4/3 Developments

[BJL]

I reckon your right, why bother with a consumer body, when the E-1
is already below D70 prices?

Not the last time I checked; it is now below 10D and D100 prices but above the D70, 300D and -ist D. And Pentax has announced that they have a second sub-$1000 DSLR model coming.

The president of Olympus said in their recent annual report that they expect the coming consumer level 4/3 to help the profitability of their digital camera sector. This seems to all but guarantee that it will be announced, soon, and available for 2004 holiday gift purchases.

I do also think that a third higher level E system body could also be announced "soon".

 

[Dan Pidcock]

A larger sensor will always have less noise.

Actually, that conclusion relies on the common but dubious
assumption that the larger sensor is used with the same aperture
ratio despite the longer focal length used, and thus comparing
noise levels at the same (high) ISO speed setting.

In practice, DOF requirements often lead to the use of higher
aperture ratios with longer focal lengths, and even if you do not
care about DOF and are wiling to shoot wide open, the minimum
aperture ratio available also tends to increase with focal length.

So in most of the low light/high shutter speed situations where
noise is a significant issue, a larger format will typically be
used with a larger aperture ratio, and hence will need to be used
at higher ISO setting to maintain the same shutter speed, lowering
its signal-to-noise ratio. The relevant comparison for equal DOF is
at sensor speed ("ISO") in proportion to the square of the focal
length used.

Interesting way of looking at it: something I've not considered before. Made my head hurt a bit though!

So your first point is that to get a similarly large DoF as an APS cam you can set the aperture larger on the E1, so shoot at lower ISO. However IMO most high noise issues are caused by having to shoot at higher ISO because of low light, so you will be shooting wide open. And if there is enough liight then you can vary the shutter speed so I don't think that's really an issue.

your second point whch can be illustrated with the kit lenses: 14-54/2.8-3.5 vs Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5. Both these give about 108 35mm FoV at the zoom end, with f/3.5 plays f/4.5, 2/3 stop difference. The Olympus lens is a bit more expensive though so it's not a completely fair comparison.

For full frame sensors the Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (similar price) will have the same aperture as the APS sensor camera so full frame wins out vs APS sensor.

In fact, since larger photosites give more electrons worth of "dark
noise" than smaller ones, a larger format might be at a slight
disadvantage for S/N ratio when one chooses apertures to get the
same DOF.

Depends on the exact figures for dark noise ratio etc which one actually comes out best I think.

Dan

 

[Dan Pidcock]

So in most of the low light/high shutter speed situations where
noise is a significant issue, a larger format will typically be
used with a larger aperture ratio, and hence will need to be used
at higher ISO setting to maintain the same shutter speed, lowering
its signal-to-noise ratio. The relevant comparison for equal DOF is
at sensor speed ("ISO") in proportion to the square of the focal
length used.

your second point whch can be illustrated with the kit lenses:
14-54/2.8-3.5 vs Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5. Both these give about 108
35mm FoV at the zoom end, with f/3.5 plays f/4.5, 2/3 stop
difference. The Olympus lens is a bit more expensive though so
it's not a completely fair comparison.
For full frame sensors the Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (similar price)
will have the same aperture as the APS sensor camera so full frame
wins out vs APS sensor.

OTOH with a larger sensor you could just use less zoom and crop the picture, giving you the same final image. There are more mP to crop on the current larger sensors.

 

[BJL]

OTOH with a larger sensor you could just use less zoom and crop the
picture, giving you the same final image. There are more mP to
crop on the current larger sensors.

No you can't:

a) the larger sensors generally have larger photosites (E-1 6.8 micron; APS formats 7.5-8, 24x36mm 8 to 9mm). So if you try to use the larger format at the same focal length and crop, you get less resolution with the larger sensor.

b) lenses of the same focal length designed for larger image circles tend to have somewhat lower resolution, due to the extra constaints of having to maintain image quality over a larger region.

c) In the cases where one can get both the same pixel size in the different formats and use the same lenses (e.g. Nikon D70 and Kodak SLR/n), the approach of zooming to the same focal length and cropping could give give you same image quality, but no better, and requires far heavier, more expensive equipment: what's the point?

 

[BJL]

Dan,

I believe that there are often times when both adequate DOF and high enough shutter speed are needed; then the larger format has no advantage. As to being constrained to use higher aperture ratios by cost or availablility:

your second point whch can be illustrated with the kit lenses:
14-54/2.8-3.5 vs Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5....
For full frame sensors the Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (similar price)
will have the same aperture as the APS sensor camera so full frame
wins out vs APS sensor.

??? 3.5-4.5 is slower than 2.8-3.5, so in that comparison, 4/3 can use a lower ISO; and faster lenses thanthwat 14-54 are clearly possible, and probably coming soon.

As you move up the range of current 4/3 lenses, they tend to have a similar aperture ratio edge over comparably priced lenses giving the same FOV in 35mm format: for example the 4/3 50-200 is f/3.5 at the long end; the Canon and Nikon zooms with comparable FOV in 35mm are the 100-400mm and 80-400, which are only f/5.6 at 400mm, and yet cost more.

Comparing APS to 35mm is also interesting: Nikon's 200/2 roughly matches a 300/2.8 for FOV, DOF wide open and speed, but is set to be cheaper than a 300/2.8. Likewise, a 400/2.8 does for APS about what a 600/4 does in 35mm, but again the smaller format has an advantage in cost and weight.

Looking beyond current lens offering for the new smaller formats, the general pattern is that for a larger format, the same weight and money will likely only get you a front lens element of the same size or smaller. That means at best the same aperture diameter and hence an aperure ratio that is higher in proportion to the focal length: that lower lens speed will roughly balance out the higher usable sensor speed setting.

In fact, since larger photosites give more electrons worth of "dark
noise" than smaller ones, a larger format might be at a slight
disadvantage for S/N ratio when one chooses apertures to get the
same DOF.

Depends on the exact figures for dark noise ratio etc which one
actually comes out best I think.

It is basic physics that more bulk of material and larger devices will produce more thermal noise, not less: noise theory suggests that the noise level in electrons per photosite will grow roughly in proportion to square root of pixel area, which is to say in proportion to pixel spacing.

This is confirmed by data sheets for sensors of similar technology but different photosite sizes. For example, the Kodak "blue plus color" FFT sensor in the E-1 with 6.8 micron pixel spacing has a dark noise level of 17 electrons; is it 21 electrons instead for the Kodak sensors in that same product line but with larger 9 micron pixels, as used in some new 16MP and 22MP digital backs. The noise level ratio 21/17 is roughly the pixel width ratio 9/6.8, so the simple theoretical model holds up quite well.

So; newer sensor models from the same company at ten or twenty times the price give more noise per pixel!

 

[Zoolander]

I think I got my self started off on the wrong foot here. I've made myself look tons more ignorant than I am.

I currently have an Olympus C4040 and find digital extremely convenient. I shoot pro snowboarders and it's an agreed upon standard in this industry that your camera shoots at at least 5FPS. Mine hasn't in the past because I never found it of interest, but now that I have Photoshop, oh boy! BUT who's saying I'm going to need to shoot that fast all the time? Snowboard photogs mainly use film bodies anyway, so for dSLR to compete right now is another story (except for the C Mk. II and the N... which works but costs four times as much as the film based body). When I said larger image sensor I meant a higher MP rating, I know 4/3 will be staying at 4/3 size.

Here's my gameplan now that I'm fully learned on the subject of 4/3: I'm going to wait for Photokina, see what's announced and then buy the E-1. (This'll give me more time to scrap together the few extra dollars needed) Also, I think that since they've launched the 8MP CCD they know what it's going to take to put it in a 4/3 mount so I think that might be the next MP. But 5 is good enough for me.

Thanks for all the info.

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

The recent price drops on the E1 make me think a pro body is very
likely. I don't see much reason to shift stock of the E1 if the
only new camera is a consumer level as people who want the higher
features of the E1 will still pay more. Unless the consumer camera
is just as capable and same build quality as the E1, which I doubt.

The dealer cost on the E1 body is only about $250 more than the
C8080. It will be interesting to see if Oly comes in with a
consumer SLR body that will be in a similar price point as the
8080. To compete against the Digital Rebel and D70, Oly would also
have to come in with a consumer lens as the 14-54 would presently
be almost half the cost of a consumer body.

The C8080, along with the other 8MP prosumers will be forced to drop prices, after Nikon started the price-war with the $200 rebate.

It will be good to see the pro body but Oly probably needs to get
into the consumer SLR area somehow to pick up market share.

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

The recent price drops on the E1 make me think a pro body is very
likely. I don't see much reason to shift stock of the E1 if the
only new camera is a consumer level as people who want the higher
features of the E1 will still pay more. Unless the consumer camera
is just as capable and same build quality as the E1, which I doubt.

I reckon your right, why bother with a consumer body, when the E-1
is already below D70 prices? Unless of course they are really ready
to take the fight to C and N and produce a real cheapo 4/3 body
making dSLR affordable to everybody, get there before they do,
kinda thing.

The various sources/rumors point at one entry-level DSLR from Olympus (and perhaps a mid-range, a new high-end and a fast one).

I don't think marketing-wise and cost-wise they can afford to sell the E-1 as is at the $900 level. The new consumer might even be an E1-Lite, eg the E1 without the pro features (dust, body-seals, etc). Or perhaps that could be a mid-range. But I think for consumer level: a pop-up flash, a dual xD/CF drive and an optional (and affordable) lens bundle are needed.

The E1 price drops might as well have been because of the typical product lifecycle, and price drops across the board (spearheaded by the D-Rebel and the D70). It looks like most of the DSLRs (*istD, 10D, D100, D70Kit, SD10, E1), are now in the $1200-$1400 range depending on where you buy them.

I reckon a new high-end body will be shown at the show, it shows
olympus are a 'serious' dSLR player, and are serious to fight the
'pro' market... really when you think about it, they need both

My bets: no consumer body, one 8Mp high-end body.

--
Regards - Richard



(This is the voice of the Mysterons, we know that you can hear us
Earthmen)

 

[Zoolander]

I currently have an Olympus C4040 and find digital extremely
convenient.>

EDIT: I also just finished doing some promotion photography with an E-10 and E-20 (great cameras and great results).

 

[bigmack]

In fact, since larger photosites give more electrons worth of "dark
noise" than smaller ones, a larger format might be at a slight
disadvantage for S/N ratio when one chooses apertures to get the
same DOF.

Depends on the exact figures for dark noise ratio etc which one
actually comes out best I think.

It is basic physics that more bulk of material and larger devices
will produce more thermal noise, not less: noise theory suggests
that the noise level in electrons per photosite will grow roughly
in proportion to square root of pixel area, which is to say in
proportion to pixel spacing.

As you expand pixel size,"Signal" grows at a faster rate than thermal "noise",so S/N ratio improves. Your arguement is specious.APS and full frame [24x36] sensors have superior S/N ratios when compared to smaller sensors,period.They make usable images in lower light than smaller sensors,period.When there's only enough light to shoot at f1.4 and 1/30 sec. the big sensor is superior...Rationalization can't change that....

 

[bigmack]

In fact, since larger photosites give more electrons worth of "dark
noise" than smaller ones, a larger format might be at a slight
disadvantage for S/N ratio when one chooses apertures to get the
same DOF.

Depends on the exact figures for dark noise ratio etc which one
actually comes out best I think.

It is basic physics that more bulk of material and larger devices
will produce more thermal noise, not less: noise theory suggests
that the noise level in electrons per photosite will grow roughly
in proportion to square root of pixel area, which is to say in
proportion to pixel spacing.

As you expand pixel size,"Signal" grows at a faster rate than
thermal "noise",so S/N ratio improves. Your arguement is
specious.APS and full frame [24x36] sensors have superior S/N
ratios when compared to smaller sensors,period.They make usable
images in lower light than smaller sensors,period.When there's only

enough light to shoot at f1.4 and 1/30 sec and ISO 1600 or 3200, the big sensor is

superior...Rationalization can't change that....No arguement that small sensor setups have better DOF.

 

[Dan Pidcock]

OTOH with a larger sensor you could just use less zoom and crop the
picture, giving you the same final image. There are more mP to
crop on the current larger sensors.

No you can't:

a) the larger sensors generally have larger photosites (E-1 6.8
micron; APS formats 7.5-8, 24x36mm 8 to 9mm). So if you try to use
the larger format at the same focal length and crop, you get less
resolution with the larger sensor.

According to the specs (18mmx13.5mm, 2560x1920) the E-1 is 7 micron, the Canon 10d 7.4, so there's not much difference. In any case I'm thinking about the general case, where it is easily possible for a larger sensor to have the same photosite resolution as a 4/3 sensor.

b) lenses of the same focal length designed for larger image
circles tend to have somewhat lower resolution, due to the extra
constaints of having to maintain image quality over a larger region.

Yes - or the lens has to be larger and more expensive.

c) In the cases where one can get both the same pixel size in the
different formats and use the same lenses (e.g. Nikon D70 and Kodak
SLR/n), the approach of zooming to the same focal length and
cropping could give give you same image quality, but no better, and
requires far heavier, more expensive equipment: what's the point?

Flexibility. You can always crop the larger sensor down to a smaller size but you cannot make the smaller sensor larger. And with a larger sensor you have the option of using the whole sensor area if you want wider angle or less noise at a given aperture or higher resolution.

For the optimum optical resolution the larger sensor will always require a larger lens. But there is a large market for cameras/lenses slightly below this level. The trade-off between lens resolution and size/cost is made all the time. For the larger format many people will be willing to take a slightly lower quality in order to get wider angles, less noise at a given aperture and compatibility with older lenses/other bodies.

There is also the issue of future considerations. Currently even though APS-C/1.6x sensors are larger than 4/3 the higher volume production of 1.6x sensors (D70, 100D, *istD) could well bring the prices down to the same level as 4/3 sensors. In a few years I think the price difference between 1.3x sensors and 4/3 sensors will be minimal, and at that point the lower noise on the larger sensors will do more of a differentiator. Of course then you won't be able to use the current digital lenses designed for 1.6x and all the kit gets a bit larger, so that will also be a differentiator in 4/3s favour.

Just a thought about all this if you extrapolate the argument that the lenses for smaller sensors are smaller for the same quality, and the image quality is the same down to 2/3 we can see that the images from 2/3 cameras are not as high quality as DSLRs, and definitely noisier at the same ISO.

Dan

 

[Dan Pidcock]

your second point whch can be illustrated with the kit lenses:
14-54/2.8-3.5 vs Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5....
For full frame sensors the Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (similar price)
will have the same aperture as the APS sensor camera so full frame
wins out vs APS sensor.

??? 3.5-4.5 is slower than 2.8-3.5, so in that comparison, 4/3 can
use a lower ISO;

Yes I was just trying to put some figures around your point and saw that it holds for 4/3 vs APS, but when you compare APS to full frame it's not so true.

and faster lenses thanthwat 14-54 are clearly
possible, and probably coming soon.

But they will have to be larger. Also I read on here a while ago that f/2 is the usable minimum for 4/3, so if that is true they can't get much faster.

As you move up the range of current 4/3 lenses, they tend to have a
similar aperture ratio edge over comparably priced lenses giving
the same FOV in 35mm format: for example the 4/3 50-200 is f/3.5 at
the long end; the Canon and Nikon zooms with comparable FOV in 35mm
are the 100-400mm and 80-400, which are only f/5.6 at 400mm, and
yet cost more.

Comparing APS to 35mm is also interesting: Nikon's 200/2 roughly
matches a 300/2.8 for FOV, DOF wide open and speed, but is set to
be cheaper than a 300/2.8. Likewise, a 400/2.8 does for APS about
what a 600/4 does in 35mm, but again the smaller format has an
advantage in cost and weight.

This is true for telephoto, but 50mm is the sweet spot for lens design, so moving away from this in either direction the minimum aperture gets larger. If you want a 50mm in 35mm FoV then you will get smaller apertures with larger sensors.

So 4/3 is ideal if you want to shoot around 100mm, APS-C if you shoot around 75mm and full frame if you want to use 50mm or thereabouts.

Looking beyond current lens offering for the new smaller formats,
the general pattern is that for a larger format, the same weight
and money will likely only get you a front lens element of the same
size or smaller. That means at best the same aperture diameter and
hence an aperure ratio that is higher in proportion to the focal
length: that lower lens speed will roughly balance out the higher
usable sensor speed setting.

For the consumer DSLR user 1.6x or 4/3 is probably always going to be enough in terms of quality and a good position in terms of cost/weight/size. Many professionals though are not as concerned with saving money/weight and so will happily use the larger sensor formats, paying extra for a 300/2.8 on 1.3x instead of a 200/2.8, or even a 400/2.8 on full frame. This is why I wonder if 4/3 will ever really take off in the pro market. They should do well though in the niche of pros who care about size & weight: I just hope the market is big enough to support them.

Thanks for having this discussion: it's been interesting, and I think at the end of it I'm less concerned at the future of 4/3 as a consumer DSLR format, and can seriously consider spending some money on it. I was concerned that in 3-5 years I won't be able to get new bodies and the resale value of 4/3 kit would be through the floor.

Dan

 

[Dan Pidcock]

I currently have an Olympus C4040 and find digital extremely
convenient. I shoot pro snowboarders and it's an agreed upon
standard in this industry that your camera shoots at at least 5FPS.
Mine hasn't in the past because I never found it of interest, but
now that I have Photoshop, oh boy! BUT who's saying I'm going to
need to shoot that fast all the time?

I think coming from a C4040 you'll find that with the lack of shutter lag on the DSLR you'll find it so much easier to capture the moment of these fast moving sports. More fps is always nice but as you say at the moment it's $$$. Instead you can hone your anticipation skills: people used to shoot sports with single shot cameras very successfully.

Hope photokina doesn't bring you too many choices to decide from!

Dan

 

[BJL]

As you expand pixel size,"Signal" grows at a faster rate than
thermal "noise",so S/N ratio improves. Your arguement is
specious.

Try reading my arguments more carefully.

What you say is true only on the assumption of equal exposure level: e.g. the same shutter speed and aperture ratio. However, doing that with the larger focal length of the larger format gives less DOF and requires a lens that is bigger, heavier and so probably more expensive, if it exists at all. In the cases of the 50-200 f/2.8-3.5, 150/2 and 300/2.8 lenses for 4/3, lenses of the same FOV and aperture ratio do not exist for 35mm format (no Canon 100-400 f/2.8-3.5 for example).

My argument referred to the more realistic case of lens choices giving comparable DOF or comparable size and cost, which force the larger format to use higher aperture ratios and hence higher "ISO" speeds to get the same shutter speed.

The speed advantage often claimed for a larger format relies on working with bigger, heavier and maybe non-existent lenses and less DOF, but you can usually get all the same effects by staying with the smaller format and using comparably bigger, heavier, and maybe non-existent (but possible) lenses with it.

Urban Legend Alert

There is no intrinsic f/2 limit for 4/3: people are already successfully using the E-1 with lenses of larger aperture ratios through various lens mount adaptors. That idea came from misinterpetation of a brief, vaguely worded comment in a 4/3 advertising brochure.

 

[seho]

A larger sensor will always have less noise.

All else being equal.

Unfortunately, all else is not always equal; look as previously released, large-sensor dSLR cameras, some of which have had very poor noise figures. IIRC, the first one Contax released was an example of a very poor implementation.

In pretty much every case, it pays to look at the entire performance of any given camera system.

Other than that, Dan's comments are good.

 

[hurtsme]

In fact, since larger photosites give more electrons worth of "dark
noise" than smaller ones, a larger format might be at a slight
disadvantage for S/N ratio when one chooses apertures to get the
same DOF.

Depends on the exact figures for dark noise ratio etc which one
actually comes out best I think.

It is basic physics that more bulk of material and larger devices
will produce more thermal noise, not less: noise theory suggests
that the noise level in electrons per photosite will grow roughly
in proportion to square root of pixel area, which is to say in
proportion to pixel spacing.

As you expand pixel size,"Signal" grows at a faster rate than
thermal "noise",so S/N ratio improves. Your arguement is
specious.APS and full frame [24x36] sensors have superior S/N
ratios when compared to smaller sensors,period.They make usable
images in lower light than smaller sensors,period.When there's only
enough light to shoot at f1.4 and 1/30 sec. the big sensor is
superior...Rationalization can't change that....

--
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

 

[BJL]

Dan,

I agree that with current lenses, 35mm has a current, historically based advantage of a larger selection and lower prices for the mass market lenses. Probably the more interesting comparison is in the range from 4/3 to "1.5x" where most DSLR's are, and will probably always be.

But they [faster lenses for 4/3] will have to be larger.

True: but comparing equivalent lenses (same aperture diameter different focal lengths), the shorter lens still tends to have some size and price advantage.

Also I read on here a while ago that f/2 is the usable minimum for 4/3, so if that is true they can't get much faster.

A myth: aperture ratios less than f/2 are already being used successfully on the E-1 through various lens mount adaptors. That f/2 idea comes from a misunderstanding, and is on the verge of becoming an urban legend.

This is true for telephoto, but 50mm is the sweet spot for lens design, so moving away from this in either direction the minimum aperture gets larger ...

I am not sure I follow you here. The sweet spot of 50mm for 35mm SLR's format seems related to angular FOV and the room needed for the mirror; when you scale down the format, the required image circle diameter and mirror size shrink, and the sweet spot focal length should scale down too, staying at about "normal" field of view.

Anyway, how much need for extreme speed is there at normal to wide focal lengths? Are many users of the 11-22 f/2.8-3.5 wide to normal zoom for 4/3 complaining that it is too slow?

For the consumer DSLR user 1.6x or 4/3 is probably always going to be enough in terms of quality and a good position in terms of cost/weight/size.

Indeed, the 4/3 format sensor is four times bigger than the overwhelming number of current digital camera sensors including 2/3" models being used for some types of quite serious photography.

Many professionals though are not as concerned with saving money/weight ...

But many pros do still care about cost and weight, and so are using smaller than 35mm format DSLR's

... and so will happily use the larger sensor formats

Some pros probably, but which ones? Highly detailed landscapes taken using tripods and longish exposure times are one strong candidate for larger formats (as with film.) In most other cases, my arguments in this thread suggest that professional needs for high speed, low DOF etc. can mostly be handled by using lenses with large enough apertures, not requiring larger formats.

Thanks for having this discussion: it's been interesting, and I think at the end of it I'm less concerned at the future of 4/3 as a consumer DSLR format, and can seriously consider spending some money on it.

Thanks to you too! I like someone's suggestion of waiting for new models to be announcd and then looking at deals on the E-1. I am a fan of saving money by buying superceded but proven performers.

