Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Forget it Jon, they're not listening...

Peronally, I could care less. I have a nice LIGHT outfit, FULLY weatherproof, that handles just about everything I've thrown at it (including the floor, Ooops!), and my total investment is under £2000.

I have lenses covering 35mm equivalent of 28-400mm, with a max aperture of f2.8, and a range of legacy lenses that fit and work OK.

But apparently I should have gone for a 24x36 monster from Can't instead?

No thanks. My back appreciates NOT carrying that lump around.
 
Raxel wrote (richard snipped):
Raxel said:
At last canon released 'affordable' full frame DSLR, another
revolutionary movement after they released frst affordable DSLR,
300D.

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...
Don't know about you, but I've been using a Full Frame E-1 dslr for the last two years, and it was (back then) under £1.5k

Isn't/Wasn't the main reasoning behind the 4/3, reducing lens size? Not the cost of 35mm cameras? Although Olympus haven't exactly lived up to this, with the f/2's being huge. But the 4/3 users are loving the edge to edge sharpness and minimal pincushion/barrel distortion of the zuikos.

I hope you enjoy your 5D as much as I enjoy my E-1, then we all will be happy...!

--
Regards - Richard



My Site - http://www.richardwait.com
/ http://www.fourthirdsFAQ.com
 
Yes, and that $3200 D30 was the beginning of this epic saga. At the time, it was a breakthrough. Even though grandma wasn't running to Best Buy to get one, there were enough buyers that considered $3200 affordable.

The rest is history.

Now, we are at the threshold of another breakthrough. At $3299, there will be enough buyers that care and that will consider this affordable. And in 4 years, it will be in the $1400 range. Then there will be staggeringly larger number of people who will care and consider it affordable. And Canon's EOS lens line (48+ products) will be the most extensive line of lenses for the most extensive line of bodies. In one fell swoop, they will have brought their entire EOS lens line and capabilities to the digital world.
 
DX/D-APS is a viable format. It's still far less expensive while providing excellent image quality. More DOF is an advantage in many situations. There are better wide angle lens options for the smaller format (witness the really miserable landscape image Canon posted for the 5D). The tele reach of the smaller format is very useful to many shooters.

4/3 is another deal. It looks like Olympus is on its own with the supposed "open" standard. The system is thin with expensive lenses and no lenses with stabilization. The "e-volt" is bigger than the compact D-APS cameras it competes with. The straw that Olympus loyalists cling to is ultrasonic dust removal.

--
BJN
 
Absolutely wrong. DOF is a function of distance to the subject. A smaller format puts you at a greater distance from the subject for a given focal length. Therefore, for a given crop at a specific focal length and aperture, the smaller format delivers less depth of field. DOF is identical for all lenses and formats at a given distance. What you and folks like you ignore is that you have to increase the distance to get the same crop - everything else being equal.

If you believe otherwise, you should spend some time with other formats. Just try dealing the shallow depth of field of a 4x5 camera where 90mm is a wide angle lens. Check your molars for grit...

--
BJN
 
BJN said:
DX/D-APS is a viable format. It's still far less expensive while
providing excellent image quality. More DOF is an advantage in many
situations. There are better wide angle lens options for the
smaller format (witness the really miserable landscape image Canon
posted for the 5D). The tele reach of the smaller format is very
useful to many shooters.

4/3 is another deal. It looks like Olympus is on its own with the
supposed "open" standard. The system is thin with expensive lenses
and no lenses with stabilization. The "e-volt" is bigger than the
compact D-APS cameras it competes with. The straw that Olympus
loyalists cling to is ultrasonic dust removal.
Click to expand...
The lenses are not more expensive (except one, that stupid 300/2.8). This myth just wont die.

The Evolt is not much bigger than the tiny 350D or *istDS, and there are limits how small you can make a comfortable camera. The dust cleaner is nice, but it wasn't a deal-breaker for me, when I chose the E-system over Canon/Nikon.

