Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Olympus E-3  (Read 132332 times)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Olympus E-3
« Reply #40 on: December 17, 2007, 02:44:54 pm »

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 02:45:47 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

phoTOMgraphy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
    • thomas|ebruster|photography
Olympus E-3
« Reply #41 on: December 17, 2007, 04:30:15 pm »

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
Logged
thomasebruster.com
Arca Rm3di | SK43 | RS28 | CFV-50[

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Olympus E-3
« Reply #42 on: December 17, 2007, 06:40:20 pm »

Quote
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
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Olympus E-3
« Reply #43 on: December 17, 2007, 07:52:43 pm »

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
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

phoTOMgraphy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
    • thomas|ebruster|photography
Olympus E-3
« Reply #44 on: December 18, 2007, 04:43:52 am »

Quote
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
Logged
thomasebruster.com
Arca Rm3di | SK43 | RS28 | CFV-50[

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2007, 04:52:59 am »

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.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Olympus E-3
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2007, 05:53:23 am »

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 ?
 

Quote
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]
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2007, 06:36:39 am »

Quote
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   ) ?
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Olympus E-3
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2007, 07:06:24 am »

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


Quote
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]
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 07:15:56 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Olympus E-3
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2007, 12:34:06 pm »

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
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 12:35:55 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2007, 01:27:22 pm »

Quote
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!
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2007, 01:41:52 pm »

Quote
.. 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.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Olympus E-3
« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2007, 04:21:59 pm »

Quote
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
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 04:23:21 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Olympus E-3
« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2007, 08:06:43 pm »

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)
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #54 on: December 18, 2007, 10:14:57 pm »

Quote
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.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Olympus E-3
« Reply #55 on: December 18, 2007, 10:42:38 pm »

Quote
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.
Logged

SecondFocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • SecondFocus
Olympus E-3
« Reply #56 on: December 18, 2007, 10:48:34 pm »

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.

Quote
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]
Logged
Ian L. Sitren
[url=http://SecondFocus.co

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2007, 10:49:47 pm »

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.
Logged

250swb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Olympus E-3
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2007, 03:33:59 am »

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 03:36:36 am by 250swb »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Olympus E-3
« Reply #59 on: December 19, 2007, 05:04:55 am »

Quote
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   .
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up