Yes, and also of the new tri-elmar, Leica's REAL solution to the wideangle problem.
Lourens
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why Four Thirds is better - Lets continue here
- Thread starter marf
- Start date
Lourens
Ed Bryan
Member
I got interested in this thread from the banner ad on this site. After browsing the information from fourthirds.org it seems besides the arguements that have already been had on this thread (size & weight) it seems one of the key design features of 4/3 is its capability to deliver "straighter" light to the sensor reducing flare and aborations.
I haven't followed this technology over the years, but it seems that arguement has been countered by 35mm lenses with special coatings that reduce the issues of light delivery to digital sensors. Since this hasn't been mentioned in this thread, I guess it isn't viewed as a feature anymore (4 years later) or isn't enough of a problem for FF or APS users.
As a footnote, I had a chuckle from the post regarding 4/3 being optimal for screen presentation (power point, visual presentations, ebay, etc). The rapidly growing demand for widescreen displays for computers (and media centers) will reduce the value of 4/3 for screen only presentations.
I haven't followed this technology over the years, but it seems that arguement has been countered by 35mm lenses with special coatings that reduce the issues of light delivery to digital sensors. Since this hasn't been mentioned in this thread, I guess it isn't viewed as a feature anymore (4 years later) or isn't enough of a problem for FF or APS users.
As a footnote, I had a chuckle from the post regarding 4/3 being optimal for screen presentation (power point, visual presentations, ebay, etc). The rapidly growing demand for widescreen displays for computers (and media centers) will reduce the value of 4/3 for screen only presentations.
Khun_K
Senior Member
I use Phase One P45 on Contax 645 and Canon 1Ds Mark 2 and Olympus E1 and E300 and bunch of other filem cameras and I can't say which system is better. It depends on whether the camera deliver what you expected and at what successful rate.
Among all, I must admit the 4/3 system is short to deliver what the system is claimed to be capable of. The camera suppose to be smaller but not, their pro lens suppose to be smaller but not exactly. The lens is built around the new approach, so claimed by 4/3 but if you compare side by side with other system, the advantage on image is not there. For some reason, the auto whitel balance on E cameras are not consistent, both from E1 and E300, flash system is out of date and quie slow. For what 4/3 is promising, I would expect camera the size no larger than a Canon 350D, lens smaller and superior quality for digital capture, or the Olympus will continue to remain my least use camera.
--
Khun_K
Among all, I must admit the 4/3 system is short to deliver what the system is claimed to be capable of. The camera suppose to be smaller but not, their pro lens suppose to be smaller but not exactly. The lens is built around the new approach, so claimed by 4/3 but if you compare side by side with other system, the advantage on image is not there. For some reason, the auto whitel balance on E cameras are not consistent, both from E1 and E300, flash system is out of date and quie slow. For what 4/3 is promising, I would expect camera the size no larger than a Canon 350D, lens smaller and superior quality for digital capture, or the Olympus will continue to remain my least use camera.
--
Khun_K
Oly lenses cover a smaller image circle than Canon's lenses. Also you get a full frame image with Oly, nothing gets cropped off, like when you use the the Canon 30D with an EF lens. Therefore I think it is valid comparison between the 600mm Canon and the 300mm Oly lens, you will have the same crop, but with different depth of field.
--
Zalan Szabo
http://www.szabozalan.hu
--
Zalan Szabo
http://www.szabozalan.hu
lkv11
Forum Enthusiast
Spoken too soon! Just look at the new E-400. If that's not a lightweight portable DSLR then I don't know what is.
I am a 4/3 user. I feel it is a better system overall because of several factors. However, in 2006, those factors are shrinking and becomming less of a gap.
Olympus has the SSWF for dust removal. So far, this is the best method of removing dust. Canon developed something similar, but it is not the same. It may prove to be jsut as good...I would like to see Olympus implementing something similar with regards to the software removal.
Olympus also thinks the camera user would like to have pixel mapping. Here is an intersting question...if Canon allows you to map out the dust...why the hell do they not give you pixel mapping in the menu? Why do you have to ship them the camera just to map your pixels? Many Canon users will threaten to kill you if you suggest that pixel mapping should be standard on a camera. Why this attitude? Pixel mapping is not unique to 4/3...but it is something Olympus as a company has decided is important. I think there is another manufacturer with pixel mapping in the menu...
Olympus is actually able to make their stuff smaller...but you can get only so small and still be useable. Can any other manufacturer make an F2 zoom? Sure they could...but how big would it be? If Oly wnats to, it can make everything smaller then APS and FF counterparts...they just need to desire to do so. they have laid the groundwork to make things smaller...now all they need to do in convince you that you need a smaller camera so you buy it.
Live view. 4/3 cameras are the only exchangeable lens DSLRs with live view. Live view is not your cup of tea? Well, guess what...it is someone's cup of tea, and I like having the option of having it.
I think that all professional press photographers needs to have an E330. I cannot tell you how many times I see photographers holding their Nikons and Canon over their heads. they have situations where the camera must be high in order to get the photo. They have very little ability to frame the subject in this type of situation. Why not use an E330? I think 7.5MP is enough for any type of print work that a picture of a public official would be involved in.
Olympus has the SSWF for dust removal. So far, this is the best method of removing dust. Canon developed something similar, but it is not the same. It may prove to be jsut as good...I would like to see Olympus implementing something similar with regards to the software removal.
Olympus also thinks the camera user would like to have pixel mapping. Here is an intersting question...if Canon allows you to map out the dust...why the hell do they not give you pixel mapping in the menu? Why do you have to ship them the camera just to map your pixels? Many Canon users will threaten to kill you if you suggest that pixel mapping should be standard on a camera. Why this attitude? Pixel mapping is not unique to 4/3...but it is something Olympus as a company has decided is important. I think there is another manufacturer with pixel mapping in the menu...
Olympus is actually able to make their stuff smaller...but you can get only so small and still be useable. Can any other manufacturer make an F2 zoom? Sure they could...but how big would it be? If Oly wnats to, it can make everything smaller then APS and FF counterparts...they just need to desire to do so. they have laid the groundwork to make things smaller...now all they need to do in convince you that you need a smaller camera so you buy it.
Live view. 4/3 cameras are the only exchangeable lens DSLRs with live view. Live view is not your cup of tea? Well, guess what...it is someone's cup of tea, and I like having the option of having it.
I think that all professional press photographers needs to have an E330. I cannot tell you how many times I see photographers holding their Nikons and Canon over their heads. they have situations where the camera must be high in order to get the photo. They have very little ability to frame the subject in this type of situation. Why not use an E330? I think 7.5MP is enough for any type of print work that a picture of a public official would be involved in.
tko
Forum Pro
Seems fair to compare same cost systems. For the same performance, a 4/3rds will be cheaper since the smaller sensor and smaller lenses will are easier to make. Or, for the same cost 4/3rd will have better performance - higher performing lenses, more features like IS, etc.
Yes, ISO will suffer, but ISO is a feature just like anything else, and is only important is your shoot at high ISO. To me, it's a very important feature, but that doesn't have to be true of everyoine.
It would be really nice if say, Oly, came out with IS in body for a price the same as a Canon or Nikon. Then you could as trade off IS versus ISO and it would be more of a fair battle.
As concept, 4/3rd makes some sense, but it's execution seems to be lacking. The Oly system isn't that small, light, or inexpensive, so what's the point? Pentax makes smaller and cheaper lenses. Sacrificing some ISO capability is OK, but what do you get in return?
Yes, ISO will suffer, but ISO is a feature just like anything else, and is only important is your shoot at high ISO. To me, it's a very important feature, but that doesn't have to be true of everyoine.
It would be really nice if say, Oly, came out with IS in body for a price the same as a Canon or Nikon. Then you could as trade off IS versus ISO and it would be more of a fair battle.
As concept, 4/3rd makes some sense, but it's execution seems to be lacking. The Oly system isn't that small, light, or inexpensive, so what's the point? Pentax makes smaller and cheaper lenses. Sacrificing some ISO capability is OK, but what do you get in return?
Khun_K
Senior Member
many digital P&S camera offer lens wider than f/2.0, it is doable because the sensor is smaller. F/2.0 on 4/3 system is not brigher than 2.8 on full frame 135mm. What Olympus did with their lens in comparison to the sensor size is indeed larger because the image area is 1/4 of the full frame lens, but the large size is cause the optical design approach to be telecentric.
Khun_K
--
Khun_K
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
But that's not a feature of the four thirds (tm) system, it's a feature of an Olymous DSLR. They could just as easily have made an OM-AF mount DSLR (remember OM-77 and the eight original OM-AF lenses?) and given it their SSWF.
Again, not a four-thirds feature, an Olympus feature.
Probably slightly smaller.
Again, not without relaxing their telecentricity requirements.
Actually, Fuji had it first on S3. Canon next on 20Da. Oly's is a little slicker and more evolved, but it's not a four thirds feature, it's a Panasonic feature.
ZigView
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
Because you can pay between $6,000 ( B&H ) and $7,000 for a non-stabilized 300 mm f/2.8 lens, instead of doing something foolish, like buying for the same price:
- A Canon 5D and 300 mm f/2.8 with IS.
- A 500 mm f/4 with IS and a pair of TCs.
- A Canon 1D Mark II and a 100-400 with IS, a set of TCs, and a 135 mm f/2 portrait lens.
- A Canon 1Ds ( Mark I; 11 mpx ) and a 100-400 with IS.
The lens maker saves money because, let's face it, a 300 mm lens is a 300 mm lens, uses the same amount of glass, and Sigma can do 300/2.8 - in a zoom - for $2,400 where Olympus charges almost 3x as much, while producing half the image circle.
So, 4/3 is great for stock holders.
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
Isn't that why no one will ever be able to builda full-frame 24x36 mm digital camera? And then, with the passage of a few short years, it turned out not only to be possible, but to work out very well.
Vignetting is a lens problem, as can be seen from vignetting happening when you shoot film. To the same degree with the same lens at the same aperture.
Smaller than what?
Also, I realize that many of the bonuses I can name are Olympus innovation features...and not related to 4/3...but if I have to live with 4/3 to get them...then they are 4/3 features.
Pixel mapping...any manufacturer who does not include pixel mapping in the menu system is evil!!!
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
It really doesn't work all that well. Why else would Canon users be bidding old Zeiss lenses to astronomical highs on eBay?
Wrong, on all three accounts. Vignetting varies with exit pupil location, even on film (cos4 vignetting). It varies with exit pupil location to an even larger extent on digital, because cos4 is compounded by the angular sensitivity effect. Other digital anomalies such as purple fringing (which is different than chromatic aberration) and angular based color shifts (the "Italian flag effect") also vary with exit pupil locations.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
Bragging rights. Anyway, I hope you're not trying to suggest that ancient Zeiss lenses are "digital???"
No, this is easily testable. My 5D shows exactly the same amount of vignetting as a borrowed Elan 7 using the same lens and aperture.
Also my 50/1.4 shows more "purple fringing" at f/1.4 than at f/2.8, making it hard to believe this is a sensor problem and not the way optics have always worked in photography.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Of course they are, but not by design. In the process of trying to meet certain goals for vignetting and distortion, Zeiss ended up moving the exit pupil of the Distagon farther from the image plane than Nikon or Canon did for their wides. By happy coincidence, this turned out to be exactly what was needed for full frame.
It's easy to access a linear image from a DSLR, to precisely measure vignetting. dcraw, in document mode, is a good tool for that, and I've used ti this way myself. But how did you linearize the image from film camera to measure (hint: if you're using the word "exactly", there had better be some accurate measurements involved) the vignetting?
Digital is, again, a contributing factor, not the only factor. Do you know how to tell the difference between purple fringing and CA?
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
An f2.0 on a system that didn't need to be quite as telecentric than Olympus.
Think about that one for a few minutes, and it will make a whole lot less sense to you...
No, that's just annoying. Disabling panorama mode unless you buy their own brand of memory is evil.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Not better, in fact most of the PR stuff on the olympus site isnt very convincing...
Its just different thats all....
--
Its just different thats all....
--
I am very late to this question, but since the thread seems to be showing some life...
By the end of the 1970s, 35mm film camera technology was much more stable than digital camera technology is today. The OM2 was an advanced camera. Someone buying an OM2 soon after its introduction could be reasonably sure that while there might be refinement and evolution, it would remain at or near the state of the art for the foreseeable future, maybe even for the mechanical life of the camera. And in fact, that's the way it worked out; the OM line evolved over the years, but you could make the case that your OM2SP was as practical and useful as anything that came after it.
That's not just hindsight. That's the way we thought, because 30 years ago that's the way photography was: the pace of change in camera technology was much slower than it is today.
Today, the technological state of the art is anything but stable. There is no reason to believe that in the next five to ten years we will NOT see massive improvement in almost every important element in the systems that affect the quality of the output, excepting -- maybe -- the optics.
None of this, of course, will make your E-1 quit functioning. It's a great camera, it produces great images, it will continue to produce great images for what will presumably be a long mechanical life.
So why should you upgrade?
Maybe the question should be: Why did you buy an E-1? The OM2 was a GREAT camera. It produced great images. In fact, around the world right now people are still using the OM system to take great photos.
You can answer that question yourself, but most people who moved into digital SLRs did so because, presumably, the gap in performance and capabilities between a pro dSLR and their camera at the time became so great that they felt compelled to spend the money. We all have that internal threshold, though some of us cross it more readily than others. Most of us also reach a point where what we've got really is good enough for our needs, regardless of what else is out there. You may well have reached that point with the E1, and good for you if so (said without sarcasm).
However, most of us perceive limitations in the current hardware and see room for substantial improvement, and there is every reason to believe that those improvements will be realized. And so long as we expect or at least have reason to believe that we'll be making some big purchases in the next few years, then questions like these are very much worth discussing.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
And you never will, because we're not getting E-400 on our continent.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum