Help me understand

[Beth]

Beth wrote:

Thanks everybody. It is much clearer why a 5 mp camera might just be fine. I have recently been asked to print poster sized prints from E10 images and they just don't hack it. Not sure that even a 6mp would do what they are asking the poor "old" E10 to do. It has taken gorgeous photos that when over-blown aren't gorgeous anymore.

Still anxiously waiting to hear what Oly has up it's sleeve,
Beth

Saw on another board tonight a message from Koo (she used to be an
Oly user) saying that a contact she has told her that Oly will soon
announce a DSLR with six lenses designed to match the sensor. She
says that it is not clear whether it will be a 5 or 6 megapixel
camera.

Now, here's my question...why would Olympus release a 5 mp camera
if they hope to compete with Nikon and Canon? Does this make sense
to anyone? I'm hoping the answer is that it doesn't make sense and
suggests that the camera WILL be a 6 mp.

It sounds more and more likely there IS going to be an
interchangeable lense DSLR from Oly.
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Dave

Well, I guess I agree with you, Landscapes with fine detail, group shots are another example. I haven't seen results from a D1 printed that big.

I also find that if you want to do a lot of manipulation then the D1x files definitely fare better . .

But I'm not really sure how much this is due to the resolution, and how much due to the extra noise in the Exx images - I've seen some good landscapes from the 1D, and that's only 4mp - In fact I've seen some good landscapes from the D1H as well. The perception of detail is a tricky business, and it may be that the actual resolution of the sensor is not of so much importance as the lack of noise for this sort of shot.

In which case, a good 4/3" 5mp sensor is likely to be up there with the D100 and friends

kind regards
jono

I'm not sure I agree with you about getting fine A3 prints from an
E10. I can see a clear difference between D100 and E10 at A4
without talking A3.

To my eyes the E10 makes acceptable A3 prints with the right choice
of subject (say a portrait or a macro) but for landscapes or shots
with lots of distant fine detail it softens noticably beyond A4. I
did some A3 prints of shots taken in the Sierra Nevadas and detail
is lacking in a way that isn't unpleasant but still begs for a
higher resolution image.

The D100 does a significantlly better job but even so I would like
even more resolution for this sort of work. Stitched images work
well and really show up the softness of low res sensors by
comparison...

As far as the ccd is concerned, the proof of the pudding will be in
the eating I guess. Bt there will be more bodies if it's a success.

It seems to me to be more important that they get off to a good
start with the lenses, maybe a couple of budget ones, but there
ought to be at least one or two high quality lenses for the whole
thing to get going with a bang.

Certainly, from my point of view, if they produce a couple of
desireable lenses I'll go for it anyway (unless the body is
obviously a catastrophe) - if there aren't I might be more
interested in waiting to see if Nikon do some matched lenses for
their dslrs

I used to get fine A3 (16X13) prints from the e10 at 4mp, and with
the larger sensor 5mp should be just fine. so I really don't think
we should be worrying about the resolution.

I'm more worried about whether the damn thing appears at all . . .
. . . and whether it's silver or not (for some reason I always feel
like a prat with a silver camera LOL).

kind regards
jono

Saw on another board tonight a message from Koo (she used to be an
Oly user) saying that a contact she has told her that Oly will soon
announce a DSLR with six lenses designed to match the sensor. She
says that it is not clear whether it will be a 5 or 6 megapixel
camera.

Now, here's my question...why would Olympus release a 5 mp camera
if they hope to compete with Nikon and Canon? Does this make sense
to anyone? I'm hoping the answer is that it doesn't make sense and
suggests that the camera WILL be a 6 mp.

It sounds more and more likely there IS going to be an
interchangeable lense DSLR from Oly.
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

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

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

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Eamon

It seems like we agree with each other again!

the real truth about a camera is that one can work around a lot of things, as long as they don't actually BUG you.

In the end I got rid of my E20 because I didn't like waiting to review 4 or 5 shots taken in reasonably rapid succession. The much slower review times on the E10 never really got to me.

The G2 went because I got really fed up with greeny blue skies, and because I felt like a prat taking photos with that poncy silver thing (LOL).

The E100 on the other hand produces low res pictures, has a horrible EVF and many other things, but the sum of the parts makes a great camera which I still have, use and love.

Similarly, the sum of the parts of the E10 made for a loveable camera.

Look at the passion with which users love their UZI cameras.

I do sympathise with the manufacturers when they have to decide between, say, a faster processor and more bucks - all tough decisions.

I quite often print on paper bigger than 11X14 - but the actual picture is very rarely bigger than that - so I agree with you there as well.

Let's hope that Olympus have been listening to all the feedback on the Exx series, and have taken the time to produce another loveable camera!

kind regards
jono slack

Lower pixel counts on a single size ccd = less noise

The only real problem with 5mp is the public perception of it, and
I agree, that IS a problem, although if it's made clear that the
initial body is the first of a range, then maybe that isn't too
awful.

No, I wouldn't worry about 5mp on a 4/3" sensor - to me, this
spells reasonable file sizes and very low noise levels,

Exactly what I was gonna' say, but Jono already has: 5mp might be a
marketing handicap, but it almost certainly won't be a picture
quality handicap in the real world. In fact, given my "use of
pictures" habits -- I rarely make prints bigger than 11 x 14
inches, and I've never made, say, a 30 x 40 from one of my shots --
I tend to doubt that I'll ever want a camera with more than about
5-6 megapixels of resolution. Other qualities, like good high-ISO
picture quality, are far more important to me than super-high
resolutions.

Only thing I'd add is this: If Olympus gets the shooting and
handling part of the camera right -- i.e. small size, light weight,
quietness, unobtrusiveness, speedy performance, good control logic
for fast and frustration-free advanced photography, speedy image
handling/processing etc. -- that will, for me at least, outweigh
any 1 or 2 megapixel resolution difference by about 100 to 1
(assuming the image quality is as good as we can reasonably expect
from a large, pro-grade 5-megapixel CCD.)

Obviously, I don't speak for every photographer, but I think there
are a lot of us who fit my basic profile. Enough for Olympus to
sell some cameras and make a little money, maybe.

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

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Terry

Least said . . . . . . .

But although I can telll the difference at A3 size - I can't really tell the difference at A4

FWIW.

kind regards
jono slack

Jono

I'm not sure I agree with you about getting fine A3 prints from an
E10. I can see a clear difference between D100 and E10 at A4
without talking A3.

He didn't state or insinuate that A3 prints from an E-10 were
better than A3 prints from a D100. Surely you couldn't let him get
away with saying he got good A3 prints from his E-10 without yet
another D100/E-10 "comparison". Jeeze!

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

 

[Cleave]

VJS,

I am not implying that metric are carryovers (note that I included 8.5 X 11 inches). The basic paper sizes produced for printers are based on publication paper sizes (at least in the US) and not on (US) photo sizes.

I have always been in favor of changing from inches (which we originally got from the British -- ;-)) to metric, though at my current advanced age the transition might be difficult.

VJS

DMiller,

Standard print sizes, for me, are determined, to a degree, by
standard frame sizes. I know there is some latitude when you mat
the photos, but there are limitations. So 8 X 10 and 11 X 14 (in
the US) seem to be standard "larger" format. Printer paper sizes
8.5 X 11, A3, and A4 for photo printers are carryovers from
publishing, not photo printing.

Now that the digital darkroom is becoming more prolific, perhaps
frames will start matching standard paper sizes.
--
Thanks.

Cleave

--
Thanks.

Cleave

 

[Erik Magnuson]

If the 5 MP ccd is one of the good Kodak ccds, then it will likely
outperform the 6 MP ccds now out. It is just not the number of
pixels but the quality of the pixel. Larger size pixels are
better. Kodak makes outstanding ccds. Time will tell.

It's been long speculated that the OlyDak will use the KAF-5101CE Diagonal 22.2mm (Type 4/3) sensor. From the spec sheet:
• 5.1M Pixel Color Area CCD
• 2614 (H) x 1966 (V) Active Photosensitive Pixels
• 6.8 µm (H) x 6.8 µm (V) Pixel Size
• 17.8 (H) mm x 13.4 (V) mm Photosensitive Area
• High Data Rate (4 frames per second)

Now while the pixel size is not that great, Kodak has a white paper that talks about this sensor: "Front-illuminated full-frame charge-coupled device image sensor achieves 85% peak quantum efficiency".

Conclusion:

By mixing and matching technologies from disparate imaging architectures, Kodak has created a front-illuminated full-frame CCD technology with peak quantum efficiency over 85%. The sensors can be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio or to reduce the integration time for low-light

This may be a very interesting, low-noise, high-sensitivity sensor.

--
Erik

 

[Terry Thorn]

Hi Eamon

It seems like we agree with each other again!

the real truth about a camera is that one can work around a lot of
things, as long as they don't actually BUG you.

In the end I got rid of my E20 because I didn't like waiting to
review 4 or 5 shots taken in reasonably rapid succession. The much
slower review times on the E10 never really got to me.

The G2 went because I got really fed up with greeny blue skies, and
because I felt like a prat taking photos with that poncy silver
thing (LOL).

The E100 on the other hand produces low res pictures, has a
horrible EVF and many other things, but the sum of the parts makes
a great camera which I still have, use and love.

Similarly, the sum of the parts of the E10 made for a loveable camera.

Look at the passion with which users love their UZI cameras.

I do sympathise with the manufacturers when they have to decide
between, say, a faster processor and more bucks - all tough
decisions.

I quite often print on paper bigger than 11X14 - but the actual
picture is very rarely bigger than that - so I agree with you there
as well.

Let's hope that Olympus have been listening to all the feedback on
the Exx series, and have taken the time to produce another loveable
camera!

kind regards
jono slack

Do you think there's a chance the "OlyDak" will use an EVF? I know you don't care for an EVF but I like 'em.
P.S. Thanks for understanding, Jono. ;-)

 

[PDM]

Hi Beth,

I would have to agree with you that even a 6 Mp camera won't give you the fine detail you are looking for. I am still under the belief that a non-pro digital camera (meaning anything less than a medium format digital back) should only be a compliment to some film gear. Before digital came out 35mm was just barely acceptable for some pro work - medium format was the bar.

Now, 3-6Mp cameras are being used for some things like sports, journalism, and product photography where the time from camera to press are a major factor, pictures are usually printed smallish, and quantity (and less post processing) becomes an overiding factor to quality.

I mainly shoot landscape, and if I see a shot that I am really happy about I hope that I did bring at least some 35mm gear along to get the shot. Sure, I could (and sometimes do) use my E10 and record the moment, have it look great on the web, and even get it to print nicely at 8x10 with a good dose of PS processing, but the more detail in the pic (grass, fine rocks, tree bark,...) the more I can tell it is a digital pic. A ProviaF or Velvia slide scanned (and post processed correctly) at 2800-4000dpi is going to have tons more detail.

Many forms of photography, especially those approaching fine art (which is what I think you are doing), are still based on the final quality of the image. In those cases the quality of the image is paramount. The amount of time to press or final print should not be a major factor.

PDM

Beth wrote:

I have recently been asked to print poster sized prints
from E10 images and they just don't hack it. Not sure that even a
6mp would do what they are asking the poor "old" E10 to do. It has
taken gorgeous photos that when over-blown aren't gorgeous anymore.

Still anxiously waiting to hear what Oly has up it's sleeve,
Beth

 

[LCD]

The Nikon D1X is only 5.3mp - and I don't hear anyone complaining
about the image quality, it's certainly streets ahead of the E20 in
terms of noise and resolution.

Hey DavidM Terry Thorn or whoever you are

Why are you not having a go at Jono? You have attacked other innocent people for saying much less. You won't do it... This shows that you're manufacturing your 'complaints' for attention.

LCD

 

[Terry Thorn]

Hey DavidM Terry Thorn or whoever you are

Why are you not having a go at Jono? You have attacked other
innocent people for saying much less. You won't do it... This shows
that you're manufacturing your 'complaints' for attention.

LCD

Hey LCD or whatever you are, I didn't say anything to Jono simply because he doesn't get on here and constantly tout how much better one camera is over another like DMillier does. He seldom lets a comment pass without taking it as a challenge to his D100 as evidenced in his response to Jono about prints. It's not that people on here don't want ANY other cameras mentioned but lately it seems to be THE topic of choice rather than the one THIS forum was created for... the OLYMPUS SLR. I see some others have spoken up about this as well. So why do you single ME out? As I told you before, I'm straight.

 

[Jono Slack]

The Nikon D1X is only 5.3mp - and I don't hear anyone complaining
about the image quality, it's certainly streets ahead of the E20 in
terms of noise and resolution.

Hey DavidM Terry Thorn or whoever you are

Why are you not having a go at Jono? You have attacked other
innocent people for saying much less. You won't do it... This shows
that you're manufacturing your 'complaints' for attention.

LCD

LOL - not sure that it shows anything, except possibly that I'm an unrewarding target (mushy thinking, changing my mind all the time, not willing to fight back etc.)

kind regards
jono
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Terry

I'm sure it won't - the problem is the time lag - they all have one, necessarily as they can only update a few times a second. If you're trying to take photos of anything moving, then the actions has happened by the time you see it.

Horrible!!!

I wouldn't mind the pellicle arrangement in the E10 - it might solve the dust problem as well as making for a silent camera

We shall see (or not)

kind regards
jono

Hi Eamon

It seems like we agree with each other again!

the real truth about a camera is that one can work around a lot of
things, as long as they don't actually BUG you.

In the end I got rid of my E20 because I didn't like waiting to
review 4 or 5 shots taken in reasonably rapid succession. The much
slower review times on the E10 never really got to me.

The G2 went because I got really fed up with greeny blue skies, and
because I felt like a prat taking photos with that poncy silver
thing (LOL).

The E100 on the other hand produces low res pictures, has a
horrible EVF and many other things, but the sum of the parts makes
a great camera which I still have, use and love.

Similarly, the sum of the parts of the E10 made for a loveable camera.

Look at the passion with which users love their UZI cameras.

I do sympathise with the manufacturers when they have to decide
between, say, a faster processor and more bucks - all tough
decisions.

I quite often print on paper bigger than 11X14 - but the actual
picture is very rarely bigger than that - so I agree with you there
as well.

Let's hope that Olympus have been listening to all the feedback on
the Exx series, and have taken the time to produce another loveable
camera!

kind regards
jono slack

Do you think there's a chance the "OlyDak" will use an EVF? I know
you don't care for an EVF but I like 'em.
P.S. Thanks for understanding, Jono. ;-)

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

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I'm sure it won't - the problem is the time lag

Regardless of the EVF LCD lag, the sensor does not seem to have a high-speed continuous output mode like the Sony sensor's do. At least there is nothing in the spec sheet other than a max 4FPS frame rate. It may not even have much of a live LCD preview.....

By comparison, the Sony sensor presumed to be used in the F707 has:

Supports 10 types of readout modes
Frame readout mode, 2× speed mode (1), 2× speed mode (2), 8× speed mode,
center scan mode (1), center scan mode (2), center scan mode (3),
center scan mode (4), AF mode (1), AF mode (2)

--
Erik

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Erik

I'm not very up on this technical stuff, but I'd guess that there wouldn't be an LCD preview (just like there isn't on the D100, D1x etc etc.) If you've got a decent viewfinder it really isn't necessary . . . . . so unnecessary in fact, that until now I hadn't even thought about it with respect to the D1X!

kind regards
jono slack

I'm sure it won't - the problem is the time lag

Regardless of the EVF LCD lag, the sensor does not seem to have a
high-speed continuous output mode like the Sony sensor's do. At
least there is nothing in the spec sheet other than a max 4FPS
frame rate. It may not even have much of a live LCD preview.....

By comparison, the Sony sensor presumed to be used in the F707 has:

Supports 10 types of readout modes
Frame readout mode, 2* speed mode (1), 2* speed mode (2), 8* speed mode,
center scan mode (1), center scan mode (2), center scan mode (3),
center scan mode (4), AF mode (1), AF mode (2)

--
Erik

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

 

[DavidMillier]

Interesting. Try the comparison with a long range landscape, camera on a tripod etc.

My comment wasn't really aimed at the Exx series in particular whatever Mr T thinks - it's just that eventually every camera (including film) runs out of pixels at some print size. For me 3.7 MP hits the limit before 5MP or 6MP. I have a recent shot taken fromn the London Eye using the 19-35mm on a clear but overcast day. For that sort of shot full of distant fine detail the more pixels the better.

I used to do the occasional E10 panoramic stitch using 3*3 image matrices. They gave very good A3 prints with a lot more detail. A 16MP sensor would give medium format and probably large format a run fro its money. I wonder how long it will take...

Least said . . . . . . .

But although I can telll the difference at A3 size - I can't really
tell the difference at A4

FWIW.

kind regards
jono slack

Jono

I'm not sure I agree with you about getting fine A3 prints from an
E10. I can see a clear difference between D100 and E10 at A4
without talking A3.

He didn't state or insinuate that A3 prints from an E-10 were
better than A3 prints from a D100. Surely you couldn't let him get
away with saying he got good A3 prints from his E-10 without yet
another D100/E-10 "comparison". Jeeze!

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

 

[Terry Thorn]

Interesting. Try the comparison with a long range landscape, camera
on a tripod etc.

Why do you still compare? What are you trying to prove?

My comment wasn't really aimed at the Exx series in particular
whatever Mr T thinks - it's just that eventually every camera
(including film) runs out of pixels at some print size. For me 3.7
MP hits the limit before 5MP or 6MP. I have a recent shot taken
fromn the London Eye using the 19-35mm on a clear but overcast day.
For that sort of shot full of distant fine detail the more pixels
the better.

Since you only mentioned the E-10 and D100 (comparing STILL), it's plain to see you were talking about those two cameras.

I used to do the occasional E10 panoramic stitch using 3*3 image
matrices. They gave very good A3 prints with a lot more detail. A
16MP sensor would give medium format and probably large format a
run fro its money. I wonder how long it will take...

Least said . . . . . . .

But although I can telll the difference at A3 size - I can't really
tell the difference at A4

FWIW.

kind regards
jono slack

Jono

I'm not sure I agree with you about getting fine A3 prints from an
E10. I can see a clear difference between D100 and E10 at A4
without talking A3.

He didn't state or insinuate that A3 prints from an E-10 were
better than A3 prints from a D100. Surely you couldn't let him get
away with saying he got good A3 prints from his E-10 without yet
another D100/E-10 "comparison". Jeeze!

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

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi David
I've got buckets full of comparisons here!

I reckon the trade off is between A4 and A3, On my Epson 2000p everything the E10 could throw up at 80 iso was just fine. A3 is different, I agree, but I still think it's more to do with the noise than the actual resolution.

kind regards
jono slack

My comment wasn't really aimed at the Exx series in particular
whatever Mr T thinks - it's just that eventually every camera
(including film) runs out of pixels at some print size. For me 3.7
MP hits the limit before 5MP or 6MP. I have a recent shot taken
fromn the London Eye using the 19-35mm on a clear but overcast day.
For that sort of shot full of distant fine detail the more pixels
the better.

I used to do the occasional E10 panoramic stitch using 3*3 image
matrices. They gave very good A3 prints with a lot more detail. A
16MP sensor would give medium format and probably large format a
run fro its money. I wonder how long it will take...

Least said . . . . . . .

But although I can telll the difference at A3 size - I can't really
tell the difference at A4

FWIW.

kind regards
jono slack

Jono

I'm not sure I agree with you about getting fine A3 prints from an
E10. I can see a clear difference between D100 and E10 at A4
without talking A3.

He didn't state or insinuate that A3 prints from an E-10 were
better than A3 prints from a D100. Surely you couldn't let him get
away with saying he got good A3 prints from his E-10 without yet
another D100/E-10 "comparison". Jeeze!

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

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

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Terry

It clearly bugs you, but sometimes it's just better to think "well, having spent all that money he's bound to need to qualify it" and pass on?

It's lens snobbery which gets up my nose, but, each to his own!

Oh yes and the "magnification factor is a good thing" brigade!!

kind regards
jono slack

Interesting. Try the comparison with a long range landscape, camera
on a tripod etc.

Why do you still compare? What are you trying to prove?

My comment wasn't really aimed at the Exx series in particular
whatever Mr T thinks - it's just that eventually every camera
(including film) runs out of pixels at some print size. For me 3.7
MP hits the limit before 5MP or 6MP. I have a recent shot taken
fromn the London Eye using the 19-35mm on a clear but overcast day.
For that sort of shot full of distant fine detail the more pixels
the better.

Since you only mentioned the E-10 and D100 (comparing STILL), it's
plain to see you were talking about those two cameras.

I used to do the occasional E10 panoramic stitch using 3*3 image
matrices. They gave very good A3 prints with a lot more detail. A
16MP sensor would give medium format and probably large format a
run fro its money. I wonder how long it will take...

Least said . . . . . . .

But although I can telll the difference at A3 size - I can't really
tell the difference at A4

FWIW.

kind regards
jono slack

Jono

I'm not sure I agree with you about getting fine A3 prints from an
E10. I can see a clear difference between D100 and E10 at A4
without talking A3.

He didn't state or insinuate that A3 prints from an E-10 were
better than A3 prints from a D100. Surely you couldn't let him get
away with saying he got good A3 prints from his E-10 without yet
another D100/E-10 "comparison". Jeeze!

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

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

 

[Terry Thorn]

HI Terry
It clearly bugs you, but sometimes it's just better to think "well,
having spent all that money he's bound to need to qualify it" and
pass on?

It's lens snobbery which gets up my nose, but, each to his own!

Oh yes and the "magnification factor is a good thing" brigade!!

kind regards
jono slack

I agree and have pointed that out as well. It's EASY to see what he's doing yet he insists on denying it. I wonder if he's deluded himself to the point where he actually believes that he's not "defending" the D100 or his purchase of it. I think it's pretty clear that he is. If anything even SUGGESTS to him that the E-10 could come CLOSE to his much vaunted D100, he feels the NEED to put us "in our place". There's others here who own other cameras that don't feel the need to do anything like that and that's the CONSIDERATE thing to do.

 

[Jimmy Chen]

A
16MP sensor would give medium format and probably large format a
run fro its money. I wonder how long it will take...

16mp on a 35mm sensor may take a while, if it ever gets there. The existing 9um photosite would have to drop down to close to 4um, which means the noise will not be better then the existing 1/8" on the Sony F707. I dont think I even want to guess how bad the Nikon/Canon 7um APS sensors would be if they had 16mp of sub-4um photosites.

--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery