Reading mode: Light Dark

Odd parallel between Nikon D700/D3 and Oly E-3

Go to last post
ljmac said:
georgeorwell said:
so you must buy a LX3 or a G10 , fast lens + big DOF, better then
any 4/3 camera :-)
Click to expand...
I really wish I could actually, but the pixel density of current
compacts is just too much for current technology. I'd be happy if
they put a freeze on further megapixel increases until the technology
catches up, but that clearly isn't going to happen, so it seems the
pixel density will always be well ahead of what technology allows.
Click to expand...
Lx3 is on the right way , G10 not, maybe canon has to concentrate more to do less MP and faster lens, who cares of 14MP if are noisy? better 10 or 8 but clean

btw already now i think LX3 has a noise performance not so much worse then my old EOS 1 film camera with a provia 400, i think a big step aheed, considering that EOS 1 was a high end professional camera and provia one of the best slides ever done
 
... in some folks minds. I think Louis has accurately pictured a reality here. The small size of the 4/3rds sensor implies some limitations. What I find amazing is that size, weight, and cost of 4/3rds is excused or forgotten due to the idea that bigger must categorically always be better. Perception is everything and many will pay barrels of money for it.

So I budget. I like smaller systems. I prefer Oly colors. I prefer to seek out good light rather than push ISO up to insane heights in poor lighting. I like weather sealed cameras and lenses that don't break the bank. I like sensor IS. I like flippy screens. I like good ergonomics and never having to worry about dust.

"But Dude!, my sensor is bigger than yours."

"Yeah, and you spent $3000 more to out-gun me in museums. Yay you."

Cheerio,
Seth
Louis_Dobson said:
One pays a fortune for fast lenses to use them like that SOMETIMES.
Because shallow DoF is a party trick for my D3 / fast primes combo, I
use it a lot, but I must say when I'm using the E3 I rarely miss it.

Per area, and for a year old camera, the E3 has a superb sensor. The
size implies some limitations - and brings strengths at the same time.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Click to expand...
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
 
rovingtim said:
John King said:
rovingtim said:
so you must buy a LX3 or a G10 , fast lens + big DOF, better then
any 4/3 camera :-)
Click to expand...
Not according to any reviews I have ever seen.
Click to expand...
Well, here you are then: a review of the G10 v a Hass with a P45 back.

Results? At low iso, no difference.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Click to expand...
and drew these comments over at FM

"As someone commented somewhere else, MR technique on the Hassy seems to be lacking"

"What I find remarkable is how bloody boring the sample shots are, regardless of what camera was used. "

"When your already wealthy you don't have to make your cash from photography"

"On another note, I downloaded the P45 JPEG, and I don't see anything that has been properly focused on, except a few twigs that fall into the plane of focus, kind of. It could've been much better. Now I know why you can compare that shot with point and shoot images (the G10 is very good though)."

"It's basically out of focus. I know what it should look like, since I have processed a few P45 and Aptus 75 files in Lightroom that are SHARP."

"All I lost all respect for him when he convinced people that a 11mp 1ds was better or equivalent to a 6x7 chrome."

"It was very similar to this test. Take out all advantages of the larger format by testing small prints."

"Robert, I agree a good photographer makes more in this set up, however the point is that you do not have enough DOF in this particular situation (well dont ask me why he didnt use a WA) to give an overall impression of even sharpness"

"I think folks are taking this way too seriously and not in the way that MR intended."

"POP Journalism at it's best!"

"Certainly his observations wouldn't apply in all situations (and he hasn't claimed they would), as we've already seen the G10 image quality in less than ideal shooting conditions: it shows noise, smearing, fringing, etc. But in the relatively common scenario he shot his test under, I think he just wanted to say that the G10 held up remarkably well compared to the P45, at those print sizes."

"If he only went that far, I might agree but when he starts making remarks like I quoted above concerning the 100% per pixel quality, I just have to laugh. Really? He can't tell them apart at 100% on screen? I must of missed it but I did not see this 100% per pixel comparison he alludes to displayed his review."

"At 100%, lower megapixel cameras always look better than higher megapixel cameras because they are much less magnified."

"Neither DPR nor LL have worked out that a lower megapixel file needs to be uprezzed to the same number of pixels as a higher megapixel file before comparison at 100% on screen."

"Still: at 100% the g10 files look like cr@p even compared to a decent SLR; no need to uprez it... It might be good for a p&s, but it's full of artifacts and mush or whatever you want to call that digicam nr look.

