Not too impressed

[Matti J]

Actually Matti - I know you're right, and that I made the wrong
decision to go with Nikon 18 months ago - everything I've said is
rubbish, and I willingly and freely admit to having seen the light.

Thank you for helping me.

Ah, don't mention it! You can some other time help me in the same way.

Matti J.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

What, no Scot??? At least you'd have decent drams, colourful
language, and tales of glorious haggis ...

Nope, but my former boss has lived in Edingbourgh for several years.
Do that count?

Roland

 

[Sam Berry]

I have been wondering though, it is possible that although the mount is 45mm odd away from the image plane, the mirror may be recessed enough to allow the final element to protrude further back into the mount. I assume that this would be of use for WA lenses, even if telecentric-ish. The 10D's mirror seems to be in a very similar place to a film camera's, so it can't allow a closer rear element.

Is this a possible advantage for 4/3 over a cropped 35mm DSLR?

The 4/3 is DESIGNED for this kind of lenses.

No one knows what "the 4/3 is DESIGNED for", because no one
(outside of Olympus, and possibly Kodak) has seen the "open spec".

But the E-1 is built from 35mm full frame components (shutter,
prism, etc) and has a lens mount appropriate in size and
registration distance for a 35mm full frame camera, so the E-1 is
definitely a full frame camera, cropped to 4/3 size.

If you compare to
another system, there wil be a an equivalent value. But the same is
true if you comare 35 mm to Full Format.

I thought people had understood this by now !

More and more people are understanding that it is, indeed, the most
severely cropped of all the DSLRs.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Canoeman]

Depends on what bottle he brings to the party...

What, no Scot??? At least you'd have decent drams, colourful
language, and tales of glorious haggis ...

Nope, but my former boss has lived in Edingbourgh for several years.
Do that count?

Roland

 

[Mikael Nordenberg]

Agree. I had hopes for the E-1 also, but the noise really bothers
me.
There was one thing I noticed though:
The E-1 seems to have brighter images than the rest at low
ISO but darker or equal brightness at high ISO. Seems
like the ISO adjustment doesn't affect image as much as
the competition, strange. This means that noise levels for
low ISO is better than Phil shows in the diagrams, but
it doesn't matter much since it's the noise in high ISO that
counts anyway.

Also, since Pentax is releasing a new lens
(and possibly more to come), the advantage of 4/3
fades away. Especially considering the price...

Mikael

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

Regards,
photovoyager

 

[Forrest41926]

Aside from pros or rich (or fiscally irresponsible) amateurs, a
full-frame camera really isn't affordable.

Do I detect a note of jealousy? Or is it all judgement?

 

[voices in afka_bob's head]

Aside from pros or rich (or fiscally irresponsible) amateurs, a
full-frame camera really isn't affordable.

Do I detect a note of jealousy? Or is it all judgement?

And what about us "kept" men w/sugamommas?

 

[Brad Morris]

The lenses for a 120 camera are not marked with 35mm Frame size
focal lengths, all the Nikon, Canon and OLYMPUS SLR glass is.

Of course not, they are marked with the actual numbers in
millimeters. This includes incidentally the E-system lenses which
make no mention anywhere I've seen of 35mm equiv. size.

the Focal Lengths give you you get a x2 FOV crop compared to a 35mm frame on the E-1.

Have a look at Phils article on the lenses about 1/2 way down and you will see the 35mm equivalents.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0306/03062402olyesysaccs.asp

The point still is that a lens with a very handy focal length of
film - say, 28-105mm - is a LOT less useful slapped on to a camera
with a 1.6x FOV crop, at least on the wide end. On the other hand
Oly has a lens that on their sensor is the equivalent of a 28-105mm
(an immensely useful range IMO).

That is subjective and may well be a well chosed range for some not for others, there is nothing written in stone that says that you have to use a 28mm or a 105 mm for any given shot. Given Time I am sure that the other manufacturers will come out with a 17 - 65 or similar range DX type lens.

Can you honestly say that when you zoom a lens, you set it to a precise focal length within the range or do you zoom so that the image looks right in the view finder? Given that, what difference is it that the lens, in 35mm terms to compare apples with apples, is 28-105 or 33-154mm or whatever range the lens handles

Take another look at the Oly glass, the Zoom range painted on the
lens is a 35mm range that needs to be doubled to be applicable to
the 4/3 sensor.

No, it's a REAL range, NOT in terms of 35mm. You will have to
double that number to get a "35mm equivalent" focal length BECAUSE
it isn't stated in terms of a 35mm format just as you will have to
divide the markings on a 645 system lens by 1.6 to get a "35mm
equivalent". IF it was stated in 35mm terms it would say "28-108mm
(135 equivalent)" not "14-54mm"!

See Phils report above

28-105mm says absolutely NOTHING about field of view. We are just
used to thinking in terms of 35mm. Multiply that focal length by
1.6 and you would get a focal length range with the same field of
view on a 645-sized sensor; divide it by 2 and you'd get a focal
length range with the same field of view on a 4/3 sized sensor.

yes you are right, digital slr of any type is a different animal to a 35mm film slr. However with the exception Oly, all the other manufacturers have been comparing them back to the 35mm standard because of the existing lenses that many of the purchases possesed. Oly users dont have that luxury/benifit and have to purchase all glass new because of the new mount. It doesnt alter the physics. The E-1 is still in the same market segment as the 10D, D100 and S2

I agree, If they price it at $800 it might stand a chance - The
likes of sony 7x7, nikon 5700, Oly e-20 et al have smaller sensors
with reduced potential quality compared to a dSLR camera, they
still sell and and are fine cameras so that indicates that ultimate
picture quality is not the only driving force in making a
purchasing decision. At $2200 I cannot see it suceeding

Of course image quality is not the only driving force in making a
purchasing decision; if it were nobody would ever buy any digicam
on the market today except a Canon 1Ds!

That is true but image quality compared to the competition in the same market sector makes for direct comparisons. at $8000 there are very few people out there who can actually afford that camera. difference here is that teh eos sytem is an already established Canon standard (compared to other canon AF cameras). 4/3 is new and until some of the other partners start to produce 4/3 compatible equipment it is more proprietary than anything elso on the market. If the Take up is small then there is no incentive for other manufacturers to take the risk in developing 4/3 equipment.

At $800 in a package that wasnt over engineered, the camera would sell like crazy ensuring the success of the standard. Once established, that is time to launch the Pro level $2200 camera so it can leverage on the wide ranging standard. As both sensors are the same, image quality would be similar and the benifits of teh dust sealing will differentiate the product and add value.

$800 is unrealistically low - maybe for the up-and-coming prosumer
model it would be a reasonable price. This camera, I think, should
be in the $1000-$1300 range, making up for its slightly worse image
quality by both a lower price and its own unique advantages
(designed-for-digital lenses, dust shaker, water seals, etc.). If
they sold this camera for, say, $1200, I think it WOULD stand a
chance, at least until the others reduced their prices to match.
Heck, I might even buy one at that price!

my $800 figure was a number out or the air, $1000 might do it too even so, alot more people can stretch to say $2000 with lenses than $3000 before they can take a photo. Oly have limeted their market base before they have even got the camera on the shelves.

Regards

Regards,
photovoyager

--

DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 , http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

 

[Brad Morris]

Geir

Using that line of thought there is no crop with any of the Consumer Digital SLR cameras either, simply for the fact that they are digital cameras and not film cameras. you are just lucky that you can use your Canon or non DX nikon lenses on Film bodies as well.

Nikon DX lenses are designed for a sensor that is smaller than a full frame 35mm to do a similar thing optically to what the Oly Glass is doing only providing for a slightly larger sensor.

Fact of the matter is that with a 50mm Oly E-1 lens, you will see the same field of view as you would with a 100 mm nikon lens on a film body.

Given that this is directly competing with the 35mm derived dSLRs we must compare apples with apples

Why is that concept so hard to understand?

I thought people had understood this by now !

Geir Ove

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Agreed shame they made some stupid marketing decisions

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are
marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with
a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x
crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse. Because
of the Physics of Optics, the resolution will be reduced compared
to a 1.5 crop as well. The digital sensor while limiting the Feild
of View, doesnt magically reduce the circles of confusion that
limit the resolution that a lens can produce. The lens design can
hepl somewhat but there are limits

The Oly is a 35mm type camera with a small digital sensor (Compared
to the D100 et al). The only reason that the bulk of people havent
realised that yet is because of the Marketing spin and the fact
that Oly doesnt have a current 35mm camera that they have based
their design on.

Nikon and now Pentax have released DX type lenses that are
comparable, the E1 is only unique in its lens mount system at this
time.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

They should have done that first with a price point of about $800.
that might have ensured the critical mass for something like the
4/3 system to become a standard.

Regards

Regards,
photovoyager

--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

--

DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 , http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

 

[Brad Morris]

Well said Joe, you certainly put it better than I did

The 4/3 is DESIGNED for this kind of lenses.

No one knows what "the 4/3 is DESIGNED for", because no one
(outside of Olympus, and possibly Kodak) has seen the "open spec".

But the E-1 is built from 35mm full frame components (shutter,
prism, etc) and has a lens mount appropriate in size and
registration distance for a 35mm full frame camera, so the E-1 is
definitely a full frame camera, cropped to 4/3 size.

If you compare to
another system, there wil be a an equivalent value. But the same is
true if you comare 35 mm to Full Format.

I thought people had understood this by now !

More and more people are understanding that it is, indeed, the most
severely cropped of all the DSLRs.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

--

DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 , http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

 

[tom trinko]

one minor point. i'm using the Sigma 15-30 on my 10D and at 15 it gives a wider field of view than the wide angle lens on my E-10.

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

kind regards
jono slack

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk