Reading mode: Light Dark

New Olympus - burning question dpreview will be examining:

Go to last post
Olyflyer you take things to seriously. :)

The people I associate with are normally wild life shooters. And when I say real photographers I mean people who USE their cameras in all conditions which are often very trying . Please remember that most of these good shooters are firstly good photographers. These people shoot in variable conditions with variable light and terrain there is no pre staging or coming back to do it tomorrow or re-taking. Firstly you have to understand you equipment and know how to use it.

Ok what has this got to do with sensor dust. Most of these shooters still refrain from changing lenses in the field. I was changing a lens and someone asked me “ Are you scared of dust bunnies “ I said “ No as sensor cleaner works. “ his reply was that a few weeks ago he got dust on the sensor and even after multiple cleaning cycles he had to revert to a sensor brush so he only changes lenses in the car or dust free space. There are many such cases. Some people leaving for an long trip to the Kgalagardi , Namibia etc ,send their cameras in for a sensor clean before they leave.

As to getting dust bunnies on you Olympus sensor. Well I can’t remember you ever posting about how you had sensor dust ( This in the days when you where a real Olympus user.) as any such post would have been really highlighted by us Olympus Fanboys , and boy you would have let us know. Maybe you were practicing sensor cleaning for your system change. :)

As to testing sensor cleaning. A few reviewers did when Pentax/Sony came

out with there cleaners. Sony Failed dismally . Pntax was pretty useless Olympus was OK. It was OK to do those test then, as you where testing the minor players. But hell do a test on Nikon or Canon and it was inefficient, there would be mayhem. Also remember there is a whole sensor cleaning industry out there that also pay for advertising so you don’t want to cut your own throat. ;)

--
Collin

(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )

http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)

New Seventh Wonder of the World.

 
safaridon said:
CollBaxter said:
Ha remember the GX1 sensor is only ' slightly ' smaller. 4/3 is very much smaller acording to reviews even tiny. Hell they can blow smoke up their rings. I am not saying the 4/3 is not a lot smaller but hell beat the dog with the same stick.

APC-S (nikon) = 23.6 X 15.7 370.52 sq mm
APS-C ( canon) = 22.2 X 14.8 328.56 sq mm
GX1 = 18.7 × 14mm 261.8 sq mm (Slightly smaller )
4/3 = 17.3 X 13 224.9 sq mm (Much Smaller even tiny)
Click to expand...
-- Why the deliberately inaccurate discriptions given?
Click to expand...
Makes good copy? Can't think of anything better to say?

Beats me.

Collin probably doesn't know, either -- he's simply paraphrasing nearly every review of a FT-based camera ever written.
safaridon said:
Clearly the APS-C (Canon is slightly smaller than the APC-S (Nikon)
Click to expand...
That never seems to be worth mentioning in reviews, though.

329/370 = 0.89, so Canon APS-C is 11% smaller than Nikon APS-C. Or Nikon APS-C is 12.5% larger.
safaridon said:
while the GIX is slightly larger than the 4/3.
Click to expand...
225/262 = 0.86, so FT is 14% smaller than Canon's G1X sensor size. Or the Canon sensor is 16% larger.
safaridon said:
The dimensions shown are correct just delete your inaccurate discription which anyone reading the figures would realize. Others have posted a graphical representation which shows these sensors in their real size.
Click to expand...
DPR have this in their preview: " The sensor in the G1 X is 18.7 x 14mm, which means it's 20% smaller than the sensors Canon uses in most of its DSLRs. However it's slightly larger than the Four Thirds size used by Olympus and Panasonic, and more than 4x the area of the Fujifilm X10's sensor. "

(They have a graphic of the sensor sizes part way down the first page: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canong1x/default.asp )

While this is true when calculated from area (262/329 = 0.80, or 20% smaller), the G1X sensor is 14 mm vertically vs. 14.8 mm for Canon APS-C, or 5% shorter. This means that the level of detail available in lw/ph should be virtually identical to the APS-C sensor.

FT has 13 mm vertically against 14.8 mm for Canon APS-C, so loses by 12%. This is a big deal, so let's see if the G1X gets pilloried for not having a "proper" APS-C sensor. (Presumably of the smaller Canon variant.)
 
olyflyer said:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
olypan said:
Quite simply this feature was designed by the wrong brand . As with most olympus innovations they are gimmicks until they quietly appear two years later in the right brands.
Click to expand...
Got to quote this for truth!

Flip-swivel LCD not a plus until Canon finally stuck one on.
Click to expand...
The swivel screen is still regarded as a consumer camera option and we have still not seen any pro bodies with it if we disregard the E-5.
Click to expand...
And your point is? ... Strawman much?
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
Now suddenly the 4/3rds format will be a plus once the G1X starts selling.
Click to expand...
Actually, don't confuse the two. The G1x is NOT a 4/3rds format as in the Four Thirds system it is described here:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/index.html
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone could tell the difference between the sensors in real life use, not t'internet where you live. Technical nomenclature is not the most important measure of an object.

The G1X sensor is a tiny smidgen bigger than the 4/3rds sensors ... such a tiny smidgen it amounts to nothing. They could just as easily have made it a tiny bit smaller - but then they couldn't keep on with the 'bigger than' bull.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
olyflyer said:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
olypan said:
Quite simply this feature was designed by the wrong brand . As with most olympus innovations they are gimmicks until they quietly appear two years later in the right brands.
Click to expand...
Got to quote this for truth!

Flip-swivel LCD not a plus until Canon finally stuck one on.
Click to expand...
The swivel screen is still regarded as a consumer camera option and we have still not seen any pro bodies with it if we disregard the E-5.
Click to expand...
And your point is? ... Strawman much?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don't get it. The flip screen is NOT more appreciated today than before. Regardless if Canon or Nikon has them in their lower end models or not, it is still regarded as a gimmick which is not needed and should be left out. I am not the one arguing against it, but your comment is just nonsense. Yes, today there are some DSLRs other than Oly which has it as well, but so what? Or you think if Oly would have never introduced it in the E-3 it would have never been introduced by anyone else? It isn't that revolutionary, it has been in every camcorder since forever, just in case you did not know...
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Now suddenly the 4/3rds format will be a plus once the G1X starts selling.
Click to expand...
Actually, don't confuse the two. The G1x is NOT a 4/3rds format as in the Four Thirds system it is described here:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/index.html
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone could tell the difference between the sensors in real life use, not t'internet where you live. Technical nomenclature is not the most important measure of an object.
Click to expand...
Never the less, 4/3rds is a SYSTEM , not the sensor size, not even a format ratio.

Most people don't even know the sensor sizes of their cameras, so if it is smaller or bigger, who cares outside this forum? I certainly don’t.
Ulfric M Douglas said:
The G1X sensor is a tiny smidgen bigger than the 4/3rds sensors ... such a tiny smidgen it amounts to nothing. They could just as easily have made it a tiny bit smaller - but then they couldn't keep on with the 'bigger than' bull.
Click to expand...
...and your point is... what exactly? You think I care if the G1x is larger or smaller? Get real. :P :P :P :P

BTW, did you know that the G1x is in fact better than the E-5 or any other Oly? At least this guy certainly is convinced about the G1-x being better than any other camera made so far.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=40372397

Perhaps you should discuss the G1x with him. He is all over the forum, hasn't he been here yet?
 
Olyflyer,

Whether you or Canon, or Nikon, or whoever regard the articulating LCD as a consumer gimmick that isn't needed, has no bearing on the reality of it's usefulness as a professional feature. I have been a professional photographer for 20 years and I can assure you that there are all kinds of situations where that feature is all but indispensable.

I've used it to frame crowded dance floor shots at weddings where photographers without it simply have to guess at framing and composing such shots -- I've been there and know how frustrating it is to miss a great moment, or cut off someones head because you can't see what the lens is seeing -- it's just a guessing game without an articulating LCD.

I use it all the time at corporate events to get compositions with one shot that might take five or six without the articulating LCD, because it eliminates the guess work. I've attached one such image -- it was a very crowded situation and my shooting position was extremely limited. I had the camera as high as I could hold it over my head and got this shot in one exposure -- and knew I had what I wanted.

So your comments about the articulating LCD are pure nonsense because you are making assumptions without the experience to support such assumptions. Canon and Nikon don't have a monopoly on all that is helpful or appropriate for professional photography :-)

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

 
All the tests I've seen say the Oly system works best. Part of the reason it works so well is the membrane holds the dust far enough away from the sensor that it doesn't show up except at the smallest apertures. Oly themselves said this when they first marketed it.

However, for most photographers, this is a just bonus if you have it. It is not a critical factor when buying a camera. We know this because most people don't own Oly's.

DPReview doesn't want to be wasting time on features that most photographers don't take into account when they are actually hauling out their wallet.

'I need another backup for my photography business. I'll take a Nikon D3x please.'
'But it doesn't have the Oly dust buster.'

'MY GOD! I almost made a terrible mistake! What's Oly's latest most advanced camera?'
'The EP-3. It has Oly's brand new sensor in it. They guarantee that it's good.'

'Right. I'll take four ... two main bodies and two backups. Wanna buy some used Nikon D3s's?'

'No thank you. They don't have the Oly dust buster either. Don't forget to tell all the other pros.'
'Yeah. You're not going to be able to give away Nikons or Canons ...'

Feel free to post the 'pig'.
 
daddyo said:
Olyflyer,

Whether you or Canon, or Nikon, or whoever regard the articulating LCD as a consumer gimmick that isn't needed, has no bearing on the reality of it's usefulness as a professional feature. I have been a professional photographer for 20 years and I can assure you that there are all kinds of situations where that feature is all but indispensable.

