-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
pros and cons of 4/3 systems(lens, sensor) ???
- Thread starter cms112691
- Start date
Leejay Wu
Veteran Member
I suggest you take a look at http://www.four-thirds.org -- that's the official site.
That said, this is the sort of open-ended BrandWar question that tends to draw in fanatical loyalists of all brands as well as trolls, resulting in busy threads with low signal-noise ratio Not too many people are really experienced with multiple camera systems in a variety of applications...
And no matter the system one chooses, it's unlikely that all parts of the system will be completely relevant. Ex. -- wireless flash control, tilt-shift lenses, expensive super-teles or ultra-wides, splashproofing, high fps, live LCD view, the availability of macro flashes, et al. Might be you don't care about any lens exceeding 1.5 pounds or $500 for instance.
Ergo -- rather than solicit general information about all the various systems, it might be better to decide what you specifically want or need, and then search for systems that provide this with acceptable trade-offs.
That said, this is the sort of open-ended BrandWar question that tends to draw in fanatical loyalists of all brands as well as trolls, resulting in busy threads with low signal-noise ratio Not too many people are really experienced with multiple camera systems in a variety of applications...
And no matter the system one chooses, it's unlikely that all parts of the system will be completely relevant. Ex. -- wireless flash control, tilt-shift lenses, expensive super-teles or ultra-wides, splashproofing, high fps, live LCD view, the availability of macro flashes, et al. Might be you don't care about any lens exceeding 1.5 pounds or $500 for instance.
Ergo -- rather than solicit general information about all the various systems, it might be better to decide what you specifically want or need, and then search for systems that provide this with acceptable trade-offs.
I found that one of the reasons I wanted to move up from a point and shoot to a dslr was to have better control over depth of field, specifically making it shallow.
On a P&S with a small sensor, achieving this is very tricky, you can try using macro, focusing closely and zooming to telephoto end. They are all tricks and work arounds to combat a basic flaw - small sensor size.
Some P&S camera's can have sensors roughly equal to half of your little finger nail, some are a bit bigger, then there's 4/3, APS-C, FF or 35mm, medium and large formats.
If you think of full frame as having a sensor about the size of an SD card, APS-C will be about half that size, 4/3 will be quarter of the size and P&S will be a fraction of any of those.
With each incremental step smaller, it becomes much harder to minimize depth of field, so if you take a 4/3 f/2.8 lens, that equates to an f/4 APS-C lens or f/5.6 35mm lens. (I think).
One of the main reasons thus far for buying a 4/3 camera is the proliferation of the live view feature. Or if you hark back to manual control days, the PanaLeica versions.
Don't buy one because it is cheap, because you will soon find that there will only be 3 or 4 lenses in your price bracket as a lot of the 4/3 lenses are quite expensive, although with Sigma bringing out new ones with greater frequency, things will get better.
On a P&S with a small sensor, achieving this is very tricky, you can try using macro, focusing closely and zooming to telephoto end. They are all tricks and work arounds to combat a basic flaw - small sensor size.
Some P&S camera's can have sensors roughly equal to half of your little finger nail, some are a bit bigger, then there's 4/3, APS-C, FF or 35mm, medium and large formats.
If you think of full frame as having a sensor about the size of an SD card, APS-C will be about half that size, 4/3 will be quarter of the size and P&S will be a fraction of any of those.
With each incremental step smaller, it becomes much harder to minimize depth of field, so if you take a 4/3 f/2.8 lens, that equates to an f/4 APS-C lens or f/5.6 35mm lens. (I think).
One of the main reasons thus far for buying a 4/3 camera is the proliferation of the live view feature. Or if you hark back to manual control days, the PanaLeica versions.
Don't buy one because it is cheap, because you will soon find that there will only be 3 or 4 lenses in your price bracket as a lot of the 4/3 lenses are quite expensive, although with Sigma bringing out new ones with greater frequency, things will get better.
Leejay Wu
Veteran Member
To be fair, this isn't inherent to the Four-Thirds system, although there may be relevant patents belonging to one of the consortium members. Might be the E-330 two-sensor system involves one or more patents.
