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

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

Some expectations:
-5D will have noise performance which at least equals 20D/1Dmk2 per pixel.

Which means, 8M crop from 5D image will have roughly the same noise level with 20D and 1Dmk2, which are current top performer. I expect when downsampled to 8MP, even 5D's ISO 3200 image will equal 1Dmk2's ISO 1600 image, which also equals other 6MP DSLR's ISO 800 image. This translates into 2 stop noise advantage on other consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds DSLRs.

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

An f2.8 zoom lens will have DOF of f1.8 prime lens used on 1.5X DSLR, and an cheap 1.8 lens will have DOF of an ultra-expensive f1.2 lens used on 1.5X DSLR.

Compared with four thirds system, even ultrafast 2.0 lenses cannot match the DOF of a moderate f4 lens on 5D.

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.

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.

Raxel said:

Compared with four thirds system, even ultrafast 2.0 lenses cannot
match the DOF of a moderate f4 lens on 5D.

Click to expand...

Actually, f/2 lenses on Four Thirds sensor will give exactly the same DOF as f/4 lenses on 35mm.

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's a big weight and size difference. You can't compare f/2 zooms to f/2.8 zooms, anymore than you can compare f/2.8 zooms to f/4 zooms.

Also, some of us want more DOF, not less - I'm into macrophotography, so the Four Thirds depth of field is a big plus for me.

The drawbacks of the smaller sensor size are in sensor resolution/noise and viewfinder size. But the E1's viewfinder is good enough for me, and since I don't print large landscapes 8MP or 10MP (or even the 5MP I have at the moment) will be plenty for me.

Danny.
http://danny.oz.au/

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. Now Oly is doing the same with the 4/3 system. They are stubbornly 4/3 in an APS (and now FF) DSLR world. It has a loyal and enthusiastic-- albeit small-- fanbase. Eventually, it may see the same fate as the Oly OM system. It's deja vu all over again.

Oly's primary claim to fame right now is their sensor cleaning system. But what happens when other camera systems start implementing their own sensor cleaning systems? That would terminate one of Oly's main advantages. Oly's other claim to fame was smaller cameras and lenses. But other camera systems have their own small bodies and lenses. The Rebel XT, for example, is smaller than the E-300. Plus, not everyone WANTS small bodies and lenses.

T3 said:

They are stubbornly 4/3 in an APS (and now FF) DSLR world.

Click to expand...

The parallel here is broken. With APS versus 35mm, camera companies were dependent on film (producers and developers and retailers). No such problem exists with digital sensors.

Also, there's no "APS world" - there are 1.5x, 1.6x, and 1.7x sensors, so there's no "standard". The possible problem for Olympus is not with sensor sizes but with lens mounts - and having to do what Canon did with the FD-> EF transition, rebuilding an entire line of lenses from scratch.

T3 said:

Oly's primary claim to fame right now is their sensor cleaning
system.

Click to expand...

This is useful but no big deal. I doubt anyone buys a camera just because of this, Oly's propaganda notwithstanding.

T3 said:

The Rebel XT, for example, is
smaller than the E-300. Plus, not everyone WANTS small bodies and
lenses.

Click to expand...

Sure, but a good number of people do. Which is why I don't think 35mm sensors are going to take over the world, and there'll be plenty of room for smaller sensors (1.5x, 1.6x, 1.7x, 2x, whatever).

The real issue is lens systems - and that's the real decision one makes buying Canon or Nikon or Olympus or Pentax or KM.

Danny.
http://danny.oz.au/

Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus et al have a large stake in the overall DSLR business and each brand provides fundamental features that are attractive to their owners.

While Canon might be the 800lb gorilla in the DSLR world, just like Microsoft is in the desktop operating system (and both to be respected), Canon is far from being in a position of killing off everyone else (just like Microsoft).

And from reading many forums, I don't think the large majority of DSLR buyers will think that US$3000 is exactly 'affordable', especially depending on which end of the focal length you like to swing from. Wides suddenly got better, but teles just got worse.

