Olympus needs new sensors and new cameras...

Everdog said:

I was really hoping that Olympus was trying to catch up, and they
may still be, but the bar keeps getting higher. I love the Olympus
glass and the features on cameras like the E-620 can't be beat, but
in the world of technology you can't get a couple years behind.

Click to expand...

I agree with your point that in high technology, you can't get too far behind. I don't, however, agree that Olympus are a couple of years behind. Perhaps I'm old school, but when my photographic journey began almost thirty years ago, "high iso" was 400ASA. I remember the excitement when Kodak produced a 1,000ASA print film, and I tried it to experience the grain for myself. To this day, I'll rarely go beyond 800ISO, and when I do, I think Olympus produce nice, film like images.

There are cameras out there that will do a far better job at 3200ISO than an Olympus E series, and if this is a speed that you need to shoot at to such an extent that it is of primary importance to your photography, then I would suggest that you've bought into the wrong system.

The overall quality of the Olympus system is second to none, especially when comparing it $ for $ against other APS-C systems. For me, the very compact nature of bodies and lenses was a significant factor in my decision to choose Olympus. Of course, there are other factors that I considered, but the point was I made a decision to buy into a system rather than choose one particular camera.

One of the trends I have noticed with the switch to digital photography is that many people are less interested in the craft of getting it right in camera and, instead, rely on post processing to recover images and in some cases replace sound photographic practice.

I would rather Olympus made large steps forward with each camera upgrade rather then constantly introduce new models with minor enhancements.

jim stirling said:

Hi Gregg,

I will tell my Mummy if I get banned , if you can't take it you shouldn't dish it out. I think for B&W you just cannot beat film , no matter what digital tinkering you do in B&W look forward to seeing them { if I do not respond it is because I am banned }
Jim

Click to expand...

i think you really have to push it to get banned, but it's nice checking to see which UK colloquialisms you can get in posts. As for the ilford film i have a feeling it's going to be called 'Bangkok scratch fest' but i still love shooting film especially with cheap fast B&W developing
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

All I was doing was simply posting a photographic rebuttal that the original poster was off base.

He made a comment about the sensors being unacceptable, and I posted photographic evidence that they are not. Simple as that.

You can make all of the excuses in the world about how Olympus did it, but it doesn't matter.

It simply beat the rivals with a smaller supposedly lessor sensor.

rlpruitt said:

Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Richard Avedon... what amazing photographers they would have been if they'd just had clean, buttery-smooth ISO 3200 to work with.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have been any more amazing. They would be what they were. Good photographers with different equipment. And, since they were good photographers with the equipment they had then, there is no reason we can't be good with what we have at this very moment.

Would I want clean ISO 3200? Sure, but not having it doesn't mean I can't make good photos.

--

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.

mrhodges2 said:

RLPruitt, Ansel Adams, Helmut, Newton, etc., would still not be able to take photographs in a less than ideally lit church without some objectionable levels of noise and/or motion blur caused by a moving subject, which is something that IS for some strange reason just doesn't seem to eliminate.

Click to expand...

It's not strange. IS is designed to help with camera movement. If you want to "stop" a moving subject then all you have is shutter speed, flash or yelling "Freeze while I shoot." Of course they mistake it for "Freeze or I'll shoot."

--

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.

Everdog said:

CharlesB58 said:

What is even sadder is how often people judge a camera by high ISO performance. Most of the shots I see showing off this performance would have been better using supplemental lighting...a decent flash or those who need it in simpler terms LOL

Click to expand...

Last night was dress rehersal for a production of Cinderella that my daughter was in. We were allowed to take pictures, but no flashes. I had to leave my E-620 at home and instead took a T2i. It was comforting to know that I could get usable pictures up to 6400 ISO. As it turned out, I needed it to (even with my f2.8 IS telephoto lens).

Click to expand...

If you had to use 6400 ISO a lot of the time at f2.8 then the production was under lit. What shutter speeds were you shooting at?

Everdog said:

Its sad I had to judge a camera by high ISO performance, but it was that or not take any usable photos.

Click to expand...

24MP said:

Olympus I.S. in body versus 1.5 stops better noise from Canon. Which is better?

Click to expand...

That is all well and good as long as your subject is not moving. You do have to take one other thing into account though, if you need edge to edge sharpness you are generally going to have to stop a Canon lens down one of two stops depending what one it is. Also if you can afford it you have two f2 zoom lenses that are available that are one stop faster than the Canon ones.

jim stirling said:

Jeff Charles said:

1. Usable IQ at high ISOs is not needed for most types of photography.

Click to expand...

Yet vital to some

jim stirling said:

1. Based on sensor sizes, Canon APS-C cameras have only a half stop theoretical advantage over FT cameras. We can expect improvements in FT sensor technology to close that gap. How soon? Who knows?

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

1. If and when Olympus does close the sensor-technology gap, the available f/2.0 zooms, although heavy and expensive, will make its cameras more capable in low light than Canon APS-C cameras. In fact, at every level, not considering primes, and with some exceptions, FT lenses are 2/3 of a stop to a full stop faster than their Canikon equivalents.

Click to expand...

This rather assumes that Canon and Nikon sensors will not also advance , though there will be some point in the future { who knows when} that the sensors will be good enough for all but those who need the very highest iso , though i feel we are quite a few generations away from that level of iso performance .And compared to APS cameras using the SHG lenses would cost more, and weigh more so why not just switch , lucky we do not have to consider primes

Click to expand...

Do remember these lenses can produce excellent results wide open but the Canon/Nikon versions can't.

jim stirling said:

jim stirling said:

1. If current FT shortcomings are keeping someone from getting the results they want, the rational course of action is to get other gear, either in addition to or as a replacement for their FT stuff.

Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense and I think that is what most folk do , though it works both ways as a mainly FF user . I bought some Olympus gear for a compact , but still well performing set up with very good kit lenses

Click to expand...

OM 6Ti Plus said:

Which are the facts and which the IMOs in your list, please.
...

Click to expand...

Hard to say. #2 is a true fact for sure. Basically, a fact is a statement that can be verified by evidence, so I guess all qualify to some extent as facts except #5. IMO, they're all true, or I wouldn't have written them.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

That only proofs Olympus doesn't care about FT, doesn't care about those who paid for those expensive SHG glasses! Shame on Olympus!

--
http://www.fotop.net/DonaldChin

--
http://www.fotop.net/DonaldChin

jim stirling said:

Jeff Charles said:

1. Usable IQ at high ISOs is not needed for most types of photography.

Click to expand...

Yet vital to some

Click to expand...

Of course. The 10% of the time that I need 1600 or above, lower ISOs will not do the job.

jim stirling said:

...

This rather assumes that Canon and Nikon sensors will not also advance , though there will be some point in the future { who knows when} that the sensors will be good enough for all but those who need the very highest iso , though i feel we are quite a few generations away from that level of iso performance.

Click to expand...

I think that's the way to look at it. I think we'd all agree that up to say ISO 400, all DSLRs do an equally good job. Some day, we may be able to say the same about ISOs 1600 and 3200. As you say, it's probably going to take a while.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

Everdog said:

Jeff Charles said:

...Based on sensor sizes, Canon APS-C cameras have only a half stop theoretical advantage over FT cameras. We can expect improvements in FT sensor technology to close that gap. How soon? Who knows?

Click to expand...

After using both my E-620 and a T2i this week I can tell you that it is now much more than a half stop.

Click to expand...

Everdog said:

When I first bought my E-620 last year I felt that the older T1i had about a full stop advantage (ISO 1600 on the E-620 looked like ISO3200 in the T1i). NOw the T2i is at least 1/2 a stop better than the T1i.

Click to expand...

The half stop that I wrote is the advantage that its larger sensor gives Canon APS-C. The rest is a better sensor and processing. Actually, your experience with the T2i is encouraging, because it shows what's possible. If Canon can do it, there's no reason to believe that Olympus can't. We'll see.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

... although I understand your current frustration with Olympus - especially with the level of investment you have in their products.

I think, however, that Olympus is making prudent business decisions.

In the same way they used the E-620 as a testing/proving ground for the miniaturized IS system that ended up in the E-P1, they're probably using the µ4/3 product area as a proving ground for new image processing routines for all Oly products.

By placing them in the µ4/3 bodies first, they can:

1. Get the product to the market cheaper and faster than with the more complex (mirror box,etc.) DSLR models.
2. Work out any production "kinks" with the less critical "consumer" crowd than with the much more critical enthusiast and professional purchasers like yourself.
3. Quickly realize a return on investment due to the hot-selling µ4/3 systems - profits which can be re-invested into the development required for the higher level, enthusiast and professional equipment.

In the same vein, it would be a REALLY BAD business decision for Oly to abandon its existing lens line. I don't think they've indicated any plan for doing that. In fact, in the quote that so many people have used to question Olympus' commitment to 4/3, Olympus product manager Richard S. Pelkowski says:

Member said:

I would say that within 24 months the E system will not have a mirror box at all. Up until we launched the Pen cameras all manufacturers were doing was fitting a digital sensor in what is ultimately a film camera body – there was nothing different. But with digital and electronic technology we can make cameras so much smaller. Soon the AF system in the Pen cameras will be as fast as that in the E system DSLRs so there it will be possible to get just as good AF performance without the mirror system. We have a great range of lenses for the Four Thirds system, and they’re not going anywhere, but they will be used on smaller and lighter more modern bodies.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis mine)

There's also the interview on Imaging Resource where 2 senior product executives state clearly that Oly will be creating 4/3 and µ4/3 systems in parallel:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1267027086.html

I think Olympus is doing and saying everything it should to reassure loyal Olympus owners that there will be much to be pleased about in the (maybe very near) future.

Ralph

Olympus is working on the next four thirds right now. The E-PL1 just proves that it's going to be a dynamite camera.

Quit hating on Micro 4/3. It's a nice compliment to a four thirds system.

You've got your Nikon to tide you over so quit crying about 4/3 and use it.

It still doesn't change the fact that a little 600 dollar camera is outresolving a Nikon D300s.

can you also explain to me what sarcasm is?

Robert

Everdog said:

So the new Canon T2i sensor has a 5.4 MP/cm² pixel density. My old E-620 has a 5.1 MP/cm² pixel density (better right?).

Click to expand...

The gapless micro lenses of the Canon 550D might skew the "raw" pixel density comparison.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos550d/page3.asp

--
Iván József Balázs
(Hungary)

Everdog said:

So the new Canon T2i sensor has a 5.4 MP/cm² pixel density. My old E-620 has a 5.1 MP/cm² pixel density (better right?). Which one does better in low light and performs better at high ISOs? It's not even close. The tests I have done so far with the Canon at ISO 6400 look much better than my E-620 at ISO 3200. Amazingly too, it can resolve those 18MP sharply with a good lens.

I was really hoping that Olympus was trying to catch up, and they may stilll be, but the bar keeps getting higher. I love the Olympus glass and the features on cameras like the E-620 can't be beat, but in the world of technology you can't get a couple years behind.

Click to expand...

My issues with your post are that

a) you have not included any comparative photos or data, just subjective statements, to back up anything you have said. (or did I miss that in one of the many posts below?). I'm just saying that for the observer here there is nothing to evaluate the relative merit of your statements.

b) the E-620 is a year old. And Olympus are generally a bit slower to issue updates to existing lines than C, but when they do they are generally in line with the technology. Olympus tend to offer many compelling reasons to buy their equipment, they are not solely focused on sensor technology, and neither to they ignore it.

So, I just don't see any value in your post in the first place, I really don't, without showing us some examples of these differences which you have observed. I would certainly hope that Canon's latest offering would be better than year-old technology, and I expect that Olympus will continue to advance in the future as well.

-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas

mrhodges2 said:

There is a well-known member here that over the course of a year or so, posted numerous photos of a FENCE!

Click to expand...

If you do not like that, you might take OFF-FENCE.

(Remark: I am no native speaker and hence I can not judge whether this works as a pun as intended)

--
Iván József Balázs
(Hungary)