Why Four Thirds is better - Lets continue here

[Simon Zeev]

That'd right. Let's compare the size of rhe E500 to Pentax 110. The size of the 4/3 sensor is about the same size like 110 film. Even Olympus pen F (half-frame) is smaller than the E500.
--
Regards.
Zeev

http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon

 

[Simon Zeev]

I brought the E500 mostly because the good kit lenses. Added an 11-22 lens and a Pentax adapter and my needs are fulfill.

One of the big advantage of the 4/3 is the lens-sensor distance. Beyng smaller than most SLR's is possible with an adapter to use (in manual mode) almost every SLR manual lens.
--
Regards.
Zeev

http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon

 

[yboT]

I really don't know if Olympus smaller size claims really apply to the camera body itself... after all an SLR body can only be so small before it actually becomes uncomfortable to hold and use.

The 'smaller' claims I believe applies more to the lens, or the combination of the body and lens, and it's because of the 2x crop factor.

Compare say the Olympus' 300mm f/2.8, at 5.1 x 11, 3.3kg (600mm fov with 4/3 system) and Canon's 600mm f/4, at 6.6 x 18, 5.4 kg (same fov with 35mm/full frame system). I remember reading John Isaac mentioning this advantage while browsing through his photos of the Kashmir.

That's a comparison at the extreme telephoto end, the shorter focal length the difference is less extreme although the size/weight ratio is about the same...say Olympus' 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, 2.8 x 3.4, 435g (28-108mm) vs Canon's 24-105 f/4, 3.3 x 4.2, 670g.

Of course, Oly's lenses don't have any IS system in them, not sure how much that would change the lenses' size/weight if they do have them.

 

[sngreen]

So you do not need any upgrades then?

upgrades for what?

You do not need Olympus to make newer cameras, you are happy with what you have - do I understand you correctly?

• Sergey

 

[Simon Zeev]

I have also an Canon S1 IS and is very nice in my hands. I hope to an 4/3 camera this size. Of cause with smaller lenses and a good EVF. (EVIL)
--
Regards.
Zeev

http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon

 

[Mark Thornton]

Which Pentax adapter did you get and how much was it?

 

[Simon Zeev]

I a Pentax K adapter. I brought him from ebay. Is chinese and is nice made.
Material is bronze and it cost me some 45$ with posting to Israel.
--
Regards.
Zeev

http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon

 

[Simon Zeev]

I am happy that olympus make new cameras but I will not buy every new camera as long that the old one fulfill my needs.
--
Regards.
Zeev

http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon

 

[Cephalotus]

You do not need Olympus to make newer cameras, you are happy with
what you have - do I understand you correctly?

Okay, my (long) point of view ;-)

The E-1 does what I wanted it to do when I bought it 2 years ago. It has not become a worse camera in that time.

I had used 35mm film for many years and my E-1 is superior to that in almost every way (you may argue about maximum resolution here, but with my work flow and in my real world prints that advantage of film was not there)

I was quite happy with 35mm film for many years, why should that change now if I have an (in my eyes at least) even superior camera now?

I use my pictures for different things:

• digital projector (5MP is plenty)
• on screen (5MP is plenty)
• small prints and "photobooks" @ 15cmx20cm (5MP is plenty)
• http://www , homepage (5MP is plenty)
• ebay (5MP is plenty)
• 20cmx27cm (5MP is ok)
• 60cmx90cm landscapes with good resolution even when watching close (5MP is not good enough, but 10MP wouldn't do it, either. I assume that I would need something in the 20MP-30MP range here or 4x5 film at least. I was never able to make that pictures)

• I rarely shot at higher ISO and if I do so I can easily live with somehow noisy images. Noise would bother me in product shots or macro shots or maybe blue sky in landscapes, but rarely at high ISO shots (that's just me of course)
• I do not shot (much) sports and never filled the buffer of my E-1 or my 10D
• I mostly shot jpgs and usualy do not use post processing because I'm too lazy ( I didn't have to do it with slides, why should I -have- to do it now? That's just me, ymmv)

I bought the E-1, because in combination with the 14-54 it is a "full featured" and very rugged camera (more lightweight, more silent and significantly cheaper than comparable camera+lens combinations from Nikon and Canon, and it also offers pixel mapping + dust buster) which gives nice jpgs out of the camera and has a 100% viewfinder that is clear and contrasty enough to be used on microscopes and with very "dim" ultra macro lenses, too.

I assume that the E-1 will do it for some more years to come. I would not pay 2000$ for the successor to "just" get 10MP, faster speed, more AF points and so on. Maybe if the "E-3" will cost 500$ I will upgrade to one or when the E-1 fails... I'm absolutely not in a hurry here.

But of course I'm looking for other cameras, too:

1. I would like to have a small but rugged pocket sized camera with a good sensor, optical viewfinder, manual controls, good lens ("35mm" prime is ok) and I'm waiting for such a camera since some years now.

2. I would like to see something in the "prosumer range" for travel photography (when rugged built quality is not at highest priority, otherwiese I would use the E-1). Even an E-1 + 14-54 + 40-150 weights more than I like to carry as a backpacker. I also do prefer a "do it all" camera + a "do it all" lens for that kind of photography.

So I hope for a camera with a bigger sensor and good image quality at base ISO (which I sadly can not see in current prosumer cameras, because of to much smearing of low contrast details when shooting landscapes). Ideally that lens would be exchangeable. I would also like to have live view + tiltable LCD + an optical TTL viewfinder or a good enough EVF + silent operation in live view mode + VGA video and so on...

A fourthirds sensor and fourthirds mount would be nice because it would fit my other equipment. The E-330 is the camera that comes quite close, but it is not perfect. To expensive for me for a travel camera, could be more lightweight (every 100g counts) and live view B is not perfect. I do not care much about MP (there is not so much difference between 5M, 6MP, 8MP or 10MP that I would notice in real world prints) and I do not care much about high ISO.
A built in flash would be nice, image stabilisation also would be nice to have.

An effective automatic sensor cleaning system is a must have for me in such a camera. (I didn't like my dust experience with the 10D and I do not want to have to clean my DSLR "on the road")

3. The third camera I am waiting for is an affordable camera with something around 20-30MP (or 15MP "Foveon") and 2 good prime lenses, to make really big landscape posters. I could use panorama photography and stitch many low res images for that but I'm to unexperienced and to lazy to do it well....

...

 

[Cephalotus]

part 2

...

I would be happy with such a 30MP 4/3" sensor with good image quality at ISO 50 and usable (but somehow grainy) ISO 400. The quality of the "old" 2/3" 8MP sensor would be fine for my needs and that would give 32MP @ 4/3" size.

If such a camera would be available in 35mm format or DX format or 645 at a price that I can afford I would buy that camera + 2 new lenses.

I doubt that my fourthirds zoom lenses would be good enough for such a sensor anyway with the exception of the 50/2,0 macro lens which could/should be good enough.

But I assume that I have to wait some more years for that camera at a price that I would be willing to pay.

So there remains that pocket camera (I would buy any brand) and that prosumer DSLR / EVIL / whatever which I hope will be available soon. I have high hopes that it will be in fourthirds mount, because they are closest to that camera now.

The 7,5MP NMOS is fine for my needs, I wouldn't mind a 12MP camera either, even if I would have to sacrifice ISO 1600.

I will keep using the E-1 when I need a good viewfinder and rugged built quality or when I just enjoy using that well built camera or when I need some other features not available in the next camera.

For the moment I have everything that I NEED and btw I didn't buy anything new since almost 2 years (except one memory card), but I'm looking for other things to expand my photographic options, mainly in that case when a big DSLR system is not what I like to carry.

Those cameras I would like to add are not available yet, not matter which manufacturer.

So I'm still happy with my decision to buy into the 4/3 system.

I would do it again today.

I would not say that it is the best system, because it isn't (no system is "the best") and I assume that more people will find features in systems of the big two more interesting than in the new and smaller 4/3 system, but there are features available in the 4/3 system which make it the best choice for some. Myself included.

So it is a very good thing that it does exist and I hope that it will continue to exist for a long time.

Canon (EOS better than FD) worked very well for me when shooting 35mm film, in digital world 4/3 is what I prefer.

 

[TrapperJohn]

What you said about your E500 is true with even greater force with my E1. Love that camera, it's a jewel to handle and never lets me down. And the glass... a bit pricey, but as close to perfect as one can find. I've shelled out big bucks for the magnificent 50-200, and it has been a stellar performer.

The one aspect of 4/3 that I find attractive is the long reach of tele lenses. Was comparing my E1/50-200 combo to a 5D/100-400L one day, and have to say that my setup was a whole lot easier to handle. So compact, so much easier to walk around a crowd without that mongo lens sticking out the front. Build a body with IS and a clean ISO1600, and you'd have a deadly sports/action photography setup, the magnification you want with the size you need. How delightful it would be to see Oly trump Canon in it's traditionally strongest area. And they already have the fast zooms in place - all they need is the body.

When I think back to what really pleases me about my setup, it doesn't have nearly as much to do with 4/3 as it does with Olympus. Most of the strongest points relate to the killer optics, robust construction, and especially the magnificent photos that come out of it.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The only inherent advantage the Four Thirds system has is size.
Because
of the smaller sensor size, the lenses can be made smaller as can
the camera
bodies.

Camera bodies are pretty close to ergonomic limits now.

Lenses can't really be made much smaller, because of the telecentricity requirements.

Smaller sensor size can also result in reduced power draw
so smaller
capacity batteries could be used.

Actually, sensors of the same technology and about the same pixel count have about the same power draw, regardless of the size. This is an advantage for larger sensors: same power, larger area = petter heat dissipation and a cooler running sensor.

But it's a moot point, because the greatest power draw in a camera is the display. Sensors draw about 100mW (1/10 Watt) for CCD like Oly or most Nikons or 10mW for CMOS like Canon. 1.8 inch displays drew about a Watt, the current crop of 2.5 inch displays are over 2 Watts.

And only Oly has "live view", if you want to talk about eating up power.

The flip side to that is the smaller sensor size creates a
significant image
quality challenge vis-a-vis the larger APS and Full Frame sensors
used in other
DSLRs.

True.

So far, the Four Thirds system has not been able to equal
the high
ISO performance of the large sensors.

True, but they did bring out a couple of f2.0 zooms to help make up for that. If only they were more affordable...

It will also be interesting
to see how
Four Thirds sensors will do at increased densities such as 10MP or
12MP.

Very interesting.

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

That'd right. Let's compare the size of rhe E500 to Pentax 110. The
size of the 4/3 sensor is about the same size like 110 film. Even
Olympus pen F (half-frame) is smaller than the E500.

It's Oly's requirement that the lenses be telecentric that caused that.

DSLRs have a problem. If the exit pupil of a lens comes too close to existing sensors, you get vignetting and weird color effects. Existing wide angle and normal lenses typically have these problem causing close exit pupils.

There are two ways to address tis problem. Design new lenses so that they are more compatible with existing sensors, or design new sensors that are more compatible with existing lenses.

Oly took the first approach, and took it to extremes. They set the design criteria for the new lenses so high that not only are all known SLR sensors protected, but even narrower sensitivity sensors used in point and shoot cameras with features like movie mode and live viewfinder are protected. And probably overprotected.

The more telecentric you make a lens, the bigger it gets. That's why some of the Oly lenses are surprisingly large for their focal length ranges.

The success that Nikon has with their DX lenses, Pentax with DA, Canon with EF-S proves you don't need to be quite as telecentric as Oly claims.

Kodak supplies weapons to both sides. Aside from working on sensors for Oly (as the original four-thirds (tm) partner), they also provide sensors with my offset microlenses to Leica for use in the Modul-R and the new digital M rangefinder. I've shot the Modul-R, and I was right, the offset microlenses do the trick, conventional SLR lenses can be made to work perfectly on existing sensors. So, an offset microlens camera with a four-thirds size sensor could really take the tiny lenses of the Pentax 110 DSLR.

Now, whether it could take the even smaller lenses that a rangefinder (or full EVF) camera would use remains to be seen.

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

That'd right. Let's compare the size of rhe E500 to Pentax 110. The
size of the 4/3 sensor is about the same size like 110 film. Even
Olympus pen F (half-frame) is smaller than the E500.

And Pen F and the Pentax 110 SLR didn't have the kind of electronic content of a modern DSLR. It takes a lot of money to shrink electronics and do it well. Canon and Nikon have that kind of budget, which is why some of the new DSLRs (like Nikon D80) have the dimensions and weight of a film SLR. It's taken many years of DSLR development to get all that electronics down to a reasonable weight and size.

It's quite possible Oly may never hit that point, with their quantities. Panasonic, with their much larger volumes of P&S cameras to borrow "shrinking" technology from may be the first to realize a four thirds (tm) DSLR smaller than the APS competition.

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[PhotoTraveler]

You need to compare 300mm to 300mm, 600mm to 600mm. The crop of the sensor does not change the lens. So when comparing size, you have to look at matching lenses. So you can't do 300mm verses 600mm

 

[Ivan Ruskov]

That'd right. Let's compare the size of rhe E500 to Pentax 110. The
size of the 4/3 sensor is about the same size like 110 film. Even
Olympus pen F (half-frame) is smaller than the E500.

It's Oly's requirement that the lenses be telecentric that caused
that.

This is only valid for wide angle lenses. The teles are smaller than their conventional counterparts. But you're right, absolute telecentricity is not necessary. The problem can be solved on the sensor side. This is what Leica have done with their new digital M.

Ivan

 

[Ivan Ruskov]

You need to compare 300mm to 300mm, 600mm to 600mm. The crop of
the sensor does not change the lens. So when comparing size, you
have to look at matching lenses. So you can't do 300mm verses
600mm

Not exactly. In fact all these focal length comparisons are quite wrong. To be exact, given the Canon's 1.6 crop factor and the Oly's 2.0 multiplier to have a FoV of 600mm (35mm camera) with Oly you need a 300mm lens and with Canon you need a 375mm lens. Now you have 2 choices:

1. Either say that the size difference between 300mm and 375mm is not such a big deal at all, which automatically implies that the sensor size difference in not at all that much;

2. Or say that the difference between the APS-C and 4/3 sensors is noticeable which also means that the size difference between the two lenses is also important for you.

So, finally it depends very much on the point of view and the difference is rather subjective.

Ivan

P.S. And a 600mm lens is a 600mm lens as far as specs are concerned. For practical purposes what a 600mm lens is depends on the sensor size.

 

[Cephalotus]

This is only valid for wide angle lenses. The teles are smaller
than their conventional counterparts. But you're right, absolute
telecentricity is not necessary. The problem can be solved on the
sensor side. This is what Leica have done with their new digital M.

Are their some sample pictures of the M8 available yet?

 

[LJSmak]

You need to compare 300mm to 300mm, 600mm to 600mm.

Yeah, and I bet that it's different with 11mm and 14mm, am I right?
sigh...

Lourens

 

[Ivan Ruskov]

This is only valid for wide angle lenses. The teles are smaller
than their conventional counterparts. But you're right, absolute
telecentricity is not necessary. The problem can be solved on the
sensor side. This is what Leica have done with their new digital M.

Are their some sample pictures of the M8 available yet?

I don't know of any yet. I'm also interested to see what Leica calls a "state of the art sensor technology". Given the price ($4000) it must be good...

Ivan