OTOH, it's probably pretty easy to get the maximum IQ that it is capable of, while to do the same on MF is not that easy. "

my own view?

its photographers versus photography, but I am not surprised that some people do not know the difference. MR played a joke on the photographic community, and some people do not understand the joke, and cannot be seen to be laughing because they think it is real.
 
sincerly this notes look very offensive to Mr Reichman.... i cant understand this way to degrade other work, also this are your opinion or other opinion? maybe you can simply donwload images and express your opinion instead of copy and paste others opinion,just and advise :)
 
wrote:
SirSeth said:
... in some folks minds. I think Louis has accurately pictured a
reality here. The small size of the 4/3rds sensor implies some
limitations. What I find amazing is that size, weight, and cost of
4/3rds is excused or forgotten due to the idea that bigger must
categorically always be better. Perception is everything and many
will pay barrels of money for it
Click to expand...
SirSeth said:
"But Dude!, my sensor is bigger than yours."

"Yeah, and you spent $3000 more to out-gun me in museums. Yay you."

Cheerio,
Seth
Click to expand...
hi, Seth

whilst at the consumer end of the scale Olympus is indeed lighter and cheaper as you move to a quality set up both price and weight increase for a typical high quality type kit ie Nikon D700 + 14-24,24-70 and SB-900 Flash vs the Olympus E3 +7-14,14-35 and the Fl-50 flashgun the weight difference is approximately 14oz for the whole kit not exactly backbreaking lol , and at current UK prices the Nikon set up is actually slightly cheaper, and if you exchanged the d700 for a d300 the price difference would be substantial, whilst perhaps the very long and very fast primes may be lighter the poorer high iso performance would make me reluctant to buy the E3 for typical use ie sport wildlife etc in anything but good light ,IS provides no benefit for moving targets.

I have a couple of OM4ti and several oly lenses and have always enjoyed using any Olympus equipment i have owned and i would love a digital equivalent of my old XA a truly magnificent piece of design by Yoshihisa Maitani , i tend to think that Olympus betrayed its film camera users and heritage, for many critical areas sadly bigger will always be better and technology developed for the smaller sensor can be used on the larger sensor , so simple logic dictates that for these purposes bigger is better , larger pixels for any given mp = better low light performance better dynamic range etc, I believe that the E3 is indeed a superb camera let down by its sensor
Jim

p.s I like Museums lol , and as a wedding photographer i have to like low light churches, chapels castles etc
 
An opinion that goes against mob "knowledge", not to mention the need to validate tens of thousands of dollars of photograpshic investment, drew criticism?

Amazing.

Reichman doesn't care which camera does the best. He was surprised that the quality of the medium format doesn't show up until the prints get VERY big. There are very good reasons why this is so.

He thought it might be useful to others to publish his findings as it might surprise other people as well. And it did.

Why don't you read the article yourself and see what he says.

--
Seeing is believing.
 
georgeorwell said:
Lx3 is on the right way , G10 not, maybe canon has to concentrate
more to do less MP and faster lens, who cares of 14MP if are noisy?
better 10 or 8 but clean

btw already now i think LX3 has a noise performance not so much worse
then my old EOS 1 film camera with a provia 400, i think a big step
aheed, considering that EOS 1 was a high end professional camera and
provia one of the best slides ever done
Click to expand...
I agree that the LX3 does seem to have acceptable IQ - it's the first compact I've been able to say that about in a very long time. Still not as good as a DSLR though, and the zoom range is too limiting for me (given that the lens is fixed). But it is definitely a step in the right direction - if they do a follow up model with more zoom range I might be very tempted to get one, at least as a travel cam.
 
It seems that you may consider that "best" means the highest clean ISO, the best DR, the highest resolution, or the fastest of everything. The D700 is $2999 and is 33.6oz, the 24-70mm is $1500 and about 32oz. It's one of the best bodies ever made and this pro lens is very capable. And the cost is about $4500USD. It feels massive to me and is beyond my budget, but if I were doing weddings, this would be the best camera to build a system on IMO. It's excellent in almost every way for the price and its strengths. I was of course not saying that wedding photographers should not consider the camera that gives them the most advantages for their work.

The E-30 or E-3 is about $1300 and 23oz+, and the 12-60mm is $740 and about 21oz. Totals run about $2000 and 2.75lbs+. It's about half the cost and weight. Not equivalent, but best for the budget, best for getting a weather sealed sysetm on a budget. It's easy to configure a very good D300 kit that is lighter and less expensive also, but that's besides the point here. APS-C and 4/3rds are just too close to quibble IMO.

I think the point is that the price bar to get into very good equipment is different between crop sensors and FF DSLRs. Yes, the larger sensor will always have the edge (and it's surely an edge that is not comparable to price proportions. It seems fair to me that by the same logic, smaller sensor cameras will always be less expensive, smaller, and lighter. (Even if you can buy uber large expensive lenses).

