Olympus E-1 to drasticaly bring down price of Canon 1Ds ??

Richard Katris said:

I may be wrong here, but I think the benefits of the smaller size
will win in the end.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. APS was a sign of things to come - as technologies improve, the optimal format changes. The historical trend is towards smaller format. BUT there will always be pros who need higher quality, so we will certainly have 24X36 cameras too. And then there are cameras like the Hasselblad H1 with interchangeable digital backs with even higher resolution.

Sensor is sensor, digital or film. The issue with "digital optimization" is a marketting concoction to entice the unwary to buy new lenses. Small sensor is chosen for cost reasons; for the same manufacturing process and quality control, the yield rate is inversely proportional to the exponential of the area ratio. For example, if Sony 2/3" sensor yield were 1/2, Kodak 1/4-size sensor for E1 would be 1/16, APS sensor would be 1/256, Full Frame sensor yield rate would be 1/64k. As you can tell, when manufacturing process were primitive, it made great sense to design small sensors. However, when the 2/3" sensor yeid rate is raised to 90%, 4/3 sensor would be 64%, APS would be 41%, and FF is 16%; hence FF sensor has to be four times as expensive as 4/3, about where we were in the past couple years, I'd venture to guess. When the 2/3" yield rate reaches 99%, as we are probably approaching now and in the next few years, 4/3 sensor yield will be 96%, APS sensor yield will be 92%, and FF yield will be 85%. So FF sensor will be about 14% more expensive than 4/3 counterpart. Lets say the sensor accounts for 1/2 of the price in digital body, do you honest think the pro's will be inclined to save 7% cost to get a sensor that is 1/4 the size?

As for "digital lens" being a photographic optical concern, its falsehoold can be simply illustrated by the Oly emphasis on "tele-centric" for E1. Most of the light gathering concerns have been centered on wide-angle lenses, so Oly's new design's answer is to provide no effective wide angle at all?? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Richard Katris said:

NONE of the old lenses from any of the makers is optimised for a
digital sensor. So.....there will be image issues at the margins
more than in the sweet spot near the center....so both Nikon and
Canon decided to use a smaller sensor so their old lense would
work, and they would not lose and antagonize all their existing
glass owners.

Instead of having to bring out a whole new line of lenses...all
they have to do is work on a few super wides, and everybody has the
benefit of much longer faster teles than anyone could afford with
FF.

Olympus had no curent lens line, and nothing to lose in
compatability issues, but they cannot afford to bring out 50 lenses
at once...so they have a limited lineup on available lenses for
their new system.

Since the Sigma sensor is the smallest of the 35mm modified lines,
it should have the least problem with sensor angle issues. The
Canon should be second best, and the Nikon with the 1.5 multiplier
and the largest sensor of these...should have slightly more
problems. The big FF sensor on the 1Ds should have the most
trouble with these issues.

As a consequence I am unsure why everyone wants the FF sensor so
badly, as it is a stopgap camera ..... they won't redesign all the
lenses for the FF sensor..the volume of cameras needing those
lenses is not high enough. They will redesign all the lenses for
the smaller sensors to give the wide angle everyone is missing and
increase the numbers of pixels DR etc. until there is no need for a
FF camera at all

I may be wrong here, but I think the benefits of the smaller size
will win in the end.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Click to expand...

Arvi Finn said:

Richard Katris said:

I may be wrong here, but I think the benefits of the smaller size
will win in the end.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. APS was a sign of things to come - as
technologies improve, the optimal format changes. The historical
trend is towards smaller format. BUT there will always be pros who
need higher quality, so we will certainly have 24X36 cameras too.
And then there are cameras like the Hasselblad H1 with
interchangeable digital backs with even higher resolution.

Click to expand...

There is plenty fat to cut on the 1Ds, for example, the battery compartment, before the sensor size gets the axe. If anything, I think Canon should consider enlarging the pentaprism mechanism, so we can have square sensors measuring 36x36, thereby fully utilizing the EF lenses' imaging circle now that conforming to "film" standard is no longer a concern.

1) I do not think that the E1 will influence price of 1DS.

