Well I agree with Anastigmat. We need inovation at the top end.
Just because 'you' don't need or understand other's need for
progress doesn't mean there shouldn't be any.
I am most certainly not against 'progress' and it is presumptuous of you to assume that I am. First, 'progress' is a very ill-defined word. Second, I
do understand that other photographers may 'need' full-frame DLRs - eveyrone has different needs and requirements depending on their circumstances and their principal photographic subjects. I have stated this many times. What I object to is the manner in which many posters to these forums fail to understand
my requirements and just because they do not need small, light and fully weather-sealed equipment they dismiss the views of those who do.
The prevailing assumption that a bigger sensor is, de facto, a good thing may be true for some people but it is not true for everyone. Some people argue that there are no advantages to a smaller sensor, but this is blatantly wrong. Smaller sensors
do have real advantages, and they have real disadvantages. I just want these facts to be acknowledged - it is far from all one way traffic in favour of full frame.
There is no reason why full-frame based DSLRs and APS or 4/3rd based DSLRs should not co-exist to meet the different requirements of users, but many here seem to want to kill off the latter entirely and force us all down the full-frame route.
If you like small sensors (29% of the 35mm format) and you think an
E-1 is significantly smaller than a full-image-circle system then
go and buy one.
I do not like small sensors per se, but I like the consequences of using small sensors in terms of equipment size and cost.
I think it's way too big a compromise for the
barely noticible size advantage.
Well I think exactly the opposite - the huge extra bulk of full frame is a disadvantage that is not justified by the barely noticeable image quality advantage (either less noise at high ISO or greater resolution). For example, see:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/8mp-alternatives.shtml
And, moreover, this advantage of full-frame will become less & less significant as sensor technology improves.
I agree that the E-1 did seem expensive when it was first launched but now here in the UK it costs less than both the Canon 10D and Nikon D100, for what is a better featured body (speaking as someone who has owned both a 10D and a D100).
I actually
suspect Oly could have made it much smaller but it wouldn't look as
good for marketing reasons.
I actually agree with you that I also think that Oly could have made the E-1 smaller, but I don't know about your "marketing reasons" claim - you may be right, who knows?
I have pointed out before in these forums that the E-1 4/3rd sensor is actually very close in size to the old 110 film format (only a mm or two difference) and so, in principle, I would have thought it would be possible to produce a 4/3rd DSLR similar in size to the tiny Pentax 110 film SLR which was referenced in this thread and which I owned twenty years ago.
The real saving in weight & size comes in the lenses. At wide-angle the smaller image circle allows the lenses to be smaller (for example, compare the new reduced image circle lenses from Nikon, Sigma and Pentax with their 35mm equivalents), whilst at telephoto the FOV multiplication factor is a huge advantage (assuming that the smaller sensor has a similar total pixel count to the full-frame alternative so that cropping images from the latter would not give equivalent results since the resolution would be reduced unacceptably; the increased image noise at high ISO on the smaller more densely packed sensor is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for the advantages gained).
Then you can go take pictures and as your lens purchases will lock
you into the 4/3 sensor you won't feel the need to comment in
threads dealing with the exciting advances and price drops of 1.3x
and FF sensors. At least by then the E1 will be priced more
competitively with it's other consumer format brethren.
There you go again - it is wrong to automatically regard a smaller format as a "consumer format". This is sheer arrogance. You sound just like some old adherent of large format film critcising the new-fangled 35mm film format as being only good enough for 'consumers'.
I find it highly amusing the way the E-1ers pop up every time
sensor size is discussed.
Why am I an "E-1er"? I don't own an E-1. My main camera for the lats 15 months has been a Canon 10D! But, unlike some, I am not blind to the advantages of the E-1 and the 4/3rd system.
I imagine that in 12 or 18 months when
these threads are discussing the latest large sensors and their
wonderful high ISO performance, superb dynamic range, enlargement
capability etc etc those E1-ers will be strangely quiet, locked
away in their E1 forum enclave. The forums will be all the worse
for it. I miss them already.
This is absolute nonsense - obviously any advances in sensor technology (leading to "wonderful ISO performance, , superb dynamic range, enlargement capability etc etc") that are applicable to full frame sensors will be equally applicable to APS and 4/3rd sensors, and vice versa. Just because a sensor is smaller does not mean that it must use older technology. Indeed the improvements to which you refer will actually make the smaller sensor more attractive compared to the larger because the latter will hit the law of diminishing returns (in terms of image improvements that are actually visiible) before the former.
Terry.
I've described it as a cult before.