So what is better? The less expensive, lighter, very high quality equipment options that match my priority list are better. I'm kind of tired of people saying that FF is catagorically better, as if price, size, and the priorities of many users are of little consequence. That implies that my priority list is not worthy of consideration. We could argue "best" until we are black and blue, but there is no real "best" that excludes the priorities of the individual users. If price and compact options are near the top of the list, then FF is disadvantaged. If high ISO and DR top the list, than 4/3rds is not the system to look into. What if face recognition tops the list? Then DSLRs stink. For you, the E-3 is let down by it's small sensor. For me, it's golden that we can get so much Pro stuff with a smaller sensor at a much lower price than similar pro specks from other companies. For me, every FF camera is let down by it's size, price, and the compromises that are inherant with larger sensor cameras.

It's the attitude that bigger is categorically better for everyone that Louis illuminates well. That's ego. To insist that everyone should spend thousands to get small gains in certian areas that are needed by a few... bah!

Cheerio,
Seth
jim stirling said:
jim stirling said:
... in some folks minds. I think Louis has accurately pictured a
reality here. The small size of the 4/3rds sensor implies some
limitations. What I find amazing is that size, weight, and cost of
4/3rds is excused or forgotten due to the idea that bigger must
categorically always be better. Perception is everything and many
will pay barrels of money for it
Click to expand...
jim stirling said:
"But Dude!, my sensor is bigger than yours."

"Yeah, and you spent $3000 more to out-gun me in museums. Yay you."

Cheerio,
Seth
Click to expand...
hi, Seth
whilst at the consumer end of the scale Olympus is indeed lighter and
cheaper as you move to a quality set up both price and weight
increase for a typical high quality type kit ie Nikon D700 +
14-24,24-70 and SB-900 Flash vs the Olympus E3 +7-14,14-35 and the
Fl-50 flashgun the weight difference is approximately 14oz for the
whole kit not exactly backbreaking lol , and at current UK prices the
Nikon set up is actually slightly cheaper, and if you exchanged the
d700 for a d300 the price difference would be substantial, whilst
perhaps the very long and very fast primes may be lighter the poorer
high iso performance would make me reluctant to buy the E3 for
typical use ie sport wildlife etc in anything but good light ,IS
provides no benefit for moving targets.

I have a couple of OM4ti and several oly lenses and have always
enjoyed using any Olympus equipment i have owned and i would love a
digital equivalent of my old XA a truly magnificent piece of design
by Yoshihisa Maitani , i tend to think that Olympus betrayed its film
camera users and heritage, for many critical areas sadly bigger will
always be better and technology developed for the smaller sensor can
be used on the larger sensor , so simple logic dictates that for
these purposes bigger is better , larger pixels for any given mp =
better low light performance better dynamic range etc, I believe
that the E3 is indeed a superb camera let down by its sensor
Jim
p.s I like Museums lol , and as a wedding photographer i have to
like low light churches, chapels castles etc
Click to expand...
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
 
and why not, it is an article titled "Kidding" after all
rovingtim said:
An opinion that goes against mob "knowledge", not to mention the need
to validate tens of thousands of dollars of photograpshic investment,
drew criticism?
Click to expand...
well if you are going to judge 30 or so photographers so negatively, you might at least take a look at a sometimes controversial journalist, of whom has to be said, offers a site requiring a hit rate of visitors and has much in the way of merchandise to exchange.
rovingtim said:
Amazing.

Reichman doesn't care which camera does the best. He was surprised
that the quality of the medium format doesn't show up until the
prints get VERY big. There are very good reasons why this is so.

He thought it might be useful to others to publish his findings as it
might surprise other people as well. And it did.

Why don't you read the article yourself and see what he says.
Click to expand...
would you be surprised to hear that I have already done so? Try not to tempt the obvious please. Why not look at a site that offers some critique, a site that has a firm history of supporting compact camera types, a site devised by a man that some have grown to trust, Amin Sabat's Serious Compacts.

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/10/can-luminous-landscape-save-you-39500.html

and just a snip from there:

"You can’t excuse a poorly conducted test by calling it “informal”. It’s still a poorly conducted test and few conclusions of any value can be drawn. The whole enterprise, accompanied as it is with so many caveats, yet so positive in its “threshold” crossing proclamations, only serves to undermine the credibility of the author and call in to questions his analytical skills."