Cheers

Ray

--
It's quite simple. I just love photography.

http://www.australianimage.com.au

Danny Yee said:

T3 said:

They are stubbornly 4/3 in an APS (and now FF) DSLR world.

Click to expand...

The parallel here is broken. With APS versus 35mm, camera
companies were dependent on film (producers and developers and
retailers). No such problem exists with digital sensors.

Also, there's no "APS world" - there are 1.5x, 1.6x, and 1.7x
sensors, so there's no "standard". The possible problem for
Olympus is not with sensor sizes but with lens mounts - and having
to do what Canon did with the FD-> EF transition, rebuilding an
entire line of lenses from scratch.

Click to expand...

I was talking about larger sensor formats, ie APS and FF, whereas Oly's 4/3 sensor is much smaller. Oly could have easily gone with an APS sensor format, but they shunned it in the same way that Oly stuck with manual focus on the OM and shunned autofocus. Sometimes, going it alone simply means you end up...alone. And it also paints them into a corner because they'll have more of a challenge producing high performance low noise sensors with higher pixel counts because their chosen sensor format is so much smaller. I think Oly would have been better off if they had simply:
A) gone autofocus in the film SLR era,

B) gone APS in the DSLR era, and

C) stuck with a lens system based on full frame lenses (like manual OM lenses and-- hypothetically-- autofocus OM lenses) with the option of smaller "digital specific" lenses just like all the other brands are doing.

$3000 range is clearly affordable for those who uses a $1500-range DSLR with a number of professional lenses. (which costs $1000-2000 each)

And the main difference is DOF, not FOV. All lenses suddenly becomes 1.5 stops brighter, which is a big deal considering very high prices of fast prime lenses. If you just need FOV, there are camcorders with 20X optical zoom.

Raxel said:

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

Click to expand...

Still very far from "affordable"...

Raxel said:

Which means, 8M crop from 5D image will have roughly the same noise
level with 20D and 1Dmk2, which are current top performer. I expect
when downsampled to 8MP, even 5D's ISO 3200 image will equal
1Dmk2's ISO 1600 image, which also equals other 6MP DSLR's ISO 800
image. This translates into 2 stop noise advantage on other
consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds
DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Are You sure about that?

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

--



http://zoom.tinkle.lt

Leo "Zoom" said:

Raxel said:

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

Click to expand...

Still very far from "affordable"...

Click to expand...

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.

leorimkus said:

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

Click to expand...

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

leorimkus said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Raxel said:

$3000 range is clearly affordable for those who uses a $1500-range
DSLR with a number of professional lenses. (which costs $1000-2000
each)

Click to expand...

Learn something every day. I never realised that most Canon owners have an extensive inventory of L lenses. Can't understand all the questions about inexpensive Sigma etc lenses; probably just out of pure curiosity.

Raxel said:

And the main difference is DOF, not FOV. All lenses suddenly
becomes 1.5 stops brighter, which is a big deal considering very
high prices of fast prime lenses. If you just need FOV, there are
camcorders with 20X optical zoom.

Click to expand...

I guess mathematics, physics and optics take a different turn in the Canon world. FOV, hmmm? You might be on to something here. You should go to some of the nature photographer sites and pass on your great ideas. All this time they have been buying all those long lenses with narrow FOV, when they could have been using a 'camcorder'. Brilliant.

I have to say, you really do make a great ambassador for Canon. keep up the good work!

Cheerio

Ray

--
It's quite simple. I just love photography.

http://www.australianimage.com.au

Hope for that. I'd realy like to have a FF, but I only this range could be affordable for me (and a lot of other users) for a long time. Actualy I would think about returning to Canon if they introduce FF in this range and other producers wouldn't do the same in a year or two

T3 said:

T3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--



http://zoom.tinkle.lt

Raxel said:

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

Some expectations:
-5D will have noise performance which at least equals 20D/1Dmk2 per
pixel.

Click to expand...