I've used it to frame crowded dance floor shots at weddings where photographers without it simply have to guess at framing and composing such shots -- I've been there and know how frustrating it is to miss a great moment, or cut off someones head because you can't see what the lens is seeing -- it's just a guessing game without an articulating LCD.

I use it all the time at corporate events to get compositions with one shot that might take five or six without the articulating LCD, because it eliminates the guess work. I've attached one such image -- it was a very crowded situation and my shooting position was extremely limited. I had the camera as high as I could hold it over my head and got this shot in one exposure -- and knew I had what I wanted.

So your comments about the articulating LCD are pure nonsense because you are making assumptions without the experience to support such assumptions. Canon and Nikon don't have a monopoly on all that is helpful or appropriate for professional photography :-)
Click to expand...
...if you had any idea about where I personally stand in this question you wouldn't have typed the above.

The fact that I want a swivel screen is no secret at all for anyone to find out if he is interested. I know how useful it is and all that, so you don't have to convince me. What I said was the general attitude towards the swivel screen, and the way I think Canon and Nikon see it. However, I am still waiting for Oly to introduce it in their PEN line. It would certainly make the camera more attractive, which in fact, Canon has realized as well. Oly does not make any P&S with swivel screen, Canon does. So, start convincing Oly to start with.
 
rovingtim said:
All the tests I've seen say the Oly system works best. Part of the reason it works so well is the membrane holds the dust far enough away from the sensor that it doesn't show up except at the smallest apertures. Oly themselves said this when they first marketed it.

However, for most photographers, this is a just bonus if you have it. It is not a critical factor when buying a camera. We know this because most people don't own Oly's.

DPReview doesn't want to be wasting time on features that most photographers don't take into account when they are actually hauling out their wallet.

'I need another backup for my photography business. I'll take a Nikon D3x please.'
'But it doesn't have the Oly dust buster.'

'MY GOD! I almost made a terrible mistake! What's Oly's latest most advanced camera?'
'The EP-3. It has Oly's brand new sensor in it. They guarantee that it's good.'

'Right. I'll take four ... two main bodies and two backups. Wanna buy some used Nikon D3s's?'

'No thank you. They don't have the Oly dust buster either. Don't forget to tell all the other pros.'
'Yeah. You're not going to be able to give away Nikons or Canons ...'

Feel free to post the 'pig'.
Click to expand...
Tim you have a warped perspective of things.

Just a question and I will ask it again. Would the sensor cleaning industry be as big if most cameras were fitted with effective cleaning systems.

We would ask " What’s an arctic butterfly , some type of sex toy." . So if Olympus has one that works why knock it.

As to the pig is in retirement ( For awhile.) :)

--
Collin

(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )

http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)

New Seventh Wonder of the World.

 
CollBaxter said:
rovingtim said:
All the tests I've seen say the Oly system works best. Part of the reason it works so well is the membrane holds the dust far enough away from the sensor that it doesn't show up except at the smallest apertures. Oly themselves said this when they first marketed it.

However, for most photographers, this is a just bonus if you have it. It is not a critical factor when buying a camera. We know this because most people don't own Oly's.

DPReview doesn't want to be wasting time on features that most photographers don't take into account when they are actually hauling out their wallet.

'I need another backup for my photography business. I'll take a Nikon D3x please.'
'But it doesn't have the Oly dust buster.'

'MY GOD! I almost made a terrible mistake! What's Oly's latest most advanced camera?'
'The EP-3. It has Oly's brand new sensor in it. They guarantee that it's good.'

'Right. I'll take four ... two main bodies and two backups. Wanna buy some used Nikon D3s's?'

'No thank you. They don't have the Oly dust buster either. Don't forget to tell all the other pros.'
'Yeah. You're not going to be able to give away Nikons or Canons ...'

Feel free to post the 'pig'.
Click to expand...
Tim you have a warped perspective of things.

Just a question and I will ask it again. Would the sensor cleaning industry be as big if most cameras were fitted with effective cleaning systems.

We would ask " What’s an arctic butterfly , some type of sex toy." . So if Olympus has one that works why knock it.
Click to expand...
It seems that it has been known on this forum as well for quite a while...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=31475564&page=1

...that was while I was not even thinking about buying into a new brand. OK, shortly after this thread I made the decision, but anyway... it seems that dust is indeed an issue, some see it some don't.
 
daddyo said:
I mistook your comments to be in agreement with the camp that views the articulating LCD to be strictly a consumer gimmick. I re-read your post and you were clearly not saying that, so I apologize for my harsh response.

I obviously need to be a bit more careful in reading various posts. :-)
Click to expand...
Don't worry, there is no need for apology.

Anyway, I make no secret about where I stand regarding the swivel screen, not only here, but also on the Nikon forum.
 
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