Canon, for instance, has apparently decided it's worthwhile to add a version of it to their 1D Mk III. They haven't added it to their 'consumer-line' ##d or ###d lines, but it wouldn't be a complete shock if they started to.
Size/weight/resolution trade-off would be a better reason. The smaller the sensor, the more difficult it is to make it resolve extreme amounts of detail (less light per unit area, and the lens has to be correspondingly sharp, too), and the harder it'll be to make a simultaneously big and bright optical viewfinder, but the smaller the lens might be for a given FOV and aperture. Many are apparently happy with the resolution, dynamic range, and noise characteristics of 1/1.8" compacts. Four-Thirds works for some. APS sizes works for some. Some are picky enough that 36x24mm is their baseline. And I've known people that avow non-interest in digital until medium-format digital backs become very affordable. Given that most of us don't need to spend thousands of dollars to make monstrously detailed prints, we're willing to make space/resolution compromises; where varies from person to person.
An awful lot of people are reasonably happy with the 'Standard Grade' lenses. The cliche'd and not that expensive "two lens kit" featured the Olympus DZ 14-45 and 40-150. Not my taste (personally willing to pay for faster aperture and weather seals of the 14-54mm and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 zooms), but not everybody's running around with the pricey Panaleica lenses or the silver-ring'd.
Where it is relatively sparse are inexpensive single-focal-length lenses. Leica 25 f/1.4 will be out, but presumably not exactly inexpensive. The emphasis to date appears to have been on establishing three lines principally along zooms based on the expectation that's what most of the market wants.
Holgs
Senior Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_System
--
My profile on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/people/holgs/
(photos from my travels and life in general)
--
My profile on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/people/holgs/
(photos from my travels and life in general)
I have tried follow combos:
Nikon D70s (good design, status LCD)
tamron 18-200(only good in good light, too slow)
Sigma 10-20(i don´t really used it)
Sony A100 (tricky wb)+both kit lens
indoor performance with 18-70 was much better;
the 75-300 is not so bad for wildlife, but IQ at 300m was not so good(CA, soft)
i am interested in the combo of
E-510 or the new P-1(the next model of E-1)
14-54mm and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
i think this combo is ideal for me because oft the range of the zooms and their faster aperture.
will this combo perform better than the two others ???(pro, cons, i think the price is okey for me)
thanks
cms
Nikon D70s (good design, status LCD)
tamron 18-200(only good in good light, too slow)
Sigma 10-20(i don´t really used it)
Sony A100 (tricky wb)+both kit lens
indoor performance with 18-70 was much better;
the 75-300 is not so bad for wildlife, but IQ at 300m was not so good(CA, soft)
i am interested in the combo of
E-510 or the new P-1(the next model of E-1)
14-54mm and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
i think this combo is ideal for me because oft the range of the zooms and their faster aperture.
will this combo perform better than the two others ???(pro, cons, i think the price is okey for me)
thanks
cms
Leejay Wu
Veteran Member
cms wrote:
I haven't personally tried the other combos you mentioned, so I can't really give a fair comparison.
The E-510, like the Sony but not the Nikon, has in-body stabilization. Nobody's had a chance to compare effectiveness.
Another question that might be interesting is how's the high-ISO performance -- provided that you need to use it, of course.
I do happen to have an E-1, the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 (not the recently announced SWD version of course -- release date is unknown).
The 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is a pretty reasonable walk-around lens, although those with more of an affinity for landscapes may prefer the extra FOV of 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 and another lens for portraits. It also focuses decently closely for a kit lens, although it's no macro. Useful lens.
The 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 fulfills a similar role to a 100-400 on 35mm film, but that's imprecise because the aspect ratios are different. Sharp -- optically still rather nice with the EC-14 1.4x teleconverter. Makes a surprisingly good dragonfly / butterfly lens with an EX-25 extension tube. Achilles heel is that autofocus in lower light levels is a bit slow (with the E-1, mind you; newer cameras in the line reportedly have improved on this), and there's no focus limiter to stop it from hunting over its entire range. SWD version should be significantly better at this.
If you follow this link (WARNING: 2560x1920 image)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lw2j/Thumbnails/FULL/2005-06-11-1017_squirrel_looking.jpg
you'll see a decent example of the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 at 200mm... with a 1.4x teleconverter, with only light processing (as in no software other than the Olympus-supplied converter, IIRC).
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lw2j/Thumbnails/FULL/2005-03-26-0669_squirrel_eating.jpg
is another 2560x1920 squirrel image, this time with the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5. Oversharpened, I think; I'd just gotten Olympus Studio at the time.
Both the lenses you mentioned are splashproofed, but the benefit is less with the non-sealed E-510; they're also both internal focusing, so polarizer use isn't hard. Haven't really noticed distortion, color casts or other optical issues with them other than vignetting when used at the long end and close to wide open.
Quick summary:
I've been using the E-1 + both lenses you mention since late 2004. Gotten prints made up to 16"x20" (upsampled via QImage). The chief areas in which improvements would be welcomed from my perspective would be
I haven't personally tried the other combos you mentioned, so I can't really give a fair comparison.
...nobody's tried the E-510 yet (rumors of July availability) and the E-1 successor is not spec'd. There are some plausible expectations, like in-body stabilization (fairly likely) and same live view mode (pretty much certain), but official announcements have been mostly vague. Availability date/quantity is also up for grabs.
The E-510, like the Sony but not the Nikon, has in-body stabilization. Nobody's had a chance to compare effectiveness.
Another question that might be interesting is how's the high-ISO performance -- provided that you need to use it, of course.
I do happen to have an E-1, the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 (not the recently announced SWD version of course -- release date is unknown).
The 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is a pretty reasonable walk-around lens, although those with more of an affinity for landscapes may prefer the extra FOV of 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 and another lens for portraits. It also focuses decently closely for a kit lens, although it's no macro. Useful lens.
The 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 fulfills a similar role to a 100-400 on 35mm film, but that's imprecise because the aspect ratios are different. Sharp -- optically still rather nice with the EC-14 1.4x teleconverter. Makes a surprisingly good dragonfly / butterfly lens with an EX-25 extension tube. Achilles heel is that autofocus in lower light levels is a bit slow (with the E-1, mind you; newer cameras in the line reportedly have improved on this), and there's no focus limiter to stop it from hunting over its entire range. SWD version should be significantly better at this.
If you follow this link (WARNING: 2560x1920 image)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lw2j/Thumbnails/FULL/2005-06-11-1017_squirrel_looking.jpg
you'll see a decent example of the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 at 200mm... with a 1.4x teleconverter, with only light processing (as in no software other than the Olympus-supplied converter, IIRC).
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lw2j/Thumbnails/FULL/2005-03-26-0669_squirrel_eating.jpg
is another 2560x1920 squirrel image, this time with the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5. Oversharpened, I think; I'd just gotten Olympus Studio at the time.
Both the lenses you mentioned are splashproofed, but the benefit is less with the non-sealed E-510; they're also both internal focusing, so polarizer use isn't hard. Haven't really noticed distortion, color casts or other optical issues with them other than vignetting when used at the long end and close to wide open.
Quick summary:
I've been using the E-1 + both lenses you mention since late 2004. Gotten prints made up to 16"x20" (upsampled via QImage). The chief areas in which improvements would be welcomed from my perspective would be
- AF speed, particularly in low light w/ 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, and
- image noise at ISO 1600+. ISO 800, not too bad. But you can't judge the E-510 by the E-1, different sensor, different pixel density, different technology.
Leejay Wu
Veteran Member
Well, with the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 + EC-14 shot --
- focal length was maxed
- aperture was f/7.1
- the subject was fairly close compared to the grass behind it
Carnildo
Leading Member
From a simple technical standpoint, a four-thirds system camera will be smaller and lighter than the equivalent APS-C. For a given aperture, depth of field will be somewhat higher than an APS-C camera, but much lower than a point-and shoot. Resolution and sharpness depend on the sensor and lens, but a four-thirds camera will be diffraction-limited at larger apertures than an APS-C camera (but again, will perform much better than a point-and-shoot). All else being equal, sensor noise will be a problem at lower ISO levels than for an APS-C camera, but the difference is only around half a stop (ie. ISO 1200 instead of ISO 1600).
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum