Why Four Thirds is better - Lets continue here

Doing some quick math based on the numbers...

1Ds = 864 sq mm surface area
30D = 337.5 sq mm surface area
E1 = 243 sq mm surface area

The APS sensors are about 33% bigger than 4/3 sensors...but the noise response would indicate a substantially larger sensor...so size is not the most important factor necessarily. In fact, the noise difference between 30D and 5D is not that distinguishable even with more than DOUBLE the surface area. I would have expected a larger gap.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Agramer said:

Forrest said:

Funny how willing people are to apply the 2x crop in the Olympus
system to the focal length but not to the aperture... That $7,000
Oly 300/2.8 is worth more than double a Canon 300/2.8 with IS
because you're going to put it on a system where it "becomes" 600
mm ... but the objective lens is still 107 mm, so in effect it's a
f/5.6 lens. In terms of DOF ( you loose much control over creative
focus with the crop ) and the noise from using such a small chip
balances the light-gathering ability perfectly.

Not trying to knock your system, but you're pretending to get a
free lunch, which just isn't the case.

Click to expand...

How you get this number?? f5,6?? and much deeper DOF?

Click to expand...

Nope, f5.6 and same DOF.

Give it a try yourself.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Let's punch in a 600mm f5.6 at 100 feet on full frame.

DOF = 2.82 feet.

Now we punch in a 300mm f2.8 at 100 feet on four thirds (tm).

DOF = 2.84 feet.

Click to expand...

well, you talking about DOF and not about brightness. You put a full stop after lens: "so in effect it's a

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

f/5.6 lens. In terms of DOF ( you loose much control over creative
focus with the crop ) and the noise from using such", and that confused me

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That can be a bad thing, but that can be a good thing too, depends on situation and object. Short DOF isn't good in many ocasions when the light is low, and you must go for f2,8 or bigger. I think that you will agree. And, in dark situations you will need bigger aperture because of focusing, and higher ISo will not help you then.
Every system have a good and bad sides.
Cheers
Damir

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Do you mind manual focus?

Get a Nikon 50mm f1.2 (not the 50mm f1.4) and a Nikon to four
thirds (tm) adapter. That's equivalent to a 100mm f2.4 on four
thirds. Back in the film days, my 105mm f2.5 was my favorite
portrait lens, 100mm f2.5 is within 5% of that in both focal length
and speed.

Or, if you've got a couple of grand to kill, find a used Nikon 58mm
f1.2 NOCT. Best portrait lens you'll ever see at crop factors from
1.5x to 2x.

Click to expand...

I don't mind MF for portraits, but if one lens is good on film that doesn't meens that it will be good on all sensors. Maybe it is good on 5D, but that doesn't meens that it will be good on 4/3 sensor. I'll try them first I'm not in a hurry. I'm considering some of minoltas too
Thanks for the information. I'll try to find those lenses
Ciao

E1derful said:

Doing some quick math based on the numbers...

1Ds = 864 sq mm surface area
30D = 337.5 sq mm surface area
E1 = 243 sq mm surface area

The APS sensors are about 33% bigger than 4/3 sensors...but the
noise response would indicate a substantially larger sensor...so
size is not the most important factor necessarily. In fact, the
noise difference between 30D and 5D is not that distinguishable
even with more than DOUBLE the surface area. I would have expected
a larger gap.

Click to expand...

Right. It seems to me that different sensor technologies can bridge differences of a full stop fairly easily. All that is needed is for one sensor to do about a half-stop better than "standard" and the other to do a half-stop worse than "standard".

The big problem with practical noise comparisons is how to factor in-camera noise reduction in the whole thing. Is the difference, the sensor, in-camera processing, or both?

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Agramer said:

Agramer said:

Do you mind manual focus?

Get a Nikon 50mm f1.2 (not the 50mm f1.4) and a Nikon to four
thirds (tm) adapter. That's equivalent to a 100mm f2.4 on four
thirds. Back in the film days, my 105mm f2.5 was my favorite
portrait lens, 100mm f2.5 is within 5% of that in both focal length
and speed.

Or, if you've got a couple of grand to kill, find a used Nikon 58mm
f1.2 NOCT. Best portrait lens you'll ever see at crop factors from
1.5x to 2x.

Click to expand...

I don't mind MF for portraits, but if one lens is good on film that
doesn't meens that it will be good on all sensors. Maybe it is good
on 5D, but that doesn't meens that it will be good on 4/3 sensor.
I'll try them first I'm not in a hurry. I'm considering some of
minoltas too
Thanks for the information. I'll try to find those lenses

Click to expand...

If the pattern holds, you will probably get mediocre (soft and prone to flair) performance from wide open up to f/2.0. After that, these legacy manual lenses often perform quite nicely. You will probably want to get a split prism focus screen to go along with them.

Here are some tests I recently ran on manual focus legacy lenses on an E-300.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/lenscompare/ManLensShootout.html

The 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar is included there. I don't know how its bokeh compares to the 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor that Joseph mentioned, but I've always fount the Takumar to give pleasing bokeh. It is probably my favorite in my rather limited lens arsenal for that quality. And I suspect it will cost a bit less than the Nikkor.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Jay Turberville said:

Jay Turberville said:

Size of the lens is one factor, brightness is another. The could
produce either smaller lenses, or lenses that are normal sized but
also brighter. This would offset the great DOF characteristics of
the 4/3 sensor somewhat - by having f/1 and f/0.75 lenses.

Click to expand...

At the very least, the design of the mirror box means that you get
diminishing returns for faster lenses starting at around f/1.4.
You might get some of the benefit of greater DoF, but unless
Olympus redesigns their mirror box, the mirror box's aperture will
eclipse a fair amount of the exit pupil of a lens faster than f/1.4.

Click to expand...

I just reviewed this while thinking about something else, and the current Olympus mirror box does not present any appreciable problem until you go past f/1.0. So you should get almost the full benefit of an f/1.0 lens if such a thing were to be designed. You would probably have some angle related falloff problems though.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Agramer said:

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Do you mind manual focus?

Get a Nikon 50mm f1.2 (not the 50mm f1.4) and a Nikon to four
thirds (tm) adapter. That's equivalent to a 100mm f2.4 on four
thirds. Back in the film days, my 105mm f2.5 was my favorite
portrait lens, 100mm f2.5 is within 5% of that in both focal length
and speed.

Or, if you've got a couple of grand to kill, find a used Nikon 58mm
f1.2 NOCT. Best portrait lens you'll ever see at crop factors from
1.5x to 2x.

Click to expand...

I don't mind MF for portraits, but if one lens is good on film that
doesn't meens that it will be good on all sensors. Maybe it is good
on 5D, but that doesn't meens that it will be good on 4/3 sensor.

Click to expand...

No, but it does improve the odds. And being good on a fine pixel pitch 1.5x sensor also improves the odds that it will be good on a four thirds (tm) sensor.

Agramer said:

I'll try them first I'm not in a hurry. I'm considering some of
minoltas too

Click to expand...

There are some good ones, but I couldn't name them off the top of my head.

Agramer said:

Thanks for the information. I'll try to find those lenses

Click to expand...

Any time. I forgot one your should check out. If you can get your hands on it, try the 40mm f2.0 Voigtlander Aspherical Ultron.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Jay Turberville said:

Jay Turberville said:

Jay Turberville said:

Get a Nikon 50mm f1.2 (not the 50mm f1.4) and a Nikon to four
thirds (tm) adapter.

Or, if you've got a couple of grand to kill, find a used Nikon 58mm
f1.2 NOCT. Best portrait lens you'll ever see at crop factors from
1.5x to 2x.

Click to expand...

I don't mind MF for portraits, but if one lens is good on film that
doesn't meens that it will be good on all sensors. Maybe it is good
on 5D, but that doesn't meens that it will be good on 4/3 sensor.

Click to expand...

If the pattern holds, you will probably get mediocre (soft and
prone to flair) performance from wide open up to f/2.0.

Click to expand...

Not from the 58mm f1.2 NOCT. Those are sharp, low flair, and high contrast wide open. Ground aspherical front elements are things of beauty.

The later versions of the 50mm f1.2 have Nikon's latest coatings. If you give them the deep hood from the 200mm f4 Micro Nikkor, they are very well flare controlled. Spherical aberration gives it a pleasing softness wide open, like mixing a sharp layer with a Gaussian blur layer.

Jay Turberville said:

After
that, these legacy manual lenses often perform quite nicely. You
will probably want to get a split prism focus screen to go along
with them.

Here are some tests I recently ran on manual focus legacy lenses on
an E-300.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/lenscompare/ManLensShootout.html

Click to expand...

I love your test target.

Jay Turberville said:

The 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar is included there. I don't know how its
bokeh compares to the 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor that Joseph mentioned, but
I've always fount the Takumar to give pleasing bokeh. It is
probably my favorite in my rather limited lens arsenal for that
quality. And I suspect it will cost a bit less than the Nikkor.

Click to expand...

Yup, the 50mm f1.2 still goes for around $500, if memory serves. Have you tried a different hood on your 50mm Tak?

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Agramer said:

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Agramer said:

How you get this number?? f5,6?? and much deeper DOF?

Click to expand...

Nope, f5.6 and same DOF.

Give it a try yourself.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Click to expand...

well, you talking about DOF and not about brightness. You put a
full stop after lens: "so in effect it's a

Agramer said:

Agramer said:

Agramer said:

f/5.6 lens. In terms of DOF ( you loose much control over creative
focus with the crop ) and the noise from using such", and that confused me

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That can be a bad thing, but that can be a good thing too, depends
on situation and object. Short DOF isn't good in many ocasions when
the light is low, and you must go for f2,8 or bigger. I think that
you will agree.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Agramer said:

And, in dark situations you will need bigger
aperture because of focusing, and higher ISo will not help you then.

Click to expand...

And the crop factor relation still holds for focusing, down to about f5.6. Bright screens let through most of the light without scattering it (that's why they're bright). But this means that your eye never gets to see light from the outer part of a lens's exit pupil, the areas that correspond to apertures like f1.4, or even f2.8. Look at Jay's comparison photographs taken through the viewfinder of an Oly. No matter how fast a lens you put on that camera, you never see brightness or DOF from anything past f4.0. And the difference between f4.0 and f5.6 is less than a stop through the viewfinder.

AF is the same on the fairly dated and low end AF systems on the Oly DSLRs. The AF sensors are aimed down diametrically opposed areas of the exit pupil corresponding to f5.6. That allows their f2.8-f3.5 (essentially, f4) zooms to still autofocus with 1.4x teleconverters.

However, the situation is a little different with a more modern, high end Nikon or Canon. Those have two sets of AF sensors, one aimed at diametrically opposed f5.6 areas, and one aimed for f2.8. Hopefully, Oly will catch up some day.

Agramer said:

Every system have a good and bad sides.

Click to expand...

True.

Agramer said:

Cheers

Click to expand...

You too.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

However, the situation is a little different with a more modern,
high end Nikon or Canon. Those have two sets of AF sensors, one
aimed at diametrically opposed f5.6 areas, and one aimed for f2.8.
Hopefully, Oly will catch up some day.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the Nikons, but the inexpensive (Rebels) Canons don't have the high precision AF sensors (maybe the 400D does?). And the D20 (D30?) only has one higher precision AF sensor.
http://www.canonusa.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html

I haven't found any good resource for information on the precision and capabilities of the Olympus AF sensors. Olympus claims five times the precision as needed for 35mm film. Maybe you could point me to your resource?
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7050.htm

But the general concensus from Olympus users is that the camera's AF is accurate but slow. I've seen few complaints about back or front focus. In fact, the Olympus systems typically seems to make two movements to focus a lens, implying that perhaps it sometimes does a second re-check or is at least sometimes using a closed loop.

As you know, focus problems on DSLRs are often not a matter of AF sensor precision, but of lens or camera miscalibration.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

http://www.jayandwanda.com/photography/lenscompare/ManLensShootout.html

Click to expand...

I love your test target.

Click to expand...

I thought it would be more interesting than a B&W slant edge. Though I probably should have tossed one in. I would have used Phred the Wonder Pheasant II except that he was left outside and is no long much of a wonder. I wonder if I can find a Phred III. (Phred I was destroyed by a small doglike animal.)

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Yup, the 50mm f1.2 still goes for around $500, if memory serves.
Have you tried a different hood on your 50mm Tak?

Click to expand...

Not in any really controlled way. I probably should do that. But since things settle down nicely at f/2, I haven't been that motivated.

This doesn't show bokeh issues in any dramatic way, but it does show that the lens is pretty well behaved at f/2.0. The top part of the scoreboard is lit up brightly and track lights above the scoreboard are bright and reflecting off of the track surface.



Shot at ISO 1600 with an E-300. Its the most recent Takumar image I have. (She's bragging about being the "lead jammer" BTW.)

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

That can be a bad thing, but that can be a good thing too, depends
on situation and object. Short DOF isn't good in many ocasions when
the light is low, and you must go for f2,8 or bigger. I think that
you will agree.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Click to expand...

In some situation I need bigger DOF and I can't get it eaven with my E1 and 50-200. I can't understand that you always need small DOF. Newer mind.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

And, in dark situations you will need bigger
aperture because of focusing, and higher ISo will not help you then.

Click to expand...

And the crop factor relation still holds for focusing, down to
about f5.6. Bright screens let through most of the light without
scattering it (that's why they're bright). But this means that your
eye never gets to see light from the outer part of a lens's exit
pupil, the areas that correspond to apertures like f1.4, or even
f2.8. Look at Jay's comparison photographs taken through the
viewfinder of an Oly. No matter how fast a lens you put on that
camera, you never see brightness or DOF from anything past f4.0.
And the difference between f4.0 and f5.6 is less than a stop
through the viewfinder.

AF is the same on the fairly dated and low end AF systems on the
Oly DSLRs. The AF sensors are aimed down diametrically opposed
areas of the exit pupil corresponding to f5.6. That allows their
f2.8-f3.5 (essentially, f4) zooms to still autofocus with 1.4x
teleconverters.

However, the situation is a little different with a more modern,
high end Nikon or Canon. Those have two sets of AF sensors, one
aimed at diametrically opposed f5.6 areas, and one aimed for f2.8.
Hopefully, Oly will catch up some day.

Click to expand...

E1 AF is preaty close to D5 in good light (I can't tell the difference.) In low light D5 is faster, but misses a lot. When E1 don't want to focus, D5 locks the focus, but, too many times that is a miss lock. I tryed this and I dont like it. I got too much bad photos and I were shure that I have a good ones.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Every system have a good and bad sides.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cheers.
I'm out

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Any time. I forgot one your should check out. If you can get your
hands on it, try the 40mm f2.0 Voigtlander Aspherical Ultron.

Click to expand...

Thx
Bye

This poster said he talked with Oly Europe:

"Reason why E-400 is not going to be sold in the States is "a matter of timing". They obviously think they cannot satisfy the demand, so they decided to sell it only in Europe. the reason is more or less obvious. Europe makes 45% of Olympus sales. USA is something like 32, Asia around 20. Anyway, when I asked whether they plan on introducing E-400 in the States later, I was told that they do, but no definite time-frame."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=20057310

--

No lie can live forever. They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.

Gerald Massey

Your examples work very well when you want DoF to show the background. But what if you didn't? Let's say you wanted the background to be a complete blur. The problem that I see with 4/3 is that you often can't do it. Yes, someone will post a photo where the background is 100m away and show it can be done, but what I'm saying is it can't be done in all circumstances. Another example is the photos of a baby's feet, where the DoF is so small that the legs and the body are out of focus. I'm not sure that's possible with 4/3. In summary, it seems 4/3 is great for landscape shots where DoF is desired, but comes short for portraits. That's OK as long as the people buying 4/3 aren't serious about portraits.

As for me, I have a 350D and I find it difficult to get a shallow DoF. I didn't notice it as much until I shot with a friend using a 5D. His backgrounds were nicely blurred and mine weren't. The difference was quite noticeable. Using the 2 stops DoF difference cited below between full frame & 4/3, that means to get a shot at 2.8 full frame, one needs a 1.4 lens for 4/3. Imagine a 70-200 1.4 lens!! That would weigh 20kg, be as big as a telecope, and cost $10,000.

To summarize, 4/3 has advantages and disadvantages and it comes down to a personal choice.

I think that for portraits we don't need new or brighter zoom lens. 4/3 have nice 35-100/2,0 zoom which can be used for portraits and which have weery nice bokeh.

We need fast primes. Something like f1,4 prime in 40-60 (80-120) range with nice bokeh.
Cheers
Damir

First, let me just say that I'm a diehard Oly fan (as my name here might suggest) so hopefully you won't take my following opinions as being an attack on Olympus as such.

I am very fond of shallow DOF and for me, the 4/3 system just doesn't seem capable of providing what I want in a camera system. Because of this, I have switched over to Canon: I have a 5D, but all except one of my lenses are the old OM Zuikos, mounted via an adapter. I miss the ergonomics of my old OM-1 and OM-2 because, quite frankly, I think the Canon bodies are not designed with me in mind... but I value the larger sensor size so this is why I put up with Canon ergonomics.

To my mind, the 4/3 lenses are too expensive. Sure, I've no doubt that they are optically superb, but part of the reason I haven't bought into the system is the cost of the lenses. Part of the campaign for 4/3 was that smaller = cheaper I seem to recall, but it hasn't turned out this way. Am I being unreasonable?

Anyway, I think that for the price they are selling at, they could be brighter, and you and others seem to indicate above that the lenses could be brighter than Oly recommends.

I think there is a place in the world for 4/3, but I also think that Oly should have developed a line of full-frame (FF) bodies as well, with an ability to use the OM lenses directly. OK, that may be economic fantasy (as Canon is the only camera company which makes its own sensors I think, so they can afford to follow this path more so than others) but perhaps in years to come Olympus could bring out such a line of FF bodies. We need someone to compete directly with Canon in terms of FF cameras IMO (I doubt Oly will do it, but I can still hope).
--
So many lenses, so little time!

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

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.

Click to expand...

You know more about lens design than me, but let me assure you that my 5D works just fine with my old OM lenses. Canon wide-angle lenses have a bad name, but so did they on film. This is not a digital issue, and FF sensors perform much better than people expected. They "vignette" no more than did slide film, and few people ever complained about that back then, did they?
--
So many lenses, so little time!