ALL these systems are very good, I don't think I would have been any worse or better off, if I had chosen Nikon/Canon at the time. I would probably be a bit worried if I had EF-S lenses, there wouldn't be any upgrade for them. The 4/3 sensor will be good enough ('enough' is the keyword here, just like 35mm was good enough compared to MF/LF cameras) for 12-16MP, and who knows what improvements future sensors will have?

I'm just glad that we have the chocies, just like when we were shooting film. Right?
J.
BJN said:
--
BJN
Click to expand...
--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/
 
Member said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well canon created something new. Olympus said screw you. Or did i miss the pro SLR's that olympus came out with ?

obviously at the time it wasnt fun for people who had FD glass and bodies but canon did it because they knew it would be the better choice for the future.

Not addign auto focus and then abandoning the whole line without replacement doesnt seem like a sound investment into the future to me

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
BJN said:
DX/D-APS is a viable format. It's still far less expensive while
providing excellent image quality. More DOF is an advantage in many
situations. There are better wide angle lens options for the
smaller format (witness the really miserable landscape image Canon
posted for the 5D). The tele reach of the smaller format is very
useful to many shooters.
Click to expand...
One has to say that the better wide angle options has more to do with Canon not having good wide lenses than anything else. It should be easier to get wide with a larger sensor size.
BJN said:
4/3 is another deal. It looks like Olympus is on its own with the
supposed "open" standard. The system is thin with expensive lenses
and no lenses with stabilization. The "e-volt" is bigger than the
compact D-APS cameras it competes with. The straw that Olympus
loyalists cling to is ultrasonic dust removal.
Click to expand...
Panasonic is rumored to be coming out with a 4/3 camera, according to rumor. The E-300 isn't small, yes; but from all the people I've heard complaining that the smallest APS-sensor cameras are too small for them, perhaps Olympus listened to their market research.

If dust removal is a straw, it's an awfully thick one. Dust is a major problem with today's DSLRs, especially since many manufacturers do not support any warranty-safe method of dust removal but an air blower.

The current good price of the E-300 has to be selling quite a few cameras, that's for sure - which has to keep Olympus alive in this space for a while. Olympus' problem there is that once they've bought the E-300 kit, there's nothing else at consumer prices left to buy but a flashgun. The lenses are all pro-grade, pro-price lenses, at prices hard for most to swallow.

As someone revealingly showed in this forum recently, Olympus' "designed for digital" telecentric lens standard actually ruins the 4/3 format's supposed size advantages over APS-C or 35mm full frame in wide and normal lenses, making it mostly marketing hype except for long glass. Now that's a problem.
 
Member said:
I'm just glad that we have the chocies, just like when we were
shooting film. Right?
Click to expand...
In fact, it's even better; digital allows each manufacturer to choose what size is 'full frame' for them.

Canon considers 35mm size 'full frame' and this size will most likely slowly trickle down the price chain.

Nikon seems to have decided that APS-C is the new Nikon 'full frame'.

And Olympus has its 4/3.

Not sure what the other manufacturers are going to do - though I think that does depend on what their sensor manufacturer does.
 
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well canon created something new. Olympus said screw you. Or did i
miss the pro SLR's that olympus came out with ?

obviously at the time it wasnt fun for people who had FD glass and
bodies but canon did it because they knew it would be the better
choice for the future.

Not addign auto focus and then abandoning the whole line without
replacement doesnt seem like a sound investment into the future to
me
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen any difference in Canon change and Olympus change, except for the fact that Canon did it earlier, and Olympus changed their whole system to digital at the same time.

Olympus stopped manufacturing OM lenses in 2003, E-1 was announced the same year...
PalmsWestPhoto said:
--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/
 
'Pro-spec' means 'a camera suitably equipped to be used every day reliably', it doesn't mean super-high fps or anything else like that. A Pentax LX is 'pro-spec'. You see?

--
Seb
 
Lord Coe said:
Lord Coe said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's a fairly significant difference in size.
Lord Coe said:
Lord Coe 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?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that small followings with small marketshare typically result in smaller profits and less long-term viability.
Lord Coe said:
Lord Coe 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.
Click to expand...
Ah, but unlike the 4/3 system, other systems have the potential for migrating to larger sensor formats because they still are based on full frame lens systems. 4/3 is smaller, and is always going to be smaller, with no prospect of ever using a larger sensor.
Lord Coe said:
Lord Coe 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?
Click to expand...
I think for the benefit of new and old Oly users, yes, they probably would be. Nikon didn't recently post a 62% decline in profits-- Oly did. And adopting future compatibility with full frame lenses would have given them more long-term flexibility to use larger sensors.
 
Lord Coe said:
'Pro-spec' means 'a camera suitably equipped to be used every day
reliably', it doesn't mean super-high fps or anything else like
that. A Pentax LX is 'pro-spec'. You see?
Click to expand...
So if i take a pentax optio s60 and make it really rugged it is a pro spec camera ?

didnt think so

reliable use by a professional requires more than just a rugged body. It requires pro spec AF, metering, lenses and the whole nine yards.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
Member said:
I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen any difference in Canon change
and Olympus change, except for the fact that Canon did it earlier,
and Olympus changed their whole system to digital at the same time.
Olympus stopped manufacturing OM lenses in 2003, E-1 was announced
the same year...
Click to expand...
How we all wish that canon as well as nikon would have stayed all manual until 2003

they didnt create anything for years because the user base was gone completely.

You must be working for olympus. this is hilarious ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
Funny, I was thinking about exactly the same comparison today!

Cheers,
Simon
 
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
consumer DSLRs, or a huge 3 stop noise advantage on four thirds
DSLRs.
Click to expand...
CURRENT FourThirds DSLRs, perhaps. Still too simplistic.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That statement is not factually true, just likely.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
-With 1:1 sensor, we can get swallower DOF with same lens.
Click to expand...
What?
Click to expand...
larger sensors allow more DOF control. Smaller sensors do not have
any ability to overcome this drawback.
Click to expand...
Again, as this is LENS dependent, not factually true.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
What makes you think that everyone wants LIMITED depth of field?
Many consider the greater DOF of FourThirds to be anadvantage.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
You don't get ANYTHING with the 5D, because you don't have one.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto 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.
Click to expand...
No speculation at all. Nikon will definately have one. Fuji
probably also and KM might do one over Nikon to be first
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'll all be fascinated to hear their product roadmaps spelled out here by you.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto 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...
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.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see - sensor excepted - the 5D is the same or slightly inferior to the 20D spec wise.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
The E-x0 cameras were designed as they were because Olympus felt it was irresponsible to br9ng an interchangeable lens DSLR to market without a solution for dust build-up. Once they solved that problem, the E-1 arrived.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's a ludicrous characterisation of a an optical manufaturer with one of the proudest traditions in photography. How quickly did they abandon OM? Is 10+ years impetuous, now? I worked with a photographer who was using a pair of OM4Tis in 1993 for press work - those cameras were rock solid and still supprted by Olympus then - long after FD was forgotten at Canon.

--
Seb
 
Don't be jerk.

People got along just fine with manual focus for years, and some continue to use it even with todays autofocus systems.

Why you feel the need to slag on the choices other people make for their photography is beyond me. Spend more time shooting your camera and less time shooting your mouth.
 
PalmsWestPhoto wrote:
...
PalmsWestPhoto said:
How we all wish that canon as well as nikon would have stayed all
manual until 2003

they didnt create anything for years because the user base was gone
completely.

You must be working for olympus. this is hilarious ...
Click to expand...
No need for that, I wanted genually to understand why you thought Olympus mount-change was different from Canon mount-change.
So basically, Olympus did it too late, compared to Canon, right?

Unfortunetly (maybe it was fortunate), I lost interest in photography during the whole auto-focus transition, so I missed the whole excitement...
PalmsWestPhoto said:
--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top