Fabulous Start - this sounds like a great camera

Jon Ragnarsson · Jun 24, 2003

Ah yes, but what about Lexus and Acura? (although owned by Toyota and Mitshubishi). They are not exactly making the family minivan.

Although I do think that Olympus should have put some overtime in the consumer version. Maybe they are trying to repeat the success of the OM launch 30 years ago?
The mind of marketers is an enigma.
J.

Jeff-C said:
The S. Korean auto-makers are good example of this marketing
strategy. Altough Kia and Hyundai have upscale models in their
local market but when they entered the US market they choosed the
low-end $8000 market that has long been abandoned by the US and
Japanese manufactures. Not only they introduced a low cost product
but also at bigger size one would get from Toyota at similar price.
Now Hyundai has gotten the market share and with its name being
recognized it starts moving upward.

For a new player entering the becoming crowded DSLR market, it
should do the same thing: either bringing out a revolutionary
product like the X3 based sensor, or a lower price or better price
performance product. A 4/3 system is not revolutionary enough
unless it either produces super quality of images which we haven't
seen, and doubting we will see judging from Olympus' own published
thumbnail images, or better price performance. A splash proof
feature here a super-sonic CCD cleaning there don't count for
performance, in this game pixel count and image quality (dynamic
range, color, noise) does.

Jón Ragnarsson said:

They must be in serious trouble!
J.

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

percy57157 · Jun 24, 2003

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/

Pixel size, pixel pitch and Unit cell size. What is the difference?

I am confused.

Percy

Llarian said:
There is space between the receptors that is not used for
collecting light. Its used for moving the data off of the sensor
after a shot is taken. The method used on the Kodak chip allows
for more of the chips's surface to be used for collecting light
(according to kodak), which means the the pixel/photoreceptor could
be larger.

I'm not explaining this well enough clearly, but I'm not finding
any better way, so here's a link to the flash explaination of what
I was trying to say.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_ccd.asp

How much difference it will make is yet unknown, but its probably
safe to say that it will lead to a larger pixel/photoreceptor than
a CCD with equivalent spacing, as I said earlier.

And I'm done for now. =)

-Dylan

percy said:

I agree.

Percy

Llarian said:

However, I can't claim that it doesn't, nor can you.
That information has not been released.

So at this point, my answer is that I simply do not know. If
Kodak's press release is correct, then the "photoreceptor" size is
larger than that on a standard CCD with similar spacing between
photoreceptor centers.

What I'm trying to get across is that the individual photoreceptors
on the Kodak chip could be equivalent or larger than the ones on
the 10D. They might not be either.

Again, this isn't a known quantity. What I was asking is that
people stop saying that the Kodak photoreceptors are X size in
comparison to Y size on this CCD. That is not a known quantity.
The distance between photoreceptor centers is less important than
the size of the photoreceptor itself, which is variable on more
things than just the size of the chip.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jono Slack · Jun 24, 2003

Hi Kolja

I'm glad you like the 'nags head' shot - I do my best!

This is how you would do the link:

you will need to click on reply to see the actual text

kind regards
jono slack

Kolja Tatic said:
I must add:
How I can point to your photo? MDSC... DSC... Because of... I
want to tell you "Bravo Maestro!" for some photos... And... "nags
head" for me is torso... Beautiful, surreal, great art piece...
(better - pieces...)

I think your art must have better site design... for complete
enjoyment...

Best wishes from faraway province of dusty light...
Kolja Tatic
http://members.tripod.com/~KoljaT
http://www.pbase.com/kolja7t

Kolja Tatic said:

Wow! Congratulations...
First buyer...

My 2 cents from another thread:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And... I think that E-1 is not a pro gear... I don't understand...
Seems to me it's camera for advanced amateur, but rich amateur...
What feature is for pro's?

I hope that around the world are enough rich technomaniacs and
snobs for pulling...

(in Canon forum - Why G5 is the question, but for about $700...)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Kolja

P.S. Sorry, this is from another thread, and I can't change my own
words...

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Jono Slack · Jun 24, 2003

Hi Denis

How the devil are you

Looks good to me, I imagine that you are right, and there should be a number of new bodies and lenses over the next year or so.

