Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: juicy on October 16, 2007, 07:05:37 pm
-
Hi!
Seems that Olympus has finally launched a competitive pro-model with 10.1 mpix sensor.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/ (http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/)
Cheers,
J
-
Honestly, I wouldn't call that competitive. 10MP 4/3? No thanks. It should be a heckuva lot cheaper. If I was new I'd either go Nikon or Canon which seem to have better features and bigger sensors.
-
Honestly, I wouldn't call that competitive. 10MP 4/3? No thanks. It should be a heckuva lot cheaper. If I was new I'd either go Nikon or Canon which seem to have better features and bigger sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only thing is those Leica lenses...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi!
Yes, the lenses...
I would not compare the E-3 to P-45 or 1Dsmk3. But the pixel count is very similar to 1Dmk3 and many others. Talking about the image quality of this new camera is pure speculation at the moment but there are certainly many people who have been waiting for the update to E-1.
There are many nature photographers for example who gladly forgo a couple of pixels in favor of the ability to use an extremely sharp and small 150mm f2 lens (300mm f2 eqv) or 300mm f2.8 (600mm f2.8 eqv). I have no idea if the IQ of the new E-3 is anywhere comparable to the 1Dmk3 (probably not at high ISO) but there are many convenience benefits with smaller lenses when bushwhacking your way for 35 miles to a more remote location, for example. Or when travelling as a photojournalist. So I would not dismis this camera straight away especially if allready owning some fine Zuiko-glass.
Cheers,
J
-
So I would not dismis this camera straight away especially if allready owning some fine Zuiko-glass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, I am sure that it will have a good following here in Japan where people tend to be a lot less polarized along the Canon/Nikon lines and select camera according to very specific characteristics.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I picked up an E-510 two kit lens package a couple months ago. Love it. Nice controls. If only they had put the swivel monitor on it. Nice jpegs though right out of the camera. Love the ease of setting parameters and all the direct control buttons. I was seriously thinking of getting the E-3 when it came out but just could not bring myself to buy into the 4/3 system to the tune of several thou for the serious glass.
-
I am planning to exit these forums, simply because I fear wasting too much time, but I might as well go out with some comments on the E-3, as one of the few FourThirds users here.
In summary, I want it: it is a better choice for my priorities that alternatives like the Nikon D300 (though I am very impressed by its price/performance), Canon 40D, Sony A700, or even the now fire-sale priced Canon 5D.
Increasing resolution has never been a high priority for me, nor action freezing high shutter speeds in low light and the big heavy telephoto lenses that go with the bigger pixels and bigger sensors needed to achieve that. So going beyond 10MP with decent ISO 1600 and usable ISO 3200 would be of very slight value for me: those are the sort of improvements that I would be happy to take, but only if they came at little extra cost and without sacrificing other features of greater value to my photographic interests.
On the other hand, I am greatly attracted by the E-3 offerings of
- in-body stabilization that allows hand-holding in low light even with wide angles (for situations like interior shots with no flash or tripod, but without very fast subject motion to deal with)
[The A700 has this too, but not the D300, 40D or 5D, and Nikon has no stabilized standard zooms, the greatest black mark for me with the D300.]
- Live View for precise manual focusing on a tripod with zoomable live view.
[The D300 and 40D have this too, but not the A700 or 5D. Maybe available soon on a '5DMkII'.]
- 100% viewfinder coverage
[The D300 has this too, but not the 40D, A700, or 5D.]
- A bit more telephoto reach and macro working distance with any given focal length than other SLR systems from the higher absolute sensor resolution (lp/mm) given by its closer pixel spacing. This gives me a somewhat more portable "bird, bug and flower" kit.
I am also happy with the idea of greatly improved AF over the E-1, since AF speed and flexibility has till now been the biggest weakness for Olympus, probably due to its late entry to the AF SLR market. However, this is a relatively minor issue for me, as I do little action photography and the E-1's AF has caused few problems for me.
I will not even pretend to care about frame rate: my operating speed in measured in seconds per frame.
-
Hi!
Seems that Olympus has finally launched a competitive pro-model with 10.1 mpix sensor.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/ (http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/)
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While a nice alternative the E3 looks quite dated in design. I think the 4/3's system doesnt fit well in the high end DSLR market so paying more for a pro body doesnt make much sense when a E410 is excellent and its very affordable.
However, lenses like the 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2 make me consider the system...
But the Oly lens prices are ridiculous, man $5500 for a 90-250mm f2.8!! I mean, 70-200mm f2.8's with IS that cover full frame 35mm cost less than $2000! Where is the economy of the smaller format...
-
While a nice alternative the E3 looks quite dated in design. I think the 4/3's system doesnt fit well in the high end DSLR market so paying more for a pro body doesnt make much sense when a E410 is excellent and its very affordable.
However, lenses like the 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2 make me consider the system...
But the Oly lens prices are ridiculous, man $5500 for a 90-250mm f2.8!! I mean, 70-200mm f2.8's with IS that cover full frame 35mm cost less than $2000! Where is the economy of the smaller format...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
Ridiculous pricing or not, there aren't many (comparable fov) 500mm f/2.8 zooms out there and the faster 500mm (f/4) primes cost more than this Olympus zoom. If mating Canon or Nikon zoom with an extender to get the same reach, they are not f/2.8 lenses any more. Besides, the pro series Olympus lenses have been regarded optically excellent (not cheap). Thus there may not be many cost advantages in smaller formats compared to different APS or FF sensors but for some types of photography there certainly are other benefits like size and weight. And being able to have decent WA-lenses is not a bad thing either.
Anyway, at the moment I use FF Canons and have no personal agenda here. What is important in my mind is that there are different tools which suit different people and different types of photography and it's interesting to see how things develop.
Cheers,
J
-
I think the 4/3's system doesnt fit well in the high end DSLR market so paying more for a pro body doesnt make much sense when a E410 is excellent and its very affordable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree that FourThirds is not well suited to the high resolution or/or high shutter speed, low light needs of much high end DSLR work, but then again , US$1700 is far from "high end" pricing. And for me, price determines where a product will compete in the market place, not vague adjectives like "pro". (Aside: the usage of the description "pro" seems to correspond almost exactly to a couple of features: a robust environmental sealed body with 100% viewfinder coverage!)
The E-3 is a US$1700 body, so the "pro" designated body that it will compete with most closely is the $1800 Nikon D300, and the other closest competitors are the Canon 40D and Sony A700 (despite their "non-pro" 95% VF coverage!) Clearly different people will weigh differently factors like pixel count; in-body stabilization of all lenses; image noise at high ISO speeds; Live View on an articulated screen; Live View on a larger, higher resolution screen with contrast detection AF; viewfinder coverage and image size; frame rate; availability of the type of lenses that one wants most; and so on.
Most E-3 buyers will probably never buy any of the lenses you mention: instead the 12-60/2.8-4 SWD and 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD are probably going to be the core of a higher level kit, with many of us staying with the lower priced, slower focusing, but still very good 14-54/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5 non-SWD.
Finally, it is very strange to compare a longer lens with larger maximum aperture diameter for a smaller format [90-250/2.8] to a shorter one with smaller maximum aperture diameter for a larger format that is currently limited to distinctly lower sensor resolution in l/mm [70-200/2.8] . Even allowing for cropping to the same 10MP as the E-3, matching what 250mm gives with the E-3 requires a bit over 400mm with the 5D, the only 24x36mm body option at a similar price to the E-3. To put it another way, using a 70-200 on the 5D and cropping to the FOV of 250mm on the E-3 can give only about 3.4MP.
The idea that one can get similar telephoto results from a larger format by using the same focal length and cropping fails so long as the pixel density and sensor resolution in l/mm is substantially higher for the smaller sensor.
-
I am planning to exit these forums, simply because I fear wasting too much time, but I might as well go out with some comments on the E-3, as one of the few FourThirds users here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I think a farewell speech is in order here.
BJL and I go back a long time on this forum. We've mostly disagreed but sometimes not. I think we had similar views on DoF issues.
However, the major point of continuing difference of opinion was with regard to the potential of small format cameras. I've always been of the opinion that ultimately the only advantage of the small format is weight, size and cost.
In terms of image quality there's really no contest and probably never will be. One sacrifices one set of advantages for another set of advantages, depending on one's requirements. The principle of 'the best tool for the job' rules.
I get the impression that BJL has no intention of ever buying a large format printer, so the Olympus 4/3rds format suits him and is adequate for his purposes. It probably more closely resembles the 35mm film format in the old hierarchy of formats (despite a different aspect ratio), full frame 35mm digital having long since overtaken the performance of 35mm film in every department.
Since this forum is now almost dominated by MFDB users, it becomes a little anachronistic to continue championing the smaller format. The 1Ds3 is going to struggle to compete on the basis of sheer image quality with the latest MFDBs, although it might, on balance, be a better option than any current 22mp MFDB.
So 'fare thee well', BJL. Your input was much appreciated. At least you haven't requested, in a fit of pique, to be unregistered like some who will deprive everyone of doing a member name search on their contribution.
Cheers! and best wishes,
-
I don´t think favouring one format over another is any reason to call it a day: the world of photography is, ultimately, about the image on paper.
As long as we are interested in the picture, then there is absolutely no need, reason nor even excuse for feeling bad because another person disagrees about the mechanical roadway to the result.
I would ask BJL to reconsider.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Hi!
I don´t think favouring one format over another is any reason to call it a day: the world of photography is, ultimately, about the image on paper.
As long as we are interested in the picture, then there is absolutely no need, reason nor even excuse for feeling bad because another person disagrees about the mechanical roadway to the result.
Words of wisdom, Rob! Down-to-earth positive contributions make this forum such a great place.
To BJL: It would be nice to hear about real user experiences concerning E-3. Anyway, I can't think of a better reason to leave this forum than (hopefully) do more photography. Still I think that Rob said it perfectly: I would ask BJL to reconsider.
Cheers,
J
-
Hi!
Words of wisdom, Rob! Down-to-earth positive contributions make this forum such a great place.
To BJL: It would be nice to hear about real user experiences concerning E-3. Anyway, I can't think of a better reason to leave this forum than (hopefully) do more photography. Still I think that Rob said it perfectly:
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd be interested in user experiences of the E3.
Edmund
-
I admit that I am having trouble leaving, and probably will not completely. But I am determined to avoid getting into any more acrimonious debts; a bad habit of mine at times, even recently.
But Ray, I disagree that we disagree on one thing! I agree that size, weight and cost are the essential reasons for many photographers to prefer a smaller format to a larger one. For example, I desire 600mm and even 800mm "35mm equivalent FOV", and if the forthcoming Canon 800/5.6 is small, light and cheap, I will become far more interested in 24x36mm format!
I mostly dispute the _extent_ of the advantages sometimes claimed for larger formats, and the likely _extent_ of cost reductions on larger sensors, and thus differ as to how the market shares for different formats will end up.
As a compromise, if and when I get an E-3, I will report on it!
-
I admit that I am having trouble leaving, and probably will not completely.
BJL,
Sort of half pregnant then?
But Ray, I disagree that we disagree on one thing!
What! We can't even agree on which points we disagree?
I admit I'm a bit nonplussed about the small 4/3rds format. The differences in format size between it and full frame 35mm are actually greater than the differences between old 35mm film and the next step up to MF, 6x4.5cm film. The differences in aspect ratios is also analagous., 6x4.5 being 4/3rds.
The difference in format size (between 4/3rds and 35mm) also is much greater than the difference between FF 35mm DSLRs and MFDBs.
At the current stage of digital photography we have only one full frame sensor that is the same size as the film it replaced, and that's FF 35mm DSLR.
The Olympus 4/3rds is a new format with matching lenses and is therefore full frame, but I'm still waiting to see the optical advantages of this sub-35mm camera.
Its 300/2.8 lens gives an effective 35mm reach of 600mm and at f2.8 you get more DoF than the 600/4 gives you at f4, with FF 35mm. That's the one and only advantage. I can think of no more. All else is either about the same, including weight and cost, or a distinct disadvantage. That 300mm Zuiko lens is terrible heavy and even more expensive than the Canon 600/4. You probably remember I did a comparison of weight and cost some time ago. I think the Zuiko 300/2.8 was marginally lighter than the Canon 600/4 but significantly more expensive. Add the cost of a good Canon FF body and the situation changes of course. There's no getting away from the fact that a 1Ds3 + 600/4 is both heavier and more expensive than an E-3 + 300/2.8, but the image quality of the 1Ds3 + 600/4 lens is bound to be much better by a very significant margin.
This is the problem with the 4/3rds. You can find situations where body plus lens combinations are lighter and cheaper than either ff 35mm or cropped format 35mm (for same FoV), but not without sacrifice of image quality. That's why I say it's a true miniature format in the same way that 35mm film was a miniature format that could never compete quality-wise with 6x4.5, the next step up.
-
Its 300/2.8 lens gives an effective 35mm reach of 600mm and at f2.8 you get more DoF than the 600/4 gives you at f4, with FF 35mm. That's the one and only advantage. I can think of no more. All else is either about the same, including weight and cost, or a distinct disadvantage. That 300mm Zuiko lens is terrible heavy and even more expensive than the Canon 600/4. You probably remember I did a comparison of weight and cost some time ago. I think the Zuiko 300/2.8 was marginally lighter than the Canon 600/4 but significantly more expensive. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
According to the Olympus and Canon web pages:
- Olympus 300 f2.8: 3290gr - 660.000 Yen street price in Japan
- Canon 600 f4 VR: 5360 gr - 1.040.000 Yen street price in Japan
I call that huge gaps.
Regards,
Bernard
-
According to the Olympus and Canon web pages:
- Olympus 300 f2.8: 3290gr - 660.000 Yen street price in Japan
- Canon 600 f4 VR: 5360 gr - 1.040.000 Yen street price in Japan
I call that huge gaps.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
According to the Olympus and Canon web pages:
- Olympus 300 f2.8: 3290gr - 660.000 Yen street price in Japan
- Canon 600 f4 VR: 5360 gr - 1.040.000 Yen street price in Japan
I call that huge gaps.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
The comparison I made was some time ago. It looks like I got the price/weight comparison the wrong way round. Whilst the weight was substantally less, the price was substantially more. The price of the Zuiko has since come down to the point where it is only marginally more expensive than the Canon 600/4.
A search on Google came up on the first page, Amazon.com, selling the Canon 600/4 for $7,500. The best price I can find for the Zuiko 300/2.8 is $7,000. The best price I can find for the Canon 600/4 is $6,700.
The point I make is still valid. People pay huge sums of money for recognisable improvements in image quality, beyond the pixel peeping level.
Selling a camera system that has an advantage of either a few grams in weight or a few dollars in cost, but a significant disadvantage in image quality is not inspiring.
Okay! 2kg is significant. The situation is now also improved in price. But a 2Kg weight saving in relation to a $2000 dollar price increase (which is what it was) is not so inspiring, taking image quality into consideration.
The bottom line is, the E-3 plus the finest lens that Zuiko has ever made will not be a patch on the 1Ds3 +600/4, or for that matter the new 5D + 600/4, which we all expect will be announced soon.
But thanks for pointing this out, Bernard. It's good to know you are still alert .
-
The bottom line is, the E-3 plus the finest lens that Zuiko has ever made will not be a patch on the 1Ds3 +600/4, or for that matter the new 5D + 600/4, which we all expect will be announced soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It depends on the application.
There are applications for which handholding is a must, and that is basically impossible with the Canon.
There are also applications for which weight and space are critical (bird photography in remote places that can only be reached by trekking for instance), and the Olympus offers tremendous value here also.
We do now know yet how good the sensor is, but my guess is that it is pretty good.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It depends on the application.
There are applications for which handholding is a must, and that is basically impossible with the Canon.
There are also applications for which weight and space are critical (bird photography in remote places that can only be reached by trekking for instance), and the Olympus offers tremendous value here also.
We do now know yet how good the sensor is, but my guess is that it is pretty good.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed.
There are many situations where it's more important to get the shot than think about the ultimate image quality. In most situations where the images will be reproduced in newspapers or magazines, 10 mpix is enough (I'm not thinking about large prints and fine-art applications when talking about PJ-cameras like E-3, D-1/2/3 or 1D-series).
Zuiko 150mm f2 weighs 1.6 kg, that is 1 kg less than Canon 300mm f2.8. Further, when extra reach is needed, 150mm f2 + 1.4x extender gives the same speed and reach (although most probably not the same quality) as EF 400mm f 2.8 with 5D but with 1/3 lens weight - HUGE! And it still saves that 1 kg compared to 1Dmk3 + 300mm f2.8. Those are quite considerable differences when carrying all the equipment in your neck or back all day. And there are not that many 180-500mm f2.8 zooms on the market for FF-systems.
When it comes to WA, I don't think Zuiko 7-14mm zoom will be much inferior to EF 14mm prime (don't know about mk2 but the original is so bad that I would not call it 14mm, it's more like 18mm when the mush has been cropped off). There is no use in putting that lens to a 21 mp camera when the lens resolution is suitable only for 2.1 mp camera .
To be speculated ad infinitum...
Cheers,
J
-
To be speculated ad infinitum...
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Precisely! Where are the comparisons? It's all very well rationalising to oneself that my Zuiko lens is lighter than the equivalent Canon lens and that I'm so happy I don't have to exrecise my muscles carrying the extra weight. I can go even further in that direction by carrying my Sony T30 which weighs just a fraction of any Olympus 4/3rds camera. But I know there's a huge compromise in image quality.
This issue is all about balancing various trade-offs; price, weight and image quality.
If an Olympus system is what you require in terms of weight, don't kid yourself you're going to get 35mm quality. In fact, for the reduction in weight you might even have to pay a premium without getting equal quality.
-
Precisely! Where are the comparisons? It's all very well rationalising to oneself that my Zuiko lens is lighter than the equivalent Canon lens and that I'm so happy I don't have to exrecise my muscles carrying the extra weight. I can go even further in that direction by carrying my Sony T30 which weighs just a fraction of any Olympus 4/3rds camera. But I know there's a huge compromise in image quality.
This issue is all about balancing various trade-offs; price, weight and image quality.
If an Olympus system is what you require in terms of weight, don't kid yourself you're going to get 35mm quality. In fact, for the reduction in weight you might even have to pay a premium without getting equal quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
Everything is a compromise in some way and everybody needs to find their own set of parameters to solve their own equations.
It would be interesting to compare all of these systems side-by-side in real world shooting situation. Btw, I don't believe E-3 IQ is gonna be any worse than 1Dmk2 which has produced millions of accepted action photos all over the world since it's introduction. I would not compare these systems to a camera-phone although the latter is significantly lighter. Also I don't try to imply that E-3 would be the ideal system for every use®. My original thought was that finally Olympus has reached the resolution needed for good quality A-4 print and a decent A-3. Thus I don't want to pass on it without seeing for myself what it's capable of.
Cheers,
J
-
If an Olympus system is what you require in terms of weight, don't kid yourself you're going to get 35mm quality. In fact, for the reduction in weight you might even have to pay a premium without getting equal quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Considering the progress in sensor technology in 5 years, my guess is that the E3 is probably in the same ball park as the original Canon 1ds qualitywise, if not better.
The Canon 1ds was considered by most people here as the ultimate fine art camera for high resolution fine art prints. People were selling fine are prints to fine art prints buyers and were claiming that every body was happy about the quality produced. Were these claims plain lies said to please Canon or generate some hype? I don't believe so.
My view is that we have reached a level of quality where the 4/3 system is today a very interesting option.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Considering the progress in sensor technology in 5 years, my guess is that the E3 is probably in the same ball park as the original Canon 1ds qualitywise, if not better.
The Canon 1ds was considered by most people here as the ultimate fine art camera for high resolution fine art prints. People were selling fine are prints to fine art prints buyers and were claiming that every body was happy about the quality produced. Were these claims plain lies said to please Canon or generate some hype? I don't believe so.
My view is that we have reached a level of quality where the 4/3 system is today a very interesting option.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
I agree it is an interesting option, but every time I start making hypothetical comparisons between a 4/3rds body/lens combination and what Canon has to offer, I always seem to come up with a better system from the various Canon options, either better in price or better in terms of absolute image quality.
If I'm prepared to trade-off image quality for price and weight, I'll get a cheaper and lighter system from Canon. For example the EF 400/5.6 prime plus 40D. It has a slightly greater reach than an E-3 plus 300/2.8, is less than half the price and considerably lighter.
The 40D sensor is probably better with its larger pixels and 14 bit processing. On the other hand the Zuiko 300/2.8 should be a sharper lens and is certainly faster and therefore more versatile. Would absolute image quality from the Canon be much worse in ideal lighting conditions? I'd like to see a comparison?
Supposing we compare systems of roughly equal price and weight with a view to getting maximum telephoto reach. Again, Canon provides greater telephoto reach (and therefore better image quality) at a lower cost. I'm thinking here of the 40D plus EF 500/4 IS. The lens is one stop slower than the Zuiko 300/2.8, but that is easily compensated for by the superior high ISO performance of the 40D.
Amazon.com is selling the EF 500/4 IS for $5552, considerably cheaper than the $7000 of the Zuiko and is only marginally heavier (well, 1/2 a Kg).
From my perspective, an extra $1500 in my pocket plus an effective 35mm reach of 800mm as opposed to the 600mm of the Zuiko, is worth having in place of that 500gms of additional weight.
-
While a nice alternative the E3 looks quite dated in design.
Huh? Oh, please tell me how the design looks dated. This, I've got to hear.
-
Zuiko 150mm f2 weighs 1.6 kg, that is 1 kg less than Canon 300mm f2.8. Further, when extra reach is needed, 150mm f2 + 1.4x extender gives the same speed and reach (although most probably not the same quality) as EF 400mm f 2.8 with 5D but with 1/3 lens weight - HUGE! And it still saves that 1 kg compared to 1Dmk3 + 300mm f2.8. Those are quite considerable differences when carrying all the equipment in your neck or back all day. And there are not that many 180-500mm f2.8 zooms on the market for FF-systems.
When it comes to WA, I don't think Zuiko 7-14mm zoom will be much inferior to EF 14mm prime (don't know about mk2 but the original is so bad that I would not call it 14mm, it's more like 18mm when the mush has been cropped off). There is no use in putting that lens to a 21 mp camera when the lens resolution is suitable only for 2.1 mp camera .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem is, whenever you make a comparison such as that between the Zuiko 150/2 and the Canon 300/2.8 and come up with a huge weight saving, there's either a compromise in image quality (due to the fact you're comparing it with a FF 35mm body with more pixels) or there's a cheaper and lighter Canon alternative using one of their cropped format cameras such as the 400D or 40D.
For example, a 400D with Canon EF 180 f3.5 will give you pretty close to 300mm equivalent 35mm reach with a definite saving in weight and a probable saving in cost, compared with the Zuiko 150/2. A 400D with the Canon 70-400 F4 IS will give you slightly greater than 300mm reach and will also cost less and weigh less.
The Zuiko lens has the advantage of being faster. On the other hand it appears to be a fact that the Canon sensors are sharper and less noisy at high ISO. They also have better dynamic range at all ISOs.
The Zuiko 7-14mm is an interesting lens but quite heavy and rather expensive. Still, it's wider than the Canon 10-22 on a 400D and one would expect it to be sharper, at least at ISO's up to 400. On the other hand, an E-410 with 7-14 is going to be slightly heavier and definitely more expensive than a 400D with 10-22 lens.
-
One more time! I will ignore any "brand war" comparisons like Olympus vs Canon 40D in an only slightly larger format, and also skip any speculations about possible future products, and return to the question raised by the release of the E-3:
Under what circumstances is there an advantage to using one of the new smaller DSLR formats like 4/3 (or 'APS-C') instead of the substantially larger 35mm format, based on comparisons of actual bodies and lenses?
And one simple point is with telephotos: the substantially higher absolute resolution in l/mm offered by the closer pixel spacing of smaller format sensors allows one to get equally detailed images of the same subject from the same distance with distinctly smaller lenses. When extremes of high speed/low light handling are not needed (which is more often than ever when the body stabilizes every lens attached to it and ISO 1600 is quite usable in the smaller formats), this can make for a substantially smaller, lighter, and less expensive body and lens kit.
In comparison of the current 4/3 models to the 5D, the focal length ratio needed to get equal pixel counts at equal subject distance is about 1.7x, so matching the 220g 40-150/3.5-5.6 requires a zoom lens reaching abut 250mm, and matching my favorite telephoto, the 50-200/2.8-3.5 requires about a zoom reaching about 340mm. Any suitable 35mm format lens choices I know give a substantial bulkier and more expensive kit. Moreso if one compares the E-510 to the 5D: after all, the 5D lacks a few of the E-3's so called "professional" touches, like build quality, 100% VF coverage, and a higher frame rate.
The focal length ratio is about the same with E-3 vs D3, but drops to about 1.43x for E-3 vs 1DsMkIII, so about 200mm vs 300mm, or what one achieves by adding a 1.4x TC. But going beyond the 5D, the cost and weight advantages of the smaller format should be clear.
By the way, the D300 and A700 offer about a 1.5x focal length factor compared to the 5D, again offering quite substantial reduction in telephoto lens bulk, and the 40D and 400D are just slightly behind at 1.44x.
For the most part, the format size differences between 4/3 and 'APS-C' are rather small: factors of around 1.2x in focal length and 1/2 stop in ISO speed. maybe 4/3 offers a notable weight advantage with low-end combinations of the E-410 and E-510 with f/5.6 zoom lenses.
-
One more time! I will ignore any "brand war" comparisons like Olympus vs Canon 40D in an only slightly larger format, and also skip any speculations about possible future products, and return to the question raised by the release of the E-3:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is not a brand war from my perspective, BJL. I'm strictly a best-tool-for-the-job type of person. All the advantages of the smaller format are clear in principle, which you've repeated once more in the above post.
However, the range of Canon options with its two formats and huge range of lenses, makes it difficult to find any specific advantage that any particular combination of Olympus body and Zuiko lens might have which is not offset by a disadvantage in terms of one or more of the 3 significant factors of weight, cost and absolute image quality.
Since one usually has to pay a premium for miniaturisation, it might be reasonable to expect there might be some combination of Zuiko prime lens or zoom lens and Olympus body which equals in image quality in all respects the Canon nearest equivalent, but which is significantly lighter although more expensive. I'd like to see what combinations would fit the bill.
I don't think it's appropriate to compare the E-3 with the 2 year old 5D. The comparison should be with the 40D or the 5D's successor, in which case the 5D MkII will always provide superior image quality. If weight is the primary concern, one might make the comparison with the 400D.
-
I'd be interested in user experiences of the E3.
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=148074\")
Hello Edmund,
we were able to do a unique style of multi-user hands-on field review, and persuaded John Foster to host it on his independent website here :
[a href=\"http://www.biofos.com/esystem/e_3ult.html]Many Hands On The E-3[/url]
I'd appreciate your thoughts?
Kind Regards
Brian
-
Just for the record, it should be mentioned that the E-3 body is no lighter, no more compact and no cheaper than the Canon 40D.
In fact, the 40D seems to have the edge in all 3 of these factors. However, the E-3 would appear to have greater water resistance than the 40D. On the other hand the 40D does have a bigger LCD screen (3" as opposed to the E-3's 2.5").
I'd be very interested to see the quality of images at ISO 800 and above and how they compare with the same from the 40D. If Olympus can match Canon's low noise achievement at high ISO then the choice of fast Zuiko lenses could provide the customer with a tangible benefit compared to the Canon alternative.
The hands-on review referred to above appears to me to consist of very subjective impressions from the already converted.
-
Hello Ray,
The hands-on review referred to above appears to me to consist of very subjective impressions from the already converted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
if, by the 'already converted' you mean highly satisfied Olympus camera users - considering whether to upgrade to the E-3 when it comes out, then yes - they were already converted... although I'd describe it as 'already informed'
I would like to point out, because it's central to the nature of the review... that these were actual, independent users - offering their evaluations from an honest, totally personal perspective - you can get a sense of balance by checking the background of each photographer who contributed freely to the review..
I think it's impossibly difficult for any individual to come up with an unbiased, uninfluenced review of a camera in a real world - real user sense. What I'm most excited about, is that this unique approach gives you the personal, biased opinions *in context*
imho, what you end up with is fair, honest, open and relevant. If you don't spot a measurebator in there... it's because measurebators don't buy cameras - they argue about them online! lol
Kind Regards
Brian
-
if, by the 'already converted' you mean highly satisfied Olympus camera users - considering whether to upgrade to the E-3 when it comes out, then yes - they were already converted... although I'd describe it as 'already informed'........
imho, what you end up with is fair, honest, open and relevant. If you don't spot a measurebator in there... it's because measurebators don't buy cameras - they argue about them online! lol
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Brian,
There were essentially 4 points about the E-3 I picked up from those very subjective impressions.
(1) It feels nice in the hands.
(2) It's very waterproof.
(3) The images are tack sharp.
(4) Images at ISO 800 have acceptable noise of a film-like nature.
Those who already own a few Zuiko lenses and an Olympus body will no doubt be comparing image sharpness, high ISO performance and other features with the earlier 4/3rds models.
Those who have already bought into another system might be curious as to the advantages that the Olypus 4/3rds system can offer with their latest and best camera body. To get an idea of that, someone has to do some controlled comparisons.
"Whoopee! This feels great in the hands. I think I'll buy one of these!", is not enough for the discerning buyer .
-
Hi Ray,
all good points, except that, as a discerning buyer I do my research across as many sources as possible... and give considerable weight to the opinions of forum members and friends I've grown to know and trust over a number of years. It is their real world, real user perspective, unpaid and unsponsored opinions I respect *in context* with knowing what they use their camera for.
I agree, the standard reviews, with shots of monochrome resolution targets and coke bottles are useful to a degree, but personally, I'm left a bit cold... I want to be inspired and excited by the kit to go out there and use it!
Hope that makes sense, no disrespect to the people who are fascinated and absorbed by the technical specs... one thing I love about Michael's reviews is that he's open and honest about his biased (i.e. personal experience shaped) opinions... that's better than trying to be an expert technician in your review methodology (which as I said, leaves me cold).
Kind Regards
Brian
-
Brian - forgive me if I´m wrong, but in essence, what you seem to be implying is that you want to be convinced by people who are already in your boat; might be a hugely comforting experience, but hardly critical analysis.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Brian - forgive me if I´m wrong, but in essence, what you seem to be implying is that you want to be convinced by people who are already in your boat; might be a hugely comforting experience, but hardly critical analysis.
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Rob,
no, I don't think I said, or implied that at all... it's amazing how easy it is to misinterpret simple text. isn't it? I certainly wouldn't consider Michael as being 'in my boat'! lol
I tend to do my own critical analysis, based on my own needs, and all sources of information. I'm sure you do the same... I don't need convincing, I need informing... the wider the variety of viewpoints and impressions I can compare, the better for that purpose.
Kind Regards
Brian
-
Ah! I get it now, Brian. Most members of that group waxing lyrical about the Olympus 4/3rds system started off in photography with either 35mm film or Olympus and/or Nikon P&S cameras. Upgrading to the smallest of the DSLRs would have been a natural progression and a real thrill .
I'd really like to see how much sharper and better images are from the considerably more expensive and heavier E-3 with 7-14mm lens, compared with the lightweight 40D plus 10-22mm lens.
-
Ah! I get it now, Brian. Most members of that group waxing lyrical about the Olympus 4/3rds system started off in photography with either 35mm film or Olympus and/or Nikon P&S cameras. Upgrading to the smallest of the DSLRs would have been a natural progression and a real thrill .
I'd really like to see how much sharper and better images are from the considerably more expensive and heavier E-3 with 7-14mm lens, compared with the lightweight 40D plus 10-22mm lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ray, did you really read the backgrounds? here are a couple of things you maybe missed?
John Farrell... "moved to a Canon 350D which after a succession of lenses left me frustrated so now I have upgraded to a (Olympus E-) 510"
Denis Ong... "My dad had just bought a Canon 350D for himself, and I had a play with it and a friend's 20D as well. I decided that neither was for me."
Pete Monk: "I am a university science researcher who uses microscopes, high-end CCD cameras and image analysis software on a regular basis (Nikon, Olympus, Hamamatsu et al)".... "I have also used a Canon 20D and a Sony A100 for short periods."
Richard Simpson... "After a brief flirtation with Fuji S2 and S3 returned to Olympus"
Brian Mosley... "I've been shooting digital since 1997 for pleasure and business, from the first Olympus C-800L through the Nikon D1, D1x"
Would you like to expand on your own shooting experience, what equipment inspires you? I'd be interested to know where you're coming from... I've never even considered Canon kit, having seriously enjoyed my Pro level Nikon DSLR's... that is, before upgrading to my Olympus E-1 very recently.
Kind Regards
Brian
-
Hi Ray, did you really read the backgrounds? here are a couple of things you maybe missed?
John Farrell... "moved to a Canon 350D which after a succession of lenses left me frustrated so now I have upgraded to a (Olympus E-) 510"
Denis Ong... "My dad had just bought a Canon 350D for himself, and I had a play with it and a friend's 20D as well. I decided that neither was for me."
Pete Monk: "I am a university science researcher who uses microscopes, high-end CCD cameras and image analysis software on a regular basis (Nikon, Olympus, Hamamatsu et al)".... "I have also used a Canon 20D and a Sony A100 for short periods."
Richard Simpson... "After a brief flirtation with Fuji S2 and S3 returned to Olympus"
Brian Mosley... "I've been shooting digital since 1997 for pleasure and business, from the first Olympus C-800L through the Nikon D1, D1x"
Would you like to expand on your own shooting experience, what equipment inspires you? I'd be interested to know where you're coming from... I've never even considered Canon kit, having seriously enjoyed my Pro level Nikon DSLR's... that is, before upgrading to my Olympus E-1 very recently.
Kind Regards
Brian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brian,
I didn't miss those comments, but I don't think a brief dalliance with other DSLRs counts. I'm also a bit skeptical when people make comments like, 'I had a play with it and decided it wasn't for me' without offering any good reason. Such comments lead me to think that considerations are focussed on superficial and minor ergonomic issues.
I once asked my father, who was a life-long amateur photographer, if he'd ever experimented with large format. He replied he had and had owned and used a 6x8" format camera for a while but had found it so cumbersome and inconvenient and such a hassle to use, he eventually dumped it in a rubbish bin, no doubt in a fit of exasperation.
As for my shooting experience, my first SLR was a Pentax Spotmatic bought in the early 1960's which I used for a few years in Thailand, Nepal and India. I eventually sold it when short of money. Some years later I bought a Russian Zenite-E with 70-200 Tamron lens for a ridiculously low price in Singapore. I used that for a few years in Australia before selling it and then gave photography a rest for a while until my interest was renewed with the introduction by Minolta of the first autofocus SLR, the Maxxum 7000 which I bought on the way to China in the mid 1980's.
When I got my first digital darkroom set up with Nikon LS2000 scanner and was able to exercise more control over my images, I became a bit dissatisfied with the limitations of my Minolta system, the requirement to use grainy high speed film with telephoto lenses and usually a tripod with my favourite film, Royal Gold ISO 25. I looked with envy at Canon's image stabilisation system and their 100-400mm IS zoom which seemed reasonable quality, excellent value and the sort of lens I would find very useful. I was very disappointed with my Sigma 400/5.6 prime which showed strong vignetting with the Minolta at f5.6 and f8 and disappointed that only the top-of-the-range Minolta camera bodies featured mirror lock-up.
For these reasons I switched to Canon about 8 years ago. I considered Nikon but decided Canon was the more innovative company and had a wider choice of IS lenses and also more tilt & shift lenses. I've never regretted that decision although I now think I might prefer Nikon's latest D300 to Canon's D40.
Before getting my first DSLR, the Canon D60, I bought a couple of MF cameras that were being off-loaded cheap by professional moving into digital. I used them very infrequently after getting the D60 and now not at all although I have an MF scanner, the Nikon 8000ED.
Okay. That's where I'm coming from .
-
Thanks Ray, your opinions make much more sense when we can see where you are coming from... a perfect example of why the review works so well for people who understand that principle.
