E3 vs D40 - big chip vs small chip

[Louis_Dobson]

all the latest guff, he's perfectly correct.

People are confused between entry aperture and f number, and lighting per area and total light.

Some of them are also very bad tempered and snotty about it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[SirSeth]

Here are some sites to clear up the confusion and that show that APS-C is actually about 67% the size of 35mm FF. (That's area). It's between half and 3/4s the size.

http://www.offrench.net/photos/articles/digital_camera_sensor_sizes.php

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/sensor-size.html

Full frame is much larger than APS-C and 4/3rds. 4/3rds is slightly smaller--but it's just not that much smaller than APS-C.

Cheers, Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[Godfrey]

The numbers for sensor size are all on DPReview, the math to show the dimensions in comparison by percentage is very simple. Here's a simple table:



The comparison in area dimension and percentages seems larger than the linear dimension differences between "APS-C" and 4/3 System sensors because area dimensional units have a square factor.

Looked at as differences in linear dimensions, a 4/3 System sensor is 79% as big as a Nikon D200 sensor in width and 86% as big as that Nikon sensor in height. You can calculate and visualize the linear differences between all the formats easily enough from the table.

Godfrey

 

[keggo]

You already answered your own question. "I had an E500 and loved it". If you loved that, then the other cameras only get better. If you feel you're above the E510, then get the E3. But, you really shouldn't need people telling you what to buy. Buy what you will, that way the Olympus cameras are readily available for us that are prepped to buy.

 

[greg mclemore102171]

It does matter.

 

[Knight Palm]

The bigger and weightier housing of the E-3, perplexes those who thought that Four Thirds only was about a tiny sensor. The E-3 sends a strong signal to the photographing market, that the Four Thirds is not that tiny, that has been manys prejudgement. I think that the bulk of the E-3, is the spearhead that changes the perception of that the Four Thirds circles only about the sensor size.

Heres some comparisons, just for fun of it:

With a registration difference to the Canon EOS (44.0mm), the Four Thirds (38.67mm) camera can only be built 5.33 mm thinner than the EOS1DsMkIII or the EOS40D.

Likewise, and hypthetically, with a sensor difference of 13.8mm (H) and 9.2mm (V), a Canon EOS-40D can only be built that smaller, compared to the EOS-5D.

So, how much smaller can hypothetically a Four Thirds camera be built, compared to the APS-C or 24x36mm sensor camera?

Table of weigt, size, environmental seal, and price in SEK:

Nikon D3 1300g 160 x 157 x 88 mm miljötätad 48000 SEK
Canon EOS 1DsIII 1385g 150 x 160 x 80 mm miljötätad 77000 SEK
Canon EOS 1DIII 1335g 156 x 157 x 80 mm miljötätad 36500 SEK
Canon EOS 5D 895g 152 x 113 x 75 mm ---------- 24000 SEK
Olympus E-3 810g 142 x 116 x 74 mm miljötätad ????? SEK
Olympus E-1 660g 141 x 104 x 81 mm miljötätad
Olympus OM4Ti 510g 136 x 84 x 50 mm miljötätad
Olympus E-400 375g 129 x 91 x 53 mm ---------- 4500 SEK

)miljötätad= dust and splash proof

 

[fldspringer]

lets take some real examples.

lets say you have f2.8 lens with e510 , and me 5d with f2.8 lens.

now i will use lens not less than f5.6 , so i will behave like f5.6
is wide open for my lens.

each image you will make with your combo in terms of DOF , noise ,
quality.
i will match with 5D and my lens (where its wide open is "f5.6").

if i am wrong on this , give me example.

in the end i will have two stops more to play with , that your combo
couldnt match.

its simple as that.

As with most things, it is never "as simple as that"

As with most 5D photographers, you seem stuck to mid focal length lenses with this argument. For portrait lenses, 35mm ff gives you the DOF control you desire.

At the extreme short focal lengths, most would look at greater DOF a benefit lor the primary job of landscapes. The ability to open up a bit more as lighting conditions dim is a plus.

At the long end, provided you can carry the equipment into the field, your arguments have even more trouble. Lets say your looking for wildlife pics near sundown. I seldom want to limit DOF with long lenses when trying to get up close and personal with the wildlife. With the 5D we HAVE to close the aperture to get enough DOF, but the shutter speed drops as we do. Late in the day, do we have enough shutter speed for a long focal length lens that weigh twice the crop version? Cranking up ISO is certainly a possibility, but not without problems.

To me and my photography, the theory you put forward doesn't stand up. Landscapes on a tripod, maybe. Portrait settings, sure. Action, wildlife, no way. Why carry an f2.8 just to stop the thing down to get DOF?

 

[RedFox88]

Here are some sites to clear up the confusion and that show that
APS-C is actually about 67% the size of 35mm FF. (That's area). It's
between half and 3/4s the size.

Not aps-c isn't 2/3 of a FF sensor. It is less than half the FF sensor. And most users don't crop their 2:3 images to 4:3 or 5:4, print sizes have been expanded to include bigger 2:3 ratio sizes that can easily be framed in standard picture frames.