2) I agree, they are not comparable:

The 1DS is made for people who need to print bigger than A3-size and for people who need many different options for lenses.

I would say that for people who print up to A3, not bigger and people who do not need the shallowest FOV and all kinds of special purpose lenses, the E1 has many advantages:

1) Big range with 2 "small" lenses, small body
2) just 1/3 price for body, and 1/2 prices for lenses, at the same quality
3) lenses optimized for digital

Today I was comparing a E1 to my 1D(nos s)+24-70 in different light situations. Autowhite balance, AF to center point , at 200 ISO.

It was no "technical" comparison, just shooting the same subjects with the too systems at the lenses wide open (I know that this leads to different FOV) and let my girlfriend decide, which pics she liked better. In five comparisons she liked the E1 pics better.

1) the colors just looked more real out of the camera-I guess the autowhite balance of the E1 was more acurate! I did not believe. OK, you can set manuel or custom WB and get around, but I was really surprised.

I also played around with the WB of the Canon pics when raw converting but it was hard to get the colors close to the E1-ones which didnt need any color-post-processing.

2) shooting in not too bright light I had to shoot wide open at 200 ISO, in this case the longer FOV was kind of a plus in most pictures (I could have switched the 1D to 400ISO and use another F-stop- this might have been the better comparison)

3) The E1 is really very nice, quiet, and not offending as the "monster 1D-24-70)

4) AF: The E1-AF was good, but in some situations the 1D-AF was just faster/ locked faster; however, from my finding the E1-AF seemed at least as accurate to me as the Canon, when I looked at the pics later on

5) I printed E1-pics to A3 size - quality is good for me (as the qualiyt of 1D up to A3 works fine so far either)

My conclusion? The E1 fits in the bag where I carry usually my M6+2 lenses.

I will keep the E1 and think will mainly use it for:
vacation, walkaround, family and partys, hiking, biking, people etc

Under following conditions things I see advantage for the 1D (which I will keep for sure):
-when I need very shallow DOF
-Sports-where I need the fastest AF
-When I need to shoot high ISO

I have to say that today I got more keeper-pics with the E1 than I did with the 1D - I had not expected this.

Regards, TOM

That_One_Guy said:

Yep, believe it or not, some guy who sells cameras for a living
(doesn't shoot for a living like I do) tried to tell me that the
E-1 was such a great camera.....that it was going to dracticaly
bring down the price of the 1Ds which he referred to as "junk". I
thought it was funny....that he had a tie clip from Olympus....but
not even the 300D on the shelf....but of course, he did have
several products from Olympus.....

I referred him to the report that Phil did that showed the high
noise levels in comparission to the 10D and the D100.....and he
insisted that the reason why was because they used a pre production
unit to do this review with and that Popular photography did their
own review on the E-1 which gave it an outstanding
rating.............now, when was the last time Popular Photography
ever done a critical review on anything??

As I recall, they have made the 2nd worst lens I have ever owned
sound like a great buy...... the Quantery 70-300...f4-f5.6...which
I sadly bought for 200 bucks.....yep... back in the old days before
I ever picked up L glass...

So, when I go back there to argue with the dope, what should I say
to him??

JP

--
Something for you to see:

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
TOM

Richard Katris said:

As a consequence I am unsure why everyone wants the FF sensor so
badly, as it is a stopgap camera ..... they won't redesign all the
lenses for the FF sensor..

Click to expand...

Of course they won't. They don't need to. Longer lenses don't have the same issues. Shorter primes have fewer issues. And Canon has already redesigned their WA pro zooms (16-35, 24-70).

So all that's left is consumer-grade zooms, which the people who buy those cameras don't care about anyway.

FF allows you to maximize the number of pixels, while not requiring those pixels to be so small that you get sensitivity and noise problems.

Besides, PS CS has a filter to reduce CA problems. It's only a matter of time before the camera itself will be able to read the lens and correct CA and distortion problems.

Nanook S said:

As for "digital lens" being a photographic optical concern, its
falsehoold can be simply illustrated by the Oly emphasis on
"tele-centric" for E1. Most of the light gathering concerns have
been centered on wide-angle lenses, so Oly's new design's answer is
to provide no effective wide angle at all??

Click to expand...

You need to read up on what "near telecentric" means: it is a design approach mostly relevant to wide angle lenses. As far as wide angle, Olympus is already offering a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 zoom whose wide coverage is comparable to that of the Canon 17-40 f/4 (but the Olympus lens is faster and with more zoom range, yet less expensive); they have anounced an 11-22 which will give distinctly wider coverage than any Canon zoom lens gives on a 10D/300D; and have indicated an ultra-wide lens coming next year, reaching about 7 or 8mm at the wide end.

Given what Nikon and Pentax have also produced or announced, it is really Canon that is starving its APS format DSLR users of wide angle coverage, expecting them to step up to an $8000 camera to get that.

BJL said:

Given what Nikon and Pentax have also produced or announced, it is
really Canon that is starving its APS format DSLR users of wide
angle coverage, expecting them to step up to an $8000 camera to get
that.

Click to expand...

Well, it seems to me that Canon are really betting on the FF concept. Of course it is a good option for many photographers, but there are even better options for the photographer who needs good resolution. The Leaf Valeo 22 digital back has 22 megapixels. It's all just a question of what is the optimal compromise for one's needs.

)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.A. Olympus E-20, FL-40, Hoya filters http://w3.enternet.hu/paczel

BJL said:

design approach mostly relevant to wide angle lenses. As far as
wide angle, Olympus is already offering a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 zoom
whose wide coverage is comparable to that of the Canon 17-40 f/4

Click to expand...

Wrong. The Oly's smaller CCD effectively makes the lens a 28-108.
There AIN'T no wide angle for the E-1...

Larry Lueck said:

BJL said:

design approach mostly relevant to wide angle lenses. As far as
wide angle, Olympus is already offering a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 zoom
whose wide coverage is comparable to that of the Canon 17-40 f/4

Click to expand...

Wrong. The Oly's smaller CCD effectively makes the lens a 28-108.
There AIN'T no wide angle for the E-1...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't understand? With the 1.6 crop factor of the 300D and 10D, the 17-40 becomes like a 27.2 - 64, doesn't it? So the comparison to this particular Canon lens isn't faulted...?

BJL said:

Nanook S said:

As for "digital lens" being a photographic optical concern, its
falsehoold can be simply illustrated by the Oly emphasis on
"tele-centric" for E1. Most of the light gathering concerns have
been centered on wide-angle lenses, so Oly's new design's answer is
to provide no effective wide angle at all??

Click to expand...

You need to read up on what "near telecentric" means: it is a
design approach mostly relevant to wide angle lenses. As far as
wide angle, Olympus is already offering a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 zoom
whose wide coverage is comparable to that of the Canon 17-40 f/4
(but the Olympus lens is faster and with more zoom range, yet less
expensive);

Click to expand...

First of all 17-40 is actually 17-40 on 1Ds. 10D is a transitional design, whereas E1 apparently is not, according to Oly anyway; the upgrade path for 10D owner wishing for wider angle is obviously 1Ds, besides defishing 15mm fisheye.

Secondly, EF 17-40 is a lens with ultra-low dispersion element ("L") whereas the Zuiko 14-54 is not an ED-equipped lens. With such a wide angle in real optical terms, I'd be seriously worried about its flare characteristics. In terms of optical construction, the Oly 14-54 should be compared to EF 28-105/3.5-4.5. Both are 15-element 11-12 group 3x zoom lenses with aspherical elements. The Zuiko has to make do with more aspherical elements because optically it is actually a super-wide angle, with all the attendent problems.

BJL said:

they have anounced an 11-22 which will give distinctly
wider coverage than any Canon zoom lens gives on a 10D/300D; and
have indicated an ultra-wide lens coming next year, reaching about
7 or 8mm at the wide end.

Click to expand...

They certainly have a tendency of announcing a long time before finally delivering any disappointment. You have no idea what Canon is developing for its entry-level EF-S line, which is really the competition to Oly.

BJL said:

Given what Nikon and Pentax have also produced or announced, it is
really Canon that is starving its APS format DSLR users of wide
angle coverage, expecting them to step up to an $8000 camera to get
that.

Click to expand...

For the point i illustrated above about yield rate, the APS format itself is really a transient phenomenom before moving to FF. Sure, Nikon will support DX lenses in the future; just not part of their professional line up down the road.

Which would be 22mm or so on 10D/330D.

Nanook S said:

BJL said:

Nanook S said:

As for "digital lens" being a photographic optical concern, its
falsehoold can be simply illustrated by the Oly emphasis on
"tele-centric" for E1. Most of the light gathering concerns have
been centered on wide-angle lenses, so Oly's new design's answer is
to provide no effective wide angle at all??

Click to expand...

You need to read up on what "near telecentric" means: it is a
design approach mostly relevant to wide angle lenses. As far as
wide angle, Olympus is already offering a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 zoom
whose wide coverage is comparable to that of the Canon 17-40 f/4
(but the Olympus lens is faster and with more zoom range, yet less
expensive);

Click to expand...

First of all 17-40 is actually 17-40 on 1Ds. 10D is a transitional
design, whereas E1 apparently is not, according to Oly anyway; the
upgrade path for 10D owner wishing for wider angle is obviously
1Ds, besides defishing 15mm fisheye.

Secondly, EF 17-40 is a lens with ultra-low dispersion element
("L") whereas the Zuiko 14-54 is not an ED-equipped lens. With
such a wide angle in real optical terms, I'd be seriously worried
about its flare characteristics. In terms of optical construction,
the Oly 14-54 should be compared to EF 28-105/3.5-4.5. Both are
15-element 11-12 group 3x zoom lenses with aspherical elements.
The Zuiko has to make do with more aspherical elements because
optically it is actually a super-wide angle, with all the attendent
problems.

nanook s said:

they have anounced an 11-22 which will give distinctly
wider coverage than any Canon zoom lens gives on a 10D/300D; and
have indicated an ultra-wide lens coming next year, reaching about
7 or 8mm at the wide end.

Click to expand...

They certainly have a tendency of announcing a long time before
finally delivering any disappointment. You have no idea what Canon
is developing for its entry-level EF-S line, which is really the
competition to Oly.

nanook s said:

Given what Nikon and Pentax have also produced or announced, it is
really Canon that is starving its APS format DSLR users of wide
angle coverage, expecting them to step up to an $8000 camera to get
that.

Click to expand...

For the point i illustrated above about yield rate, the APS format
itself is really a transient phenomenom before moving to FF.
Sure, Nikon will support DX lenses in the future; just not part of
their professional line up down the road.

Click to expand...

paratom said:

I have to say that today I got more keeper-pics with the E1 than I
did with the 1D - I had not expected this.

Regards, TOM

Click to expand...

Hi Tom

I also recently purchased the E-1 system, with a HEAVY investment in Canon glass and have been astonished at the E-1 performance and agree with everything you have said.

I used a 1d for only a short period of time and decided that for my type of work, the 10d was better all round although I did love using the 1d.

Interestingly I did a simillar experiment with a product shoot with a client last week and presented two sets of images, one set with the E-1, the other with the 10d (using L glass).

The client chose the E-1 pictures as he preferred the colours and the 'feel' of them!!

It is interesting we can discuss the construction etc of the lenses till the cows come home, but in a revenue generating situation only one persons opinion matters - the client!!!

Best wishes.

Mark
http://www.shadowphotography.co.uk

BJL said:

ratz2plt manages to quote Michael Reichamnn's review of the E-1 at
the Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml
in a way that is entirely negative, which is strange because the
review was overall very favourable about the camera and system.

Click to expand...

ratz- I was not trying to say that there was anything wrong with the E-1 only trying to discuss a few points that Michael Reichamnn's review brought up.

Image Review

The camera can be set so that a post-exposure image review is available. But, as with the Pentax *ist D that I reviewed last week, there is no post exposure histogram available. What is it with camera makers? Don't they get it? The in-camera histogram is the most important exposure tool since the TTL meter was introduced in the 1960's. Setting exposure properly for digital makes a huge difference in image quality, yet by leaving it out Olympus (and others) are denying photographers a critical tool.

(which a later poster said was incorrect and may be and Michael said there was a workaround for this, maybe it was a pre production camera or the poster is using the workaround? who knows)

Inside the 4/3 Box

I believe that Olympus and Kodak have boxed themselves in with the 4/3 format. Here's why.

Let's begin with two premises that most people can agree with. Everything else being equal, larger imaging chips produce bigger prints, and larger pixels are cleaner and have lower noise than small ones. Now, let's consider the current chip manufacturing situation. The larger a chip gets, the more expensive it is to make. By the time you get up to a full-frame sensor (24 X 36mm) the chip alone may cost as much as an entire high quality camera. This is because of two factors. Imaging sensors are produced on 6" wafers, the same as any other semiconductor. This means that while you may get a half dozen large chips on one wafer you may instead get dozens, even hundreds of smaller ones. Since wafers have a fixed cost to manufacture, bigger necessarily costs more.

Another issue is yield. Even the best fabrication plants can't make every device perfectly. This means that some percentage are thrown away, increasing the costs of all the others. If a few chips on a wafer out of dozens need to be discarded it doesn't add much to the overall cost. But if one or two out of just a handful are bad it has a real economic impact.

Now, with Chip Fabrication 101 out of the way, it is also true that chip manufacturer prices are steadily dropping. One only has to look at the roughly 50% drop in digital SLR prices during the past 2 years to realize this. The Canon 300D Rebel has a 1.6X factor chip and retails with lens for under $1,000. Such is progress. A sideways glance at the price of LCD monitors will also demonstrateMoore's Law in action. A few of years ago LCD screens were ridiculously expensive and only available in small sizes. Now one can buy large LCD wall screens, and prices, on the smaller ones at least, are pushing traditional CRTs off the shelf.

We can now look at the flaw in the logic behind the 4/3 format. While larger chips (up to full-frame) are more expensive than ones of the 4/3 size today, this won't be the case for long. Increasing production volumes along with technological advances will bring the price of large chips downwards at a steady pace. Will smaller chips always be less expensive? Of course. But will the differential be enough to make the downside of using a smaller chip worthwhile for very long? I doubt it.

So, we have someone that buys into the 4/3 format in late 2003 or early 2004. They also buy several lenses for this format. But what happens in 2005 and 2006, and onwards? We will undoubtedly have imaging chips ranging from a 1.5X factor to full frame 35mm that don't cost all that much more, and you can be certain that companies like Nikon and Canon will be making cameras that use them, and which can utilize the huge existing inventory of full-frame coverage lenses available.

Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape. They will be limited to using cameras with a 2X magnification ratio because their lenses are unable to cover a larger image circle. If we assume that the price differential between small and medium sized imaging chips is going to decrease, then a 4/3 based camera will always suffer from smaller images or lower image quality by comparison, because while the number of pixels can be increased (this is accomplished by making the pixels themselves smaller), by making them smaller image quality is reduced. It's just physics. Anything that Kodak does to the 4/3 format chip can also be done to larger ones, so the differential will remain.

It seems to me that history is about to repeat itself. Olympus was the champion of the failed but elegant little half-frame format of the 1960's, and now appears to be heading down the same path. A shame really, because the E-1 is a very fine camera in many ways, and deserves better than to be built around a format that, like half-frame, may turn out to be just a footnote in the history of photography.
Taken from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml

ratz- I have nothing against the E-1 and don't know if the above assessment is correct only time will tell, I was just bringing up these points of view. It may be a great camera and if you have one and are happy cool. I have a 10D and love it but that doesn't mean that is the only camera out there worth anything. If the 4/3 format catches on then maybe we will just have more options for gear, good especially if you want to go light from the sounds of it.

BJL said:

ratz2plt manages to quote Michael Reichamnn's review of the E-1 at
the Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml
in a way that is entirely negative, which is strange because the
review was overall very favourable about the camera and system. MR

Click to expand...

You are probably right, but...

With less glass, 4/3 lenses will always be cheaper than 135 lenses. A 300mm lens will always cost less than a 600mm. And Olympus seems to be adressing the wide angle too. 11-22mm is expected soon next year, and even 7/8mm soon. You can't get that with current DSLR unless you have the 1D/DCS14n.
J.

Nanook S said:

As for "digital lens" being a photographic optical concern, its
falsehoold can be simply illustrated by the Oly emphasis on
"tele-centric" for E1. Most of the light gathering concerns have
been centered on wide-angle lenses, so Oly's new design's answer is
to provide no effective wide angle at all?? That makes no sense
whatsoever.

Richard Katris said:

NONE of the old lenses from any of the makers is optimised for a
digital sensor. So.....there will be image issues at the margins
more than in the sweet spot near the center....so both Nikon and
Canon decided to use a smaller sensor so their old lense would
work, and they would not lose and antagonize all their existing
glass owners.

Instead of having to bring out a whole new line of lenses...all
they have to do is work on a few super wides, and everybody has the
benefit of much longer faster teles than anyone could afford with
FF.

Olympus had no curent lens line, and nothing to lose in
compatability issues, but they cannot afford to bring out 50 lenses
at once...so they have a limited lineup on available lenses for
their new system.

Since the Sigma sensor is the smallest of the 35mm modified lines,
it should have the least problem with sensor angle issues. The
Canon should be second best, and the Nikon with the 1.5 multiplier
and the largest sensor of these...should have slightly more
problems. The big FF sensor on the 1Ds should have the most
trouble with these issues.

As a consequence I am unsure why everyone wants the FF sensor so
badly, as it is a stopgap camera ..... they won't redesign all the
lenses for the FF sensor..the volume of cameras needing those
lenses is not high enough. They will redesign all the lenses for
the smaller sensors to give the wide angle everyone is missing and
increase the numbers of pixels DR etc. until there is no need for a
FF camera at all

I may be wrong here, but I think the benefits of the smaller size
will win in the end.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

If no post-processing is done, most clients would pick 10D images over 1D or 1Ds images because of better color rendition; and Sony 717 image over 10D images because of "sharpness."

Marky boy said:

Marky boy said:

I have to say that today I got more keeper-pics with the E1 than I
did with the 1D - I had not expected this.

Regards, TOM

Click to expand...

Hi Tom

I also recently purchased the E-1 system, with a HEAVY investment
in Canon glass and have been astonished at the E-1 performance and
agree with everything you have said.

I used a 1d for only a short period of time and decided that for my
type of work, the 10d was better all round although I did love
using the 1d.

Interestingly I did a simillar experiment with a product shoot with
a client last week and presented two sets of images, one set with
the E-1, the other with the 10d (using L glass).

The client chose the E-1 pictures as he preferred the colours and
the 'feel' of them!!

It is interesting we can discuss the construction etc of the lenses
till the cows come home, but in a revenue generating situation only
one persons opinion matters - the client!!!

Best wishes.

Mark
http://www.shadowphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

Jón Ragnarsson said:

You are probably right, but...
With less glass, 4/3 lenses will always be cheaper than 135 lenses.
A 300mm lens will always cost less than a 600mm.

Click to expand...

Unless the system fails to have economy of scale, and/or Oly decides to maintain profit margin and there is no competition. The 300mm Zuiko is more expensive than any non-IS EF lens, nearly doubling the Sigma 300mm-800mm for example, which would be over 1200mm on 10D/D100.

Member said:

And Olympus seems
to be adressing the wide angle too. 11-22mm is expected soon next
year, and even 7/8mm soon. You can't get that with current DSLR
unless you have the 1D/DCS14n.

Click to expand...

Nor can you currently get the 11-22mm or the 7/8mm Oly. Actually a 14mm on 10D/D100 is already at 21-22mm right now, wider than 11-22mm on Oly.

Member said:

J.

Nanook S said:

As for "digital lens" being a photographic optical concern, its
falsehoold can be simply illustrated by the Oly emphasis on
"tele-centric" for E1. Most of the light gathering concerns have
been centered on wide-angle lenses, so Oly's new design's answer is
to provide no effective wide angle at all?? That makes no sense
whatsoever.

Richard Katris said:

NONE of the old lenses from any of the makers is optimised for a
digital sensor. So.....there will be image issues at the margins
more than in the sweet spot near the center....so both Nikon and
Canon decided to use a smaller sensor so their old lense would
work, and they would not lose and antagonize all their existing
glass owners.

Instead of having to bring out a whole new line of lenses...all
they have to do is work on a few super wides, and everybody has the
benefit of much longer faster teles than anyone could afford with
FF.

Olympus had no curent lens line, and nothing to lose in
compatability issues, but they cannot afford to bring out 50 lenses
at once...so they have a limited lineup on available lenses for
their new system.

Since the Sigma sensor is the smallest of the 35mm modified lines,
it should have the least problem with sensor angle issues. The
Canon should be second best, and the Nikon with the 1.5 multiplier
and the largest sensor of these...should have slightly more
problems. The big FF sensor on the 1Ds should have the most
trouble with these issues.

As a consequence I am unsure why everyone wants the FF sensor so
badly, as it is a stopgap camera ..... they won't redesign all the
lenses for the FF sensor..the volume of cameras needing those
lenses is not high enough. They will redesign all the lenses for
the smaller sensors to give the wide angle everyone is missing and
increase the numbers of pixels DR etc. until there is no need for a
FF camera at all

I may be wrong here, but I think the benefits of the smaller size
will win in the end.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Nanook S said:

Unless the system fails to have economy of scale, and/or Oly
decides to maintain profit margin and there is no competition. The
300mm Zuiko is more expensive than any non-IS EF lens, nearly
doubling the Sigma 300mm-800mm for example, which would be over
1200mm on 10D/D100.

Click to expand...

Well, I will only compare to Nikon, since I am currently a Nikon user. The 300mm f2.8 from Olympus is still cheaper than a Nikon 400mm f2.8. If I was doing photography in a really critical area, like the Middle East for example, I would prefer the smaller, more compact E-1 + 300 over the Nikon + 400.

A digital Nikon with a 400mm lens has the same angle of view as an E-1 with a 300.

Nanook S said:

If no post-processing is done, most clients would pick 10D images
over 1D or 1Ds images because of better color rendition; and Sony
717 image over 10D images because of "sharpness."

Click to expand...

I agree - however, I did do post processing to the 10D images, e.g. USM, levels, saturation etc - the client still preferred the E-1 images - can't argue with the guy who is paying!!

His choice had nothing to do with sharpness.

Regards

Mark
http://www.shadowphotography.co.uk

Arvi Finn said:

Nanook S said:

Unless the system fails to have economy of scale, and/or Oly
decides to maintain profit margin and there is no competition. The
300mm Zuiko is more expensive than any non-IS EF lens, nearly
doubling the Sigma 300mm-800mm for example, which would be over
1200mm on 10D/D100.

Click to expand...

Well, I will only compare to Nikon, since I am currently a Nikon
user. The 300mm f2.8 from Olympus is still cheaper than a Nikon
400mm f2.8. If I was doing photography in a really critical area,
like the Middle East for example, I would prefer the smaller, more
compact E-1 + 300 over the Nikon + 400.

A digital Nikon with a 400mm lens has the same angle of view as an
E-1 with a 300.

Click to expand...

400/2.8 and 300/2.8 have different DOF's. Besides, you are picking between two bad choices. Nikon is not exactly known for telephoto. If you are switching systems, and interested in telephoto/super telephoto, Canon would offer you much better choices. For example, EF 400 f/4.0 DO IS on a 10D is effectively 640/6.4 compared to 600/5.6 for the Zuiko 300mm on E1, a much closer comparison in DOF than 400/2.8 vs 300/2.8. The 10D sensor will give you more than the 1-stop exposure difference to make up for that between f/4 and f/2.8, and IS will give you another 2-stops for exposure (not DOF though, but like said before, the optical DOF of the two lenses are very close, both with about 100mm "pin hole" aperture). The Zuiko is nearly twice as heavy as the EF, and cost a couple thousand dollars more.