Actually, as I showed in thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=14754261 on the open forum, 5D has visible chroma noise in the shadows at ISO 100. I compared the sample portrait shots from the Canon site with a few similarly shot portraits I made with my E1 and guess what: E1 has visibly better image quality at base ISO. I don't know how to quantify it except by showing Canon's shadow noise, but 5D tonality seems a bit "thin" compared to E1. In not so many words, if I needed a portrait camera and printed no bigger than A3, I'd take Olympus E1 because of its better image quality. This is rather unexpected, especially as I warmed up to 5D and seriously contemplated purchase. E1 has significantly lower resolution and this DOES matter, regardless of what some Oly users might say, but it has to be put in perspective. You need to print really big to notice. Slight lack of fine detail is seen on A3 prints. I can testify for that. But if you look at image quality and not image resolution, E1 is just excellent. Now, there's one question remaining: is it possible to make a sensor that will have the image quality of E1, and resolution of Nikon D2X? If so, there's your answer to the question who would buy a 4/3 camera. We'll see if it can be done.

--
Danijel Turina, http://www.danijel.org/

Raxel said:

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

Some expectations:
-5D will have noise performance which at least equals 20D/1Dmk2 per
pixel.

Click to expand...

High ISO performance and low noise involve a lot of different factors. Low noise is related to large pixels, and also involves good grounding, packaging, stuff like that, and noise cancelling technology. I would expect the 5D to be the same as the 1Dmk2 at a pixel level, but it might be worst due to less expensive packaging and grounding. The chip is huge, 2.5x larger than the 20D chip, so 2.5x times as much noise due to inductance, current, stuff like that. Other large chips (Kodak, MF backs) are not particularily good at high ISOs. It could very well be that the 20D is better than the 5D at ISO1600/ISO3200.

Raxel said:

Which means, 8M crop from 5D image will have roughly the same noise
level with 20D and 1Dmk2, which are current top performer. I expect
when downsampled to 8MP, even 5D's ISO 3200 image will equal
1Dmk2's ISO 1600 image, which also equals other 6MP DSLR's ISO 800
image. This translates into 2 stop noise advantage on other
consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds
DSLRs.

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

An f2.8 zoom lens will have DOF of f1.8 prime lens used on 1.5X
DSLR, and an cheap 1.8 lens will have DOF of an ultra-expensive
f1.2 lens used on 1.5X DSLR.
Compared with four thirds system, even ultrafast 2.0 lenses cannot
match the DOF of a moderate f4 lens on 5D.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Raxel said:

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

Some expectations:
-5D will have noise performance which at least equals 20D/1Dmk2 per
pixel.

Which means, 8M crop from 5D image will have roughly the same noise
level with 20D and 1Dmk2, which are current top performer. I expect
when downsampled to 8MP, even 5D's ISO 3200 image will equal
1Dmk2's ISO 1600 image, which also equals other 6MP DSLR's ISO 800
image. This translates into 2 stop noise advantage on other
consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds
DSLRs.

Click to expand...

CURRENT FourThirds DSLRs, perhaps. Still too simplistic.

Raxel said:

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

Click to expand...

What?

Raxel said:

An f2.8 zoom lens will have DOF of f1.8 prime lens used on 1.5X
DSLR, and an cheap 1.8 lens will have DOF of an ultra-expensive
f1.2 lens used on 1.5X DSLR.
Compared with four thirds system, even ultrafast 2.0 lenses cannot
match the DOF of a moderate f4 lens on 5D.

Click to expand...

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

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Pure speculation, and almost certainly wrong.

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

--
Seb

T3 said:

I was talking about larger sensor formats, ie APS and FF, whereas
Oly's 4/3 sensor is much smaller. Oly could have easily gone with
an APS sensor format, but they shunned it in the same way that Oly
stuck with manual focus on the OM and shunned autofocus.
Sometimes, going it alone simply means you end up...alone. And it
also paints them into a corner because they'll have more of a
challenge producing high performance low noise sensors with higher
pixel counts because their chosen sensor format is so much smaller.
I think Oly would have been better off if they had simply:
A) gone autofocus in the film SLR era,
B) gone APS in the DSLR era, and
C) stuck with a lens system based on full frame lenses (like manual
OM lenses and-- hypothetically-- autofocus OM lenses) with the
option of smaller "digital specific" lenses just like all the other
brands are doing.

Click to expand...

Do you konw the exact size of APS-C sensor & 4/3 sensor? A simple search in DP will give you the idea.

IMO small sensor DSLR will remain as bread & butter for camera manufacturers in years to come.

--
http://www.pbase.com/donaldchin
http://www.fotop.net/DonaldChin

T3 said:

Raxel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. Now Oly is
doing the same with the 4/3 system. They are stubbornly 4/3 in an
APS (and now FF) DSLR world. It has a loyal and enthusiastic--
albeit small-- fanbase. Eventually, it may see the same fate as
the Oly OM system. It's deja vu all over again.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. FourThirds is THE MOST progressive system available, it's hardly dinosaur technology.

T3 said:

Oly's primary claim to fame right now is their sensor cleaning
system. But what happens when other camera systems start
implementing their own sensor cleaning systems? That would
terminate one of Oly's main advantages. Oly's other claim to fame
was smaller cameras and lenses. But other camera systems have
their own small bodies and lenses. The Rebel XT, for example, is
smaller than the E-300. Plus, not everyone WANTS small bodies and
lenses.

Click to expand...

Not EVERYONE wants ANYTHING. The E-1 is the cheapest and lightest pro-spec body; sensor cleaning is unique to the E-system and Olympus has some very interesting, NEW lens designs specifically tailored for good MTF at high spatial frequencies and good telecentricity. Olynpus needs to - and will - improve their range with new models based on higher spatial resolution sensors, and we assume that they will partner with Panasonic to deliver this. As it stands, they have an highly capable set of photographic tools, but they have underperformed against their sales predictions. New lenses, new bodies and new customers are coming.

--
Seb

T3 said:

Danny Yee said:

T3 said:

They are stubbornly 4/3 in an APS (and now FF) DSLR world.

Click to expand...

The parallel here is broken. With APS versus 35mm, camera
companies were dependent on film (producers and developers and
retailers). No such problem exists with digital sensors.

Also, there's no "APS world" - there are 1.5x, 1.6x, and 1.7x
sensors, so there's no "standard". The possible problem for
Olympus is not with sensor sizes but with lens mounts - and having
to do what Canon did with the FD-> EF transition, rebuilding an
entire line of lenses from scratch.

Click to expand...

I was talking about larger sensor formats, ie APS and FF, whereas
Oly's 4/3 sensor is much smaller.

Click to expand...

FourThirds is hardly 'much smaller' than DX - 18x13.5mm vs 23.7x15.7mm for DX.

T3 said:

Oly could have easily gone with
an APS sensor format, but they shunned it in the same way that Oly
stuck with manual focus on the OM and shunned autofocus.
Sometimes, going it alone simply means you end up...alone.

Click to expand...

So, basically, YOU are terrified of being different and thus you condemn others for being so?

T3 said:

And it
also paints them into a corner because they'll have more of a
challenge producing high performance low noise sensors with higher
pixel counts because their chosen sensor format is so much smaller.

Click to expand...

Slighty smaller.

T3 said:

I think Oly would have been better off if they had simply:
A) gone autofocus in the film SLR era,
B) gone APS in the DSLR era, and
C) stuck with a lens system based on full frame lenses (like manual
OM lenses and-- hypothetically-- autofocus OM lenses) with the
option of smaller "digital specific" lenses just like all the other
brands are doing.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that Olympus would be much better off if they were Nikon?

--
Seb

T3 said:

T3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

"prosumer" does NOT mean "professional consumer", it describes the portion of the market where professional and consumer buyers overlap.

--
Seb

Lord Coe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Choice of ultra wide angle lenses for a FF sensor/film is significantly wider than for a APS-C...

--



http://zoom.tinkle.lt

What is the meaning of 'progressive'? Not backward compatible?
4/3 is the only DSLR that cannot directly use its 'legacy lenses'
And the only company that produces smaller-than-average sensor size.

IMO the most progressive manufactor out there is minolta who uses very innovative (and useful) anti-shake technology..

Lord Coe said:

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

Click to expand...

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.