Featured Comment by Walter K:
 
No, you are right, you are not :-) The trick of self-deprecation is to deprecate YOURSELF, not the line of thought to which you are commenting. Still, if you actually understand that, technically, f2 by definition is f2, but, practically, that's an obvious but misleading statement, at least you are not confused, unlike many.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
SirSeth said:
It seems that you may consider that "best" means the highest clean
ISO, the best DR, the highest resolution, or the fastest of
everything. The D700 is $2999 and is 33.6oz, the 24-70mm is $1500 and
about 32oz. It's one of the best bodies ever made and this pro lens
is very capable. And the cost is about $4500USD.
The E-30 or E-3 is about $1300 and 23oz+, and the 12-60mm is $740 and
about 21oz. Totals run about $2000 and 2.75lbs+. It's about half the
cost and weight
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the 12-60 or e30 I was comparing the cameras mentioned in previous posts the d700 + 24-70 costs £2700 { typical online priced } whist the e3 +14-35 costs £2950 these are of course UK prices I can’t comment on prices elsewhere in the world, and I clearly stated that for some purposes the difference is critical , I am a Scotsman if I could get smaller , lighter and cheaper and do the same job I would jump at it lol. With regard to weight the D700 +24-70 weighs 2.1kg whilst the E3+14-35 weighs 1.75kg not exactly a huge weight saving and an equally quality set up of D300 + 17-55 weighs in at 1.6kg and costs around £1800
Jim

i
 
zulu40 said:
zulu40 said:
Could you explain why then someone would choose larger formats for
landscapes if there wasn't an advantage to it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
i agree with you but you have started talking about landscape, i think you are have not in mind the problem we are talking, couse landscaper photographer rare have noise problems having always a tripod...

i m not a landscape photographer, and i like the m4/3 , i could never carry 20 kg of gear with me ! but if i were a landscape photographer or low light photographer 4/3 dont fit good, i think we all agree on this , or not?

so the question you are talking "no noise advantage couse to have same DOF on D700 you must stop down 2 f stop" has no sense, or i m wrong?

when we need high iso (night photography, night events ) we dont need necessary big DOF

you can reply to me " ohh i shot wildlife and better have big DOF" , i reply to you "right" but what is better, dont have the shot couse you cant have good quality at high iso with 4/3 or m4/3(like me) couse you cant shoot at 6400-12800 iso like with a D700 or have the shoot but with a small DOF?

i think the answer is very easy :-)

there is also another question: you can use on a D700 very fast nikkor (f1.2 or 1.4) some old nikkor lens that is almost a noctilux ( i m not sure the old nikko 50mm f1.1 r could be fitted with current nikon mount with an adapter)

while the faster olympus lens what is ? a f2 if i remember good ? or you must use a sigma lens (for what i can see who choice olympus is for zuiko quality not for body +sigma lens)

i cant imagine how could be shoot with a f1.1 lens at 6400 iso, maybe just the light of candle in a room give you enough light
 
Which previous posts were you referring to which compared the D700 + 24-70 and E3 + 14-35? Your posts only?

Sir Seth makes a perfectly valid point, which you wish to dismiss out of hand. The best setup is not the same for everyone, and while you as a pro wedding photographer can breeze into the venue with your D700 setup in your wheelie camera bag, someone else may need to hump their setup on their back up hill and down dale into the wilds. In that sort of scenario the versatile, weatherproof and still high quality E-3 + 12-60 setup is much more suitable, especially if you want to carry a telephoto option with you also.

Yes, if you want a top-pro setup with the fastest possible glass reaching for that last 2% of possible performance there isn't much difference in price and weight between an E-3 and D700 setup and the D700 will likely come out on top, but the majority of E-3 users will be using the 12-60 (duh, it usually comes bundled with the camera). It will be considerably lighter and cheaper whilst offering greater reach.

IMO the Oly 14-35 is not the sort of lens that will make it into many Oly users bags. If you want that type of top pro performance you may as well have gone the FF path in the first place. OTOH if you already heavily invested in Oly gear and have no desire to switch systems (or run a second system) it may just make better economic sense to add that heavy, expensive 14-35 to bring along when you really need it.
jim stirling said:
SirSeth said:
It seems that you may consider that "best" means the highest clean
ISO, the best DR, the highest resolution, or the fastest of
everything. The D700 is $2999 and is 33.6oz, the 24-70mm is $1500 and
about 32oz. It's one of the best bodies ever made and this pro lens
is very capable. And the cost is about $4500USD.
The E-30 or E-3 is about $1300 and 23oz+, and the 12-60mm is $740 and
about 21oz. Totals run about $2000 and 2.75lbs+. It's about half the
cost and weight
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the 12-60 or e30 I was comparing the cameras
mentioned in previous posts the d700 + 24-70 costs £2700 { typical
online priced } whist the e3 +14-35 costs £2950 these are of course
UK prices I can’t comment on prices elsewhere in the world, and I
clearly stated that for some purposes the difference is critical , I
am a Scotsman if I could get smaller , lighter and cheaper and do
the same job I would jump at it lol. With regard to weight the D700
+24-70 weighs 2.1kg whilst the E3+14-35 weighs 1.75kg not exactly a
huge weight saving and an equally quality set up of D300 + 17-55
weighs in at 1.6kg and costs around £1800
Jim
Click to expand...
 
jim stirling said:
I never mentioned the 12-60 or e30 I was comparing the cameras
mentioned in previous posts the d700 + 24-70 costs £2700 { typical
online priced } whist the e3 +14-35 costs £2950 these are of course
UK prices I can’t comment on prices elsewhere in the world, and I
clearly stated that for some purposes the difference is critical , I
am a Scotsman if I could get smaller , lighter and cheaper and do
the same job I would jump at it lol. With regard to weight the D700
+24-70 weighs 2.1kg whilst the E3+14-35 weighs 1.75kg not exactly a
huge weight saving and an equally quality set up of D300 + 17-55
weighs in at 1.6kg and costs around £1800
Jim
Click to expand...
Got to say your doing your best to twist things.

I'd say your MUCH more likely to run into E-3/12-60/50-200 kits that any kit that includes the any of the f2 zooms. Many times there's the EC14 teleconverter thrown in to boot.

Its silly to equate the two systems. The D700 can't match that system, and the E-3 system cannot operate in all the same situations the D700 can.

The whole discussion is absurd, once again, for the 4,693rd FF vs. 4/3 thread.

--
-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/
 
or if you use lenses so slow the FF advantage is lots.

My (fast, high quality) FF Nikon kit weighs and costs far more than my (not fast, but still high quality) Oly gear.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
Look, quite frankly I don't really care if you think the Hass has magic for prints under 13". If you want to spend that kind of money for those size prints, be my guest.

Just for the record, the reason "When I first looked at the medium format image file at 100% I was taken aback at how much of the scene was out of focus due to shallow depth of field." doesn't matter is because the print is only 13".

What is so hard to understand about this? The test isn't a measure of "sharpness", as sharpness is only one parameter of a print. Everyone knows that if push comes to shove, the Hass will kill the G10 in sharpness, but it won't below 13" ... that is what makes this interesting.

It is the same reason a 5mp camera will look just as sharp at 4" as a 100mp camera ... there simply isn't enough real estate to express the extra 95mp.

--
Seeing is believing.
 
rovingtim said:
Look, quite frankly I don't really care if you think the Hass has
magic for prints under 13". If you want to spend that kind of money
for those size prints, be my guest.

Just for the record, the reason "When I first looked at the medium
format image file at 100% I was taken aback at how much of the scene
was out of focus due to shallow depth of field." doesn't matter is
because the print is only 13".

What is so hard to understand about this? The test isn't a measure of
"sharpness", as sharpness is only one parameter of a print. Everyone
knows that if push comes to shove, the Hass will kill the G10 in
sharpness, but it won't below 13" ... that is what makes this
interesting.

It is the same reason a 5mp camera will look just as sharp at 4" as a
100mp camera ... there simply isn't enough real estate to express the
extra 95mp.
Click to expand...
hi i think you are right, but as you can see not all people are so open minded to see this, who is to me very simple to understand...:-) many people see and interpreter the world from their cognitive cages
 
rovingtim said:
Look, quite frankly I don't really care if you think the Hass has
magic for prints under 13". If you want to spend that kind of money
for those size prints, be my guest.
Click to expand...
G10 isnt really capable of this, except in the best of circumstances

Canon PowerShot G10 Review, Don Wan, November 2008
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page24.asp

"Capable of very good results at lower ISO settings (Below ISO 400), and very usable for standard sized prints (noise and NR effects are visible on screen however)"

"Also if you were to only make small prints, view the images on computer monitors, or the images are mainly for web use, the the G10 would be a great choice"
rovingtim said:
Just for the record, the reason "When I first looked at the medium
format image file at 100% I was taken aback at how much of the scene
was out of focus due to shallow depth of field." doesn't matter is
because the print is only 13".
Click to expand...
yet your advice differs greatly from that above

yes, MR made sure that the scene would appear soft, that isnt hard to do, and thats the joke
rovingtim said:
What is so hard to understand about this? The test isn't a measure of
Click to expand...
nothing, you are expecting people to believe that the system that can screw FF to the wall when properly handled, has no advantage over G10 in this print size (which isnt especially small), that is an incorrect assumption as reviewers and photographers alike have attempted to point out.
 
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