Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Quentin on December 08, 2007, 01:51:21 pm
-
A few days ago, I purchased an Olympus E-3 which I am using with a some 4/3 lenses, including the cheapo 14-42mm, the 14-54mm F2.8-3.5, the 50mm F/2 macro and the Sigma 30mm F1.4.
Amongst all the excitement generated by the latest Canon and Nikon gear, the Olympus E-3 might seem underspecified in the pixel department but its a pro body, splash and dust proof, with an ultrasonic dust removal system that works for much less than other pro bodies and highly capable with excellent high ISO performance.
Here is a quick sample taken today of a good photographer friend on mine in his studio, shot with the Sigma 30mm F1.4 at F1.6, 200ISO, decoded from raw in SilkyPix
[image removed from site]
Its not an MF digital camera (I use a Mamiya ZD also), but it will generate files capable of excellent A3+ or bigger prints.
Quentin
-
I've always liked the little sigma 30/1.4 except for its wonky triangular bokeh it exibits sometimes. Olympus is really proud of their lenses if you know what I mean but on the other hand there really isnt a dud in the bunch. My main reasons for ditching oly a few years ago was terrible noise problems above iso 200, primitive autofocus and soft'ish files. But on the other hand it always rendered great color and was much more compact at the time, i had an e-300, than other systems. I would really like to try one of the new bodies and one of the leica zooms in combination with the 25/1.4.
-
I've always liked the little sigma 30/1.4 except for its wonky triangular bokeh it exibits sometimes. Olympus is really proud of their lenses if you know what I mean but on the other hand there really isnt a dud in the bunch. My main reasons for ditching oly a few years ago was terrible noise problems above iso 200, primitive autofocus and soft'ish files. But on the other hand it always rendered great color and was much more compact at the time, i had an e-300, than other systems. I would really like to try one of the new bodies and one of the leica zooms in combination with the 25/1.4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ISO performance s now pretty good up to and including 800 ISO, and usealble at 1600 ISO. I suspect 4.3 will never be as noise free at high ISO as the best larger formats.
The Autofocus is now very fast and the files pin sharp - so I guess they have cured the main problems you encountered. Image quality is about on a par with, say, a Nikon D300. The E-3 is weather sealed as are the better lenses. It's a sensible high image quality alternative choice with some funky features. Great fun!
Quentin
-
Here is a quick sample taken today of a good photographer friend on mine in his studio, shot with the Sigma 30mm F1.4 at F1.6, 200ISO, decoded from raw in SilkyPix
Its not an MF digital camera (I use a Mamiya ZD also), but it will generate files capable of excellent A3+ or bigger prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not trying to be rude or funny, but that bokeh on you're friend's left shoulder (our right) literally makes me nauseous. It thought that the bokeh in my Canon 100-400 with 2x of TCs was bad (donut-ty), but that has to be the worst Bokeh I've ever seen.
-
I'm not trying to be rude or funny, but that bokeh on you're friend's left shoulder (our right) literally makes me nauseous. It thought that the bokeh in my Canon 100-400 with 2x of TCs was bad (donut-ty), but that has to be the worst Bokeh I've ever seen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is not the bokeh, its partly movement: this was shot at 1/20 sec in dim light and partly the shape of the stitch (I've checked the full size image to confirm. Bokeh is great with this lens. Unfortunately image stabilization cannot counteract subject movement or clothes design.
I'm not being rude or funny; you'll just have to throw up somewhere else.
Quentin
-
Is not the bokeh, its partly movement: this was shot at 1/20 sec in dim light and partly the shape of the stitch (I've checked the full size image to confirm. Bokeh is great with this lens. Unfortunately image stabilization cannot counteract subject movement or clothes design.
I'm not being rude or funny; you'll just have to throw up somewhere else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I really meant that. I get a very uncomfortable feeling looking at certain kinds of blur; ones that suggest certain kinds of motion. I've looked at images that literally made me feel like my eyes or the subject were vibrating; I can't stand to look at them.
-
I really meant that. I get a very uncomfortable feeling looking at certain kinds of blur; ones that suggest certain kinds of motion. I've looked at images that literally made me feel like my eyes or the subject were vibrating; I can't stand to look at them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair enough, but its not the camera or lens, thats my point. More a dodgy taste in jumpers.
Still, its a bit off topic, and I don't see a rush of interest here over the E-3. Not surprising because I had not intended to buy one until I tried it out and it's not going to win the Megapixel Gold Cup at Aintree. But it is a fine camera with some superb lenses (leaving the Sigma, which I think is itself excellent, aside for the moment).
Quentin
-
I think it is a photography style thing. Most landscape photographers would take a 4x5" sensor if they could get it at a reasonable price.
-
I think it is a photography style thing. Most landscape photographers would take a 4x5" sensor if they could get it at a reasonable price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd take an 8x10....
Actually there is a rumor going around that Oly are working on a medium format back using stitched 4/3 sensors. Might be real, might be nonsense, but it is sort of logical.
Quentin
-
Quentin,
I am following with interest the experiences of professionals like you trying out the E-3 and assessing the place for 4/3" alongside other format sizes. But ...
Actually there is a rumor going around that Oly are working on a medium format back using stitched 4/3 sensors.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For my money, that rumour is pure fantasy, either of the poster or the anonymous sales rep. attributed as a source (do sales reps ever have such detailed advanced knowledge?). That same rumour post contained lots of other common "forum fantasies" that gibe badly with everything Olympus has said or done in DLSR's. And the sensor dimensions did not even add up: it would take about eight 4/3" sized sensors to make one MF one, not four. And larger sensors are not made by making smaller ones and then stitching them together: the so-called "stitching" is done on the silicon by etching a single device in several side-by-side exposures on the stepper.
Trust me:
There will be no new MF systems.
The DMF market is already somewhat overcrowded relative to the now small market share with its current three systems.
In fact at this stage, I predict that there will be no new DLSR systems or formats requiring new lens systems, so no upsizing from any camera maker beyond the format covered by its current lenses. (Cynically, the main purpose of making SLR's is to sell lenses!)
P. S. Is that the famous "Jono" in the portrait?
-
hi quentin, hi everyone,
this is my first post hereat this forum.
i'm an austrian hobby-photographer.
currently using an olympus e-1 with several olympus lenses.
my favorite is nature and landscape photography
a was waiting for the e-3 since 2006 but now i'm not quite satisfied in terms of resolution.
so i didn't buy it yet.
in fact after watching the llvj#16 i found myself looking for higher resolution in middle format digital systems.
but in my case the only system that's nearly affordable, is the mamiya zd.
as i saw this post from you - and you mentioned that you are using the mamiya zd and the olympus e-3. my eyes were wide open - thats what i looked for. someone who could tell me how big the difference is between these two cameras - only in terms of imagequality.
logically the zd must win the race, but how big is the distance.
90% of my prints are sized at A3. but i would like to print more at A2.
are there such big differences as the numbers seem to tell?
would it be worth, to spend 10.000 dollars, or are images printed from both cameras and viewed side by side not as different as i believe. i have no experiences in this way.
it would be great, if you could take 2 pictures from the same scene with same FOV to compare the difference (outdoor images if possible). i would like to download the raw files and print them on my ipf5000.
i don't wanna sell them, so please don't get me wrong...
i just want to have peace in mind by choosing the future system of my hobby.
best regards
thomas
ps.: sorry for my english
-
hi quentin, hi everyone,
this is my first post hereat this forum.
i'm an austrian hobby-photographer.
currently using an olympus e-1 with several olympus lenses.
my favorite is nature and landscape photography
a was waiting for the e-3 since 2006 but now i'm not quite satisfied in terms of resolution.
so i didn't buy it yet.
in fact after watching the llvj#16 i found myself looking for higher resolution in middle format digital systems.
but in my case the only system that's nearly affordable, is the mamiya zd.
as i saw this post from you - and you mentioned that you are using the mamiya zd and the olympus e-3. my eyes were wide open - thats what i looked for. someone who could tell me how big the difference is between these two cameras - only in terms of imagequality.
logically the zd must win the race, but how big is the distance.
90% of my prints are sized at A3. but i would like to print more at A2.
are there such big differences as the numbers seem to tell?
would it be worth, to spend 10.000 dollars, or are images printed from both cameras and viewed side by side not as different as i believe. i have no experiences in this way.
it would be great, if you could take 2 pictures from the same scene with same FOV to compare the difference (outdoor images if possible). i would like to download the raw files and print them on my ipf5000.
i don't wanna sell them, so please don't get me wrong...
i just want to have peace in mind by choosing the future system of my hobby.
best regards
thomas
ps.: sorry for my english
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Thomas,
Interesting idea, I was thinking of doing the same myself for fun. I suspect you might be surprised :-).
Of course, any comparison is ripped to shreds here (rightly) because you can never completely equalize shooting conditions with such different formats. I won't have a chance to do it for a few days, so be patient.
Cheers
Quentin
-
Hi Thomas,
Interesting idea, I was thinking of doing the same myself for fun. I suspect you might be surprised :-).
Of course, any comparison is ripped to shreds here (rightly) because you can never completely equalize shooting conditions with such different formats. I won't have a chance to do it for a few days, so be patient.
Cheers
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi! Quentin,
That could be fun and very informative. Both cameras have the same aspect ratio so I don't see why it should be difficult to equalize shooting conditions, although it might be the case the ZD requires a tripod because of the slower shutter speed whereas the E-3 doesn't, but no harm done using a tripod for the E-3 even if it doesn't require one.
I'm really surprised at the confusion that exists in the spate of recent comparisons I've seen amongst different formats on this site. It's almost as though the testers have forgotten all the basic rules about photography, field of view, DoF, choice of aperture etc.
For example, why should it be necessary to use f11 or f14 with the smaller format simply because that's what was used with the larger format. And why choose f14 for either format if the actual depth of field in the scene doesn't require it.
No purpose is served by trying to force a match between settings such as shutter speed and aperture. The main requirement is that the subject or target be the same in both cases and that the photographic intention be the same in both cases.
We can then see the strengths and weaknesses of both cameras being tested. If the field of view is not the same, then of course the subject is not the same. If the DoF is not the same then the photographic intention is not the same. If the shutter speed is not the same, it doesn't necessarily matter provided both cameras are on a tripod and provided there's no movement in the subject. If there is movement in the subject and it becomes necessary to bump up the ISO of the larger format to get an adequate shutter speed, then the (perhaps) higher noise of the larger format is highlighted as a disadvantage, which is something useful to know.
If the cameras being compared are different formats, then of course aperture, shutter speed and/or ISO should be different. They should be chosen for each camera as though that were the only camera being used to take the best possible shot of the scene.
-
Still, its a bit off topic, and I don't see a rush of interest here over the E-3. Not surprising because I had not intended to buy one until I tried it out and it's not going to win the Megapixel Gold Cup at Aintree.
Well the initial consignment of E3's did sell out on a pre-order basis, so people must have wanted them urgently, and I would bet a fair number of of those people would be pro's. And of course it is sometimes forgotten but there is still choice involved in choosing a format for any situation, whether landscape or wedding photography, and that choice still doesn't have to be driven by a pixel count.
As an aside, once upon a time even Ansel Adams would 'choose' to use a 6x6 over his 5x4 or 10x8. Joel Meyerowitz happily uses 35mm and 10x8 without 'worrying' about people standing to close to the photograph. Indeed I have seen his 35mm images blown up larger than his large format images. Nowadays it seems pixels are the one thing that mainly rules the photographers mind where film formats never did, no?
-
If the cameras being compared are different formats, then of course aperture, shutter speed and/or ISO should be different. They should be chosen for each camera as though that were the only camera being used to take the best possible shot of the scene.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thats what i think too.
and i'm very very curious for this comparison
i'm sad of postings about noise of this or that sensor. sometimes noise/high iso seems to be the only crucial factor of a camera. but what about details in a shot, or accurate colors.
99% of my shot are taken at 100 iso. and if there is less light, i use a tripod. so good or bad high iso is not a big issue to me.
but i wanna have fine detail in my landscapes. that was the main reason i chose the olympus e-system (in late 2003) not because of the image resolution but because of the lenses and i was hoping for higher resolution in the future.
and i would have been satisfied, if the e-3 has got 12/14 mpx, i know that makes not a big difference but only to give me the feeling that the e-system is moving forward, and against most critics of this sensor - it's not reaching the end of its potentiality.
but 10mpx (after such a long time of development and the high expactation) looks more like a slow down and reaching the end.
too little too late?
otherwise i never would have thought about MF because of the prize. but if i have to change the system and sell all my equipment, it might be worth thinking about it.
ok enough. i'm recuring... sorry!
i'm looking forward to the comparison of quentin, and maybe it's surprising
regards
tom
-
the aspect ratio point that Ray menjtioned is one I had thought of and a problem we can avoid with this comparison. Of course there will always be variables. Lenses are different, ISO, depth of field etc. No comparison of this type can be perfect. I will probably use the 55mm lens on the Mamiya, about the equivalent of a 38 mm on 35mm, and use the zuiko 14-42mm F2.8 -F3.5 on the E-3. Thats a zoom v a prime, but the only primes I have for the E-3 are the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and the 50mm Macro, and 4/3 lenses are generally very good, plus I can exactly equalise the field of view to the Mamiya. Well see.
I also think we tend to obsess about megapixels too much. Around 10mp seems to be the point where you can get a great looking A3 print, and as you get larger prints, so viewing distances increase. I'm not sayimg sheer MP horesepower is not important - heck, I have a drum scanner and an 8x10 camera for a reason - but other things also matter, like getting the shot in the first place, having a camera with you, and enjoying the experience (the E-3 is a lot of fun to use).
Quentin
PS The Mamiya has exceptional highlight recovery. I'd expect it to be a lot better in this department than the E-3, which is OK, but no better than the small format competition.
-
and use the zuiko 14-42mm F2.8 -F3.5 on the E-3. Thats a zoom v a prime, but the only primes I have for the E-3 are the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and the 50mm Macro, and 4/3 lenses are generally very good, plus I can exactly equalise the field of view to the Mamiya. Well see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
wouldn't it be better to use the 14-54mm on the e-3 ?
in my opinion this lens should be better than the 14-42mm.
do you know how big the dynamic range of the e-3 is?
the zd should have 12 stops is this correct?
tom
-
Ray,
good thoughts, with one small disagreement
If the cameras being compared are different formats, then of course aperture, shutter speed and/or ISO should be different.
They should be chosen for each camera as though that were the only camera being used to take the best possible shot of the scene.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the essence of it, and acceptance of this might solve many holy wars between formats. But there is one exception about ISO speed because of this observation:
If the shutter speed is not the same, it doesn't necessarily matter provided both cameras are on a tripod and provided there's no movement in the subject.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that means that ISO speed can be the same in this situation, which is probably rather common in medium format work. Or to be precise, ISO speed can be at the optimal value for each camera, which is maybe 50 for ZD, 100 for the E-3.
Of course I expect the Mamiya ZD system to do better in this situation, while the E-3 probably does far better in many hand-held situations, where it can use far lower ISO speed due to in-body IS and such.
For me the most interesting question is how much better the medium format system is on its natural turf of being able to work at optimal, low ISO speed. I expect better resolution and dynamic range, but for example
- How big do prints have to be before resolution differences are visible and significant?
- How high does the Subject Brightness Range have to be before the DR advantage of the larger format shows a benefit? (Probably most scenes do not have a wide enough SBR for DR considerations to be relevant at low ISO speeds, but of course some scenes do.)
P. S. Quentin: on the subject of DR and SBR, have you tried the E-3's "Auto Gradation", for handling high SBR scenes automatically during in-camera JPEG output? It may be just a lazy alternative to proper tone curve adjustment in RAW conversion, but I am lazy enough sometimes to value good options for getting ready to use JPEGs from the camera.
-
P. S. Quentin: on the subject of DR and SBR, have you tried the E-3's "Auto Gradation", for handling high SBR scenes automatically during in-camera JPEG output? It may be just a lazy alternative to proper tone curve adjustment in RAW conversion, but I am lazy enough sometimes to value good options for getting ready to use JPEGs from the camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I never shoot jpeg Auto gradation sounds great as a conceot. I'm still learning the camera.
And Tom, you are right, I meant the 14-54, not the other flavours around that focal length Oly seem to have a penchant for producing. I got confused. Mind you, the new 14-35 F.2.0 sounds pretty special, and also expensive.
And please, nobody get started on choice of raw software... I'll be in enough hot water with the purists over my testing "methods" as it is
Quentin
-
The 'Auto Gradation' in the E3 is pretty well what 'Fill Light' does in ACR if you use it in RAW conversion, or in 'Shadow/Highlight' manipulation in PS3. The Olympus Master 2 software gives options in RAW to switch 'embedded' Gradation to other modes, but ACR ignores it and gives the RAW file without any in camera processing embedded by default. From my experience so far ACR and PS3 does a more refined job than the OLY software, not just generally but also with the 'gradation' of shadows/midtones, and especially now ACR 4.3.1 is available. But the 'Auto Gradation' would seem an excellent idea for JPEG's, not that I use them though.
-
Well today I just received an E-3 and the new 12-60 Zuiko lens for evaluation. I most certainly prefer my Mamiya 645 AFDII with a Leaf back or even film for a lot of my shooting but there are many times I need the smaller format.
Currently I have been using Canon and primarily the 5D which I am very pleased with. However I happened to walk into a camera store where Olympus was doing a demo.
I have been curious about the design of the Olympus system and I like the 4:3 format. The bodies seem well designed, I like the feel of it and the viewfinder. The dust removal system is also a big plus.
But I was very intrigued by the Zuiko lenses. I have read that they are very sharp and physically they are much smaller than the equivalent in Canon. And then they have the f2 lenses which would be great. Anyway the size issue is really important to me because I do spend a lot of time flying. In the same roller bag I currently use I could get a couple of more lenses in the same space and with a much longer reach.
So tomorrow and Thursday I will be getting some practice in with the Olympus and then Friday and Saturday it will go out on an editorial feature shoot, outdoors, indoors, day and night. So I will get back to you with my thoughts.
By the way, Olympus was really considerate about getting me a system to try out and is very interested in showing off their products. Must be something to it!
-
Ray,
good thoughts, with one small disagreement
That is the essence of it, and acceptance of this might solve many holy wars between formats. But there is one exception about ISO speed because of this observation:
And that means that ISO speed can be the same in this situation, which is probably rather common in medium format work. Or to be precise, ISO speed can be at the optimal value for each camera, which is maybe 50 for ZD, 100 for the E-3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, thanks, BJL. You've done a lot on this forum to clarify the issue of how DoF changes with changes of format in relation to a fixed FoV and f/stop.
But notice that I wrote 'and/or ISO'. When shooting just one scene that one hopes will highlight most of the differences between the two formats, especially with regard to resolution, dynamic range and tonality, then using the base ISO of each camera and shooting a stationary subject with camera on tripod is probably the best approach.
However, when shooting a number of different scenes to get a clearer idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, there might be situations where a minimum shutter speed is required for both systems, such as a beach scene with waves crashing on rocks and seaguls flying by, in the foreground.
The larger format might then find itself at a disadvantage, producing an image which is noisier even beyond the pixel-peeping level.
-
Quite agreed. On this point in particular,
... there might be situations where a minimum shutter speed is required for both systems ... The larger format might then find itself at a disadvantage
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=160021\")
we face the familiar if ironical situation of a medium format camera having if anything worse noise at equal ISO than one with far smaller photosites (by a factor of about four[edit!] in this case). Due partly to lack of micro-lenses, but probably also inherent in Full Frame CCD technology that offers large well capacity but high dark noise levels, and so good DR but only at lowish ISO speeds. (Which by the way is fine for me most of the time on my E-1, but not always.)
Whatever the reason, I do not think that high shutter speed/low light comparisons are what we are looking for or expecting from Quentin, partly because I think the answer is fairly easy to guess.