But I'm sure that they were right to start aiming high - it's easy to produce an entry level body later, but if they'd done it now, it might have sold more, but would never have got any credibility.

kind regards
jono

Denis Fortin said:
Denis Fortin said:

if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

Click to expand...

Hello Jono, long time no see.

I just spend a while perusing the E-system site (
http://www.olympus-esystem.com ) and I must admit I am tempted. It
seems like this is an excellent way to upgrade from my E-10 (after
3 uears, the timing's just about right I guess).

I would have prefered 22 gazillion pixels and 70% less price, but
apart from that, I think this is a very attractive camera. I like
the option to use significantly higher ISO, and the range of lenses.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Fuji or Kodak will
come out a few months later with a 4/3" camera with more pixels for
less money... but that's the risk one takes! At least there will
likely be more lenses to buy in the coming months...

Geee... need to start saving money now :-(

Denis

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Jono Slack · Jun 24, 2003

and I won't swear at you!

Tony Ku said:
BS.

:-D

Tony Ku said:
Angle of incidence means less CA? Ever see those little small
sensor cameras with horrible CAs? Smaller sensor doesn't mean less
CA. It's all about the lens and since the lens is scaled down,
it's still the same issues.

Yes it does - there are other causes, but this is one of them - it's also a cause of softness at edges, and one of the reasons why the 14n is disappointing.

Tony Ku said:
Let's see... do i want to trust Canon's sensor department or
Kodak's? Canon has been doing this for YEARS with their
semiconductor division. Kodak? Take a look at their Kodak 14n and
you'll get the message.

The 14n doesn't use a Kodak sensor - or maybe you didn't know that?

And anyway, if that's your attitude there is absolutely nothing that Olympus could have done to satisfy you - I assume you are just here for a slamming event?

Tony Ku said:
The E-1 lens prices are a joke, much more expensive than other
lenses from other manufacturers and aren't better than either
Niklon or Canon glass

Are they? I agree that the 300 looks ludicrous, but the other lenses look fine to me - and as for you saying they aren't better - how can you possibly know?

You seem to be writing off the whole project based on the fact that it's 'no good' before you've seen results. (of course, if the results are no good I shall quietly cancel my order).

kind regards
jono slack

Tony Ku said:
Jono Slack said:

I've spent half the day with negative (and often ill-informed)
messages about this camera.

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.

Having read a number of 'previews' and also gone through the specs
in some details it seems to me that it has some great
characteristics which should provide great image quality and
handling, and which have gone rather un-noticed.

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

2. the sensor - dynamic range
This is what seems to me to be the most desirable feature of all -
it's what I want, and if what they say about the sensor is true,
then this is a big leap forward, and worth it's purchase price on
it's own.

3. the body
weatherproof body and lenses, smaller than the competition, full
metal body

4. speed
measured speed seems to be 3.3 fps with a 12 shot buffer, and
reasonably good write times.

5. firewire
Having got used to this on my D1X I think it's really important
(haven't even seen it mentioned here though).

None of these features is earth-shattering on it's own, and maybe
that's the reason for the disappointment so prevalent around here.
But if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

jeff-c · Jun 24, 2003

You must be reading my mind. When Lexus 400 is introduced, targeting the E-Class, it was priced at $35k when a similarly equiped E-class is over $55k. The Lexus was better fitting and quality control. The Acura was actually under $30k. Half the price or twice the performance, better yet both, never failed in marketing.

Jón Ragnarsson said:
Ah yes, but what about Lexus and Acura? (although owned by Toyota
and Mitshubishi). They are not exactly making the family minivan.
Although I do think that Olympus should have put some overtime in
the consumer version. Maybe they are trying to repeat the success
of the OM launch 30 years ago?
The mind of marketers is an enigma.
J.

Jono Slack · Jun 25, 2003

Hi Jeff

Jeff-C said:
Member said:

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.
...
1. the sensor - photosite size

Click to expand...

1D, 1Ds, D1X all have similar photosite size, even 10D and D100 are
similar so what is the issue?

The issue my friend is that for the last 6 months I've been reading posts saying that 4/3 is 'no good' because the photosites will not be big enough.

Member said:
Member said:

2. the sensor - dynamic range

Click to expand...

Remain to be proven

Oh - I quite agree - but all we can do right now is to read the specs, and if we are not to believe them, then we may as well just shut up.

Member said:
Member said:

3. the body

Click to expand...

So does 1D, 1Ds, 10D, D1X, D1H

I'd dispute the 10D, but all the other cameras you mention ARE twice the price (at street price anyway)

Member said:
Member said:

4. speed

Click to expand...

Nothing revolutionary. In the same range of current DSLR's. 1D is
much better and far less than the rumored D2H specs.

No - not as good as the 1D, but it has more pixels than the 1D, and it's better than the current pro-sumer cameras

Member said:
Member said:

5. firewire

Click to expand...

Do does 1D, 1Ds, D1X, D1H, S2 Pro, SD-9

but not the 10D, D60, D100

Member said:
At best you can say E-1 is matching some of the current DSLR's,
some of which are pro models.

This is a new venture - there is a whole lot going for the concept of a smaller sensor - you don't have to buy into that.

Member said:
In marketing this is called a failed attempt for new product.

This logic - presumably, is why the Canon 10D has been such a failure?

Member said:
You
will need at least two times better performance and half the cost
than current products in order to win.

Which is presumably why new cars never sell?

kind regards
jono slack

Llarian · Jun 25, 2003

None, those terms all apparently mean the same thing.

That's the number you get if you divide the total sensor size by the number of pixels in the final image.

What none of the spec sheets indicate is how much of that space is used for gathering light (under the "microlens" that's over the CCD surface), and how much of it is used for moving data.

Kodak's claim is that they can use more of that pixel for light gathering with the method they use to remove the data from the chip.

More than likely, the size of the actual light gathering area will never be published (since they don't seem to be currently), so what it comes down to is image samples.

Do you understand why I was making the argument I was now, BTW? I didn't want to sound antagonistic (we have plenty of that here right now), I was just trying to point out that if Kodak's design change does what they say it does, that 1um x 1um pixel size difference might not really be any different at all, or the Kodak CCD might actually be able to use more of it giving an equivalent or greater dynamic range in a smaller sensor.

(And, as before, might is the key word here.)

-Dylan

percy said:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/

Pixel size, pixel pitch and Unit cell size. What is the difference?

I am confused.

Percy

Llarian said:

There is space between the receptors that is not used for
collecting light. Its used for moving the data off of the sensor
after a shot is taken. The method used on the Kodak chip allows
for more of the chips's surface to be used for collecting light
(according to kodak), which means the the pixel/photoreceptor could
be larger.

I'm not explaining this well enough clearly, but I'm not finding
any better way, so here's a link to the flash explaination of what
I was trying to say.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_ccd.asp

How much difference it will make is yet unknown, but its probably
safe to say that it will lead to a larger pixel/photoreceptor than
a CCD with equivalent spacing, as I said earlier.

And I'm done for now. =)

-Dylan

percy said:

I agree.

Percy

Llarian said:

However, I can't claim that it doesn't, nor can you.
That information has not been released.

So at this point, my answer is that I simply do not know. If
Kodak's press release is correct, then the "photoreceptor" size is
larger than that on a standard CCD with similar spacing between
photoreceptor centers.

What I'm trying to get across is that the individual photoreceptors
on the Kodak chip could be equivalent or larger than the ones on
the 10D. They might not be either.

Again, this isn't a known quantity. What I was asking is that
people stop saying that the Kodak photoreceptors are X size in
comparison to Y size on this CCD. That is not a known quantity.
The distance between photoreceptor centers is less important than
the size of the photoreceptor itself, which is variable on more
things than just the size of the chip.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jono Slack · Jun 25, 2003

Hi Percy

percy said:
Jono Slack said:

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

Click to expand...

Please tell the truth.

E-1 - 6.8 x 6.8 µm

10D- 7.4 x 7.4 µm

D100-7.8µm x 7.8µm

E-1 has smaller photosites than 10D and D100.

I said:

percy57157 said:
percy57157 said:

if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D10

Click to expand...

notice the word EFFECTIVE - if you read the spec, it says that due to the new design each photosite takes in 1.5 time the light of an equivalent site on a conventional sensor. They refer to this as the fill factor

now then - 6.8 X1.5 = 10.6 µm

someone suggested you should work on the area - but it still makes for larger EFFECTIVE photosites.

okay!

kind regards
jono slack

percy57157 said:
Percy

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

percy57157 · Jun 25, 2003

I have a lot to learn.

It is nice to talk to you.

Percy

Llarian said:
What none of the spec sheets indicate is how much of that space is
used for gathering light (under the "microlens" that's over the CCD
surface), and how much of it is used for moving data.

Kodak's claim is that they can use more of that pixel for light
gathering with the method they use to remove the data from the chip.

More than likely, the size of the actual light gathering area will
never be published (since they don't seem to be currently), so what
it comes down to is image samples.

Do you understand why I was making the argument I was now, BTW? I
didn't want to sound antagonistic (we have plenty of that here
right now), I was just trying to point out that if Kodak's design
change does what they say it does, that 1um x 1um pixel size
difference might not really be any different at all, or the Kodak
CCD might actually be able to use more of it giving an equivalent
or greater dynamic range in a smaller sensor.

(And, as before, might is the key word here.)

-Dylan

percy said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/

Pixel size, pixel pitch and Unit cell size. What is the difference?

I am confused.

Percy

Llarian said:

There is space between the receptors that is not used for
collecting light. Its used for moving the data off of the sensor
after a shot is taken. The method used on the Kodak chip allows
for more of the chips's surface to be used for collecting light
(according to kodak), which means the the pixel/photoreceptor could
be larger.

I'm not explaining this well enough clearly, but I'm not finding
any better way, so here's a link to the flash explaination of what
I was trying to say.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_ccd.asp

How much difference it will make is yet unknown, but its probably
safe to say that it will lead to a larger pixel/photoreceptor than
a CCD with equivalent spacing, as I said earlier.

And I'm done for now. =)

-Dylan

percy said:

I agree.

Percy

Llarian said:

However, I can't claim that it doesn't, nor can you.
That information has not been released.

So at this point, my answer is that I simply do not know. If
Kodak's press release is correct, then the "photoreceptor" size is
larger than that on a standard CCD with similar spacing between
photoreceptor centers.

What I'm trying to get across is that the individual photoreceptors
on the Kodak chip could be equivalent or larger than the ones on
the 10D. They might not be either.

Again, this isn't a known quantity. What I was asking is that
people stop saying that the Kodak photoreceptors are X size in
comparison to Y size on this CCD. That is not a known quantity.
The distance between photoreceptor centers is less important than
the size of the photoreceptor itself, which is variable on more
things than just the size of the chip.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

The entire sensor surface area is not taken up with photosites.

Please read my post again.

-Dylan

percy said:

Percy

Llarian said:

Have you read any of the descriptions of the Kodak sensor?

You are talking about the distance between the photosite centers.

Whether they are smaller, larger, or the same size is NOT KNOWN.

The technology used on the Kodak CCD is (in theory) supposed to
allow for more of the chip space to be used by the photoreceptors
themselves, which would allow a larger photosite for a given
distance between centers.

To reiterate, we do not know the answer to this.

Please stop spreading misinformation as gospel.

-Dylan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Llarian · Jun 25, 2003

percy said:
I have a lot to learn.

Me too! Its a neverending process. That what makes it so much fun. =)

percy57157 said:
It is nice to talk to you.

My pleasure.

percy57157 said:
Percy

-Dylan

Jono Slack · Jun 25, 2003

If you read the spec sheet

that's clear enough isn't it (might be wrong, but if we dispute what's said about the camera we may as well give up right now).

Llarian said:
None, those terms all apparently mean the same thing.
That's the number you get if you divide the total sensor size by
the number of pixels in the final image.

What none of the spec sheets indicate is how much of that space is
used for gathering light (under the "microlens" that's over the CCD
surface), and how much of it is used for moving data.

Kodak's claim is that they can use more of that pixel for light
gathering with the method they use to remove the data from the chip.

More than likely, the size of the actual light gathering area will
never be published (since they don't seem to be currently), so what
it comes down to is image samples.

Do you understand why I was making the argument I was now, BTW? I
didn't want to sound antagonistic (we have plenty of that here
right now), I was just trying to point out that if Kodak's design
change does what they say it does, that 1um x 1um pixel size
difference might not really be any different at all, or the Kodak
CCD might actually be able to use more of it giving an equivalent
or greater dynamic range in a smaller sensor.

(And, as before, might is the key word here.)

I don't think might is the keyword - if they say it collects 1.5 times as much light as a similar area on a conventional sensor, then we are entitled to use this 'fact' within the scope of our discussion. The crucial word in my essage was actually EFFECTIVE which our friend seems to have missed out on completely.

kind regards
jono

Llarian said:
-Dylan

percy said:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

Click to expand...

snip

Llarian · Jun 25, 2003

I concur that according to the spec sheet, it should collect 1.5 times as much light.

I do think it will be better, I have no doubt of that. But after the X3 debacle, I'm not sure it will be AS good as the spec claims.

That being said, I'm REALLY hoping. I'm just not quite as optimistic as you are. =)

-Dylan

Jono Slack said:
that's clear enough isn't it (might be wrong, but if we dispute
what's said about the camera we may as well give up right now).

Llarian said:

None, those terms all apparently mean the same thing.
That's the number you get if you divide the total sensor size by
the number of pixels in the final image.

What none of the spec sheets indicate is how much of that space is
used for gathering light (under the "microlens" that's over the CCD
surface), and how much of it is used for moving data.

Kodak's claim is that they can use more of that pixel for light
gathering with the method they use to remove the data from the chip.

More than likely, the size of the actual light gathering area will
never be published (since they don't seem to be currently), so what
it comes down to is image samples.

Do you understand why I was making the argument I was now, BTW? I
didn't want to sound antagonistic (we have plenty of that here
right now), I was just trying to point out that if Kodak's design
change does what they say it does, that 1um x 1um pixel size
difference might not really be any different at all, or the Kodak
CCD might actually be able to use more of it giving an equivalent
or greater dynamic range in a smaller sensor.

(And, as before, might is the key word here.)

Click to expand...

I don't think might is the keyword - if they say it collects 1.5
times as much light as a similar area on a conventional sensor,
then we are entitled to use this 'fact' within the scope of our
discussion. The crucial word in my essage was actually EFFECTIVE
which our friend seems to have missed out on completely.

kind regards
jono

Jono Slack said:

-Dylan

percy said:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

Click to expand...

snip

Click to expand...

Jono Slack · Jun 25, 2003

By X3, do you mean the Sigma?

if so, that was always doomed from the start, because the system wasn't convincing - the 1.7 crop factor effectively wrote off any wide angle, and nobody was going to tie themselves in to sigma lenses.

If it had a Nikon mount it would have done better, but still that huge crop factor would have clobbered it.

the 4/3 has avoided all these problems - we have wide angle, credible lenses to start with, and the promise of both cheaper and more expensive ones in the future.

I'm not saying it's going to work - but I think it's credible and convincing, and I find all the negative talk around here to be rather depressing.

But the point of this 'branch' was the accusation that I was not telling the TRUTH, which I rather resented! (not by you I know)

kind regards
jono slack

Llarian said:
I do think it will be better, I have no doubt of that. But after
the X3 debacle, I'm not sure it will be AS good as the spec claims.

That being said, I'm REALLY hoping. I'm just not quite as
optimistic as you are. =)

-Dylan

Jono Slack said:

that's clear enough isn't it (might be wrong, but if we dispute
what's said about the camera we may as well give up right now).

Llarian said:

None, those terms all apparently mean the same thing.
That's the number you get if you divide the total sensor size by
the number of pixels in the final image.

What none of the spec sheets indicate is how much of that space is
used for gathering light (under the "microlens" that's over the CCD
surface), and how much of it is used for moving data.

Kodak's claim is that they can use more of that pixel for light
gathering with the method they use to remove the data from the chip.

More than likely, the size of the actual light gathering area will
never be published (since they don't seem to be currently), so what
it comes down to is image samples.

Do you understand why I was making the argument I was now, BTW? I
didn't want to sound antagonistic (we have plenty of that here
right now), I was just trying to point out that if Kodak's design
change does what they say it does, that 1um x 1um pixel size
difference might not really be any different at all, or the Kodak
CCD might actually be able to use more of it giving an equivalent
or greater dynamic range in a smaller sensor.

(And, as before, might is the key word here.)

Click to expand...

I don't think might is the keyword - if they say it collects 1.5
times as much light as a similar area on a conventional sensor,
then we are entitled to use this 'fact' within the scope of our
discussion. The crucial word in my essage was actually EFFECTIVE
which our friend seems to have missed out on completely.

kind regards
jono

Llarian said:

-Dylan

percy said:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

Click to expand...

snip

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Llarian · Jun 25, 2003

Yeah, the Foveon sensor in the Sigma.

Great technology, I'd LOVE to see a 4/3 body with the Foveon sensor in it. But it had a lot of other flaws.

I love the 4/3 concept. I think it has some issues that need to be worked out.

I'm not convinced, yet. But I'm willing to give it a shot, honestly. (Assuming the image quality is what I'm hoping it will be)

And yeah, I think the suggestion that you weren't telling the truth has been dealt with. My head hurts after all that. I think I managed to confused myself halfway through that argument. =)

-Dylan

Jono Slack said:
if so, that was always doomed from the start, because the system
wasn't convincing - the 1.7 crop factor effectively wrote off any
wide angle, and nobody was going to tie themselves in to sigma
lenses.

If it had a Nikon mount it would have done better, but still that
huge crop factor would have clobbered it.

the 4/3 has avoided all these problems - we have wide angle,
credible lenses to start with, and the promise of both cheaper and
more expensive ones in the future.

I'm not saying it's going to work - but I think it's credible and
convincing, and I find all the negative talk around here to be
rather depressing.

But the point of this 'branch' was the accusation that I was not
telling the TRUTH, which I rather resented! (not by you I know)

kind regards
jono slack

Llarian said:

I do think it will be better, I have no doubt of that. But after
the X3 debacle, I'm not sure it will be AS good as the spec claims.

That being said, I'm REALLY hoping. I'm just not quite as
optimistic as you are. =)

-Dylan

Jono Slack said:

that's clear enough isn't it (might be wrong, but if we dispute
what's said about the camera we may as well give up right now).

Llarian said:

None, those terms all apparently mean the same thing.
That's the number you get if you divide the total sensor size by
the number of pixels in the final image.

What none of the spec sheets indicate is how much of that space is
used for gathering light (under the "microlens" that's over the CCD
surface), and how much of it is used for moving data.

Kodak's claim is that they can use more of that pixel for light
gathering with the method they use to remove the data from the chip.

More than likely, the size of the actual light gathering area will
never be published (since they don't seem to be currently), so what
it comes down to is image samples.

Do you understand why I was making the argument I was now, BTW? I
didn't want to sound antagonistic (we have plenty of that here
right now), I was just trying to point out that if Kodak's design
change does what they say it does, that 1um x 1um pixel size
difference might not really be any different at all, or the Kodak
CCD might actually be able to use more of it giving an equivalent
or greater dynamic range in a smaller sensor.

(And, as before, might is the key word here.)

Click to expand...

I don't think might is the keyword - if they say it collects 1.5
times as much light as a similar area on a conventional sensor,
then we are entitled to use this 'fact' within the scope of our
discussion. The crucial word in my essage was actually EFFECTIVE
which our friend seems to have missed out on completely.

kind regards
jono

Jono Slack said:

-Dylan

percy said:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

Click to expand...

snip

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Geir Ove · Jun 25, 2003

Hello,

I agree with you, but like alwyas when something new comes out, the defenders of the "old" tech from Canon and Nikon pop up to defend their "pets": Scared to death that somehing will eventually be considered better than what they have

Geir Ove

Jono Slack said:
I've spent half the day with negative (and often ill-informed)
messages about this camera.

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.

Having read a number of 'previews' and also gone through the specs
in some details it seems to me that it has some great
characteristics which should provide great image quality and
handling, and which have gone rather un-noticed.

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

2. the sensor - dynamic range
This is what seems to me to be the most desirable feature of all -
it's what I want, and if what they say about the sensor is true,
then this is a big leap forward, and worth it's purchase price on
it's own.

3. the body
weatherproof body and lenses, smaller than the competition, full
metal body

4. speed
measured speed seems to be 3.3 fps with a 12 shot buffer, and
reasonably good write times.

5. firewire
Having got used to this on my D1X I think it's really important
(haven't even seen it mentioned here though).

None of these features is earth-shattering on it's own, and maybe
that's the reason for the disappointment so prevalent around here.
But if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Jono Slack · Jun 25, 2003

Hi Geir

Quite right - most of the arguments against the camera are actually against the 4/3 concept - if it really does work, then Nikon and Canon will also join in, and then all those old 35mm lenses will start to look redundant!

kind regards
jono salck

OPEN SYSTEMS RULE!

Geir Ove said:
I agree with you, but like alwyas when something new comes out, the
defenders of the "old" tech from Canon and Nikon pop up to defend
their "pets": Scared to death that somehing will eventually be
considered better than what they have

Geir Ove

Jono Slack said:

I've spent half the day with negative (and often ill-informed)
messages about this camera.

But it seems to me that they have actually addressed the real
issues with digital slrs, rather than what seems to be what people
around here were expecting i.e. a small, cheap, dslr.

Having read a number of 'previews' and also gone through the specs
in some details it seems to me that it has some great
characteristics which should provide great image quality and
handling, and which have gone rather un-noticed.

1. the sensor - photosite size
if this is what it's cracked up to be, the extra fill factor should
make the effective size of the photosites larger than the D100 or
10D; this should give us low noise. The angle of incidence of light
should mean minimal CA and edge to edge sharpness.

2. the sensor - dynamic range
This is what seems to me to be the most desirable feature of all -
it's what I want, and if what they say about the sensor is true,
then this is a big leap forward, and worth it's purchase price on
it's own.

3. the body
weatherproof body and lenses, smaller than the competition, full
metal body

4. speed
measured speed seems to be 3.3 fps with a 12 shot buffer, and
reasonably good write times.

5. firewire
Having got used to this on my D1X I think it's really important
(haven't even seen it mentioned here though).

None of these features is earth-shattering on it's own, and maybe
that's the reason for the disappointment so prevalent around here.
But if it lives up to the promise, and the images really have low
noise and a big dynamic range - I want one.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Gerald M. Payne · Jun 25, 2003

I'm not sure you're winning yet, but you're certainly holding your own and wearing them down. ;-)

I think you have the sensor size idea right, at least so far as 1.5Xs as much collection power vs. a conventional interline transfer CCD. How that relates in the real world to anyone's actual sensors sizes rather than pitch remains to be seen. I'm hopeful.

With the same 5MPs and AT LEAST twice as much area as the sensors on an E-20 5MP sensor(not counting the 1.5Xs Kodak claims which makes it three times better) it has to perform better... At least halving the noise levels it would seem -that's without any improvements in technology or processing since the E-20 was designed. I think things will be interesting.

Am I the oly one who wants to know what the spacing of the lines on the strip in the E-1 Ninja sample represents? ;-)

Jono Slack said:
OPEN SYSTEMS RULE!

Er, OK, but I refuse to build a Linux box... ;-)

Gerald M. Payne · Jun 25, 2003

Gerald M. Payne said:
With the same 5MPs and AT LEAST twice as much area as the sensors
on an E-20 5MP sensor(not counting the 1.5Xs Kodak claims which
makes it three times better) it has to perform better... At least
halving the noise levels it would seem -that's without any
improvements in technology or processing since the E-20 was
designed. I think things will be interesting.

EEK -that should have been 4Xs as much area as an E-20 sensor, before multiplying by 1.5X for the improved fill factor... so 6X better performance overall minimum.

I'm gonna go somewhere quiet and learn to multiply again...

RickS · Jun 25, 2003

Your statement is not totally correct.

While chromatic aberration in itself is an optical problem, the camera lens is not the only culprit. Interline CCDs have a microlens over each photoreceptor site that can introduce further CA who's severity can be related to the angle of incidence. Also, additional purple and blue fringing can occur due to a blooming effect from sensor overload and from stray light leakage refracted from adjacent sites.

CA/purple fringing is a system problem not just a camera lens problem.

(No BS)

Rick

Tony Ku said:
BS.

Angle of incidence means less CA? Ever see those little small
sensor cameras with horrible CAs? Smaller sensor doesn't mean less
CA. It's all about the lens and since the lens is scaled down,
it's still the same issues.

------------ SNIP -------------

Fabulous Start - this sounds like a great camera

Jon Ragnarsson

Guest

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

jeff-c

Guest

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts