Not too impressed

[Jono Slack]

The real news is: I don't have to change my arsenal of lenses if
and when my next DSLR is FF.

Oh - unless you've invested exclusively in L glass, I think you
will - I just don't think that cheaper lenses (especially wide
angle) will cut it with FF

L glass where it is needed: 135/2.0 L and 70-200/2.8 IS L USM. And
my 50/1.4 (Canon's reference lens) is famous for sharpness across
the frame without L designation. And my Sigma 20/1.8 DG lens is
designed for digital (FF or not) with its exit pupil far from
sensor and thus light rays very perpendicular to sensor. I think
they will cut enough with FF.

Well, I can't argue with those.

In that situation DX owners have a
dilemma. Invest more on DX series or sell them...?

How many DX lenses does one need? One, or at the most, two - this
is not a huge hit, and it gives us exactly what we want right now.

But won't the whole lens line up "benefit" from DXed image circle,
by making them smaller?

I used to think so, but it seems not really to be the case - but you still get the benefit of the FOV crop further up the range
i.e. my 80-400 VR is equivalent to 120-600 - which I like!

kind regards
jono slack

Cheers,
Matti J.

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

 

[Matti J]

Too bad the 1Ds doesn't work well with wide angle lenses. You can
use them but there are a number of lens/sensor issues that make the
smaller Nikon sensor and their new 12-24 lens a better optimized
optical/sensor combination.

And that's always going to be a problem with FF - added to which
one doesn't get the telephoto 'bonus' with FF

kind regards
jono slack

It works already, and it is only getting better with next models. If they (Canon) can make FF sensor (Nikon cannot), increase pixel count over 10 Mp (Nikon cannot), lower noise (Nikon cannot), etc, why won't they get over with any FF wide angle problems?

There no evidence of wide angle always being a problem with FF. Why ever-repeating this stupid mantra?

And it isn't actually the sensor, it is the micro lenses that cause possible CA on the very edges of the very wide angles. They find a way go around it.

Matti J.

 

[Geir Ove]

The 4/3 is DESIGNED for this kind of lenses. If you compare to another system, there wil be a an equivalent value. But the same is true if you comare 35 mm to Full Format.

I thought people had understood this by now !

Geir Ove

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Agreed shame they made some stupid marketing decisions

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are
marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with
a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x
crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse. Because
of the Physics of Optics, the resolution will be reduced compared
to a 1.5 crop as well. The digital sensor while limiting the Feild
of View, doesnt magically reduce the circles of confusion that
limit the resolution that a lens can produce. The lens design can
hepl somewhat but there are limits

The Oly is a 35mm type camera with a small digital sensor (Compared
to the D100 et al). The only reason that the bulk of people havent
realised that yet is because of the Marketing spin and the fact
that Oly doesnt have a current 35mm camera that they have based
their design on.

Nikon and now Pentax have released DX type lenses that are
comparable, the E1 is only unique in its lens mount system at this
time.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

They should have done that first with a price point of about $800.
that might have ensured the critical mass for something like the
4/3 system to become a standard.

Regards

Regards,
photovoyager

--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

 

[GDD]

Lenses are expensive part and EOS lenses will fit 1.6, 1.3 and FF
sensors. Lenses stay, bodies are changed like rolls of film ;-)

My point was that for a 10D I do have to invest in lenses that are useless (at least for me) on a future FF body. How much demand will there be for a 17-40mm when FF becomes the common chip-size and what will be the extra value of a 24-70mm over a 28-70mm? So I would still prefer a manufacturer to offer one chip-size instead of 3 sizes.
Geert.

 

[GDD]

Jón Ragnarsson wrote:
not so long rant ;-)

Two minds, one thought !
Geert.

 

[photovoyager]

There is the equivelent focal length, but the E-1 lenses aren't
marked with that. The 14-52 says 14-52, not 28-105. That is the
true focal length of the lens.

EXACTLY!!!

Regards,
photovoyager

 

[hcho]

Technically, you are correct, there is no crop. The E-1 uses the full image circle of its lenses, like any full-frame camera. People are using the term "crop-factor" to refer to the size of the sensor relative to 35mm format. Nevertheless, terminology aside, the points being made still apply.

BTW, cropping is not necessarily a bad thing as it allows the camera to use the central part of a lens, minimizing aberrations, and also results in a focal length bonus. It's only really a detriment for wide-angle shooters. Nikon's DX lenses address even this short-coming.

The whole DX lens thing confuses the whole crop terminology further. The Nikons are recognized as having a 1.5 crop factor. However, the DX lenses project a smaller image circle, and in effect the camera becomes full frame. It's far easier to just consider sensor size and focal lengths when talking about coverage.

I thought people had understood this by now !

Geir Ove

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Agreed shame they made some stupid marketing decisions

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are
marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with
a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x
crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse. Because
of the Physics of Optics, the resolution will be reduced compared
to a 1.5 crop as well. The digital sensor while limiting the Feild
of View, doesnt magically reduce the circles of confusion that
limit the resolution that a lens can produce. The lens design can
hepl somewhat but there are limits

The Oly is a 35mm type camera with a small digital sensor (Compared
to the D100 et al). The only reason that the bulk of people havent
realised that yet is because of the Marketing spin and the fact
that Oly doesnt have a current 35mm camera that they have based
their design on.

Nikon and now Pentax have released DX type lenses that are
comparable, the E1 is only unique in its lens mount system at this
time.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

They should have done that first with a price point of about $800.
that might have ensured the critical mass for something like the
4/3 system to become a standard.

Regards

Regards,
photovoyager

--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

 

[Jono Slack]

Too bad the 1Ds doesn't work well with wide angle lenses. You can
use them but there are a number of lens/sensor issues that make the
smaller Nikon sensor and their new 12-24 lens a better optimized
optical/sensor combination.

And that's always going to be a problem with FF - added to which
one doesn't get the telephoto 'bonus' with FF

kind regards
jono slack

It works already, and it is only getting better with next models.
If they (Canon) can make FF sensor (Nikon cannot),

Are you sure that they cannot - maybe they feel it isn't worth it, and that their sensor is actually a better size for digital.

increase pixel
count over 10 Mp (Nikon cannot),

Why not? explain please

lower noise (Nikon cannot),

Why not?

etc,
why won't they get over with any FF wide angle problems?

There no evidence of wide angle always being a problem with FF.
Why ever-repeating this stupid mantra?

Well, the old lenses aren't going to change - anyway, name calling is a little unneccesary wouldn't you say?

And it isn't actually the sensor, it is the micro lenses that cause
possible CA on the very edges of the very wide angles.

Probably worth arguing this one - I thought it was about the angle of incidence of light. However, I'm not a techie, so I'll give you this one.

They find a
way go around it.

I'm willing to believe that . . . . .
Whereas, Nikon, of course, will not find a way to go above 10MP?

your arguments seem a little like they emanate from a belief rather than any kind of logic.

But you still haven't answered the argument about being able to cover such a wide range of focal lengths with such a small number of lenses. Less weight, less expense etc.

kind regards
jono slack

Matti J.

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

 

[Jono Slack]

LOL

you're quite right of course, arguing with Matti is like trying to convince a dedicated envangalist that the Muslim religion doesn't emanate from the devil!

I try to resist - honest I do!

kind regards
jono slack

Matti: I will not have a lens "collection". Lenses are fare too
expensive to "collect". I am still and will probably be what people
call advanced amateur.
I will probably own 3-4 lenses max. Having to rethink my lens
strategy just because my brand is going from 1.6/1.5 to "full
frame" is just not an option.
But I am with Nikon on this one, they are delivering a very good
service to all the people who have bought a Nikon DSLR from the
beginning. The 17-55mm looks perfect as a all-around travel/first
lens, just like the Olympus 14-54mm. What has Canon done for their
30.000 a month customers to make their life easier? Not much.
I will probably end up carrying a extra lens if I go with Canon.
But OTOH, neither Canon or Nikon have made clear statement if/when
they are going full frame. People are just guessing, Canon might
try to go fullframe, because the have the 1Ds, OTOH, majority of
their market is the D60 and 10D. Nikon has been very consistent
with their 1.5 FOV, but who knows? Olympus has made some bold
statements, but we all know marketers.. But at least their
vision is quite clear, the 4/3 format or bust.
Meanwhile, I keep collecting intrests from my "SLR account". I
think I wait for the rumoured 3D (if there is one) or digital
version of the F100. If that fails, I guess I have to look really
hard at the E-1 (It is the principle of the 4/3 concept, which I
support 100%) and S2,D100,10D,*ist D...
J.

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

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

 

[Roland Karlsson]

And it isn't actually the sensor, it is the micro lenses that cause
possible CA on the very edges of the very wide angles.

Probably worth arguing this one - I thought it was about the angle
of incidence of light. However, I'm not a techie, so I'll give you
this one.

You are both right - it is the angle of the light that hits the
micro lenses that is to high nearer the edges.

They find a
way go around it.

Why not a full fill rate sensor without micro lenses?

But, the Bayer filter might still have some depth and
therefore cause some problems.

Roland

 

[Roland Karlsson]

The 4/3 is DESIGNED for this kind of lenses. If you compare to
another system, there wil be a an equivalent value. But the same is
true if you comare 35 mm to Full Format.

I thought people had understood this by now !

Geir - I am 100% sure that all have understood that.
But it is somewhat awkward when doing comparisons to
avoid any term that someone else don't like. Whatever
you say someone will object, even if your technical
reasoning is perfectly OK.

Roland

 

[DavidMillier]

Hey!

I have a D100 which replaced an E10 and a Coolpix 950 but I won't be changing the D100 for anything less than 10MP...

...and on the film camera front I still have my F301 (which must be 20 years old) and my Yashica FR1 which must be 30 years old so don't go leaping to conclusions about camera body turnover!!

The 1.6 cropfactor seems too much of a temporary solution and I'm
not going to spend my money on a "temporary" format.

Having money on 10D is not having invested on the whole system or
format. Crop factor is not a "format" on body. Crop factor on E-1
or Nikon DX is a format because it is about the whole series of
lenses.

Lenses are expensive part and EOS lenses will fit 1.6, 1.3 and FF
sensors. Lenses stay, bodies are changed like rolls of film ;-)

Matti J.

 

[Matti J]

LOL
you're quite right of course, arguing with Matti is like trying to
convince a dedicated envangalist that the Muslim religion doesn't
emanate from the devil!

I try to resist - honest I do!

kind regards
jono slack

Call me and my argumentation whatever you like, if you get your kick out of it. I just feel sorry for you, because you no more came out with an intellectual input.

Matti J.

 

[Sam Berry]

Canon
does not even offer a "normal" zoom for the 1.6 cropfactor. (that
would cover something comparable to the zoomrange of a 28-70 on
full frame)

So what is the 17-40L, a goldfish bowl?

 

[Sam Berry]

Jono, the sigma 15-30 gets you 24mm. Thar various 14mm primes get you 22mm, and 15mm fisheye converted back to rectilinear gives you 17mm and an 8mm fisheye corrected can give you 12mm.

Hardly 26mm for life is it?

My wide angle? It is there with 1Ds, if I need.

I assume that paying for it is no problem then?

It was about "Canon
users stuck with crop" when in reality there are most levels of
freedom with Canon DSRL system having 1.6, 1.3 and non-cropped FF
sensor versions available. And Nikon variants were...?

But, what you're saying, is that if you want to use a 10D (nice
camera by the way) then you are pretty much committed (for ever) to
a widest angle of about 26mm - are you really happy with that?

HI Matti
I have no pain - I've got a perfectly serviceable D1x with fabulous
'out of the camera' shots and no smeary noise reduction.

Nikon cameras suffered some sort of smeary NR in the past? I just
didn't knew. Good for you, the problem is now solved.

Matti, my pictures are so awful that a little smeary noise
reduction can do them nothing but good

Added to
which I have a nice 12-24mm DX lens that gives me real wide angle,
a good work flow, great Nikon software and some new bodies to be
announced soon.

I hope the DX-series of DSRLs will be made in the future to be used
with DX-lenses. A bad thing, those DX users are destined to use the
non-FF for a very very long time ;-)

Well, this is becoming a matter of religion - you BELIEVE that full
frame is the best (even if you can't afford it), whereas I BELIEVE
that I don't want full frame. Argument and discussion is completely
useless - I know I won't convince you of the error of your ways, or
vice versa.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that in my heart of hearts I
really know your right - because I don't!

I was just hoping for something special from the E1, and it looks a
little doubtful now.

Agree. Wonderfull specs, except for the crop factor.

I didn't think it had a crop factor - I thought that was the whole
point - lenses designed to match the sensor - no crop factor.

kind regards
jono slack

Cheers,
Matti J.

kind regards
jono slack

Seems a little premature!

Nothing to shout about ;-)

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

You see, I just reacted what was said in the previous post: "...
we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon...".

Just the fact alone, that my Canon EOS lenses are FF compatible,
makes me feel good i.e. my EOS lenses are 1Ds compatible.

I feel your pain, Jono,
Matti J.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

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

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

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

 

[Jono Slack]

LOL
you're quite right of course, arguing with Matti is like trying to
convince a dedicated envangalist that the Muslim religion doesn't
emanate from the devil!

I try to resist - honest I do!

kind regards
jono slack

Call me and my argumentation whatever you like, if you get your
kick out of it. I just feel sorry for you,

A positive emotion (sympathy), so I'll follow Jon's indication and thank you for your sympathy

because you no more came
out with an intellectual input.

Actually Matti - I know you're right, and that I made the wrong decision to go with Nikon 18 months ago - everything I've said is rubbish, and I willingly and freely admit to having seen the light.

Thank you for helping me.

no more tonight (I'm off to ebay)
kind regards
jono slack

Matti J.

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

 

[photovoyager]

So what is the 17-40L, a goldfish bowl?

Well, first I don't think it exists yet. Second, it should be very expensive. And third, at least with slow lenses (it is only f/4) most people would have moved on to a longer zoom range.

Oly offers the 14-54mm which is faster (even on the long end), should be cheaper, and offers a VERY nice (28-108mm) range.

The optical quality may not be Canon "L" standard (or maybe it will be) but it should be a good deal more practical.

The 17-40mm is not bad, but if they REALLY want to be practical they should have something STARTING at about 40mm and going to, say, 125mm. Otherwise you're stuck with a second lens starting at 28mm (not long enough on the long end), or one starting at 70mm (a big gap between 40mm and 70mm).

The 17-40mm is a step in the right direction and it has the bonus of being usable on all EOS cameras BUT it isn't the same as what Olympus has, which is STILL a very good idea IMO for those of us who can't afford a full-frame camera and won't be able to for a long time. Why should we spend $1500+ on cameras that are just "makeshift" until something arrives that nobody even has the faintest idea to make yet (i.e. an affordable full-frame D-SLR)?

Regards,
photovoyager

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Sam

dunno about the other lenses, but I owned the sigma for 6 months, and apart from being huge, the flare was horrid (sharp though).

Anyway - as you can see, Matti has convinced me of the error of my ways, and I'm off to ebay to sell all my Nikon gear - as the E1's no good, I'll be buying a 1Ds and some L glass tomorrow morning. (so I won't need the dodgy wide angle lenses)

kind regards
jono slack

Hardly 26mm for life is it?

My wide angle? It is there with 1Ds, if I need.

I assume that paying for it is no problem then?

It was about "Canon
users stuck with crop" when in reality there are most levels of
freedom with Canon DSRL system having 1.6, 1.3 and non-cropped FF
sensor versions available. And Nikon variants were...?

But, what you're saying, is that if you want to use a 10D (nice
camera by the way) then you are pretty much committed (for ever) to
a widest angle of about 26mm - are you really happy with that?

HI Matti
I have no pain - I've got a perfectly serviceable D1x with fabulous
'out of the camera' shots and no smeary noise reduction.

Nikon cameras suffered some sort of smeary NR in the past? I just
didn't knew. Good for you, the problem is now solved.

Matti, my pictures are so awful that a little smeary noise
reduction can do them nothing but good

Added to
which I have a nice 12-24mm DX lens that gives me real wide angle,
a good work flow, great Nikon software and some new bodies to be
announced soon.

I hope the DX-series of DSRLs will be made in the future to be used
with DX-lenses. A bad thing, those DX users are destined to use the
non-FF for a very very long time ;-)

Well, this is becoming a matter of religion - you BELIEVE that full
frame is the best (even if you can't afford it), whereas I BELIEVE
that I don't want full frame. Argument and discussion is completely
useless - I know I won't convince you of the error of your ways, or
vice versa.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that in my heart of hearts I
really know your right - because I don't!

I was just hoping for something special from the E1, and it looks a
little doubtful now.

Agree. Wonderfull specs, except for the crop factor.

I didn't think it had a crop factor - I thought that was the whole
point - lenses designed to match the sensor - no crop factor.

kind regards
jono slack

Cheers,
Matti J.

kind regards
jono slack

Seems a little premature!

Nothing to shout about ;-)

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

You see, I just reacted what was said in the previous post: "...
we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon...".

Just the fact alone, that my Canon EOS lenses are FF compatible,
makes me feel good i.e. my EOS lenses are 1Ds compatible.

I feel your pain, Jono,
Matti J.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

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

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

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

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

 

[Jono Slack]

And it isn't actually the sensor, it is the micro lenses that cause
possible CA on the very edges of the very wide angles.

Probably worth arguing this one - I thought it was about the angle
of incidence of light. However, I'm not a techie, so I'll give you
this one.

You are both right - it is the angle of the light that hits the
micro lenses that is to high nearer the edges.

They find a
way go around it.

Why not a full fill rate sensor without micro lenses?

But, the Bayer filter might still have some depth and
therefore cause some problems.

Matti is so convinced that the only honest thing to do is to sell my Nikon gear on ebay, and buy a 1Ds tomorrow.

;-)

kind regards
jono slack

Roland

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

 

[Sam Berry]

The exit pupils of wide angles lenses are not significantly closer to the image place than on any other lens, we are talking about retrofocus designs here. Seriously get a tele zoom and determine where the exit pupil is and see for yourself. The only reason I have seen any evidence about for CA is the fact that WA lenses have CA! Why, oh why, does everyone forget that CA happens with film as well. WA lenses are difficult to design, and a 1Ds is very good at picking the edges of their image circles apart. The 17-35mm zoom used in the dpreview review is famous for being not very good at the edges, on any medium. I use lenses with exit pupils at the mount all the time on a 10D with NO issues. It's because they're good lenses.

And it isn't actually the sensor, it is the micro lenses that cause
possible CA on the very edges of the very wide angles.

Probably worth arguing this one - I thought it was about the angle
of incidence of light. However, I'm not a techie, so I'll give you
this one.

You are both right - it is the angle of the light that hits the
micro lenses that is to high nearer the edges.

They find a
way go around it.

Why not a full fill rate sensor without micro lenses?

But, the Bayer filter might still have some depth and
therefore cause some problems.

Roland