I am curious to learn more about what effect Olympus' change from Kodak FF CCD to Panasonic nMOS sensor type has had on DR, and so on handling of scenes with high Subject Brightness Range. Results at the [a href=\"http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_detail.epl?id=181182]DIWA test site[/url] are superficially good, but the DR testing there looks dodgy due I think to being based on in-camera JPEG conversions at default settings: the D300 and A700 get very different DR results there, despite probably using the same sensor.
-
I am curious to learn more about what effect Olympus' change from Kodak FF CCD to Panasonic nMOS sensor type has had on DR, and so on handling of scenes with high Subject Brightness Range. Results at the DIWA test site (http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_detail.epl?id=181182) are superficially good, but the DR testing there looks dodgy due I think to being based on in-camera JPEG conversions at default settings: the D300 and A700 get very different DR results there, despite probably using the same sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Olympus switched from a Kodak sensor to a matsushita sensor, not sony. The new matsushita sensors in the E-410 and E-510 have been producing some very nice results, as long as you turn down the NR in-camera or shoot raw, but the sensor in the E-3 is an even newer design with the same resolution as the E-410/510 sensor but constructed so that there's less hardware between each well, allowing larger photosites on the same area.
If you take a 12mp 1.5x sensor and cut it down to the size of a 4/3 sensor, you're left with about 10mp, so I suspect that the photosites on a 12mp 1.5x sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are probably quite comparable. Maybe I'll look up the exact sizes sometime.
-
Olympus switched from a Kodak sensor to a matsushita sensor, not sony.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know: I said Panasonic, not Sony, that being the brand name commonly used for Matsushita products. (Aside: Matsushita also made the CCD sensor for the original Canon 1D.)
If you take a 12mp 1.5x sensor and cut it down to the size of a 4/3 sensor, you're left with about 10mp, so I suspect that the photosites on a 12mp 1.5x sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are probably quite comparable.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 10MP Panasonic LiveMOS 4/3" sensors have pixel spacing of 4.75 microns, which would give about 16.5MP in the "1.5x" format of Sony sensors, 14.6MP in Canon's EF-S format. The new 12.2MP Sony CMOS sensors have about 5.5 micron pixel spacing. So 16% difference: fairly close I suppose.
-
Whatever the reason, I do not think that high shutter speed/low light comparisons are what we are looking for or expecting from Quentin, partly because I think the answer is fairly easy to guess.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
This might be the surprise that Quentin has in store for us . He mentioned that the ZD (with appropriate software) had a remarkable ability to recover highlight detail.
Having recently had a bit of a stoush with some of the MFDB guys in the thread comparing the 1Ds2 with P21 and ZD, where I was mildly critical of the methodology, I'm beginning to believe that much of the bad press about the high noise of MFDBs at high ISO is due to the fact that many users of MFDBs have migrated directly from MF film to MFDBs, and have not thoroughly investigated the potential of the miniature 35mm DSLR.
This impression is reinforced when experienced photographers like Edmund present seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 400 and 800 and complain about noise in the shadows.
Here's one such ISO 400 shot from Edmund which looks to me as though it's as much as 3 stops underexposed. Although the amount of EC correction shown in ACR is pushing only +2 stops, in relation to ETTR one should be counting from minus 1EC and possibly less. An ISO 400 shot underexposed by 3 stops is equivalent to using the camera at ISO 3200.
So what we're really seeing here is a P45's attempt at ISO 3200. Not bad really .
[attachment=4231:attachment]
-
All will become clear over the weekend after the tests have been done
Quentin
-
I know: I said Panasonic, not Sony, that being the brand name commonly used for Matsushita products. (Aside: Matsushita also made the CCD sensor for the original Canon 1D.)
The 10MP Panasonic LiveMOS 4/3" sensors have pixel spacing of 4.75 microns, which would give about 16.5MP in the "1.5x" format of Sony sensors, 14.6MP in Canon's EF-S format. The new 12.2MP Sony CMOS sensors have about 5.5 micron pixel spacing. So 16% difference: fairly close I suppose.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow, I somehow misread panasonic as sony... I'm not quite sure how that happened.
It's interesting to hear the exact numbers regarding the pixel pitch; however, I recall reading that the sensor in the E-3 was redesigned for a larger pixel size as compared to the sensors in Olympus' consumer DSLRs. Are the numbers above for the consumer sensors, or the E-3 sensor?
-
I recall reading that the sensor in the E-3 was redesigned for a larger pixel size as compared to the sensors in Olympus' consumer DSLRs. Are the numbers above for the consumer sensors, or the E-3 sensor?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All four of the 10MP 4/3 models of this year have the same 4.75 micron pixel pitch. (Same 3648x2736 pixel count, same effective region dimensions of 13x17.3mm). The claim you have read seems to be a misunderstanding of a statement by Panasonic about having reduced the space taken up in each photosite by processing circuitry compared to last year's 7.5MP LiveMOS sensor in the L1 and E-330, so that the space for electrons is about the same despite the smaller total area of each photosite. So that is not at all a claim about differences between the sensors in the four 10MP 4/3" model released this year.
The "10MP High Speed LiveMOS" sensor in the E-3 does seem to be different, if only in supporting a higher frame rate. Some dynamic range tests based on JPEG's show distinctly higher DR, but that might well be an artifact of JPEG conversion: the E-510 and E-410 seem to use a rather high contrast default tone curve, giving more "punchy" images but lower measured DR. Optimistically, Panasonic might have continued to refine the sensor design a little in the intervening six months, since it had to make some changes anyway, to support a higher frame rate.
-
For various reasons, I have not had the time to undertake as full a test as I'd like, but here
http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4002795#232900466 (http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4002795#232900466)
Password is formatbattle
are the results of a quick test. Unsurprisingly, the ZD wins out. I was not that convinced by the by the sharpness of the loaner 14-54mm lens on the E-3 compared with the ZD's 55mm prime, so I may redo the test at a later date. Its all very unscientific and similarly somewhat unsurprising.
The ZD has had no sharpening applied and the crops are native resolution, whereas the E-3 samples were rezzed up to approximately the same size as the ZD (allowing for the fact that the fields of view were not perfectly matched).
Quentin
-
Quentin,
As you say, the 100% crops show the ZD image as being clearly more detailed and sharper. No surprise here. One would expect a sensor with double the pixel count and 8x the area to have a significant resolution advantage.
What we need to take into consideration is the print size that these 100% crops (and uprezzing in the case of the E-3) represent. At 300 ppi the print might only be about 14"x18", but on the monitor with a far lower resolution than 300 ppi I think those 100% crops represent a print size of about 3ftx4ft.
Downsampling each crop to 150ppi with bicubic sharper, representing a print size about 1/4 the area (18"x24") the differences are quite marginal, although the ZD crops still have an accutance edge.
Anyone disagree with my figures?
-
Nice comparison - no surprises but my wife's E3 beats the snot out of my 40D - LOL. Actually I'm really impressed with the E3 and 12-60mm. I wish my 40D would come close for sharpness but it's really no contest. I suspect the E3 is just out-resolving the 40D and definitely has more accurate autofocus, at least in the case of my copy. I'm going to get her a 70-300 and probably a Sigma 135-400 for it after Christmas. I'm looking forward to comparing it to my Sigma SD14 in terms of IQ.
Best regards,
Lin
For various reasons, I have not had the time to undertake as full a test as I'd like, but here
http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4002795#232900466 (http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4002795#232900466)
Password is formatbattle
are the results of a quick test. Unsurprisingly, the ZD wins out. I was not that convinced by the by the sharpness of the loaner 14-54mm lens on the E-3 compared with the ZD's 55mm prime, so I may redo the test at a later date. Its all very unscientific and similarly somewhat unsurprising.
The ZD has had no sharpening applied and the crops are native resolution, whereas the E-3 samples were rezzed up to approximately the same size as the ZD (allowing for the fact that the fields of view were not perfectly matched).
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray, Lin,
I think the E-3 is an excellent camera, well thought out, a delight to use and at least as good as its semi-pro cousins from Canon and Nikon. There is more to a camera than the obsession with resolution that seems to infect almost every discussion about digital cameras. I also wonder though what the end game is for the four thirds format. I think its finest days are still to come.
Quentin
-
Ray, Lin,
... I also wonder though what the end game is for the four thirds format. I think its finest days are still to come.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hope so, as I returned to Olympus a couple of weeks ago with the E-3 and ordered the 12-60 today.
Thanks for your comparison pictures. I'm pleased with how the E-3 did in your test.
Hi Lin!
-
Hey Frank,
I think you will be pleased - I know I've got camera envy every time I pick up Sherry's E3!
I bought it for her because we are contemplating a trip to Africa next year to shoot Mountain Gorilla and the four thirds telephoto boost with lightweight lenses was very attractive but I've been blown away by the image quality and sharpness. It's the closest thing to my Sigma SD14 that I've used for sharpness and it seems to be an excellent all-around tool.
The 12-60 is really a versatile lens with only a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end which is easily correctable and there is almost no CA. There is a tiny bit of corner shading (vignetting) at 60mm but that too can easily be handled.
I think Olympus had hit a home-run with this one.
Best regards,
Lin
I hope so, as I returned to Olympus a couple of weeks ago with the E-3 and ordered the 12-60 today.
Thanks for your comparison pictures. I'm pleased with how the E-3 did in your test.
Hi Lin!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
An obvious point, but worth mentioning, is that the test shots were taken in "ideal" conditions for the Mamiya- tripod mounted, and in the case of the Mamiya, with mirror lock-up. there is quite a lot of mirror slap on the ZD that can take the edge of sharpness at moderate shutter speeds. Its not ideal as a hand-held camera unless you are pretty carefull.
The Oly, on the other hand, excells hand-held because of its IS and handling. Its more versatile than any other camera I have used.
Quentin
-
As I'm getting quoted as an "experienced photographer" I might as well update my take on this. My first P45+ was indeed broken. The new one can take images *by streetlight* which would be suitable for full-page magazine use.
I would say that ISO 1600-2500 is now quite decent, although my first impression is that 400 on the old broken back was in some ways smoother. The bad press that MF backs have had for low-ISO seems less due to noise, than to various other issues like banding which can vary a lot from sample to sample; all backs seem ok at ISO 100.
I can handhold the Mamiya decently to about 1/20, with an 80mm, and the huge sensor does make up for a lot for the remaining noise, compared to something like an M8. Also lights in the frame retain coloration, which is a big plus in night and available light images. Where my Canon would really beat the Mamiya is with the fast and sharp F1.2 lens - it's more the choice of lenses that creates the camera speed than the sensor. Reading the specs shows the P45+ sensor performs much like the one in the Canon 20D, which was quite good for its time, and I's day compared to APS you can tack on at least another stop for the fact that you have so many pixels to average over.
Maybe my complaints seemed overloud at the time, but I do find it interesting that after all those lectures about underexposure, swapping the back got me one that actually performs pretty much as I expected
Edmund
PS. As this is an Oly thread, let me say that what the Oly really lacks are a couple of fast tiny lenses, eg a 35 equivalent a 50 and an 80. Drop those in your pocket and you have a nice backpack camera, which a lot of the original Olympus SLRs were renowned for.
BJL,
This impression is reinforced when experienced photographers like Edmund present seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 400 and 800 and complain about noise in the shadows.
Here's one such ISO 400 shot from Edmund which looks to me as though it's as much as 3 stops underexposed. Although the amount of EC correction shown in ACR is pushing only +2 stops, in relation to ETTR one should be counting from minus 1EC and possibly less. An ISO 400 shot underexposed by 3 stops is equivalent to using the camera at ISO 3200.
So what we're really seeing here is a P45's attempt at ISO 3200. Not bad really .
[attachment=4231:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
...
Edmund
PS. As this is an Oly thread, let me say that what the Oly really lacks are a couple of fast tiny lenses, eg a 35 equivalent a 50 and an 80. Drop those in your pocket and you have a nice backpack camera, which a lot of the original Olympus SLRs were renowned for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. Hopefully, Olympus will offer these lenses in the future. There are some non-Olympus choices though. Currently you can get a Leica f1.4 25mm (50mm Eq), Sigma f1.8 24mm (48mm Eq) and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (60mm Eq). They are somewhat heavier though than their 35mm Eq lenses.
-
Lin, thanks for the info on the 12-60. I should get it Tuesday or Wednesday. The E-3 does make a lot of sense for your trip to Africa.
Regards,
Frank
-
Edmund,
You may think you can handhold a Mamiya at 1/20 sec, but you need to be very well braced, and even then, you are using it outside its comfort zone.
Similarly, what on earth would you want to shoot at high ISO with a P45, or any MF back for that matter? Horses for courses, my dear Edmund Thats why we have two shoulders - you sling the MF over one, and the high ISO demon over the other.
Don't even ask what you then do with the 8x10 view camera.
But back on subject, it is lens choice that makes or breaks any system, and the lack of truly fast primes is a serious Olympus weakness. However, I recently purchased the Sigma 30mm (60mm equiv on 35mm) F1.4 and its a decent lens, although it can hunt a little in low light when focusing. Its sharp wide open - unusual for an independent lens.
Quentin
-
Edmund,
You may think you can handhold a Mamiya at 1/20 sec, but you need to be very well braced, and even then, you are using it outside its comfort zone.
Similarly, what on earth would you want to shoot at high ISO with a P45, or any MF back for that matter? Horses for courses, my dear Edmund Thats why we have two shoulders - you sling the MF over one, and the high ISO demon over the other.
Don't even ask what you then do with the 8x10 view camera.
But back on subject, it is lens choice that makes or breaks any system, and the lack of truly fast primes is a serious Olympus weakness. However, I recently purchased the Sigma 30mm (60mm equiv on 35mm) F1.4 and its a decent lens, although it can hunt a little in low light when focusing. Its sharp wide open - unusual for an independent lens.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
I would of course agree that demons should be slung over one's left shoulder
Seriously speaking, I think the Mamiya is doing pretty well in street light here in Paris, I don't see any reason to bother dragging out my obsolete 1Ds anymore for my evening expeditions. I'll post an example later to make my point. The 1DsII has been sold, I hated it.
Olympus used to make wonderfully proportioned Bonsai SLRs (remember the pen F series), I just wish they picked up this habit again.
-
thank you quentin for this comparison,
as expected the zd has much more detail, but the colourinterference in tiny aeras does'nt look so pretty. is this a fact of the missing low pass filter?
is it difficult to fix these colourfailures in postprocessing?
i would like to print these two images on my printer, would you mind to provide the original tiffs via
yousendit.com?
it would be interesting to see the differences on a print (A2 - 17x23").
regards
tom
-
thank you quentin for this comparison,
as expected the zd has much more detail, but the colourinterference in tiny aeras does'nt look so pretty. is this a fact of the missing low pass filter?
is it difficult to fix these colourfailures in postprocessing?
regards
tom
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ZD has produced an incredibly sharp image here (no sharpening of any kind applied)and that means colour aliasing at the limits of the sensor's resolution. 90% would be killed off using ACR and standard colour noise settings. SilkyPix would do a little less well, but still most would be gone. As a long-time user of the Kodak 14nx dslr, I'm used to dealing with this problem, which as you say is caused by the lack of any AA filter. What I tend to do is apply Camerabits Quantum Mechanic Pro selectively on a layer to affected areas. You are seeing it at its very worst in this sample.
I'd prefer not to send the images and they are too unscientific to be much use beyond casual interest. I may try a better test with the 50mm Macro in place of the Zuiko zoom I used.
Quentin
-
I think I applied too much noise eduction to the E-3 crops to combat some noise from sharpening. A new crop of the antiques section has less smearing as I have used less sharpening and no NR.
Quentin
-
The ZD has produced an incredibly sharp image here (no sharpening of any kind applied)and that means colour aliasing at the limits of the sensor's resolution. 90% would be killed off using ACR and standard colour noise settings. SilkyPix would do a little less well, but still most would be gone. As a long-time user of the Kodak 14nx dslr, I'm used to dealing with this problem, which as you say is caused by the lack of any AA filter. What I tend to do is apply Camerabits Quantum Mechanic Pro selectively on a layer to affected areas. You are seeing it at its very worst in this sample.
I'd prefer not to send the images and they are too unscientific to be much use beyond casual interest. I may try a better test with the 50mm Macro in place of the Zuiko zoom I used.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hi,
the zd file is really sharp - many details. especially the aluminium rims of the car in the upper left crop, amazing.
i would appreciate a second test with the 50mm macro lens - it's a wonderful lens.
i just wanna assure that i'm not interseted in publicise your images, those prints would only be to my interest, and to help me decide whether i'm satisfied with the e-3 (for my needs), or if i'm going for middle format.
tom
-
I've recently been taking a few street shots at night without flash using my Canon 20D with Canon 50/1.8 ll lens. This combination is extremely light. That 50/1.8 lens is razor sharp and as light as a feather. Unfortunately, it's not sharp at full aperture so I try to avoid shooting at f1.8. However, with camera set to ISO 1600 it's surprising how often one can get a full ETTR at f2.8 to f4, just with street lighting.
Because this set-up really is so light that one hardly notices a weight around one's neck, it occurred to me that an E-3 with Zuiko 12-60/2.8-4 would be so much more versatile because it's a zoom and has the benefit of IS.
It would be heavier of course, but the extra weight would be justified.
With this thought in mind, I set about finding comparisons on the net between the E-3 with 12-60 and a Canon 40D with equivalent lens. Although I have a 20D, I've already established that image quality in terms of noise and detail is very much on a par with the 40D which only appears to have the edge at a level of extreme pixel-peeping, represented by either huge prints or 200% enlargements on the monitor.
The results were surprising but not necessarily conclusive because one has to rely upon other people's testing methods and it's not always clear if the results may be skewed by differences in the jpeg output of the camera's being compared, or indeed if jpegs or RAW data were used.
The first comparisons I looked at were at Imaging-Resources where they have the identical still-life shot with both E-3 and 40D at all the ISO settings.
It's clear from these comparisons that the 40D has a noise advantage at high ISO. I'd estimate it as being 2/3rds to 1 stop. In other words, the 40D at ISO 3200 has very similar noise to the E-3 at ISO 1600, and 40D noise at ISO 1600 is very similar to E-3 noise at ISO 800. I'll be kind and give the E-3 a pixel-peeping edge, which is why I'd accept a 2/3rds stop noise advantage for the 40D instead of one full stop.
What this means is that for low light shooting at maximum aperture, the lens attached to the E3 needs to be at least 2/3rds of a stop faster to equal the low noise results from the 40D.
Is there such a lens? It appears not. The Zuiko 12-60/f2.8-4 seems to be all the rage at the moment, but it's not f2.8 across the whole FL range and it's not 2/3rds of a stop faster than the nearest Canon equivalent. Canon have an equivalent EF-S lens which is f2.8 across the whole range but has the disadvantage of not having as wide an FL range, only 17-55. If one considers the FL ratio between the 40D and the E-3 as being 1.25, then in E-3 terms the Canon 17-55 becomes a 13-44mm. I'd rather have 12-60mm, all else being equal.
Unfortunately, all else is not equal. I'm sure the Zuiko 12-60 is an excellent lens. However, from what I can find out on the net, so is the EF-S 17-55/2.8. At PhotoZone, test results show that this lens, in the centre, outperforms the Canon 50/1.8 prime at all apertures in common. At the edges it is only marginally less sharp than the 50/1.8 at the edges, using a cropped format camera such as the 350D.
Now, clearly for me it would make much more economic sense to buy an EFS 17-55/2.8 for my 20D, than buy into an E-3 system. Within the focal length range of the EF-S 17-55, results should be just as sharp (possibly sharper) and noise should be noticeably less at high ISO.
Just thought I'd pass on the results of my research. I don't mean to discourage anyone from buying into the E-3 system. There are lots of other areas where an E-3 system will outshine a 40D system; waterproof lenses, a greater choice of 3rd party lenses which don't need an in-built IS system etc.
However, in this particular comparison I've done, we're looking as a very similar price and weight for the respective packages, with the 40D outclassing (provisionally) the E-3 in terms of absolute image quality.
-
Ray,
I used to do a lot of photos by night with tha Canon 50/1.8. It's the only lens which made my then 1DII a stealth camera - sharp, but inferior bokeh. My sample stopped working properly one day, I had to pay the $80 for another. In the end I moved to the 85/1.2 when I found a cheap one, because the extra night stops are really valuable.
My findings concerning 20D street photos match yours, since as I indicated the specs of my P45+ back seem to match a Canon 20D, and I can do portraits by streetlamps.
My feeling is that the IS on the Olympus basically buys back the sensor disadvantage it has viz Canon, and the superfast focus and body armor are on its side. Price is not
I think nowadays any camera from a Rebel up is a contender in the same race, and therefore decisions are much more emotional than rational - let's not forget that in the end these are artists's tools.
Edmund
PS - has anyone compared the geeky portable flash systems of these various brands ?
Just thought I'd pass on the results of my research. I don't mean to discourage anyone from buying into the E-3 system. There are lots of other areas where an E-3 system will outshine a 40D system; waterproof lenses, a greater choice of 3rd party lenses which don't need an in-built IS system etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think nowadays any camera from a Rebel up is a contender in the same race, and therefore decisions are much more emotional than rational - let's not forget that in the end these are artists's tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Edmund,
Yes, I agree. Ultimately it's what you feel at ease using, but one should at least be aware of the pros and cons so one can make a rational purchasing decision.
For example, if I buy a camera with lenses that all have extremely good waterproofing seals, it's because I intend getting wet and shooting photos in the rain. I don't think I should be considering such a factor a significant 'pro' on the basis that I might get caught in the rain, because most cameras in my experience are reasonably water resistant in any case, just like most watches are.
I find it curious that some people will buy a watch because it's waterproof to a depth 200 metres, yet have no intention of going deep-sea diving. In Australia, many people drive Toyota 4x4s built like a tank, but never venture off the tarmac.
The flimsy 50/1.8 II is likely to break up if you drop it. I very, very rarely drop a lens, so it's not an issue for me.
By the way, I find it difficult to believe these results from PhotoZone which rates the EF-S 17-55/2.8 as significantly sharper (in the centre) than the 50/1.8.
Did they test a dud 50/1.8 or were they lucky in getting an exceptionally good copy of the zoom?
[attachment=4298:attachment] [attachment=4299:attachment]
Regarding the low light performance of the P45+, are you saying that the P45+ underexposed one stop at ISO 800 equals the quality of the 20D at ISO 1600 (or exceeds it ) ?
-
Ray,
I've never used a 20D, I had a 1DII which I guess is about as good, what can I say, the P45+ is effectively much more interesting in low light as regards results because all the glitter (lamps, car reflections etc) retain their color and of course create huge out of focus blobs; sky color is also preserved or intensified. Maybe the new Nikon and Canon can obtain the same effect with their updated DR, but the samples don't seem to show that.
When I was using the M8 the first thing I noticed was that suddenly skies had color in daytime shots and black and white conversions came to life - it's not all pixelpeeping, some of the qualitative differences are huge.
At the moment I have a mediocre lens outresolved by a good huge sensor. I would expect the new Sony fullframe or an upcoming Leica provide a good transition point between the existing backs and the Canons, by combining superb Zeiss or Leica lenses and good full-frame 35mm sensors; Canon don't seem to have more than an incremental gain this iteration.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
Regarding the low light performance of the P45+, are you saying that the P45+ underexposed one stop at ISO 800 equals the quality of the 20D at ISO 1600 (or exceeds it ) ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray,
For the E-3, I have the excellent Sigma 30mm F1.4. Sigma also make the 25mm F1.4 and there is a Leica made Panny lens costing more also at 25mm f1.4.
The upcoming and possibly just released Zuiko 14-35 F2.0 is supposed to be a phenomenal lens.
I like fast lenses if they work well at or near max aperture, as the Sigma does. Its one reason I still have my 85mm F1.4 Nikkor.
Quentin
-
Ray,
For the E-3, I have the excellent Sigma 30mm F1.4. Sigma also make the 25mm F1.4 and there is a Leica made Panny lens costing more also at 25mm f1.4.
The upcoming and possibly just released Zuiko 14-35 F2.0 is supposed to be a phenomenal lens.
I like fast lenses if they work well at or near max aperture, as the Sigma does. Its one reason I still have my 85mm F1.4 Nikkor.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I still need to see some comparisons, Quentin. The fact is, all lenses designed for the 4/3rds system have to be better than 35mm lenses in order to provide equal resolution, because the sensor is smaller.
Canon's cropped format has been poorly served due to a lack of high quality EF-S lenses. This latest EF-S lens, the 17-55/2.8, looks as though it's a winner. A wide angle zoom which at 17mm is actually significantly sharper than the Canon 50/1.8, in the centre, and almost as sharp at the edges. Wow!
-
.. what can I say, the P45+ is effectively much more interesting in low light as regards results because all the glitter (lamps, car reflections etc) retain their color and of course create huge out of focus blobs; sky color is also preserved or intensified.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
One thing I've noticed with the 5D is that resolution begins to be softened at ISO 1600 and at ISO 3200 the softening is quite noticeable, no doubt due to some degree of in-camera noise reduction which is not user controllable.
With all those pixels of the P45+, which would allow some noise reduction with downsampling, I imagine equal size prints would compare very favourably with the 1D2, 20D or 5D, at ISO 1600, as well as retaining that magical quality which users of MFDBs so often talk about.
-
Edmund,
One thing I've noticed with the 5D is that resolution begins to be softened at ISO 1600 and at ISO 3200 the softening is quite noticeable, no doubt due to some degree of in-camera noise reduction which is not user controllable.
With all those pixels of the P45+, which would allow some noise reduction with downsampling, I imagine equal size prints would compare very favourably with the 1D2, 20D or 5D, at ISO 1600, as well as retaining that magical quality which users of MFDBs so often talk about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, my testing so far confirms that. On a Phase digital back, the trick appears to be to underrate the sensor, ie. to shoot at 100 or at most 400 ISO if one actually wants 1600 or more.
Edmund
-
Also taking lenses into consideration, it should be noted that any 4/3 DSLR with the 7-14 are a viable alternative to a full-frame SLR with a rectilinear 14-28mm lens. Nikon recently released a lens in this focal range around the same time as the D3. This is one example where the size advantage is more obvious, as while the Zuiko is pretty big, the new nikon lens is huge. And considering that it's the only way to get that fov without a full-frame body, the advantage is even larger. The nikon is a stop faster, but there have been some (secondhand) reports of vignetting or fall-off wide open. I don't know the veracity of this, but even if completely unfounded it would be interesting to see how the image quality compares.
So the ultrawide realm is an area where 4/3s makes an excellent alternative. (olympus is also to launch a consumer-grade 8-16 lens in 2008)
-
Also taking lenses into consideration, it should be noted that any 4/3 DSLR with the 7-14 are a viable alternative to a full-frame SLR with a rectilinear 14-28mm lens.
So the ultrawide realm is an area where 4/3s makes an excellent alternative. (olympus is also to launch a consumer-grade 8-16 lens in 2008)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Zuiko 7-14 sounds like an interesting lens. In 35mm terms it's marginally wider than my Sigma 15-30 and I suspect it would be a sharper lens at the edges and corners and wouldn't suffer from the flare that this Sigma lens is prone to.
However, surprise! surprise! this Zuiko lens is heavier than the Sigma 15-30 by around 165gms. That's quite substantial. Whilst the 7-14 is a constant f4, the Sigma varies from f3.5-4.5. Not much difference regards speed. The Zuiko lens is also about double the price of the 15-30.
Again, I'd really like to see some comparisons. There's no doubt it's going to be a sharper lens than the Sigma, but it has to be. For any Zuiko lens with an E-3 to match the quality of a 5D, it has to have double the resolution of the equivalent 35mm lens. That means, if the Sigma 15-30 can produce 50 lp/mm at 50% MTF, the equivalent Zuiko lens must deliver 100 lp/mm at 50% MTF.
Obviously they do or at least come close to that level of performance, which is why the the lenses are so expensive.
-
The Zuiko 7-14 sounds like an interesting lens. In 35mm terms it's marginally wider than my Sigma 15-30 and I suspect it would be a sharper lens at the edges and corners and wouldn't suffer from the flare that this Sigma lens is prone to.
However, surprise! surprise! this Zuiko lens is heavier than the Sigma 15-30 by around 165gms. That's quite substantial. Whilst the 7-14 is a constant f4, the Sigma varies from f3.5-4.5. Not much difference regards speed. The Zuiko lens is also about double the price of the 15-30.
Again, I'd really like to see some comparisons. There's no doubt it's going to be a sharper lens than the Sigma, but it has to be. For any Zuiko lens with an E-3 to match the quality of a 5D, it has to have double the resolution of the equivalent 35mm lens. That means, if the Sigma 15-30 can produce 50 lp/mm at 50% MTF, the equivalent Zuiko lens must deliver 100 lp/mm at 50% MTF.
Obviously they do or at least come close to that level of performance, which is why the the lenses are so expensive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't necessarily mean it will deliver the same image quality as a different lens on full-frame; the larger-pixeled sensor will certainly have some sort of advantage (optically, I suspect the lenses will have similar performance). What I did mean was that 4/3 with the 7-14 is a viable alternative for someone who needs to get angles that wide but doesn't want to drop the cash for a full-frame body and wide-angle lens (like the D3+14-24). Last I knew there was nothing for APS-sensor cameras that wide, so many assumed you could only get that wide with full frame. The 7-14 for 4/3 proves otherwise.
-
Like I said (see below) I used the E-3 and the 12-60 lens on a feature shoot over the weekend. Long story short, it is a great camera system.
First it was really nice not having to worry about cleaning the sensor before I took it out. Operationally the camera is pretty simple and intuitive. The LCD is bright, big and was actually useful to check things as I was shooting. Focus was very accurate and fast.
Everything was shot in RAW and it produced about the best out of the camera photos I have seen. Very sharp, excellent color, very accurate skin tones.
Most of the shoot was indoors at a health club and the shoot was strobed with a combination of Profoto and Elinchrome. The gym itself had large windows in the front and florescent lights. I left the E-3 on AWB and it was about as accurate as I could want. I used a an X-Rite color chart but made no white balance adjustments in RAW.
I did try the Olympus studio software for looking at the files and it does produce spectacular images. However I had to make a somewhat quick delivery and went with LightRoom to work the shoot. The files may have been just as good as with the Olympus software but I would have to look further, I am not sure at the moment.
As an odd plus, I tried the camera out a day or two ahead of time and even tried the on camera flash which I never use on my 30D, I truly dislike on camera flash. Well on the Olympus I like it, the most useable I have seen. Kind of a small extra benefit.
Live view is interesting but not having the time to become familiar with it, I let it go for the moment. I'll try that out another time.
I will be using it again tomorrow on another shoot. If I can answer any questions, let me know. I am not much of a camera geek and have no intention of being one. But I do know what produces great results and works for my shoots for my clients. And the Olympus E-3 performs, big time.
Well today I just received an E-3 and the new 12-60 Zuiko lens for evaluation. I most certainly prefer my Mamiya 645 AFDII with a Leaf back or even film for a lot of my shooting but there are many times I need the smaller format.
Currently I have been using Canon and primarily the 5D which I am very pleased with. However I happened to walk into a camera store where Olympus was doing a demo.
I have been curious about the design of the Olympus system and I like the 4:3 format. The bodies seem well designed, I like the feel of it and the viewfinder. The dust removal system is also a big plus.
But I was very intrigued by the Zuiko lenses. I have read that they are very sharp and physically they are much smaller than the equivalent in Canon. And then they have the f2 lenses which would be great. Anyway the size issue is really important to me because I do spend a lot of time flying. In the same roller bag I currently use I could get a couple of more lenses in the same space and with a much longer reach.
So tomorrow and Thursday I will be getting some practice in with the Olympus and then Friday and Saturday it will go out on an editorial feature shoot, outdoors, indoors, day and night. So I will get back to you with my thoughts.
By the way, Olympus was really considerate about getting me a system to try out and is very interested in showing off their products. Must be something to it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Another surprise! Having just checked out the prices and weights of these two systems, ie. Canon 5D plus Sigma 15-30, versus Olympus E-3 plus Zuiko 7-14, this miniature 4/3rds system is not only more expensive than a full frame 35mm equivalent but heavier by about 70gms, comparing the weight and cost of camera plus lens.
This is why it is essential to have image quality comparisons.
-
This is why it is essential to have image quality comparisons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ultra wide lenses are one thing and its fine to do the maths and make a case based on one example. But try putting other lenses in your 5D loaded camera bag, like covering the range of 22mm to 600mm (conventional 35mm). Olympus can pretty well do that do that range in two lenses, both of which are pocketable. Or try the maths for pouring a glass of water over your 5D and Sigma lens and work out how it beats the E3 on price when you have to buy another combo. And is the Sigma lens image stabilized by default like the Olympus lens? Or work out how much of the 5D image is wasted per $ each time the picture editor crops the soft edges of the frame or the ends off the frame to fit the page.
So there are many ways to read a balance sheet and sometimes it is worth knowing the value of things against the price of things.
-
Ultra wide lenses are one thing and its fine to do the maths and make a case based on one example. But try putting other lenses in your 5D loaded camera bag, like covering the range of 22mm to 600mm (conventional 35mm). Olympus can pretty well do that do that range in two lenses, both of which are pocketable. Or try the maths for pouring a glass of water over your 5D and Sigma lens and work out how it beats the E3 on price when you have to buy another combo. And is the Sigma lens image stabilized by default like the Olympus lens? Or work out how much of the 5D image is wasted per $ each time the picture editor crops the soft edges of the frame or the ends off the frame to fit the page.
So there are many ways to read a balance sheet and sometimes it is worth knowing the value of things against the price of things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, it depends to a large extent on what you have already. The Olympus system seems a much more attractive option to someone who's buying a DSLR system for the first time. I can also get a range from 16mm to 640mm by switching to my 20D and using just 3 lenses, the EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105 and 100-400 IS, but I accept it would be heavier than an equivalent Olympus system because I'm using a couple of lenses there designed for a larger format than the 20D.
I'm not really very interested in spending several thousand dollars just to save a bit of weight. I mean we're looking at a difference of only 700gms between the weight of the new Zuiko 70-300 and the Canon 100-400 which could also be used on a 1Ds3 or the next upgrade to the 5D. There has to be some other inducement for me personally, like improved image quality or lower noise through the use of faster lenses. Something that allows me to get results that I cannot get with my current system. I can't really see myself in a situation where I'd be saying, 'I just can't carry that additional kilogram. If only I had an Olympus 4/3rds system.'
As for pouring a cup of water over my camera. I've never done such a thing in 50 years of photography. Why should I start doing that now .
-
I think Oly will eventually make some bijou-cameras again - descendants of the OM series, if you will. They're not there yet. The E3 is an interesting concept, it'll slug it out with the rest of the ruggedized crowd (Canon 40D, D300), but I think the real differentiation will wait until the next generation.
Edmund
-
I think Oly will eventually make some bijou-cameras again - descendants of the OM series, if you will. They're not there yet. The E3 is an interesting concept, it'll slug it out with the rest of the ruggedized crowd (Canon 40D, D300), but I think the real differentiation will wait until the next generation.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps an E-410 sized body with E-3 ruggedness and functionality (rather than the more consumer-oriented interface of the actual E-410)?
-
I think Oly will eventually make some bijou-cameras again - descendants of the OM series, if you will. They're not there yet. The E3 is an interesting concept, it'll slug it out with the rest of the ruggedized crowd (Canon 40D, D300), but I think the real differentiation will wait until the next generation.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A major problem for the 4/3rds system as I see it is the competition from the Nikon and Canon cropped formats. Ideally for Olympus, these cropped formats should disappear with the two major companies concentrating on full frame 35mm.
The 4/3rds sytem could then reasonably take the place of old-fashioned 35mm film in the new hierarchy of digital formats. The difference in format size between the 4/3rds format and the Nikon and Canon cropped formats is too small, but not so small that it doesn't give the slightly larger format the quality edge, either in resolution or noise.
What Olympus needs to do is equal the image quality in every respect of the D300 and 40D and then claim, on average, a substantial saving in weight and bulk for equal performance, albeit at an additional cost. One expects to pay a premium for miniaturisation when quality is not compromised.
-
The difference in format size between the 4/3rds format and the Nikon and Canon cropped formats is too small, but not so small that it doesn't give the slightly larger format the quality edge, either in resolution or noise.
Wrong! The point of 4/3 is it was designed from the outset as a digital specific format, not a rehash of a legacy film format, and that includes telecentric lenses.
What Olympus needs to do is equal the image quality in every respect of the D300 and 40D and then claim, on average, a substantial saving in weight and bulk for equal performance, albeit at an additional cost. One expects to pay a premium for miniaturisation when quality is not compromised.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Arguably, from what I have seen they already have.
Ray, your comments are just a rehash of the usual received newsgroup wisdom. The E-3 image quality is first rate. I'm no 4/3 apologist, as I use other systems, and likely will get a D3x as and when it is produced.
Quentin
-
One expects to pay a premium for miniaturisation when quality is not compromised.
Does one?
OK the facts, on purely like for like (nearest Canon can get at least) weather sealed pro lens basis.
An Oly prime 300mm f2.8 (600mm equiv) weighs 3290gm and is 281mm long. Now Canon can't make an f2.8, so take their 600mm f4 as a nearest comparison, it weighs 5300gm and is 450mm long. The Canon costs at rip off UK price £5478, and the Oly £4770. What it is that makes the Oly more expensive, larger, heavier, or slower?
Take two. The Oly 50-200mm (100- 400) f2.8-f3.5 weighs 1070gm and is 157mm long and costs £699. Now, Canon can't make an f2.8, so take the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 as the nearest they can get. It weighs 1380gm and is 189mm long and costs £999. Are you seeing a pattern develop?
What is more, 'if' Canon can make a faster lens, what would that then weigh, measure, and cost! It doesn't bear thinking about.
It is one thing talking about the pluses and minuses of camera systems, but this shouldn't include perpetuating obvious myths, never mind the less obvious ones concerning 'quaility'.
-
Wrong! The point of 4/3 is it was designed from the outset as a digital specific format, not a rehash of a legacy film format, and that includes telecentric lenses.
Arguably, from what I have seen they already have.
Ray, your comments are just a rehash of the usual received newsgroup wisdom. The E-3 image quality is first rate. I'm no 4/3 apologist, as I use other systems, and likely will get a D3x as and when it is produced.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't read newsgroups much, Quentin. I refer to dpreview tests of cameras a lot, though, and every test of an Olympus 4/3rds format seems to come out slightly worse than the nearest priced Canon cropped format, so far, in terms of resolution, high ISO noise and DR.
Perhaps the E-3 has changed the balance somewhat, but from the comparisons I've seen so far, noise at high ISO is still a stop less than the 40D. This fact alone tends to take the gloss off the apparent advantage of faster Zuiko lenses.
-
An Oly prime 300mm f2.8 (600mm equiv) weighs 3290gm and is 281mm long. Now Canon can't make an f2.8, so take their 600mm f4 as a nearest comparison, it weighs 5300gm and is 450mm long. The Canon costs at rip off UK price £5478, and the Oly £4770. What it is that makes the Oly more expensive, larger, heavier, or slower?
You're just confirming my point. If you make the comparison with FF 35mm, then the above quote is relevant. The Olympus system is definitely much lighter and cheaper in this example, but you can't expect the E-3 to compete quality-wise with a 1Ds3 image.
Like-wise, if you put that heavier and more expensive 600/4 on a 40D you get an effective focal length of 960mm. You're not suggesting an E-3 with Zuiko 300/2.8 will match the quality of a Canon 960mm lens are you?
A more realistic comparison and the nearest Canon equivalent to the E-3 with Zuiko 300/2.8 would be the 40D with Canon 400/4 DO IS. This lens is considerably lighter than the Zuiko 300/2.8 and, on the 40D has a slightly longer reach. I believe the lens is also less expensive, if you search for the best price.
Would image quality be similar? I've not seen any comparisons, but the 4/3rds sytem is clearly much heavier in this example.
Take two. The Oly 50-200mm (100- 400) f2.8-f3.5 weighs 1070gm and is 157mm long and costs £699. Now, Canon can't make an f2.8, so take the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 as the nearest they can get. It weighs 1380gm and is 189mm long and costs £999. Are you seeing a pattern develop?
Same situation again. You're not suggesting a 50-200 zoom with effective 35mm focal lengths of 100-400 can compete with a 35mm 100-400 zoom which has effective focal lengths of 160-640mm on a 40D, are you? It's true the Zuiko 50-200mm is faster, but it needs to be to overcome that additional noise at high ISO.
Are you beginning to see another type of pattern develop?
If you search hard enough, I believe you will find some combinations of 4/3rds format lenses and E-3 which will have some advantage over the available alternative Canon combinations, but it's not clear what they are and how image quality compares.
-
Hi Ray,
My wife just got an E3 and 12-60 and actually let me play with it for a few days. I have to say that it definitely beats my 40D in resolution and sharpness and is no worse in noise at high ISO. The autofocus with the 12-60 is better than any of my Canons (D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II, 40D) and faster and more accurate than my D2XS. Image quality is excellent, color accuracy is excellent, body build and weather proofing are superb. The in-body stabilization is a real treat and the articulated Live View really works well. So far I'm not seeing anything to not like about it.
Best regards,
Lin
I don't read newsgroups much, Quentin. I refer to dpreview tests of cameras a lot, though, and every test of an Olympus 4/3rds format seems to come out slightly worse than the nearest priced Canon cropped format, so far, in terms of resolution, high ISO noise and DR.
Perhaps the E-3 has changed the balance somewhat, but from the comparisons I've seen so far, noise at high ISO is still a stop less than the 40D. This fact alone tends to take the gloss off the apparent advantage of faster Zuiko lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Ray,
My wife just got an E3 and 12-60 and actually let me play with it for a few days. I have to say that it definitely beats my 40D in resolution and sharpness and is no worse in noise at high ISO. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Lin,
The E-3 and 12-60 beats the 40D with which lens? The nearest EF-S equivalent to the Zuiko 12-60 would be the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This lens is slightly faster than the 12-60 and according to Photozone tests is actually sharper than the Canon 50/1.8 prime in the centre, although it does suffer from a bit of vignetting.
As regards noise, I can only go by what I see. Imaging-Resource's comparator shows clearly that the E-3 has more noise than the 40D at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.
I estimate it to be a one stop difference.
-
Hi Ray,
So far I've compared it with my Canon 50mm F1.8, and Canon 70-200 F2.8 which is about as close a match lens wise as I have. Of course resolution really isn't affected a great deal but speed of autofocus can be compared.
The actual amount of noise I'm seeing is very similar between the 40D and E3 with the E3 being cleaner at low ISO and having more apparent shadow noise at ISO 3200. But the noise with the Olympus is more film-like with less chroma. I suspect in actual measurements they would be very close but perhaps Canon might be shifting some of the noise with superior firmware noise reduction. I really like the images from the E3 with noise reduction off and I wouldn't use either one at over ISO 800 for serious work. If you slightly underexpose the 40D there is plenty of noise even at ISO 200 which is perhaps the sweet spot for this camera.
Actually I think noise is pretty much a non-issue for any of the newer cameras. As an old film shooter since the early 50's I'm very happy with just about any of the newer dSLR's as far as noise is concerned. Perhaps if I were interested in event photography or low light action sports I would go with a D3 or if they ever fix the 1D Mark III's focus issues it would be a great one for high ISO, but since I primarily use my cameras the past year since I've retired for wildlife, the E3 may be my next camera too.
I read some of the earlier comments about weight and so on and the primary reason we bought my wife the E3 was weight considerations. With a 300mm F2.8 and 1.4x tele you get about 840mm at F4. The 300mm F2.8 weighs about half what my Canon 400 F2.8 does, with the stabilization can be hand-held and is much smaller as well.
I originally bought my 40D because I thought I could use it with my 100-400L IS and 1.4x teleconverter but was disappointed when I found it wouldn't autofocus with taped pins at F8 like all the rest of my Canon's will. This took the 40D out of my kit for most of my wildlife needs and forced me to decide between a D300 or Sony A700 or staying with my D2XS. The higher ISO and somewhat improved autofocus of the D300 were tempting, but when I read the specs for the E3 I thought it would make a great camera for my wife. I had no idea how much I would like it until I had the chance to play with it and I must admit I'm seriously tempted to get one for myself. The measured resolution is very close to the D300 and A700 - just a chopped-off bit of aspect ratio on the sides. The burst speed isn't nearly as good as the 40D but is quite probably on par with the D300 and A700. Optimally, it's five frames per second on jpgs but only about four frames per second with RAW/jpg in my experience. The number of frames in the burst are not up to the 40D or 300D but the IQ is superb and I can live with a little fewer fps when nearly every frame is a keeper.
In any event I suspect this camera will be a definite "contender" among it's peers.
Best regards,
Lin
Hi Lin,
The E-3 and 12-60 beats the 40D with which lens? The nearest EF-S equivalent to the Zuiko 12-60 would be the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This lens is slightly faster than the 12-60 and according to Photozone tests is actually sharper than the Canon 50/1.8 prime in the centre, although it does suffer from a bit of vignetting.
As regards noise, I can only go by what I see. Imaging-Resource's comparator shows clearly that the E-3 has more noise than the 40D at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.
I estimate it to be a one stop difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Like-wise, if you put that heavier and more expensive 600/4 on a 40D you get an effective focal length of 960mm. You're not suggesting an E-3 with Zuiko 300/2.8 will match the quality of a Canon 960mm lens are you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, you could put the 1.4 converter on the Oly lens and you get a 840mm and loose one stop, so the speed is on a par with the Canon at that. Put a 2x converter on and you get a 1200mm lens and loose two stops. Either way it isn't exactly clear cut that the Canon 40D is oh so superior. The Canon APS-C sensor is only a fraction bigger than the Olympus sensor, and the Olympus lenses and sensors have been designed to work together from the outset, not as legacy work arounds from film days. In either case the Olympus 1.4 or 2x converter setup still comes out smaller and lighter and cheaper. And I haven't yet noticed any bad reviews of Olympus lenses, indeed, their quality is what made me sell my Canon gear when I realised 'L' was for 'Loser'. There are Olympus kit lenses out there in the world sharper and more consistent than the best 'L' glass.
What gets to me though is the assumption one is 'superior' to the other. I'm old enough, (and therefore wise enough) to remember when the word 'photographic quality' was reserved for how good the picture was. If you wanted to explain the technique and what negative or print quality one was looking at you'd say 'this is a 5x4', or 'this is 35mm', and nobody would look up or down on one or the other, it simply wasn't seen as a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of battle. The camera was used to produce the image you wanted in the best way for the you. So unless I had a mule, Sherpas, and photographic assistants I wouldn't have carried a 10x8 up the hill to photograph Half Dome, I'd have carried a Hasselblad. I don't think anybody would have looked on the photograph and called it 'inferior' because it was from a 6x6 neg, but maybe they would if it was a bad photograph.
So I think its about time maturity flowered in digital circles and a new regime was adopted to stop this confusion that 'bigger' is 'better' and that 'quality' isn't garanteed by 'bigger' even as a lowest perception of the idea.
But for the time being, and to join in to the spirit of the discussion as it has developed, I do see the E3 beating the D300, the 40D, and the 5D, for everyday basic image quality in the reviews I have read so far. And two of those cameras you can't even take out in the rain LOL!
-
But for the time being, and to join in to the spirit of the discussion as it has developed, I do see the E3 beating the D300, the 40D, and the 5D, for everyday basic image quality in the reviews I have read so far. And two of those cameras you can't even take out in the rain LOL!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might well be right, but you understand I'm sure, that I would want to see the evidence. In photography seeing is believing. The only competent reviews with a reputation for objectivity that I've seen so far, which compare images of identical scenes, is Imaging Resources. There might be other comparisons around employing flawed methodology of course.
Because I own a Canon system does not mean I automatically assume a Canon system is superior. In fact, when I first saw the specs of the Nikon D300 and a few sample images, I felt sure if Canon had delivered such a camera in place of the 40D I'd be buying it. But it now seems that the low noise at high ISO from the D300 is at the sacrifice of resolution due to heavy in-camera noise reduction, so I'm no longer interested. And the reason I'm no longer interested is not just because I'm obsessed with low noise capability but because there's simply no reason for me to buy more camera equipment unless such equipment can clearly do something I can't already do with the equipment I already have.
If I intended making an assault on Mt Everest or trekking through the Himalayas during the monsoon, I might consider the waterproofing of the E-3 a major advantage, and with careful selection of lenses I might even be able to get a weight saving with either zero or minimal sacrifice of image quality.
Well, you could put the 1.4 converter on the Oly lens and you get a 840mm and loose one stop, so the speed is on a par with the Canon at that. Put a 2x converter on and you get a 1200mm lens and loose two stops. Either way it isn't exactly clear cut that the Canon 40D is oh so superior.
Put a 1.4x converter on the Canon 400/4 DO IS and you get 900mm. I'm not claiming the image quality would be better with the 40D but the Canon system would sure be lighter.
-
So far I've compared it with my Canon 50mm F1.8, and Canon 70-200 F2.8 which is about as close a match lens wise as I have. Of course resolution really isn't affected a great deal but speed of autofocus can be compared.
Lin,
I interpret that as meaning the E-3 has the pixel-peeping edge.
The actual amount of noise I'm seeing is very similar between the 40D and E3 with the E3 being cleaner at low ISO and having more apparent shadow noise at ISO 3200.
That's quite remarkable. The E-3 has less noise than the 40D at low ISO? Is this with the 40D noise reduction on or off? As I understand, the 40D has a noise reduction system that does not destroy detail in any discernible way and works at all ISO settings.
I originally bought my 40D because I thought I could use it with my 100-400L IS and 1.4x teleconverter but was disappointed when I found it wouldn't autofocus with taped pins at F8 like all the rest of my Canon's will.
I agree this is a disappointment. If the 40D had included the ability to autofocus at f8 (without taping the pins) that might have been sufficient to persuade me to buy the camera.
In any event I suspect this camera will be a definite "contender" among it's peers.
No doubt about it. The E-3 appears to be a fine piece of engineering. I don't think anyone could go far wrong buying into the system, unless they really wanted the large-print quality of a 1Ds3.
-
Lin,
I interpret that as meaning the E-3 has the pixel-peeping edge.
That's quite remarkable. The E-3 has less noise than the 40D at low ISO? Is this with the 40D noise reduction on or off? As I understand, the 40D has a noise reduction system that does not destroy detail in any discernible way and works at all ISO settings.
I agree this is a disappointment. If the 40D had included the ability to autofocus at f8 (without taping the pins) that might have been sufficient to persuade me to buy the camera.
No doubt about it. The E-3 appears to be a fine piece of engineering. I don't think anyone could go far wrong buying into the system, unless they really wanted the large-print quality of a 1Ds3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course, if they did desire the large print quality for, say, static landscapes, they could always get a decent tripod and learn how to stitch frames...
-
Ray,
As I own the E-3, I don't need to rely on reviews, and it seems neither does Lin. Reviews are always a poor second best to first-hand experience.
Quentin
-
Ray,
As I own the E-3, I don't need to rely on reviews, and it seems neither does Lin. Reviews are always a poor second best to first-hand experience.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But Quentin, a review is a first-hand experience, and first-hand experiences like yours and Lin's are a type of review, although not necessarily a systematic review with the constraints of impartiality.
What I often find is that people naturally get excited about their new purchase and tend to overlook its shortcomings and exaggerate the significance of it's good points.
Owners of a 40D, for example, like to kid themselves that its image quality is on a par with the 5D and much better than that of the 20D & 30D.
-
Ray,
Not a review, direct day to day experience. A review is someone else's opinion, whereas I can form my own. Also there have been several reviews which have reached similar conclusions to my own.
You are right about people kidding themselves sometimes as a sort reinforcement of their buying decision, but as I said, I'm not all dewey-eyed about the E-3, which is one of several photographic tools I own and not the main one. The E-3 has faults, like all systems.
Quentin
-
Ray,
Not a review, direct day to day experience. A review is someone else's opinion, whereas I can form my own. Also there have been several reviews which have reached similar conclusions to my own.
You are right about people kidding themselves sometimes as a sort reinforcement of their buying decision, but as I said, I'm not all dewey-eyed about the E-3, which is one of several photographic tools I own and not the main one. The E-3 has faults, like all systems.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's fine Quentin. Don't let me spoil your fun . We each have our own purposes. I currently use an 8mp and a 12.8mp DSLR and I don't see the need for a third 10mp DSLR unless it has some truly remarkable attributes that I would find really useful. But that's just me probably being careful with my expenditure.
-
Being careful is as all we retired chaps must certainly do!
Even as I write, I hear the no! shouts from the idle rich; but you know what I mean.
Ciao - Rob C
-
I have been using Canon for some time now. I also shoot Mamiya and with a Leaf back. But in regards to Canon, my choice for now has been the 5D which has been producing excellent files. I am more pleased with it for my uses than the MarkII.
Let me say that I am not much of a gear geek. My choices are based on what produces the results I need for my photography business. I had an interest in the Olympus system early on because of the new features and designs for digital. But I am not one to even try to things out without reason.
With that said, I did have the chance to use an E-3 and 12-60 for a couple of actual feature shoots. I have posted in this thread about that. And to repeat what I have said, it appears to me that the Olympus produced the sharpest files out of the camera that I have seen except maybe for the Mamiya/Leaf. They also have the best color and the best skin tones.
The issue of high iso, while of interest to me, is set aside by having f2 lenses in a very useable physical size and the IS in the body. I would rather have that and be able to shoot under 1600 then have lower noise at 3200 in a Canon. Regardless at 3200 the file is going to be noisy, so slower is better.
And the physical size of the Zuiko lenses is a big plus for me. I fly a lot, so if I can travel with two or 3 physically smaller lenses for a much broader range as compared to the big Canon lenses, that is good. When you are carrying all this gear, trying to get it on planes, then shooting while juggling two bodies and more gear, well.... less is more.
I have a 30D as backup for my 5D, and although a nice value, that little viewfinder is not my favorite. So a 40D comparison is not an issue for me. I really don't want it. The E-3 has a very nice size viewfinder, big and visible. And as far as full frame or sub-frame descriptions about the Olympus... it does not seem to me to be a consequential point. It is just names. For the Olympus system, it is full frame.
I like the 4:3 aspect ratio, gone is cropping for 8x10 and 11x14 which at times can be a problem. And I don't know if it is the aspect ratio or something else, but I see that 3 dimensional kind of look in the photos from the Olympus that I see in medium format.
The Olympus is a joy to use and even better the photos I produced from my shoots are great. I am very pleased. I am sorry to have shipped the camera and lens back. So just into January I will decide on my changes and I would say at this point for the "35mm" size camera system you will see me using Olympus unless I get to try something else out that might offer something new and better.
Also next on my list for tryout will be the Mamiya ZD. It is hard to pass up the possibility of such an inexpensive medium format back.
-
With that said, I did have the chance to use an E-3 and 12-60 for a couple of actual feature shoots. I have posted in this thread about that. And to repeat what I have said, it appears to me that the Olympus produced the sharpest files out of the camera that I have seen except maybe for the Mamiya/Leaf. They also have the best color and the best skin tones.
That's quite a remarkable claim considering the 5D is also praised by some MFDB users for its skin tones and has an extra 2.7mp. I would still like to see how the E-3 + 12-60/4 compares with the 40D+EF-S 17-55/2.8. That EF-S lens might be equally sharp and of course has the advantage of being 1 stop faster. Combine that additional speed with the 1 stop noise advantage of the 40D and you get a 2 stop advantage in low light conditions.
The problem for me of course, being somewhat careful with my expenditure and wanting to maximise the performance of my dollar, an E-3 plus a couple of lenses is likely to cost as much as the next upgrade to the 5D which is expected within the next 6 months.
-
"That's quite a remarkable claim considering the 5D is also praised by some MFDB users for its skin tones and has an extra 2.7mp."
- Not a claim on my part, just my observation, but it seemed very obvious as I reviewed the photos. Out of the camera, the sharpness and skin tones were amazing. And the color saturation was perfect. While I would prefer the 12+ mpx, for my work with this type of system, 10 is just fine.
"...being somewhat careful with my expenditure and wanting to maximise the performance of my dollar, an E-3 plus a couple of lenses is likely to cost as much as the next upgrade to the 5D which is expected within the next 6 months."
- I completely agree with getting the most for your money. I must look at the results for my clients and my time spent to provide it. I would not take adding or replacing a system lightly. I would only do so if it would substantially improve the quality of what I deliver as well as reducing my work load to do it. The Olympus system for me fulfills a lot of my requirements. To remain competitive, especially now in photography, sometimes you have to make changes.
A few years ago I had to make that type of decision when I went from PC to Apple. And no I don't want to start that discussion. But after 20 years on PC's I saw that the competitive advantage for this work went to Mac, and so did I. I spent the money, made the changes and it was one of the best things I have ever done.
-
I've always liked the little sigma 30/1.4 except for its wonky triangular bokeh it exibits sometimes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen the same wonky triangles (due to lens coma) with a number of my Canon lenses, including the 50/1.4 and 24-105L. The Sigma is no worse than the 50/1.2L in this respect.
-
.........there's simply no reason for me to buy more camera equipment unless such equipment can clearly do something I can't already do with the equipment I already have.
I entirely agree with you Ray. But my scepticism about the whole Canon ethos has been concerning me for years. And I jumped the DSLR ship from Canon because one other manufacturer was always in the frame when it came to my overall satisfaction with the images produced. And it wasn't initially Olympus.
But now I have some superb lenses, an E510 for more informal work and grab shots, and an E3 to fully take over from my Canon. And for the first time in ages I don't look at my pictures and wish I'd used my Leica instead.
-
I entirely agree with you Ray. But my scepticism about the whole Canon ethos has been concerning me for years. And I jumped the DSLR ship from Canon because one other manufacturer was always in the frame when it came to my overall satisfaction with the images produced. And it wasn't initially Olympus.
But now I have some superb lenses, an E510 for more informal work and grab shots, and an E3 to fully take over from my Canon. And for the first time in ages I don't look at my pictures and wish I'd used my Leica instead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have an Epson 7600 large format printer. I like prints that I hang on my wall to be fairly large, like 23'' x35".
I'm waiting for Canon to buy out Olympus and employ the Zuiko lens technology and expertise to produce better Canon lenses for future generations of FF 35mm 39mp sensors .
-
- I completely agree with getting the most for your money. I must look at the results for my clients and my time spent to provide it. I would not take adding or replacing a system lightly. I would only do so if it would substantially improve the quality of what I deliver as well as reducing my work load to do it. The Olympus system for me fulfills a lot of my requirements. To remain competitive, especially now in photography, sometimes you have to make changes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you considered the extra realism and 3-dimensionality of the larger format that owners of MFDB systems are so much aware of? Have you not noticed this effect of full frame 35mm?
-
Have you considered the extra realism and 3-dimensionality of the larger format that owners of MFDB systems are so much aware of? Have you not noticed this effect of full frame 35mm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes Ray, I have been shooting MFDB with a Mamiya 645AFDII and the Leaf 65 back. And there is that 3-dimensionality look with MFDB. I also do see it with the Olympus, not as much perhaps, but yes it is there. And no, I do not see the same look at all with full frame Canon digital on the 5D, 1Ds or 1DsMkII.
I also see that 3-dimensionality look with medium format film.
-
I have finally got around to doing a blog post about my shooting with the E-3 and the 12-60 lens. You will also find some photos from a couple of my shoots with the system which were for actual magazine features.
Just go to my website at http://SecondFocus.com (http://SecondFocus.com) and click on blog.
-
Yes Ray, I have been shooting MFDB with a Mamiya 645AFDII and the Leaf 65 back. And there is that 3-dimensionality look with MFDB. I also do see it with the Olympus, not as much perhaps, but yes it is there. And no, I do not see the same look at all with full frame Canon digital on the 5D, 1Ds or 1DsMkII.
I also see that 3-dimensionality look with medium format film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry! I didn't notice this reply. If you're finding that extra sense of 3-dimensionality with the Olympus 4/3rds system (which sensor is 1/4 the area of ff 35mm) and you also see a similar effect with MF, then that clearly gives the lie to the claim by MFDB users that this effect is due to sensor size.
This is something that I've been hinting at all along. The effect is dues to lenses and lighting. The unpalatable truth appears to be (IM very HO) that many Canon lenses are crap at full aperture. The excuse appears to be that one doesn't use lenses at f1.2, 1.4, 1.8 etc in order to get a sharp result, but to get a shallow DoF.
Well, the fact is, if you're not getting a sharp result at the plane of focus, not only is the effect of shallowness of DoF diminished, but you lose that sense of realism and 3-dimensionality. Some lenses, however, actually are as sharp at f2.8 as at f8. I think Canon might have at least one such lens, the 400/2.8 non-IS version.
I once did a comparison using my highly regarded Canon 50mm/1.4, shooting scenes at infinity at f1.4 and f8 so that DoF was not an issue. The difference in resolution and accutance was like comparing a good lens with a coke bottle.
Even heavy and expensive lenses like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too good at full aperture. The MTF curve (at f1.2) is like that of a very cheap lens at f8. But people like to kid themselves that their equipment is better than it really is. Very few of us are interested in the truth.
-
As far as medium format and the 3-dimension look goes, I don't know what to say except that it is there and like I have said I am no camera gear geek. Perhaps it is the larger MFDB sensor size giving greater and smoother tonal range or something. Or like you said, lenses and lighting. So maybe just saying it is sensor size is over simplified by the people saying that. Personally, I am only going with the results. And the Olympus results were excellent.
-
Personally, I am only going with the results. And the Olympus results were excellent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Would you care to give us some examples using the same subject, perhaps a gym lady with sinuous muscles, using the E-3 with 12-60 lens and the 5D with 24-105 lens, being careful to get equivalent apertures for both cameras, ie. f2.8 at 12mm for the E-3 and f5.6 at 24mm for the 5D, or some other equivalent combinations?
I almost forgot; since the subject is likely to be moving slightly, you should also usr the same shutter speed, which means ISO 400 for the Canon and ISO 100 for the E-3, or the same ratio at other ISOs.
-
Would you care to give us some examples using the same subject, perhaps a gym lady with sinuous muscles, using the E-3 with 12-60 lens and the 5D with 24-105 lens, being careful to get equivalent apertures for both cameras, ie. f2.8 at 12mm for the E-3 and f5.6 at 24mm for the 5D, or some other equivalent combinations?
I almost forgot; since the subject is likely to be moving slightly, you should also usr the same shutter speed, which means ISO 400 for the Canon and ISO 100 for the E-3, or the same ratio at other ISOs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray I would love to but it just won't happen. All of these shoots are assignments and typically I don't have the time with everything going on to to comparative camera testing, especially with a crew standing around. They are also all strobed so ISO400 shots are not in the mix either.
The best I can do is give you my observations and the photos I have posted on my blog at the moment.
-
Even heavy and expensive lenses like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too good at full aperture. The MTF curve (at f1.2) is like that of a very cheap lens at f8. But people like to kid themselves that their equipment is better than it really is. Very few of us are interested in the truth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, to be courteous, there are other things in life apart from MTF. If had the 85/1.2 as an only lens I'd be perfectly happy. If there is one lens that has really earned its reputation as a magical lens it's that one, who cares about its real sharpness ?
By the way, I did my own tests with the 85/1.2. And found that at 20 yards or so the focus detent "clicks" are too far spaced for the DOF of the lens wide open. In other words it simply cannot be sharply focused at long distances, which may explain your results.
And if you really want to claim that lenses cannot be sharp near their maximal aperture, i'll be delighted to lend you my Canon 200/1.8 some time.
Edmund
-
Ray, to be courteous, there are other things in life apart from MTF.
Edmund,
Of course there are, and let me say, I've never found you less than courteous .
What I'm advocating is more MTF charts so I can get on with other aspects of my life instead of wallowing in subjective impressions which are confused by QC variations in copies of the same model of lens.
I want MTF charts so I can walk into a shop, look at the MTF response of say a particular copy of a Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens and get a clear indication that the lens is sharper than my Canon EF 24-105 and/or Sigma 15-30 (which of course should have their own MTF charts) at certain apertures and f stops and be able to make a buying decision on the spot.
Relevant to the point, I've recently been using my 5D so much that the mirror flew off its mount. The camera's in for repair at the Bangkok Canon Service Centre. I'm now travelling with only one camera, the 20D, so I thought I might be able to justify the purchase of a 40D with the apparently excellent EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, the main incentive not being the 40D but the 17-55/2.8 lens which according to Photozone's test results is remarkably sharp.
However, I've been bitten more than once buying a Canon lens without testing it first. Nevertheless, because it was possible to get from the Canon Service Centre to a major Canon retail outlet by skytrain, I made an attempt to buy the 40D with EF-S 17-55 lens. I could have got the package at a good price, but it was just too much trouble to thoroughly test the lens. The shop was very small and crowded, people milling around bumping into each other; I wasn't carrying my tripod. I took a few snap shots with both lenses at 28mm and f4, focussing on stacked camera boxes in the shop. I then examined the results on my laptop in a nearby restaurant, in between mouthfuls of food.
The results were inconclusive, so I didn't buy. I'm not interested in duplicating focal lengths for the sake of an extra 1/2 to 1 stop in aperture size. My Sigma 15-30 is f3.5 at 15mm with the bad parts cropped off on a 20D.
Due to a lack of MTF charts, Canon lost a sale. I was deprived of the full enjoyment of my meal and wasted a couple of hours of my life.
By the way, I did my own tests with the 85/1.2. And found that at 20 yards or so the focus detent "clicks" are too far spaced for the DOF of the lens wide open. In other words it simply cannot be sharply focused at long distances, which may explain your results.
That's something I haven't fully considered, although I am aware that lens sharpness is not necessarily consistent from infinity to close-up. I believe there are certain models of macro lenses that are extremely sharp at close distances but mediocre at infinity. I think there might even exist certain dedicated macro lenses that won't even focus at infinity.
I recently compared my Canon 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 24-105 at 50mm, shooting a test chart from just a few feet distance. Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are hopless at full aperture, far worse than the 24-105 at 50mm and full aperture.
The Canon 200/1.8 is one of those rare lenses that is not only very sharp at f8 but even sharper at f4. The copy of the Canon 400/2.8 (non-IS) that Photodo tested is not quite as sharp at f8 as some the best lenses, but is at least sharper at f2.8 than it is at f8.
And if you really want to claim that lenses cannot be sharp near their maximal aperture, i'll be delighted to lend you my Canon 200/1.8 some time.
Edmund, you're a true gentleman and a scholar . That's a lens which is too heavy for my current purposes, travelling light. But I believe you because I've seen the MTF charts. Thanks for the offer .
-
Ray,
Canon CPS will arrange for a loaner, you should join. I guess a discreet tip will do wonders too over there ...
Edmund, you're a true gentleman and a scholar . That's a lens which is too heavy for my current purposes, travelling light. But I believe you because I've seen the MTF charts. Thanks for the offer .
Yes, I wish they would miniaturize it, I hesitate to take it out. But the images it makes are interesting, even more than the charts
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/1compvisit.jpg)
[/quote]
-
Yes, I wish they would miniaturize it, I hesitate to take it out. But the images it makes are interesting, even more than the charts
Edmund,
You've certainly captured some curves there which are quite different from MTF curves .
The lady on the right seems to be more in focus, but I'm not sure this image is showing the full potential of one of Canon's finest lenses. I was expecting something perhaps a little more razor sharp. What camera did you use and what f stop?
Canon CPS will arrange for a loaner, you should join. I guess a discreet tip will do wonders too over there ...
You know, I never thought about asking for a temporary replacement. In my 50+ years of sporadic amateur photography, this is my first experience of a camera failure.
If I had got a replacement, I sure could have used that 200/1.8 lens last night in the cabaret night spots in Koh Samui. I was using my 20D with 24-105 fully extended which is about 168mm in 35mm terms; pretty close to 200mm.
Unfortunately, the 24-105 is a bit soft at the long end, just a bit, nothing serious. But it sort of takes the edge off images such as the following, taken last night. They're reasonably sharp but not tack sharp.
Because they were processed on my laptop, I'm not sure how color and tonality will appear on an expertly calibrated monitor. You'll have to make allowances there.
[attachment=4562:attachment] [attachment=4563:attachment]
And, of course, the 100% crops.
[attachment=4565:attachment] [attachment=4564:attachment] [attachment=4566:attachment]
These are photos of blokes, by the way.... just in case it's not obvious to all .
-
Edmund,
You've certainly captured some curves there which are quite different from MTF curves .
The lady on the right seems to be more in focus, but I'm not sure this image is showing the full potential of one of Canon's finest lenses. I was expecting something perhaps a little more razor sharp. What camera did you use and what f stop?
You know, I never thought about asking for a temporary replacement. In my 50+ years of sporadic amateur photography, this is my first experience of a camera failure.
If I had got a replacement, I sure could have used that 200/1.8 lens last night in the cabaret night spots in Koh Samui. I was using my 20D with 24-105 fully extended which is about 168mm in 35mm terms; pretty close to 200mm.
Unfortunately, the 24-105 is a bit soft at the long end, just a bit, nothing serious. But it sort of takes the edge off images such as the following, taken last night. They're reasonably sharp but not tack sharp.
Because they were processed on my laptop, I'm not sure how color and tonality will appear on an expertly calibrated monitor. You'll have to make allowances there.
[attachment=4562:attachment] [attachment=4563:attachment]
And, of course, the 100% crops.
[attachment=4565:attachment] [attachment=4564:attachment] [attachment=4566:attachment]
These are photos of blokes, by the way.... just in case it's not obvious to all .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some effin´nightmares you must have, mate!
Rob C
-
Some effin´nightmares you must have, mate!
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eh! How come? I'm not photographing my dreams here, Rob, but anything which is unusual, grotesque, fanciful, interesting or which simply catches my eye. It's one of the reasons I like to travel.
As a matter of fact, it's so long ago since I had a nightmare, I can't remember when .
-
Eh! How come? I'm not photographing my dreams here, Rob, but anything which is unusual, grotesque, fanciful, interesting or which simply catches my eye. It's one of the reasons I like to travel.
As a matter of fact, it's so long ago since I had a nightmare, I can't remember when .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That´s the trouble, Ray: all that travel into the grotesque, the fanciful and the unusual. You have been de-sensitized so now have lost the thrill of the nightmare!
Sweet dreams. ?
Ciao - Rob C
-
That´s the trouble, Ray: all that travel into the grotesque, the fanciful and the unusual. You have been de-sensitized so now have lost the thrill of the nightmare!
Sweet dreams. ?
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm prepared to make some sacrifices, Rob. One can't have everything. I'm willing to forgo the nightmares .
-
So, there is no way I'm buying an e-3. However, the e-510 is $485. This begs the question. How do the raw files from the e-510 stack up? Cause I really like the looks of that 12-60 zukio.
-
So, there is no way I'm buying an e-3. However, the e-510 is $485. This begs the question. How do the raw files from the e-510 stack up? Cause I really like the looks of that 12-60 zukio.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so well, I think. Me and my wife are using the 510 as a camera for ski hiking and similar when we are simple said to lazy to take our canon equipment with us. The 510 with the kit lenses is amazingly lightweight, but quality is not on par with canon 5d for example (sharpness, DR,..) but certainly this is to be expected. I found that image stabilization for example is not very suitable for my kind of work, the pictures do get sharper, but they aren often not sharp enough compared to pictures made from an tripod. So my dream of an compact, lightweight, cheap do all system is not coming true with Olympus. In the moment you use semi pro body like E-3, pro lenses the weight difference is often minimal and also the price difference. A very good system, but Nikon, Canon, Sony have products with similar strenghts and weakness.
-
A very good system, but Nikon, Canon, Sony have products with similar strenghts and weakness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think there is still only one small camera that can stack up with the heavyweights concerning image quality, and that is the Leica.
But it's not in the same price range, and may lack reliability.
Olympus should do their homework; what we really want is a digital OM4.
Edmund
-
First, thanks to Quentin and others for testing and observations on the E-3 from the perspective of experienced photographers who are primarily users of other brands and formats. (For all the positive reports, I am still hoping for a mid-level model between the E-510 and E-3, dropping features like 5fps and "full metal jacket" that I have little use for.)
Secondly, on the size and weight of the E system:
... what we really want is a digital OM4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The E-410 (435g) and E-510 (490g) are the two lightest DSLR bodies on the market, both lighter than the OM4 (540g) or even any Olympus "half frame" SLR. Also, I am fairly sure that the E-410 with 14-42 standard zoom (180g) is lighter than any OM or Pen SLR with even the lightest prime lens attached. So it is not as if Olympus is ignoring the desire of some for a small, light SLR kit. And as soon as one adds a "significant" telephoto lens, the weights and sizes of these bodies becomes rather irrelevant.
In fact, many people complain that the E-410 and some other small DSLR's are inconveniently small to handle: perhaps the greater number of controls needed (compared to old style manual cameras like the OM4) and the need for a LCD make it inconvenient to downsize DSLR's much more than has been done so far.
On the other hand, lovers of small, light wide to short telephoto primes to match with small, light DSLR bodies must look elsewhere, particularly Pentax.
How small and light do people actually want their SLR bodies to be?
-
On the other hand, lovers of small, light wide to short telephoto primes to match with small, light DSLR bodies must look elsewhere, particularly Pentax.
How small and light do people actually want their SLR bodies to be?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pentax 110 system sized
I'm sure we'll get there given another 10 years or so. By that time it'll be all I can carry.
Edmund
-
Not so well, I think. Me and my wife are using the 510 as a camera for ski hiking and similar when we are simple said to lazy to take our canon equipment with us. The 510 with the kit lenses is amazingly lightweight, but quality is not on par with canon 5d for example (sharpness, DR,..) but certainly this is to be expected. I found that image stabilization for example is not very suitable for my kind of work, the pictures do get sharper, but they aren often not sharp enough compared to pictures made from an tripod. So my dream of an compact, lightweight, cheap do all system is not coming true with Olympus. In the moment you use semi pro body like E-3, pro lenses the weight difference is often minimal and also the price difference. A very good system, but Nikon, Canon, Sony have products with similar strenghts and weakness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm looking at putting the 12-60 lens on it. I'm trying to figure out if the raves for the e-3 are due more to the e-3 or that hunk of glass. Waiting for photozone.de to start testing with the e-3.
-
I'm looking at putting the 12-60 lens on it. I'm trying to figure out if the raves for the e-3 are due more to the e-3 or that hunk of glass. Waiting for photozone.de to start testing with the e-3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since both the 510 and E-3 have the same pixel count, I would think that resolution will be very similar with the same lens, but the E-3 might have more pleasing color and tonality, greater dynamic range and certainly less noise at high ISO.
Photozone provides useful tests but can't account for QC variation amongst different lens copies.
Since my only camera is now the 20D and the most useful lens the Canon 24-105 IS, I just checked what the Photozone tests have to say about the 24-105.
Apparently, at 105mm it's equally sharp at f5.6 and f8, but actually sharpest at f11. I'm going to have to check this out for myself. Shooting at f11 and ISO 100 is difficult in a cabaret night club environment, albeit with flash. However, if f11 at ISO 200 is sharper than f8 at ISO 100 (at 105mm) then I'll use the former.
So far, I get the impression that this lens at f8 (at 105mm) is sharper than at f5.6.
The following shot at f8 is clearly sharper than the previous ones I posted. This is a 50% crop. Tonight, the camera will be set on f11 most of the time .
[attachment=4589:attachment]
As a matter of interest, this shot is an excellent example of the ETTR principle. In ACR default mode (no personal adjustments), the image looks clearly overexposed.
[attachment=4590:attachment]
However, just one click on the auto button fixes everything. It now looks perfectly exposed.
[attachment=4591:attachment]
In case anyone is wondering why I'm frequenting such places where the entertainers are transvestites, it's because there are no cabaret shows on this island with female performers. Thai girls are too shy to engage in such activities .
-
Ray
Auditions for the new assistant/sales person then?
Rob C
-
In case anyone is wondering why I'm frequenting such places where the entertainers are transvestites, it's because there are no cabaret shows on this island with female performers. Thai girls are too shy to engage in such activities .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A lot must have changed, in me young days the Thai cabaret acts were famous precisely because they proved the performers to be real women.
Edmund
-
A lot must have changed, in me young days the Thai cabaret acts were famous precisely because they proved the performers to be real women.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really! Is Thailand becoming less liberal? I would have thought just the opposite.
Are we talking about the same thing, Edmund? I'm referring to the traditional American/European cabaret show with perhaps a stronger emphasis on the naughty. Not the Go Go bars with scantilly clad women sliding up and down poles, where photography is strictly forbidden, nor the extravaganzas featuring elephants and Thai girls in traditional costume with sometimes a bit of modern choreography thrown in.
The last such extravaganza I saw was Siam Niramit in Bangkok. I had to leave my camera at the entrance.
[attachment=4597:attachment]
Disgusting!
-
I have been following all of this and all I can say is I need to see it. I don't doubt the e-3 is a fantastic camera and the weather proofing is certainly a big plus. However all things being equal, and they never are, a larger sensor has some major advantages in most areas. It is my understanding that a 5d for example, with its much larger sensor, would not require a lens that resolved as much detail over the image circle to resolve the same amount of detail a 4/3 body would have given the same field of view. The same priciple viewed another way could say that the oly lenses would need to have twice the resolving power as a lens on FF to obtain the same amount of detail. My understanding of this is elementary at best so please forgive me if I have miscontrued some of the above.
Please understand that I am not a fanboy of Canon or anyone. I started off with Oly and I LOVED my camera. I always found it to be lacking that certain something that I found with my Nikon. And now I am looking for something lighter weight than the Nikon and with better low light performance so I purchased the 40d. I don't much care for the 40d over ISO 1000 , the colors look a little off to me, and I would give the nod to Oly glass but is it twice as good?
-
It is my understanding that a 5d for example, with its much larger sensor, would not require a lens that resolved as much detail over the image circle to resolve the same amount of detail a 4/3 body would have given the same field of view. The same priciple viewed another way could say that the oly lenses would need to have twice the resolving power as a lens on FF to obtain the same amount of detail. My understanding of this is elementary at best so please forgive me if I have miscontrued some of the above.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's my understanding too. If a 35mm lens on the 5D can resolve say 40 lp/mm at 60% MTF, then a Zuiko lens needs to resolve 80 lp/mm at 60% MTF in order for the 4/3rds sensor to capture the same 'picture' resolution, ignoring the slight discrepancy in pixel count between the E-3 and 5D. Because of the E-3's lower pixel count (compared with the 5D), an equivalent Zuiko lens needs to have slightly more than double the resolving power to compete.
That's a tall order. I doubt that the best Zuiko lenses have over double the resolving power of the best 35mm lenses. However, if you're comparing the E-3 with the Canon cropped formats, the Zuiko lenses should often produce sharper results due to a lack of high quality EF-S lenses. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 might be an exception. I'm thinking of getting that lens for my 20D.
-
Well, the pop photo charts have the 40D at 2100 (lines of something or other) and the e-3 at 2020. If I recall their methods the former should have been taken with a 50 1.4 and the latter with the 12-60. (For some reason. Maybe they don't have a 50 equivalent.) Make of that what you will.
-
Lack of EF-S lenses or not there are some fine lenses for Canon such as the 85/1.8, the 50/1.4 and the 24L and 35L as well as a few others. Zooms are another story. I am not all convinced that the 17-40L is really good enough but I know from experience the Oly zooms are top notch as far as consistency goes. I loved my 11-22 when I had it.
I'm sure the telecentric designs are the way to go if you don't want to use micro lenses but with micro lenses a lot of the effects of non-telecentric lenses are compensated for. Is it optimum, probably not. But it does work and it does work well. From a marketing/finance perspective this is brilliant too. Think about it, if Oly can persuade the public to buy into the smaller format their lenses will have to draw an image circle much smaller than their competitors. By using the "equivalent to 35mm" phrase they can pass off their 300mm F2.8 at the price of the 600mm competitor. Is this lens really that much more expensive to make to spite the fact that it draws a smaller image circle and is half the focal length? This makes good sense for others who design lenses specifically for the 4/3 system too. I am generalizing a lot here but I have always been suspect after learning more about what it takes to resolve detail in regards to the lens/media combination. If the lenses really do resolve twice as much as their full frame counterparts then more power to Oly. I would love to have something the size of the M8 with that 25/1.4 hanging off the front of it and an articulating LCD with live view and I am all for competition and choices.
-
espressogeek
You are quite right in your thinking about the differences about format/matching lenses: increasing the frame size does not mean that the lens required to cover the larger size is putting down information across a larger area with the same sharpness as is possible across a smaller format wth a lens designed for the smaller format. The compromises in covering a larger area won´t allow it.
This has already been stated here, but people only remember what suits the personal agenda. That´s natural if annoying.
Though well aware of the fact that you can´t just scale upwards without penalty, I did exchange a large (ish) Nikon system for a small Pentax 67 ll one. Expensively, I proved my own point, but still hoped it would help stock move along better. Unfortunately for me, I had neglected to factor in the spread of the digital revolution and I should have saved my money.
You can´t beat physics; ignore the snake-oil salesmen.
Rob C
-
... all things being equal, and they never are ... a 5d for example, with its much larger sensor, would not require a lens that resolved as much detail over the image circle to resolve the same amount of detail a 4/3 body would have given the same field of view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point about all things never being equal, which is what makes these theoretical comparisons rather pointless. With the E-3, the fact is that the mid- to high- level 4/3 lenses have enough resolution to keep up with the 10MP sensor, so that 10MP is the main limit on resolution (assuming good RAW conversion without heavy handed NR). Meaning that the E-3 (and even the E-510 and E-410) give just slightly less total image detail than the 12.7MP 5D or the 12MP D300 and D3, with only the far more expensive 1DsMkIII or MF backs offering a truly worthwhile increase in image resolution.
If instead one is focal length limited in the telephoto range, the pixel spacing is a fairly good rough measure of how much detail you get with a given focal length, and there the E-3 and its smaller siblings have a modest advantage over current "APS-C" options, and a significant advantage over all larger format options, in particular the D3 and 5D.
The resolution limits of the good lenses in various systems probably become more significant limits on overall resolution as pixel counts move well beyond 10MP, to say 16MP, at which even some good Canon L lenses start to show their limitations with the 1DsMkII.
But I suspect that most of us have little use for image resolution much beyond 10MP or 12MP, or beyond what the best lenses in any DSLR system can offer with a sensor of sufficient resolution: the exceptions being people for whom 35mm film resolution was not nearly good enough.
-
... if Oly can persuade the public to buy into the smaller format their lenses will have to draw an image circle much smaller than their competitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really: the competition for FourThirds is and always has been from formats like EF-S and DX, with the E-3 for example competing with the 40D, D300, A700 and so on. And there, the difference in image circle size, focal length and so on is only about 20%, about "half a stop".
FourThirds competes with the high end 35mm format sector only in the rather faint, distant way that 35mm format competes with medium format: the differences are so great that each format fills a quite different niche. (In fact the gap 4/3 to 35mm is larger, a linear factor of two, almost like 35mm vs 6x7 MF.)
-
I just wanted to throw that out there. I don't see the e-3 being any "sharper" than top of the line examples from other vendors. But then again it all depends on what you use that system for and I'm sure the E-3 is better at some things. Perhaps I'll take another look at 4/3 someday but for now I'll do the bigger is better thing and enjoy the shallower DOF and better potential low noise performance.
-
Played around with one of these today. Very impressed. The viewfinder is surprisingly huge. Very nice.
The E-3 with 12-60 and 50-200 gives a nice 24-400 equiv range in two lenses. Getting really wide is something of a problem. The 7-14 is supposed to be very nice but costs more than I want to spend for that range. There is a rumour of a lower cost 8-something or other that might bridge the gap.
May just have to buy one.
-
Played around with one of these today. Very impressed. The viewfinder is surprisingly huge. Very nice.
The E-3 with 12-60 and 50-200 gives a nice 24-400 equiv range in two lenses. Getting really wide is something of a problem. The 7-14 is supposed to be very nice but costs more than I want to spend for that range. There is a rumour of a lower cost 8-something or other that might bridge the gap.
May just have to buy one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When you say 'played around' does that mean you shot some test images? I played around recently with Canon's EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. There's no doubt it's a sharp lens, in the centre, but corners and edges are very soft at wide apertures. At f4 and 28mm, for example, my 24-105 produces a significantly sharper result near the edges and corners, using my 20D.
The differences between the two images near the edges is much greater than the differences near the centre, which is a pity. I suspect that Zuiko lenses have better edge performance. Can anyone confirm this?
-
No, I just looked at the functional aspects of the camera. I really don't see any difference between any of these things IQ wise.
-
No, I just looked at the functional aspects of the camera. I really don't see any difference between any of these things IQ wise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You don't? I'm surprised. Do you have perhaps just an A4 printer, or maybe an A3+ printer? I think all current DSLRs are good enough for those sizes if you don't have to crop significantly.
-
Olympus should do their homework; what we really want is a digital OM4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed. I don't understand why Olympus doesn't get this.
What might also be nice would be a digital Pen F. That would be the ideal application for the half-size 4/3'rds sensors.
-
Have read the whole thread. Have a relatively narrow question.
While I am new to digital, I am not to film. Kind of got away from photography after 1994, but have come back. Before that, used 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10, did own darkroom stuff, yadda, yadda.
Anyway, my question is about landscape, as in a "static landscape", low iso, etc. Regarding detail, and max. print size, in you folks E-3 experience, how is its performance? Does 4/3 cut it, with the smaller sensor size, say up through 16x20 printing? Do you see any differences?
Thanks,
jay
-
You don't? I'm surprised. Do you have perhaps just an A4 printer, or maybe an A3+ printer? I think all current DSLRs are good enough for those sizes if you don't have to crop significantly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I rarely print larger than 12x18. I prefer smaller than that.
There are differences but they're minor and my biggest limitation is still me.
-
Not really: the competition for FourThirds is and always has been from formats like EF-S and DX, with the E-3 for example competing with the 40D, D300, A700 and so on. And there, the difference in image circle size, focal length and so on is only about 20%, about "half a stop".
FourThirds competes with the high end 35mm format sector only in the rather faint, distant way that 35mm format competes with medium format: the differences are so great that each format fills a quite different niche. (In fact the gap 4/3 to 35mm is larger, a linear factor of two, almost like 35mm vs 6x7 MF.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's old thinking. We're talking new technology. You say four thirds competes with DX. DX certainly competes with 35mm (unless you thought cameras like the D2x, and Fuji S5 did not do so). Four thirds is certainly different; the format shape wastes less in cropping in most situations.
Quentin
-
That's old thinking. We're talking new technology. You say four thirds competes with DX. DX certainly competes with 35mm (unless you thought cameras like the D2x, and Fuji S5 did not do so). Four thirds is certainly different; the format shape wastes less in cropping in most situations.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
There's a degree of leap-frogging going on with respect to new versus old technology, isn't there? The Nikon D2X could certainly compete with the older 1Ds but certainly not at high ISO with the newer 5D or 1Ds2. The E-3 might stack up pretty well against the 2 1/2 year old 5D, except again with regard to noise at maximum ISO and widest aperture. When the upgrade to the 5D comes out, I imagine the gap will be noticeably wider.
Eventually, the smaller sensor will reach its limit sooner. Imagine what a FF 35mm sensor would be like comprised of E-3 pixels and used with a really good lens. Is there any good reason why a 40mp FF 35mm sensor is not a realistic option, even with current technology?
-
Anyway, my question is about landscape, as in a "static landscape", low iso, etc. Regarding detail, and max. print size, in you folks E-3 experience, how is its performance? Does 4/3 cut it, with the smaller sensor size, say up through 16x20 printing? Do you see any differences?
Thanks,
jay
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that is also interesting to me, does nobody have an answer to moynihans question?
tom
-
that is also interesting to me, does nobody have an answer to moynihans question?
tom
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only issue here I see is the suitability of the aspect ratio. Landscapes tend to favour the wider aspect ratio of 35mm but portraits tend to favour the 4/3rds aspect ratio of the E-3.
-
I mostly agree with that. However I do like square crops. The 4/3rds system gets you closer to that.
Dunno what I'm going to do. If I wait until PMA is over to see what everyone has I lose the Oly rebates. Heck, I liked the Sony A700, too. Would even have bought one if it had live view.
-
I mostly agree with that. However I do like square crops. The 4/3rds system gets you closer to that.
Dunno what I'm going to do. If I wait until PMA is over to see what everyone has I lose the Oly rebates. Heck, I liked the Sony A700, too. Would even have bought one if it had live view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! You mean you are not already locked into a system with half a dozen or more lenses?
My advice would be, if you're not sure, hang on. There's always something better around the corner. On the other hand, if you need a particular tool right at the moment to accomplish the sort of photography you're interested in, then get the best tool that you think will suit your purposes.
-
Quentin,
There's a degree of leap-frogging going on with respect to new versus old technology, isn't there? The Nikon D2X could certainly compete with the older 1Ds but certainly not at high ISO with the newer 5D or 1Ds2. The E-3 might stack up pretty well against the 2 1/2 year old 5D, except again with regard to noise at maximum ISO and widest aperture. When the upgrade to the 5D comes out, I imagine the gap will be noticeably wider.
Eventually, the smaller sensor will reach its limit sooner. Imagine what a FF 35mm sensor would be like comprised of E-3 pixels and used with a really good lens. Is there any good reason why a 40mp FF 35mm sensor is not a realistic option, even with current technology?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who knows, Ray? I agree a 40mp 35mm SLR is almost inevitable, whether we want it or not. I think I probably do want it if the lenses can keep up. In fact what are the limits here? Say four Thirds proves capable of 40mp, and 35mm 80mp. Now think of a date in the future; you own a 40mp E-6 and a 80mp Canikon. Now you say to yourself "heck, I need to travel light; I know, I'll take the Oly E-6 and make do with its meagre 40mp instead of taking the Canikon 80mp"
Might seem ridiculous but go back though the LL and the video journals. I remember well Michael's glowing review of the Canon D30 with all of 3+ MP, and I took some great shots with my old Fuji S1 Pro. Did not Michael jack in his MF kit on the basis the original 1Ds was good enough? We - Michael, you, me, all of us - become seduced by more and more of everything, maybe we should just step back, screw on a 50mm prime lens and say "the heck with these debates about pixels, lets go shoot something" for which purpose a 5D, E-3, 1Ds III, D3 etc would all do a fine job.
Quentin
-
Might seem ridiculous but go back though the LL and the video journals. I remember well Michael's glowing review of the Canon D30 with all of 3+ MP, and I took some great shots with my old Fuji S1 Pro. Did not Michael jack in his MF kit on the basis the original 1Ds was good enough? We - Michael, you, me, all of us - become seduced by more and more of everything, maybe we should just step back, screw on a 50mm prime lens and say "the heck with these debates about pixels, lets go shoot something" for which purpose a 5D, E-3, 1Ds III, D3 etc would all do a fine job.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
I sympathise to some extent with that sentiment which is why I didn't jump in and buy a 40D upgrade to my 20D. What I've got seems to suit my purposes. For the past couple of weeks I've been shooting with my 20D because my 5D was in for repair. It didn't upset me too much . However, I rarely use my Sony T30 P&S because the quality gap between it and my DSLRs is just too great. There just isn't the incentive. The novelty seems to have worn off. I never owned a D30. However, if I had one and had to use it because my 5D was broken, I don't think I'd be too happy.
The other issue is the investment in lenses which ends up usually being far greater than the cost of the occasional camera body. I think the amateur with limited funds must be wary of this. It's easy to feel locked into a system. In your case, I get the impression the E-3 is just another camera, like a glorified P&S which produces surprisingly good results, one of many cameras that you have accumulated over the years.
-
Landscapes tend to favour the wider aspect ratio of 35mm but portraits tend to favour the 4/3rds aspect ratio of the E-3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a frequently stated truism, but at times I am skeptical: perhaps some landscapes, like panoramic ones of scenes with relatively low horizons, favor shapes 3:2 and even wider, but is 3:2 really so clearly preferred over 4:3 or 5:4 for landscapes over all? To raise a hoary example, Ansel Adams was certainly willing and able to crop substantially, but few of his landscape images are of shapes wider than about 7:5 as far as I can see.
My counting of paintings over a wide range or eras from medieval to 20th century also shows that even amongst "horizontals", consistently the most common shapes are in the range 4:3 to 7:5, with 5:4 and 3:2 also quite common but somewhat less so. (Paintings are a possibly interesting measure of artistic preferences because canvases are readily available or makable in a very wide array of shapes, and a painter can easily change formats from one painting to the next according to artistic choices, though 4:3 and 5:4 shapes seem to dominate the pre-stretched canvas market, with 3:2 the next most common option.)
Anyway, we are talking about rather small percentage crops of about 11% of image area discarded to convert between 4:3 and 3:2 in either direction, which is probably or little relevance to image quality.
-
Yesterday. I just finished shooting two magazine features very muck like the features I shot with the E-3 which was subject of my post a little while back. Same location, same lighting, same circumstances. This time I shot with a Mamiya ZD and my 5D as a back up.
I won't go into details at the moment on the ZD other than to say the photos are superb. But for now just considering the 5D as compared to the Olympus E-3, I can say the Olympus produced much better photos, period. Better color, contrast, detail, auto white balance and sharpness. The Olympus made my work easy to deliver and saved me a lot of time.
I am now looking at an assignment in a few weeks where I might need 600mm. With the 5D I will need a 400 2.8 and an extender. That is a huge load and I will be in tight quarters and traveling. With the Olympus I just need their relatively small 300 f/2 Zuiko and I am done.
-
But for now just considering the 5D as compared to the Olympus E-3, I can say the Olympus produced much better photos, period. Better color, contrast, detail, auto white balance and sharpness. The Olympus made my work easy to deliver and saved me a lot of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pity you can't show us some comparisons so we can get a handle on the magnitude of the differences. Since you referred to an easy work flow that saved you a lot of time, I get the impression you were shootting jpegs. If this is so, it would be helpful if you would mention this fact.
There's a lot to be said for good results straight out of the box. However, if it's jpegs that you are comparing, there are a lot of adjustments for the Picture Styles of the 5D; contrast, saturation, sharpness etc as well as temperature adjustments.
You'd have to admit it would be misleading to create the impression that one camera could deliver sharper results than another if the reason is due to the in-camera default sharpening setting.
-
Anyway, we are talking about rather small percentage crops of about 11% of image area discarded to convert between 4:3 and 3:2 in either direction, which is probably or little relevance to image quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All else being equal, I'd agree. But we have to cosider the additive and subtractive effect of small increments.
If the E-3 is almost as good as the 5D in terms of large prints, so close that it doesn't matter, cropping the 10mp image and reducing it to less than 9mp in order to get a 3:2 aspect ratio, might well be sufficient to cause the difference to matter.
A similar situation applies to the 20D, 40D and 5D line up. There are tests from Bob Atkins that reveal the image quality (noise, resolution and tonality) of the 40D is hardly better than the 20D. To demonstrate such differences requires 400% enlargements on screen. There are also reports that the 40D image quality is very close to that of the 5D. However, add together these two incremental differences and you get something noticeable, something that perhaps matters; the difference between the 20D and 5D.
-
That is incorrect Ray, sorry if I wasn't clear.
I only shoot RAW with all settings at neutral.
=============================
From Ray....
"Pity you can't show us some comparisons so we can get a handle on the magnitude of the differences. Since you referred to an easy work flow that saved you a lot of time, I get the impression you were shootting jpegs. If this is so, it would be helpful if you would mention this fact.
There's a lot to be said for good results straight out of the box. However, if it's jpegs that you are comparing, there are a lot of adjustments for the Picture Styles of the 5D; contrast, saturation, sharpness etc as well as temperature adjustments.
You'd have to admit it would be misleading to create the impression that one camera could deliver sharper results than another if the reason is due to the in-camera default sharpening setting."
-
I'm not calling bull on the e-3 vs 5d but I am always skeptical. You have nothing to prove to me or anyone else but I would love to see some raw files posted here. I am glad to hear about the ZD being so good. It is a pity that I have other things going on in my life that keep me from pushing the button on the ZD as soon as I see it in stock at BH. Once I get to talking myself into it anyway its always gone. Its probably better that it is this way for the time being. Until then I would love to be entertained with some raw files from the e-3 and 5d. :-)
-
That is incorrect Ray, sorry if I wasn't clear.
I only shoot RAW with all settings at neutral.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seeing is believeing! You should try to send us the RAWs with YouSendit perhaps.
There also a significant issue with DoF if you are comparing an E-3 with a 5D. There a 2-stop difference. If you've been using the same aperture with both cameras, it's quite likely that parts of the 5D image will be blurred.
Any shots you use for comparison should take this into account, so we're looking at combinations such as F2/F4; F4/F8; F5.6/F11 etc. It's in this respect there could be an advantage for the E-3, depending on lighting and choice of aperture and shutter speed. I've always maintained that even a Canon G9, in certain lighting conditions without flash and at a needed combination of shutter speed and aperture (shutter speed to freeze subject/camera movement and aperture for DoF), might beat the quality of a 5D image. For example, how would the G9 at f2.8 and ISO 100 (or ISO 80) compare with the 5D at f13 and ISO 1600 (or maybe ISO 3200)?
Likewise, how would the E-3 compare at f8 and ISO 400 with the 5D at f16 and ISO 1600? In both situations you'd get the same shutter speed and same DoF, but I suspect the E-3 image would be better.
In both situations you'd have the same shutter speed and DoF.
-
Just to repeat what I have said earlier. I am a working photographer and a busy one at that. What I have given you is my first hand impression of actually using these systems. The results have convinced me and I have just given you my opinion. I am not selling anything, you can do what you want.
I am just not going to be shooting these cameras side by side at certain apertures with specific lenses to convince you guys. I am also not one of those guys that runs into camera stores and wants to shoot a series of lenses at newspapers across the room. I am also not going to be posting photos from shoots just for forum argument fodder. And I am certainly not going to be sending out actual images from client shoots in full resolution.
My use of the E-3 shows me that it is superior to the 5D in image quality and usability, especially for me. Now if you are interested in actually buying something my suggestion is that you really look at it and if you are so inclined, do your own comparisons.
So make of it what you will folks, I was only trying to be of help. But again I see why my time is best spent elsewhere. Very tiresome guys.
-
My use of the E-3 shows me that it is superior to the 5D in image quality and usability, especially for me. Now if you are interested in actually buying something my suggestion is that you really look at it and if you are so inclined, do your own comparisons.
So make of it what you will folks, I was only trying to be of help. But again I see why my time is best spent elsewhere. Very tiresome guys.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We're all busy, Secondfocus. Despite not owning a D3 and despite the fact that they're as scarce as hen's teeth here in Bangkok, I did take the trouble to visit the main Nikon agent and do some comparisons with my 5D.
The fact is, I can't check every statement about camera quality I read on the internet. For someone who actually owns both cameras, it's much easier.
If you are not able to do this, it's a pity. If your statements were true at a fundamental level, that is, not just a quirk of the DoF differences and the way you are using the camera with regard to certain types of shooting conditions, then such news "The E-3 produces much better photos that the 5D period" would generate a great deal of interest. It would be headline news and we'd have hundreds of comparisons available on the internet.
When there's a lack of comparisons available, it's a fair indication that differences are not nearly as great as some folks like to make out.
-
Like I said I am done with this. If you want to see photos you will have to wait as they are published and then I usually put the photos and article on my blog and on my website.
I stand by what I said, in my opinion the E-3 puts out a better image than the 5D as I went over in my much earlier post. If you don't want my opinion, that's fine. But I am not responsible for carrying on this silliness.
If I tell you that I like one restaurant more than another, I am not responsible for taking you to each. However some of you guys would then get every restaurant review from the places and still give your expert opinion. It reminds me of an old woman that I knew who knew exactly which was the best airline to fly on to certain places. But she never once had flown anywhere is her life.
Bye-Bye
-
I stand by what I said, in my opinion the E-3 puts out a better image than the 5D as I went over in my much earlier post. If you don't want my opinion, that's fine. But I am not responsible for carrying on this silliness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing. Anyone can form an opinion as to the tastiness of a meal in a restaurant or whether they like a particular painting or photo. If you happen to like the E-3 images better than the 5D images but are unable to offer any analysis or indication as to the cause of this preference, then we can only speculate as to the reasons. If you say the E-3 images are sharper and we don't know if the reason is perhaps because the Zuiko lens you use is sharper than your Canon equivalent to a greater degree than is required by the smaller sensor, or if the DoF in the E3 images is greater and parts of the 5D image at the same f stop are always OoF, or if the Olympus RAW converter does a better conversion than ACR, or if the default settings in the converter produce a more pleasing result....if we don't know these factors, then your opinion is of limited usefulness.
Nevertheless, thanks for your opinion . I should not like to discourage anyone from offering an opinion.
-
Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing. Anyone can form an opinion as to the tastiness of a meal in a restaurant or whether they like a particular painting or photo. If you happen to like the E-3 images better than the 5D images but are unable to offer any analysis or indication as to the cause of this preference, then we can only speculate as to the reasons. If you say the E-3 images are sharper and we don't know if the reason is perhaps because the Zuiko lens you use is sharper than your Canon equivalent to a greater degree than is required by the smaller sensor, or if the DoF in the E3 images is greater and parts of the 5D image at the same f stop are always OoF, or if the Olympus RAW converter does a better conversion than ACR, or if the default settings in the converter produce a more pleasing result....if we don't know these factors, then your opinion is of limited usefulness.
Nevertheless, thanks for your opinion . I should not like to discourage anyone from offering an opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, here you go again ! I know you love your 5D but..... You seem very adept at p...ing people off when they express an opinion that puts the Canon 5D second best. I know it's a great camera but there are better out there !
Pete
-
Ray, here you go again ! I know you love your 5D but..... You seem very adept at p...ing people off when they express an opinion that puts the Canon 5D second best. I know it's a great camera but there are better out there !
Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at all. I've got no great love for what is after all just a material object, a tool. I own very few DSLRs; the D60, the 20D and the 5D. Each was bought after careful consideration as to their performance. I skipped the first Canon DSLR, the D30 because I reckoned it just wasn't good enough compared with the best that 35mm film had to offer. The D60 with double the pixel count and a lower price seemed more attractive and less of a compromise on 35mm film. The 20D was a huge improvement in the noise department and the 5D a modest improvement in resolution but a substantial improvement in wide angle capability.
Having recently compared some Nikon D3 images with my 5D, I've gained new respect for the low noise capability of the 5D. There's a review on the internet which claims even the new 1Ds3 cannot beat the 5D at ISO 3200. But this is not just an opinion but the result of careful testing, and the reviewer shows the results.
It's just too easy to make a subjective opinion that camera A produces better images than camera B and not show any results. Opinions also tend to spread like rumours. A few professionals make the claim that the D3 is about 2 stops less noisy than any other camera at high ISO, and everyone starts believing it, because after all, they are professionals and must therefore know what they are talking about.
-
It's just too easy to make a subjective opinion that camera A produces better images than camera B and not show any results. Opinions also tend to spread like rumours. A few professionals make the claim that the D3 is about 2 stops less noisy than any other camera at high ISO, and everyone starts believing it, because after all, they are professionals and must therefore know what they are talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, in my opinion they do know what they're talking about when they've been doing it for a good few years and have their work on show on their website. I value their opinion, take note of their comments and try the gear for myself. Almost always they are correct in their opinions.
I ignore pixel peepers and armchair experts. There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions.
Pete
-
Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing. Anyone can form an opinion as to the tastiness of a meal in a restaurant or whether they like a particular painting or photo. If you happen to like the E-3 images better than the 5D images but are unable to offer any analysis or indication as to the cause of this preference, then we can only speculate as to the reasons. If you say the E-3 images are sharper and we don't know if the reason is perhaps because the Zuiko lens you use is sharper than your Canon equivalent to a greater degree than is required by the smaller sensor, or if the DoF in the E3 images is greater and parts of the 5D image at the same f stop are always OoF, or if the Olympus RAW converter does a better conversion than ACR, or if the default settings in the converter produce a more pleasing result....if we don't know these factors, then your opinion is of limited usefulness.
Nevertheless, thanks for your opinion . I should not like to discourage anyone from offering an opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Far be it from me to join in a playground spat, but 'prove it' (or "Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing.") would have most professional photographers laughing their socks off. Because most professional photographers know what works and what doesn't and use the camera as a tool for a job, not as some sort of competition between each other. And neither do they pixel peep very much or join in these forums.
Now I'm not going to show back to back tests either, but I was so underwhelmed by the Canon 5D that I sold it and all my Canon 'L' lenses after a brief spell playing with a consumer grade Olympus. I could see where the future lay, and so it transpired that without any pixel peeping I can say there is a quality to the E3 image that surpasses the 5D by a good margin, and the lenses are invariably sharper even at the 'consumer' end of the range. All in all the marginal benefit of better high ISO performance for the Canon doesn't outweigh the day to day superior quality of the E3 output. Bragging about high ISO performance is like putting bull bars on a truck, then never going near a cow. In other words if it isn't needed the option is irrelevant. So if you want to compare camera's I'd have thought it would be more realistic to compare their common points where they should both be comfortable. So no water dunks for the 5D, and no 6400 ISO tests for the E3..........Wouldn't that be fair?
-
Well, in my opinion they do know what they're talking about when they've been doing it for a good few years and have their work on show on their website. I value their opinion, take note of their comments and try the gear for myself. Almost always they are correct in their opinions.
Which presumably must mean, they almost always agree. Experts agree? I don't think you'll find any field where the experts always agree.
Of course you should take note of what they say, but sometimes you need more information from them in order to determine if what they are saying is relevant to your own needs and situation. The more we move away from objective testing, the more disagreement there is and the more confusion. The whole purpose of objective testing is to provide certainty so consumers do not have to go through the rigmarole of testing cameras themselves.
I ignore pixel peepers and armchair experts. There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions.
So you ignore all the reviews at Dpreview, which are very much at the pixel-peeping level, and you ignore all lens review sites which provide resolution and vignetting tests at various F stops?
I'm no armchair expert. I've taken over 20,000 photos in the past 4 months, which might be less than many a professional photography would take, but at least I don't have to impress clients with the gear I'm using or justify why I might be using a small format E-3 instead of a larger format 5D, 1Ds3 or ZD whatever. Nor am I seeking sponsorship from any camera company to advertise their products.
I think I'm probably in a position to be more impartial than most professionals.
-
Far be it from me to join in a playground spat, but 'prove it' (or "Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing.") would have most professional photographers laughing their socks off. Because most professional photographers know what works and what doesn't and use the camera as a tool for a job, not as some sort of competition between each other. And neither do they pixel peep very much or join in these forums.
Now I'm not going to show back to back tests either, but I was so underwhelmed by the Canon 5D that I sold it and all my Canon 'L' lenses after a brief spell playing with a consumer grade Olympus. I could see where the future lay, and so it transpired that without any pixel peeping I can say there is a quality to the E3 image that surpasses the 5D by a good margin, and the lenses are invariably sharper even at the 'consumer' end of the range. All in all the marginal benefit of better high ISO performance for the Canon doesn't outweigh the day to day superior quality of the E3 output. Bragging about high ISO performance is like putting bull bars on a truck, then never going near a cow. In other words if it isn't needed the option is irrelevant. So if you want to compare camera's I'd have thought it would be more realistic to compare their common points where they should both be comfortable. So no water dunks for the 5D, and no 6400 ISO tests for the E3..........Wouldn't that be fair?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm having great trouble following your reasoning. Even if you are a professional photographer, I'm not going to buy one of your pictures without seeing it first.
Likewise, if a professional photographer passes an opinion on the image quality of two competing cameras, I'm not going to necessarily 'buy' that opinion if it is unsupported by any visual evidence and particularly if such opinion is contrary to what one might expect.
In the words of one very famous professional photographer, "Seeing is believing".
-
Bragging about high ISO performance is like putting bull bars on a truck, then never going near a cow. In other words if it isn't needed the option is irrelevant. So if you want to compare camera's I'd have thought it would be more realistic to compare their common points where they should both be comfortable. So no water dunks for the 5D, and no 6400 ISO tests for the E3..........Wouldn't that be fair?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now I can follow your reasoning on this point although to some extent you seem to be arguing against yourself.
If high ISO performance is of little interest to you, then of course you would discount this attribute in choosing a camera. It really would be silly to buy a camera on the basis it had stellar high ISO performance when you knew you were not interested in shooting in low light without a flash.
On the other hand, if you are interested in the different effects you can get shooting street scenes at night without flash, for example, and/or you are a professional journalist photographer where such camera attributes would be very useful in a professional context, then you need some comparison shots is order to assess whether or not the advantages in that one respect of noise outweigh possible advantages of the other camera in other respects.
In the absence of such direct, pixel-peeping comparisons, one just can't be sure. From what I gather, the 5D has about a one stop (high ISO) noise advantage over the 40D. The 40D has about a one stop noise advantage over the E-3. So the 5D has about a 2 stop noise advantage over the E-3. That's very significant in my opinion, if it's true.
-
second focus,
Thank you for posting your thoughts and experience with the olympus E-3. I have been curious about this camera and your comments plus finally being able to handle one has helped me make an informed purchasing decision.
I hope to read more about your experience with the camera in the future, either on this website or your web blog. Don't let one person ruin your experience on this website.
Aaron
-
Thanks for all the e-mails and kind words guys!
But like I said I am done with this, at least for now. I did post my own observations from my use of the E-3 on my blog a while back. There are some photos there too. Just go to my website and click on "blog". Scroll back, there have been a few posts since then. My website is listed here on my profile, it has been there since I signed up here, as well as my e-mail address.
And if I can answer any questions just send me a note.
Thanks Again!
-
hey guys i just stumbled across this thread and wanted to put in my experience so far. i had an e1 years back and loved it. prior to that i had a canon d30. after waiting for the e1 successor i sold the e1 and went for the canon d60 then to the 5d. i liked the 5d alot, but always felt the canon images had a kind of plastic look to them which my e1 did not have. I also felt i had some suspicious focusing issues with the canons. I sometimes would find some of my images to not be as sharp as i thought they should be. almost a slight out of focus feel. anyways to wrap this up i picked up an e3 in early december and have to say it is great. i purchased the 12-60 lense with it. my prints are primarily 17x22 inchs. i cant tell the difference between the 5d prints at that size or the e3 prints up to 800 iso which i rarely shoot anyways. at that print size the 4x3 aspect ratio fills more of the 17x22 paper then the non 4x3 files. i find the e3 files need alot less post processing then the canon files. alsos at higher iso's the e3 files tend to be sharper where the 5d files tend to be slightly smeary possibly from the NR. I turn the NR off on the e3. just thought i'd chime it,
thanks
-
I'm afraid I don't really know how to respond to subjective opinions unsupported by hard evidence. But I see this happening all the time, particularly on forums such as dpreview.
It's rather ironic that dpreview is one of the few sites that provides in-depth technical reviews of equipment, yet their forums seem to be full of mindless bickering on mattters obscured by ego.
There are some who are happy to accept the opinion of any 'so-called' expert, probably because they are not confident in their ability to understand the issues.
This doesn't only apply to the choice of cameras. It's a wide-spread phenomenon that advertising companies thrive on. When Pat Cash retired from tennis, he got a bit short of cash and was persuaded to advertise underpants. The company selling the underpants obviously figured there was a large number of people out there who would be influenced by Pat Cash's choice of underwear. (If this underwear is good enough for Pat Cash, then it's good enough for me. It might even improve my tennis.)
A similar situation has now occurred in this thread. A professional photographer (SecondFocus) has claimed that the E-3 produces better images than the 5D. There's an implication that any opinion from a prefessional must be gospel and no evidence is required. Now that's completley ludicrous in my opinion.
At the same time, I recognise that there are lots of people in this world who are prepared to accept without question any opinion from an 'expert', whether such expert is a professional photographer, a doctor, a scientist or a priest. (Or a CIA agent).
However, I'm not one of them.
-
Ray, the problem is you are just as "guilty". It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions. You haven't his experience of both the 5D and E-3 but with respect it seems that brand loyalty is clouding your views, not his.
All opinions on these issues are subjective. There is little hard evidence; its all a matter of interpretation. Second Focus is indisputably right when he says "There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions." - quite possibly the most sensible remark in this entire thread.
Quentin
-
Ray, the problem is you are just as "guilty". It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions. You haven't his experience of both the 5D and E-3 but with respect it seems that brand loyalty is clouding your views, not his.
All opinions on these issues are subjective. There is little hard evidence; its all a matter of interpretation. Second Focus is indisputably right when he says "There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions." - quite possibly the most sensible remark in this entire thread.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions.
No, Quentin. It's not a matter of like with me. Some people believe what they like. Not me. I believe what the evidence suggests whether I like it or not. I'm conditioned by education and upbringing to lay emphasis on the evidence.
I have no antagonism whatsoever towards the 4/3rds system. I'm just really disappointed that I can find no thorough comparisons on the net between the E-3 and other systems, executed with sound methodology.
If an E-3 shot appears to one person as sharper than a 5D shot, I want to know if that's because the lens on the E-3 is simply better (to a degree greater than what's required for the smaller sensor), or perhaps if the lens on the 5D was just a mediocre lens, or if the E-3 shot was simply focussed better.
This issue with cameras is perhaps very trivial. But there's a wider issue I see here. There's a fundamental principle which cuts across all human activity. I'm dismayed that people accept things without question.
-
Then, Ray, the only answer is to do the tests yourself, because there will always be so many variables that "invalidate" any opinion no matter how supposedly scientific the test. However, those variables are not grounds to criticize anyone else's conclusions. Seems that SecondFocus is an accomplished and knowledgeable photographer whose views are worth giving some weight to.
Quentin
-
Seems that SecondFocus is an accomplished and knowledgeable photographer whose views are worth giving some weight to.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169709\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed! I agree! Some weight! But how much weight? That is the question.
PS. I'm currently in Udon Thani, Northern Thailand. (the poorest part of the country, but hey! I've got free internet in my $15 a day hotel room ). No opportunity to test the E-3, but I was previously in Bangkok where I could have tested it, I guess, but chose instead to test the D3.
I'm very willing to test cameras if the opportunity arises. But I think it's a great pity if people who don't have the opportunity to test cameras have to rely upon people who do have the opportunity, because they own the cameras in question, but who refuse to provide the test results for whatever reason.
-
I'd take an 8x10....
Actually there is a rumor going around that Oly are working on a medium format back using stitched 4/3 sensors. Might be real, might be nonsense, but it is sort of logical.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Came accross this again while searching the posts for something else and just had a vivid mental image of Oly releasing a MFDB with a lone 4/3 chip in the middle of it. Just struck me as funny for some reason. (Normally my vivid mental images are of broads.)
Anywho, back to my search.
-
Then, Ray, the only answer is to do the tests yourself, because there will always be so many variables that "invalidate" any opinion no matter how supposedly scientific the test. However, those variables are not grounds to criticize anyone else's conclusions. Seems that SecondFocus is an accomplished and knowledgeable photographer whose views are worth giving some weight to.
Quentin
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=169709\")
Is Ray looking for anything other than the test you did here ..
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21528&view=findpost&p=161023]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=161023[/url]
only with the 5D?
How long did that take you? (To do the shots.)
-
Is Ray looking for anything other than the test you did here ..
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=161023 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21528&view=findpost&p=161023)
only with the 5D?
How long did that take you? (To do the shots.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A full camera test would have to include all the issues that you think are important with regard to your type of shooting and what you imagine are others' types of shooting..
The professional who has to earn a living from, say, weddings can be quite specific. He doesn't shoot at ISO 3200 without flash, but he might shoot at ISO 400 and doesn't want to see noise in black suits.
I'm generally not impressed with claims of good results out of the box because once you've become familiar with your equipment you can adjust hue, tonality, pop, sharpness, vibrancy, saturation etc to taste in your RAW converter of choice.
In my view, if you are testing two different formats like the E-3 and 5D, you should test them with equivlent lenses at equivalent apertures. For example, the 12-60 Zuiko lens at F4 compared with the Canon 24-105 IS at f8.
In some circumstances and lighting coinditions you might also be comparing the E-3 at ISO 200 with the 5D at ISO 800 when a fast shutter speed is crucial.
There is no such thing as 'one camera is better than the other'. That's just too simplistic. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. But in order to determine what these are, we need to do proper testing and direct comparisons.
As I've mentioned before, I'm sure you could find certain circumstances where the G9 trumps the 5D. I've thrown out the challenge to owners of both the G9 and 5D to demonstrate this, but I guess they are too shy.
-
Ray, the problem is you are just as "guilty". It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions. You haven't his experience of both the 5D and E-3 but with respect it seems that brand loyalty is clouding your views, not his.
All opinions on these issues are subjective. There is little hard evidence; its all a matter of interpretation. Second Focus is indisputably right when he says "There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions." - quite possibly the most sensible remark in this entire thread.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
Those were my words about trying the gear out under professional conditions.
That's the only way in my opinion. Listen to the experts then try the gear for yourself. If Ray wants to question everyone on this forum then I suppose that's his choice. The ONLY way is to get the gear and use it for weeks, days, months under all conditions. Testing is not shooting a couple of frames in a dingy camera store!
Ray, if you want to test, then get the gear and test it properly. Please don't keep rubbishing everybody else's opinions and thoughts if they don't correspond with your own. Do a proper test and then post it here for all to see.
My two cents.
Pete
-
I'm afraid I don't really know how to respond to subjective opinions unsupported by hard evidence. But I see this happening all the time, particularly on forums such as dpreview.
It's rather ironic that dpreview is one of the few sites that provides in-depth technical reviews of equipment, yet their forums seem to be full of mindless bickering on mattters obscured by ego.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been reading this thread with interest because I've been trying to decide between the 40d/17-55 or the E-3/12-60. I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions/concerns:
First, when it comes to image quality IMHO it is very subjective. You can measure certain factors such as resolution, dynamic range, colour accuracy and what have you but as to the visual effect of the final image that is a subjective quality. I'm not sure secondfocus said (or implied) that the E-3 (for example) has higher resolution. His comment was with regards to image quality which is a different quantity.
--
I've looked at a lot of images (some raws; some 1:1 jpeg and some screen size). All of the images I've viewed are subject to my eyes and the non-calibration impact of the monitor I used. I generally find the E-1 images stand out the most (not sure why). I'm a bit undecided between the E-3 and 40d (the two cameras I've focused as they relate to my purchase decision).
--
At 1:1 I *think* the E-3 tends to smear more. I'm not sure if it actually has less resolving power and I'm not sure if this is related to (perhaps) a strong AA filter or something to do with how the pixel are layed out on the sensor. None the less when it comes to pixel peeping the pixels (and images form by the pixel) *look* crisper with the 40d (this is not the same as has more details or higher resolution but they give that visual effect because of the crisper formation). With the E-3 details and the pixels seem to smear. This could be a by product of the sample images I've had available (some from imaging resource which has raws of similar images) and some from raw.fotosite.pl which has a lot of raw images with the E-3. This smearing could be due to poor focus, lens or motion but it might be inherent to the E-3. This smearing might make a 8x10 or 11x14 image look more pleasing or less pleasing (I'm not assigning a value to it) and I suspect it reduces total resolving power. It might also make tonal gradation smoother (or it might not). I suspect the E-3 is a better street/city camera and the 40D is a better nature camera (esp if raw details is your objective) but it is hard to tell.
Browsing dpreview forum (most of these images are web size and not pixel peeping) I think the E-3 images are a little more pleasing than the 40D; I think the 50-200 has crappy bokeh and I'm always most impressed by the E-1 images (but obviously these images have less details if enlarged). Unfortunately, a lot of the photographers (not all) take really crappy pictures or have poor PP skills (and the E-3 out of camera jpeg are very good).
--
I've not mentioned the 5D (rays point of argument) in these observation because while I've looked at 10's (if not 100's) of raws from the E-3/40d I've only looked at 2 or 3 images from the 5d (side note I'm not considering the 5d because I can't think of a decent full frame lens with auto focus to use on it).
--
Now to my concerns and hopefully one that someone knowledgeable can answer:
a) Does the E-3 have a focusing issue or are there simply a large (initial) number of faulty cameras. If it does have a focusing issue is it a design problem or one that can be corrected in firmware (I do not expect anyone to know the second one but perhaps they do ). This issue is a huge concern to me (as a potential buyer). There are more than a few people who have noted various focusing issues (and worse) much inconsistencies (even amongst multiple identical images of a stationary subject).
Does the E-3 have a very strong AA filter and does it significantly reduce resolution ? Not sure this is a huge negative but still of interest.
c) Has anyone directly compared the 40d/17-55 to the E-3/12-60 and if so any comments on IQ ?
--
Thanks for any answers that might be made
-
I've been reading this thread with interest because I've been trying to decide between the 40d/17-55 or the E-3/12-60. I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions/concerns:
At the most basic level I wanted the 12-60 just for the range. Not so much the 120 equiv but the 24mm equiv.
Would be really great if canon would put out a 15-whatever lens. Give us a 24-70 or 24-105 equivalent in the cropped world. 28 just isn't wide enough for a standard lens.
YMMV
*** CHOMP ***
Now to my concerns and hopefully one that someone knowledgeable can answer:
a) Does the E-3 have a focusing issue or are there simply a large (initial) number of faulty cameras. If it does have a focusing issue is it a design problem or one that can be corrected in firmware (I do not expect anyone to know the second one but perhaps they do ). This issue is a huge concern to me (as a potential buyer). There are more than a few people who have noted various focusing issues (and worse) much inconsistencies (even amongst multiple identical images of a stationary subject).
I've seen some of the threads on that. One of the interesting things is that the people who seem to know what they are doing have not had a focusing issue.
This usually matches what I've seen. People that don't understand how the AF works or who are less detail oriented when looking through the viewfinder tend to have more out of focus shots.
The other thing that happens is that the AF points tend to spill over the markers. So people can be quite surprised at what it will focus on.
The net of this is that I don't know if there is an issue. If I wasn't going to get a camera today I'd watch the Oly forums. (If Louis Dobson notices an issue it probably exists.) But due to Matty's law (People are stupid.) you can often dismiss generic claims.
Does the E-3 have a very strong AA filter and does it significantly reduce resolution ? Not sure this is a huge negative but still of interest.
Sure looks like they need a ton of sharpening. Detail might be there but all the samples I've seen are really soft until you smack em hard with the USM stick.
c) Has anyone directly compared the 40d/17-55 to the E-3/12-60 and if so any comments on IQ ?
Not an answer but Pop Photo (popphoto.com) has reviewed both lenses. Their SQF results allow you to compare lenses across brands. Over at photozone.de Klaus only has the 17-55 test now. He is going to restart 4/3 lens testing shortly but has no tests up now. Even if he did he claims results cannot be compared across cameras.
-
I´ve never looked at the Oly in the flesh, but have a question: could there be something flawed with the anti-dust thing that, as I understand it, sits in front of the sensor and vibrates like a wet dog in order to cast off dust? I mean, does this thing sit there all the time, adding another layer between lens and sensor? I can´t quite see how that, if the case, can help definition.
Perhaps it moves out of the way like a second mirror, I have no idea, Perhaps if my theory, part-formed as it is, is accurate it might explain why there is no anti-dust device in the D3 but there is in the D300; not good enough for pro usage?
Perhaps that idea is totally flawed - I can´t say, I´m just wondering out loud.
Rob C
-
I´ve never looked at the Oly in the flesh, but have a question: could there be something flawed with the anti-dust thing that, as I understand it, sits in front of the sensor and vibrates like a wet dog in order to cast off dust? I mean, does this thing sit there all the time, adding another layer between lens and sensor? I can´t quite see how that, if the case, can help definition.
Perhaps it moves out of the way like a second mirror, I have no idea, Perhaps if my theory, part-formed as it is, is accurate it might explain why there is no anti-dust device in the D3 but there is in the D300; not good enough for pro usage?
Perhaps that idea is totally flawed - I can´t say, I´m just wondering out loud.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the idea is totally flawed I'd like a few more flaws in the design: I have been using a humble E-500 for two years now, changing lenses whatever the surrounding conditions, often on windy beaches, without any precautions, and I still have not had to remove a single speck of dust off its sensor.
-
Is Ray looking for anything other than the test you did here ..
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=161023 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21528&view=findpost&p=161023)
only with the 5D?
How long did that take you? (To do the shots.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I took and processed the shots in an hour or two - pretty simple. But I rarely engage in such tests except for the fun of it. Hopefully I have enough experience to know if a camera / lens is performing the way I want it to and I think trying to be scientific about comparisons is really a waste of time and effort.
Quentin
-
... the anti-dust thing that, as I understand it, sits in front of the sensor and vibrates like a wet dog in order to cast off dust? I mean, does this thing sit there all the time, adding another layer between lens and sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I know, nothing is added in front of the sensor for the sake of the anti-dust system: the system just shakes the stuff that would be there anyway, and gathers dust with a sticky strip below the sensor.
Edit: I take it back (I was confusing the various different "dust-buster" options now in use). Olympus does have a glass screen in front of the sensor that is the dust shield and get shaken. Then again every DSLR has a piece of glass in from of the sensor, in the form of the infra-red filter, so it is not clear how much effect one piece of flat optical glass has.
-
I took and processed the shots in an hour or two - pretty simple. But I rarely engage in such tests except for the fun of it. Hopefully I have enough experience to know if a camera / lens is performing the way I want it to and I think trying to be scientific about comparisons is really a waste of time and effort.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
I have to disagree. In order to learn what the strengths and weaknesses of different types and models of cameras are, you have to be scientific about it (even if you think you are not being scientific). I'm using the word scientific here in a very broad sense (one might even say a loose sense, as opposed to lose sense) which includes all technical and practical comparisons and observations.
For example, if your main requirement is that the camera be light because you are going mountaineering and you decide to pop into a store before your trip with the intention of buying a lightweight camera, the unscientific approach would be, "Gee! That camera up there on the second shelf looks really light. I'll take that."
A more scientific approach, and therefore a much more reliable method, would be to peruse the specification sheets of various models of cameras that you think would be suitable. You might find the lightest camera available has too few pixels or lacks a good zoom range, and take the next lightest instead.
Another scientific approach would be to compare the weight of different cameras in the hand, using your two hands as a scale. Not as accurate as actually having a balance scale, but perhaps sufficiently accurate for the purpose.
Of course, you could always just ask the salesman in the shop, another unscientific method. You might be lucky. He might know the exact camera that suits your purposes.
I find it difficult to understand how anyone can make a meaningful assessment of the qualities of a camera without this sort of scientific comparison. Lens A is sharp in relation to lens B which is not sharp. But if lens C is sharper than lens A, then the owner of lens C is quite likely to view lens A as not being sharp.
Without a scientific approach, we then get pointless arguments about whether lens A is really a sharp lens. One person claims it is because he's never seen lens C, but the owner of lens C, who also owns lens A, know that lens A just doesn't pass muster.
-
another advantage the E3 system seems to have is sharpness at the corners. my 5d would be less sharp at the edges with all but the best glass. with the e3 and zuiko lenses the sharpness seems uniform from center to edge. this is of course due to the fact the the sensor is half the size. also i have noticed that the wide angle lenses from olympus seem to be better then the wide angle lenses i had with the 5d. again this is from my experience.
-
That's the only way in my opinion. Listen to the experts then try the gear for yourself.
That's exactly what I do. What gave you the impression that I don't listen to the experts?
If Ray wants to question everyone on this forum...
Ray doesn't want to question everyone on this forum. Questions only arise when credulity is stretched, when something doesn't seem quite right, when one gets a feeling that there might be an another cause why something appears to be the way it looks.
The ONLY way is to get the gear and use it for weeks, days, months under all conditions. Testing is not shooting a couple of frames in a dingy camera store!
That might not be enough if you don't know what you are doing. But you are right that taking a couple of shots in a dingy camera store would not necessarily be sufficient to assess the full potential of a camera. Has anyone you know produced a review based on two such shots?
However, if you were assessing and comparing just the noise performance of 2 cameras at high ISO, would you say that a couple of hundred shots of a dingy corner at various F stops, apertures and high ISO settings would be sufficient in order to assess that one characteristic, or do you think I've not been sufficiently thorough in my comparison of this aspect of the 5D and D3?
I did actually try to rent out the D3 for a day in Bangkok but none was available for hire or loan.
-
another advantage the E3 system seems to have is sharpness at the corners. my 5d would be less sharp at the edges with all but the best glass. with the e3 and zuiko lenses the sharpness seems uniform from center to edge. this is of course due to the fact the the sensor is half the size. also i have noticed that the wide angle lenses from olympus seem to be better then the wide angle lenses i had with the 5d. again this is from my experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once again, you have to provide more information here. All lenses, almost without exception, suffer from some degree of vignetting and resolution fall-off in the extreme corners and edges. The advantage of the Canon cropped formats is this fall-off is much less when using lenses designed for the bigger format, ie 35mm lenses, but is still a problem when using EF-S lenses.
The E-3 and FF 35mm are both similar in the sense that they use lenses specifically designed for the format.
However, it might well be the case that some Zuiko lenses suffer less from this problem. It might even be the case that all Zuiko lenses suffer less from this problem compared with their 35mm equivalents. I would like to see some comparisons.
If you do show some comparisons, you should use the apertures which you would normally use with each camera. For example, when you want a fairly shallow DoF for portraiture, you would probably use f2 with the E-3. Whereas, with the 5D you would use F4 for the same artistic effect. On the other hand, for a landscape you might choose f5.6 with a Zuiko lens, which is probably the aperture at which the lens is sharpest and which would give you a DoF equivalent to the 5D at F11.
Now without seeing the test results I'm going to predict what the results might be, if you were to shoot the above examples.
The portrait shot at f2 would probably not be as sharp as the 5D shot at f4 because lenses usually aren't their sharpest at full aperture. Likewise, vignetting is generally worse at full aperture. If the 5D lens has been stopped down to reach F4 and it's a good lens, it will likely have less vignetting and will be considerably sharper in the corners. On the other hand, when shallow DoF is sought, usually the corners don't matter. But the 5D image should have slightly more... je ne sais quoi.... 3D effect .
Comparing the landscape shots, the 35mm lens is beginning to be limited by diffraction at F11, but at F11 vignetting should not be noticeable unless it's a very wide angle lens. One might expect the E-3 shot to have an appearance of slightly greater accutance despite having slightly fewer pixels. Whether or not the 5D shot could be sharpened appropriately to get the same effect would be interesting to find out.
-
i really don't have that much time to do any testing, but this is from my experience with both cameras. i have had the 5d since it came out and the e3 for almost 2 months. one thing the zuikos and extremely sharp wide open and are great at 5.6. i am very familiar with diffraction limits and lens performance. i have a nice selection of canon glass and am preparing to purchase some more olympus glass.
cheers
-
Ray,
there is a difference between being unscientific and being a fool Looking at a camera and saying "gee that looks light" and basing a decision to buy on that is being a fool. Holding the camera yourself and judging whether its too heavy is completely unscientific - you don't know its actual weight - but useful, because you know from your own experience that the camera is the right weight - in fact it is a lot more useful than checking the published weight data.
And this is precisely my point (thanks for making it for me so well...). The unscientific, personal experience is simply way ahead in the usefulness stakes compared with some possibly flawed and meaningless "scientific" test.
Now, take the E-3. I own one. There are no tests anyone can do that will "prove" my likes and dislikes are "wrong". Of course I'm interested in a general sense in published reports, but when it comes to the crunch, you just have to get your hands on the damned thing and work it out for yourself.
Quentin
-
Of course I'm interested in a general sense in published reports, but when it comes to the crunch, you just have to get your hands on the damned thing and work it out for yourself.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Get your hands on a hundred different models of cameras and work it out for yourself? C'mon now, Quentin. Be reasonable. I haven't got the time to do that.
I rely upon thorough reviews by groups like dpreview to do most of the work. If the reviews are sufficiently comprehensive and in-depth, I could probably confidently buy a camera through the internet without ever having laid hands on one.
In fact, I've never gone out to buy a particular camera that I'm interested in and then, when fondling it in the shop, decided, 'No, this is not the camera for me".
Nor have I ever, after buying a camera and taken a few shots over a few days decided, 'No, this is not the camera for me. It doesn't do what I want it to. It's not the right tool for the job."
If you do your research properly and read all the reliable reviews, you should know what the camera can do before you've even set eyes upon it.
Some reviewers are more technical, like dpreview, and some reviewers like Michael are more 'in the field'. Both approaches taken together should be sufficient for anyone to make an informed decision.
-
Ray,
Actually as I'm sure you'd agree, the camera is just one consideration. I don't start by looking at all systems equally, because I have already bought in to certain systems. Only if the new system offers something significantly different and useful do I consider switching or adding. I have Nikon, Olympus and Mamiya lenses. Leaf might be great, but I'll stick with Mamiya MF and my ZD partly in view of the new Phase One link up but also because I have a set of Mamiya MF lenses. I bought an E-3 almost on a whim because I was intrigued by the system and what it might offer - an unusual step for me. I read some E-3 reviews, but my own experience makes up 90% of my understanding of it, as with the rest of my kit. I really don't trust most reviews, they seem to be a rehash of the PR in some cases. Michael's are much better than most because he approaches equipment in a similar way to me, as a user not a lab technician.
Quentin
-
I just returned home from the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) Strictly Business 2, three day conference http://www.asmp.org/sb2/ (http://www.asmp.org/sb2/) which was excellent by the way.
I had met a very respected photographer from a well known community college who had also tried out the Olympus E-3 and 12-60 lens and subsequently purchased it. He sat down and showed us his photos from his recent trip across Spain with it and I can only say they were wonderful, if not breathtaking. I was especially impressed with the way the camera handled shadows in alley ways and in architectural details. And he is very pleased with the system.
Sorry I am not going to ask him to post here or to go back and do a comparative tests with a 5D. It seems to me that actually shooting beautiful photographs is a better test and I was impressed.
Quentin, I saw your remark about the ZD. I have been doing some shooting with the new 645ZD and found it superb. I even managed a magazine cover with it. I'll get to doing a story of my experience with it on blog this week.
-
I had met a very respected photographer from a well known community college who had also tried out the Olympus E-3 and 12-60 lens and subsequently purchased it. He sat down and showed us his photos from his recent trip across Spain with it and I can only say they were wonderful, if not breathtaking. I was especially impressed with the way the camera handled shadows in alley ways and in architectural details. And he is very pleased with the system.
The stories of pattern noise is shadows are just stories?
-
The stories of pattern noise is shadows are just stories?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't seen those reports but I really don't go looking for them. I can only tell you about my experience with it and what I just saw.
-
I had met a very respected photographer from a well known community college who had also tried out the Olympus E-3 and 12-60 lens and subsequently purchased it. He sat down and showed us his photos from his recent trip across Spain with it and I can only say they were wonderful, if not breathtaking. I was especially impressed with the way the camera handled shadows in alley ways and in architectural details. And he is very pleased with the system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick Devlin, in a review on this site, has also produced some remarkable shots with his G9 recently in Japan. Obviously there are many competent photographers who have produced stunning results with all sorts of equipment.
Most photography enthusiasts already have equipment. Decisions to upgrade, or buy into another system, can be based on anything you like. Quentin apparently bought his E-3 on a whim. I imagine others would buy an E-3 because it's simply an excellent all-round camera which is very portable. Some might be duped by the fact that all Zuiko lenses really are very sharp, not realising that they have to be at least twice as sharp as the equivalent 35mm lens in order to produce the same results as FF 35mm with the same number of pixels. Others want to know just precisely what advantages relating to image quality an E-3 might have compared with their existing equipment. I'm one of those.
I'm intrigued by the 2 stop DoF advantage of the E-3 system. I think it's possible that a good Zuiko lens could deliver sharper results at f5.6, with the 10MP sensor of the E-3, than a 35mm lens at F11 on the 5D, even if the reason is only due to the opportunity to use a faster shutter speed because of the wider aperture.
However, I'm doubtful that f11 on a good 35mm lens would be less diffraction limited than a good Zuiko lens at f5.6. Or to put it another way, I'm doubtful that a Zuiko lens would have less significant aberrations at f5.6 than a 35mm lens at f11. Likewise comparing Zuiko f4 with 35mm f8 and Zuiko f2 with 35mm f4.
-
Quentin, I saw your remark about the ZD. I have been doing some shooting with the new 645ZD and found it superb. I even managed a magazine cover with it. I'll get to doing a story of my experience with it on blog this week.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great, I'll check it out when it's up
Quentin
-
I haven't seen those reports but I really don't go looking for them. I can only tell you about my experience with it and what I just saw.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen those reports and for the most part it is related to the auto-gradation feature. If the dynamic range is too large then noise will occur in the shadows. This is also true of the sony a700. if you read the dpreview on the sony A700 they give a very detail explanation as to why this happens and it makes perfect sense that this would happen with the e-3. The solution is simple:
a) Do not expect miracles
If the dynamic range is very very large do not use auto (also do not use auto at night)