Olympus E-3

[DarkPenguin]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[Let Biogons be Biogons]

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.

[Moynihan]

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

[DarkPenguin]

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.

[Quentin]

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

[Ray]

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?

[phoTOMgraphy]

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

[Ray]

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.

[DarkPenguin]

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.

[Ray]

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]

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

[Ray]

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.

[BJL]

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.

[SecondFocus]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[SecondFocus]

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."

[espressogeek]

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. :-)

[Ray]

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.