 

[Steve Sheppard]

For what it's worth,

I think Olympus will announce a lower end DSLR with good features but not as quite as capable as the E1. But it will not be far off. Lets face it Nikon introduced the D70 that is not much different from the capablilities of the D1X except for build quality and the lenses that can be used. Not having a vertical grip for the D70 is a big problem. Using mine with a 300 2.8 is not a joy. Olympus will need to supply a vertical grip/battery pack that is much less expensive than the one for the E1 to compete with Canon on price on a lower-end body.

I also think there will be an announcement of a more capable E1. I don't know that I'm looking for 8mp, but would be happy with a 5 or 6 mp with less high ISO noise. Other improvements will include a 5 or 6 frame per second motor drive (8 not necessary). Also it will have more autofocus sensors and faster autofocus.

I have owned my E1 for only three days. I have used Nikon DSLR's (D1H, D70, D1X) for three years. Still have all of my Nikon's, but I have to say that if Olympus made the updates I hope for in a body and gives us a fast wide angle (maybe a 12mm F2) the Nikon equipment in my business could be endangered. The three zooms, 50 F2, 150 F2, 300 F2.8 and a 12 F2 and fisheye would really be about all I need. Maybe a 100 F2 would be nice.

I think Olympus is on the right track. Keep it comin'.
Steve

I currently have an Olympus C4040 and find digital extremely
convenient. I shoot pro snowboarders and it's an agreed upon
standard in this industry that your camera shoots at at least 5FPS.
Mine hasn't in the past because I never found it of interest, but
now that I have Photoshop, oh boy! BUT who's saying I'm going to
need to shoot that fast all the time?

I think coming from a C4040 you'll find that with the lack of
shutter lag on the DSLR you'll find it so much easier to capture
the moment of these fast moving sports. More fps is always nice
but as you say at the moment it's $$$. Instead you can hone your
anticipation skills: people used to shoot sports with single shot
cameras very successfully.

Hope photokina doesn't bring you too many choices to decide from!

Dan

 

[Zoolander]

For what it's worth,
I think Olympus will announce a lower end DSLR with good features
but not as quite as capable as the E1. But it will not be far off.
Lets face it Nikon introduced the D70 that is not much different
from the capablilities of the D1X except for build quality and the
lenses that can be used. Not having a vertical grip for the D70 is
a big problem. Using mine with a 300 2.8 is not a joy. Olympus
will need to supply a vertical grip/battery pack that is much less
expensive than the one for the E1 to compete with Canon on price on
a lower-end body.

I also think there will be an announcement of a more capable E1. I
don't know that I'm looking for 8mp, but would be happy with a 5 or
6 mp with less high ISO noise. Other improvements will include a 5
or 6 frame per second motor drive (8 not necessary). Also it will
have more autofocus sensors and faster autofocus.

I have owned my E1 for only three days. I have used Nikon DSLR's
(D1H, D70, D1X) for three years. Still have all of my Nikon's, but
I have to say that if Olympus made the updates I hope for in a body
and gives us a fast wide angle (maybe a 12mm F2) the Nikon
equipment in my business could be endangered. The three zooms, 50
F2, 150 F2, 300 F2.8 and a 12 F2 and fisheye would really be about
all I need. Maybe a 100 F2 would be nice.

I think Olympus is on the right track. Keep it comin'.
Steve

I think coming from a C4040 you'll find that with the lack of
shutter lag on the DSLR you'll find it so much easier to capture
the moment of these fast moving sports. More fps is always nice
but as you say at the moment it's $$$. Instead you can hone your
anticipation skills: people used to shoot sports with single shot
cameras very successfully.

Hope photokina doesn't bring you too many choices to decide from!

Dan

Yeah I've gotten used to the shutter lag so I time all my shots just right. I can't wait for my own dSLR. I can't wait to see what Photokina has to offer. What about Nikon and their D lenses, their digital specific lenses, is this similar to the Olympus system or what?