revolutionary movement after they released frst affordable DSLR,
300D.

Still very far from "affordable"...

When the 3.3mp Canon D30 was introduced, it was considered
"affordable" at $3200. With the 5D being 13mp and full frame with
considerably higher specs, and half the price of a 1Ds MKII, and
$2000 less expensive than the 12mp D2X, yeah I think the 5D can be
considered to be relatively affordable.

Posible. But for the masses it will mean something only if FF will
appear in $500-1500 range.

At the rate that Canon is going, that's not an impossibility.

If people buy prosumers - they will buy 4/3, APS and so on also.

For the "professional consumer", the 5D is certainly within reach.
For anyone wanting 12+ MP, it's the cheapest 12+ MP camera on the
market by a margin of $2000.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[DavidMillier]

The E10/E20 line consisted if of two cameras (hardly a line) and was in production for a pretty long time for digital cameras. They are also 2/3 chip cameras and so were unlikely to be upgraded successfully. Oly simply moved up to the 4/3 size and added imterchangeable lenses. The E1 is pretty much the successor to the E10/20.

consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds
DSLRs.

CURRENT FourThirds DSLRs, perhaps. Still too simplistic.

Not current. This will always be the case. A larger sensor will
either deliver much much higher resolution at the same DR and SNR
or much better DR and SNR at the same or higher resolution.

-With 1:1 sensor, we can get swallower DOF with same lens.

What?

larger sensors allow more DOF control. Smaller sensors do not have
any ability to overcome this drawback.

What makes you think that everyone wants LIMITED depth of field?
Many consider the greater DOF of FourThirds to be anadvantage.

Ah with the 5D i get about the same DOF as one can get with the E1
by simply cropping the same way and using the wider lens as well.

Sooner of later, all manufactures will release 1:1 DSLR with
$3000-$5000 range. APS DSLRs will survive with $500-1500 range, and
there are still special performance cropped-sensor cameras with
high shooting speed, such as D2h/x or 1Dmk2.

Pure speculation, and almost certainly wrong.

No speculation at all. Nikon will definately have one. Fuji
probably also and KM might do one over Nikon to be first

24x36 cameras ARE astronomically expensive! The EOS 5D offers LESS
than the 20D for a whole lot more money - you pay a lot for the big
chip, and then sacrfifice WA performance (you can't use Canons
10-22 EF-S, which is an excellent WA solution). Even more so for
the Nikon D2x.

The EOS5D has almost everything better than the 20D except for the
fps which is 3. How many fps does the E1 have ? The 5D was not made
for fast sports shooters so 3fps is just fine. Buffer is huge.

BTW i am not saying that 4/3 is doomed. But in a way Oly was always
the one fighting against everything and lost quite often. The
E10/20 line was nice but also abandoned. The OM line was nice but
no AF and also abandoned.

Problem with Oly is they decide to do something against mainstream
and then if it doesnt pan out abandon it kind of like a child that
is tired of playing with its toys.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[lingsb]

The 'affordable full-frame DSLR' is no Holy Grail, as many people
think. The only reason for full frame camera is convenience for the
photographer who owns lenses tuned for 36*24mm sized image area.
And of course for the manufacturers too, since they don't have to
design a new set of lenses for smaller sensor.
Do you think the 70-200mm zooms were designed by choosing some
random focal lengths?
Legacy lenses are THE reason for the quest for full-frame DSLR.

Pretty much. For ultra-shallow depth of field too.

I would be very interested (when these are all available...) to see a comparison for cost/ performance/ quality between:

Canon: 5D + 24-105 f/4.0 + 70-200 f/4.0
Nikon: D200 + 17-55 f/2.8 + (?) 50-140mm f/2.8 (if they bring out such a lens)
Olympus: E-3 + 14-35 f/2.0 + 35-100 f/2.0

These are all (rumoured) to have 10-12 Mpixels. I would expect that the total cost for each combination to be similar. The main (price) difference would be future upgrades... bodies get upgraded more frequently than lenses, so that should probably be compared too, plus the fact that a backup body will be needed.

If the above combinations are tested, taking into account the inherent depth of field differences (eg. open up aperture 1 stop from 5D -> D200, and 2 stops from 5D -> E-3, and decrease the ISO accordingly), I think the results would be very similar.

 

[DavidMillier]

Absolutely! [And I am a full frame user]

The real pity in all this is that Oly have been unable to demonstrate the real advantage of 4/3 by producing a minature DSLR.

Although there are plenty of pros (and macho posturers) on these forums with huge lenses that benefit from a heavy camera, you only have to stand in a photo store for 5 minutes to see that most customers want matchbox sized cameras.

If only oly could have produced a 4/3 body about the size of a minolta a200 or a Fuji S5000 that could fit in a pocket...

The 'affordable full-frame DSLR' is no Holy Grail, as many people
think. The only reason for full frame camera is convenience for the
photographer who owns lenses tuned for 36*24mm sized image area.
And of course for the manufacturers too, since they don't have to
design a new set of lenses for smaller sensor.
Do you think the 70-200mm zooms were designed by choosing some
random focal lengths?
Legacy lenses are THE reason for the quest for full-frame DSLR.

--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[Raxel]

A funny fact is actually 1:1 body with f4 lenses are smaller and lighter than 4/3 body with f2 lenses... (They are bulkier than f2.8 lenses as well)

And 1:1 and APS bodies can use 'legacy' lenses, which includes a broad range of cost-effective second-hand lenses and fast primes such as f1.4..

 

[Dennis]

However I wonder who will buy 4/3 system. Main assumptions of 4/3
system is that 1:1 DSLR is astronomically expensive. APS DSLR users
can move to 1:1 with most of their lens, but 4/3 users should stick
to smaller sensor. They have releared f2 zooms, but they have no
advantage at all (DOF, shutter speed, weight) compared to 1:1 DSLR
with f2.8 zooms.

It's an interesting question ... certainly the system will have proven itself "good enough" for some, and a quality 4/3 body like the E-1 will be dirt cheap in comparson to those $3000+ 1:1 bodies you mentioned.

But if the 1:1 system gives you all the DOF and speed (using high ISO) you need to eliminate the need for f/2 lenses, and if it also offers the resolution to crop an image taken with a 300/2.8 and get the same results you'd get with a 4/3 camera and 300/2.8, then the advantages (of 4/3) just aren't there ... it becomes a more interesting system to amateurs who aren't in the market for the high priced lenses.

The same arguments apply to APS ... in time, it may simply boil down to cost effectiveness; does APS do a good enough job for significantly less ? If the resolution (of "affordable FF") allows me to crop an image taken with my 400 and get the same result that APS gives me with my 400, then there is no advantage to the "crop factor" (aside from using the "sweet spot" of the lens). So I don't have to buy so much WA, but don't necessarily have to buy more tele, either. We hear this argument today ... 8MP versus 6MP gives you a little "room to crop" ... people acknowledge that you don't always have to use every pixel !

There are going to be plenty of enthusiasts who will pay $3000+ for FF; even more when it drops to $2000 and still more if it drops lower. There are also plenty who, like me, are so satisfied with 6MP APS right now that it's just not that appealing at the moment. It's money that could be spent on other things ... I honestly can't see myself spending over $1000 on a camera body again ... (my wife would prefer it if I said I can't see having to buy another camera body again

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Dennis]

The 'affordable full-frame DSLR' is no Holy Grail, as many people
think. The only reason for full frame camera is convenience for the
photographer who owns lenses tuned for 36*24mm sized image area.

If 24x36mm is the max frame size that ensures that any legacy lenses won't vignette (and even then, some do then full frame simply maximizes the potential of the legacy lens lineup. I'm not sure I'd say it has anything to do with convenience ... maybe in the sense that getting good WA coverage is easier and zoom ranges for APS are a little clumsy.

But it seems to me that photographers have always been on a quest for quality ... "settling" for 35mm while drooling over medium format results, wishing they had the time & patience (and maybe a pack mule) to do large format.

In that sense, full frame gives you as much as you can get out of the system, while APS or 1.3X or 1.7X don't. (It just happens that for many photographers, they offer "enough").

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[peterwr]

Raxel wrote:
...

All lenses suddenly
becomes 1.5 stops brighter,

...

Tosh. Lens brightness is a function of the (actual) focal length and the maximum aperture, not the sensor/film size.

 

[saarela]

You're absolutely wrong. $3k is not affordable for the average consumer, many of whom come on these same forums agonizing over $200 P&S purchases.

For $800 I can get an 8MB E300 and two lens. For $3k I could get that and two backups. This is not a prosumer or entry level killer. This is designed for people who feel limited by their Rebel but don't want to spend $7k on all pro-gear.

Until it's in the $1k range, including a high quality lens, I'm not buying.

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

DMillier

The E10/E20 line consisted if of two cameras (hardly a line) and
was in production for a pretty long time for digital cameras. They
are also 2/3 chip cameras and so were unlikely to be upgraded
successfully. Oly simply moved up to the 4/3 size and added
imterchangeable lenses. The E1 is pretty much the successor to the
E10/20.

Just like they abandoned OM and other things. Olys biggest problem is their lack of understanding of the future.

This is canon's strength. Back when canon decided to redo their lens mount which seemed to be totally wrong ... was a pretty good choice. Nikon stuck to their lens mount and had to work around issues all the time, stuck to AF motors in camera (now they are doing AFS) and the main argument was lens compatibility which in nikon land doesnt exist. You need a list of lenses for each camera with what you can and can not do. manual Nikon lenses can be used on all canon cameras without any issues.

Oly really needs to learn to look better into the future. Their products are generally good quality but little things kill them.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

PalmsWestPhoto wrote:
...

BTW i am not saying that 4/3 is doomed. But in a way Oly was always
the one fighting against everything and lost quite often. The
E10/20 line was nice but also abandoned. The OM line was nice but
no AF and also abandoned.

The Canon FD line was very nice but no AF and also abandoned, so what is your point?

--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/

 

[ALFREDUYB]

1. You can put more megapixel on a 36 x 24mm sized sensor because it's larger. If only legacy lenses has the resolving power to match those megapixels otherwise it's a waste.

2. 36 X 24mm sized sensor allows the use of larger photosites thus less signal amplification thus lower image noise. If there is no improvement in technology then it's true. However. a Canon 20D has smaller pixel and has much lower image noise than a Kodak 14n.

3. 36 x 24mm sized sensor is better at isolating due to shallower DOF. It's true.

Most major manufacturer except Oly might offer 36 x 24mm sized sensor DSLR down the road but will remain a niche as smaller sized sensor has a lot more going for it that it will became mainstream.

4/3 might never be as popular as APS-C but the whole concept makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

Just like they abandoned OM and other things. Olys biggest problem
is their lack of understanding of the future.

This is canon's strength. Back when canon decided to redo their
lens mount which seemed to be totally wrong ... was a pretty good
choice.

So when Canon abandoned the FD mount it was good, but when Olympus abandoned the OM mount it was bad? Am I missing something here?

--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/

 

[DavidMillier]

Have you used a 14n properly?

It is certainly true to say it is rubbish as ISOs above say 180 but at its base ISO of 80 I think it has pretty low noise. Certainly seems lower noise than my D100 and 350D at their base ISOs...

ALFREDUYB wrote:
However. a Canon 20D has

smaller pixel and has much lower image noise than a Kodak 14n.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[D100D2X]

you just revealed to all reading that you have no idea at all.DOF is not differance in a 35mm mount, either full frame or 1.6 or 1.5 crop, if you beleive otherwise you need to spit out the sand