Kind Regards
Brian
-
I own the 510 plus the lightweight lens kit and the 35 mm macro, or to say it exactly my wife is using this camera and if I am lazy I take the camera for mountain hiking instead of the canon 5D. While the Olympus system can be extremly lightweight this is only true if you stick with the slow kit lenses, which are optically quite good and the kit we have is not much above 1000 gramms, so that is not possible with my canon gear. But there are certainly quality differences, the main problem of the olympus set is the poor dynamic range also in Raw files. As the E-3 seems to have a similar sensor than the 510 I doubt there will be much improvement at the DR and this is a critical weak point of the whole system. The pro lenses might get some improvement in sharpness, but not for DR.
So it depends a lot on your ambition and type of shooting. For a 2 weeks hike (like the GR 20 in Corse which I have walked years ago) I might take the Olympus set, but for anything else the Canon equipment is (sadly) better for the job.
Just came back from a 2 weeks Chile journey (Atacama desert and Patagonia). Due to very stormy conditions in Patagonia I shot a lot with higher iso handheld, sometimes lying flat on the ground. A tripod was often unusable but the scenery was breathtaking. Any system with good DR and good high iso performance is here the better choice. While the 5D and the 40 D where a good combo, I will look hard at the Nikon D3, because this camera will expand the shooting possibilities in harsh and interesting weather even more, but is certainly a lot more heavy.
Christian
-
Why I'm buying the E3 (for my wife). We do lots of high altitude back-country shooting where footing is treacherous and a fall not only means the end of the trip, but probably the end of one's life. At 13,000 to 14,000 feet across steep slopes and scree fields, it's very important to carry as little weight as possible. When we're out on a week's trip where we have to carry food, shelter, water purification filters "and" our camera equipment, it's all I can do to tote my D2Xs and 200-400 VR F4.0 with my 1.4x tele adapter. I was sincerely hoping that my new 40D would work with my Sigma 70-300 F4/F5.6 APO and Kenko Pro 1.4x so my wife could carry it and get some decent shots using her combo walking-stick/monopod. Unfortunately, the autofocus simply won't work like it did on previous Canon prosumers. This combo works fine with all my other Canon bodies but my D30 and 10D are a bit behind the curve on resolution and my pro-bodies are just too heavy for her.
I checked out the Sony Alpha 700 which was my first alternate choice because of the stabilization and it is a dandy, but it won't autofocus at F8 either. Pentax won't do it and neither will the prosumer Nikons.
I called Olympus technical support and they had just received their pre-release E3. They tested it for me with their own 1.4x tele and their own 70-300 F4/F5.6 and with decent light it will autofocus reliably and fast. This, plus the very good weather resistance, stabilized body and 2x crop have convinced me that the E3 is definitely worth getting for her. Of course she will have to pull the teleconverter for low light frames, but with the crop it's still a 600mm FOV and posted results and reports from users with their new 70-300 F4/F5.6 have been very favorable. The autofocus on this camera has been reliably reported as nothing short of fantastic. The swivel Live View LCD and general build quality are first class according to all who have used the pre-release models.
In short - it sounds like exactly what she needs and so I'm willing to shell out the $1700 for the body and $400 for the lens. We will try it first and if it is as good as expected then buy the their 1.4x tele adapter (not cheap).
People who have been using the E510 have found the stabilization to be a major plus (the 410 doesn't have it) so I'm actually looking forward to not having to buy more expensive stabilized lenses.
Best regards,
Lin
-
I own the 510 plus the lightweight lens kit and the 35 mm macro, or to say it exactly my wife is using this camera and if I am lazy I take the camera for mountain hiking instead of the canon 5D. While the Olympus system can be extremly lightweight this is only true if you stick with the slow kit lenses, which are optically quite good and the kit we have is not much above 1000 gramms, so that is not possible with my canon gear. Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the E3 is not a lightweight like the 510. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's heavier than the 40D.
-
Why I'm buying the E3 (for my wife). We do lots of high altitude back-country shooting where footing is treacherous and a fall not only means the end of the trip, but probably the end of one's life. At 13,000 to 14,000 feet across steep slopes and scree fields, it's very important to carry as little weight as possible. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The anti-shake sensor in the latest Olympus models is a big attraction. It means you get greater benefit with lighter and cheaper 3rd party lenses which might not have optical image stabilisation. A lens like the Sigma 70-300 f4/5.6 without IS would not be such an attractive proposition on the 40D.
It's fortunate for Olympus that Canon has not produced a series of high quality EF-S lenses extending into the super-telephoto range. If it had (or does) I would find it difficult to think of a good reason for buying the 4/3rds system.
By the way, when hiking in the mountains I usually have a need for a very wide angle lens to take in the vastness of the landscape. The E-3 with Zuiko 7-14mm would be ideal. Unfortunately, that combination would be heavier and more expensive than the Canon equivalent with EF-S 10-22.
-
It seems that my promised E-3 review will probably not be needed, and I can truly make my planned retreat to mostly only reading this forum for the wisdom and experience of many participants: some far better photographers that I seem set to try an E-3 and report.
On In-Body Image Stabilization ("IBIS"): this has become for me a great attraction, even more than Live View on an articulated screen for "tripod" work. I wonder if and when Canon and Nikon will add it alongside in-lens IS. The cost and weight added to a body seem less than the extra cost and weight of adding IS to a single lens: compare the IS and non-IS versions of Canon's 70-200/4 or 70-200/2.8. Bear this in mind in cost/weight comparisons of the stabilized E-3, Sony A700 and Pentax K10D bodies to the 40D or D300.
Also, IBIS stabilizes lenses of types where IS versions are rarely or never offered but IS is occasionally useful: wide angles and macros (Nikon has an IS macro lens, but Canon does not so far.)
I have realized that in my usage, higher ISO speeds are mostly to stabilize a hand-held camera, so three to five stops of IS advantage compares well to the huge increase in aperture size, cost and weight (and reduced DOF) that would be needed to get that many stops of lens speed increase.
And of course, adding IS to my existing Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5 lenses is worth quite a lot to me!
-
I have realized that in my usage, higher ISO speeds are mostly to stabilize a hand-held camera, so three to five stops of IS advantage compares well to the huge increase in aperture size, cost and weight (and reduced DOF) that would be needed to get that many stops of lens speed increase.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When will photographers stop to believe the IS hype the industry is making. I found by own tests that in many, if not to say most situations IS can be quite useless. Simply it does not work effectevly for times shorter than 1/60sec. So if you have 1/125 you have 1/125 with or without IS, which is not short enough for most of my work outdoor. IS does work well with times like 1/8 sec to 1/60 s, but still a picture from the tripod will be better 90 % of the time. And IS does not make anything moving (leaves, trees, animals, people, ...) stop moving. That is why I would say that High Dynamic Range and the best high iso performance is much more important. IS does work in Supertele a little different and it might be that the E-3 has a better IS than other cameras, but I doubt it. Make your own tests and do not believe advertising too much. IS is helpfull to get better pictures, but if you want the best possible picture other strategies are often leading to better (Sharper) pictures.
Christian
-
Hi Christian,
Your experiences with IS and mine are polar opposites. Whether you can hand hold with IS at less than 1/60th is primarily an individual thing. I can. I have made clean shots with times as slow as 1/25th second but the primary value for me is for telephoto work and yes, you are quite correct that IS (or a tripod) will not help with subject movement.
In my type photography (wildlife) IS is very important. ISO above 800 is not useful for me because I have little use for an image (or a crop) which I can't enlarge to at least 16x24 without seeing issues from noise or other artifacts. IS allows me to use lower ISO and hand hold at focal lengths where I would otherwise be forced to use a tripod and a tripod in not an option for me.
Weight is very important and the primary place where one finds the weight is with the tripod, head and lens. Camera bodies - until one considers heavy pro bodies - are not the major issue. The 2.6 ounce difference in weight between the E3 (28.7 oz) and the 40D (26.1 oz) is inconsequential but the difference in bulk and weight of having to carry a 100-400L IS and a 70-300 F4/F5.6 is enormous for my wife. The 40mm difference in FOV between the two is not a major issue but the weight (over two pounds difference) and bulk are. Not only the camera and lens weight combination but the bulk and necessity of a much larger case to carry them is another consideration.
Having the stabilization in the camera body is a big plus for her and the stabilization "is" very important for our type photography. At 600+ mm its two to three stops difference and makes up for not having large, fast glass. Most wildlife shots in high country are of animals not in fast motion so the stabilization is more important than shutter speed for us.
Best regards,
Lin
When will photographers stop to believe the IS hype the industry is making. I found by own tests that in many, if not to say most situations IS can be quite useless. Simply it does not work effectevly for times shorter than 1/60sec. So if you have 1/125 you have 1/125 with or without IS, which is not short enough for most of my work outdoor. IS does work well with times like 1/8 sec to 1/60 s, but still a picture from the tripod will be better 90 % of the time. And IS does not make anything moving (leaves, trees, animals, people, ...) stop moving. That is why I would say that High Dynamic Range and the best high iso performance is much more important. IS does work in Supertele a little different and it might be that the E-3 has a better IS than other cameras, but I doubt it. Make your own tests and do not believe advertising too much. IS is helpfull to get better pictures, but if you want the best possible picture other strategies are often leading to better (Sharper) pictures.
Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Christian,
Just a quick note - actually the DR and image quality are apparently greatly improved on the E3 per professional photos and reports using both cameras posted on dPReview.
Best regards,
Lin
I own the 510 plus the lightweight lens kit and the 35 mm macro, or to say it exactly my wife is using this camera and if I am lazy I take the camera for mountain hiking instead of the canon 5D. While the Olympus system can be extremly lightweight this is only true if you stick with the slow kit lenses, which are optically quite good and the kit we have is not much above 1000 gramms, so that is not possible with my canon gear. But there are certainly quality differences, the main problem of the olympus set is the poor dynamic range also in Raw files. As the E-3 seems to have a similar sensor than the 510 I doubt there will be much improvement at the DR and this is a critical weak point of the whole system. The pro lenses might get some improvement in sharpness, but not for DR.
So it depends a lot on your ambition and type of shooting. For a 2 weeks hike (like the GR 20 in Corse which I have walked years ago) I might take the Olympus set, but for anything else the Canon equipment is (sadly) better for the job.
Just came back from a 2 weeks Chile journey (Atacama desert and Patagonia). Due to very stormy conditions in Patagonia I shot a lot with higher iso handheld, sometimes lying flat on the ground. A tripod was often unusable but the scenery was breathtaking. Any system with good DR and good high iso performance is here the better choice. While the 5D and the 40 D where a good combo, I will look hard at the Nikon D3, because this camera will expand the shooting possibilities in harsh and interesting weather even more, but is certainly a lot more heavy.
Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
When will photographers stop to believe the IS hype the industry is making. I found by own tests that in many, if not to say most situations IS can be quite useless. Simply it does not work effectevly for times shorter than 1/60sec. So if you have 1/125 you have 1/125 with or without IS, which is not short enough for most of my work outdoor. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What I've noticed is that IS is not as effective with shorter focal lengths, and this may well be the reason why Canon does not offer IS on its very wide angle lenses such as the EF-S 10-22 and EF 16-35.
As a guide to choice of shutter speed with IS for sharp hand-held shots, I start with a 2x1/FL35mm figure, then reduce that by 2 stops if the IS lens claims up to 3 stops.
For example, with a 400mm lens on my 5D (the 100-400 IS), I'd look at a non-IS shutter speed of 1/800th. Reduce that by 2 stops and I get 1/200th.
I consider a 200th a minimum with IS with this lens but I'd prefer a 400th.
However, I get the impression this formula doesn't work as well with wide angle. For example my 24-105mm IS at 24 mm without IS would require a 1/48th. Call it 1/50th. With IS, after reducing that by 2 stops, I should be able to use 1/13th. But I find that a bit dicey. At best the images are sometimes acceptably sharp, but often not.
I get more consistent results with a 50th at 105mm, with the 24-105mm IS lens.
Of course it hardly needs to be mentioned that lens image stabilisation cannot stabilise a moving subject .
-
Thanks Lin,
your response about covers it. Our common interest in wildlife might explain our common experience with the virtue of IS (and our interest in SLR sensors with higher absolute resolution through higher pixel density?), due to the consequence of being able to get the job done with somewhat smaller and lighter telephoto lenses.
To me, IS (in-body or in-lens) is like a tiny, lightweight alternative to a tripod, or perhaps a monopod is closer in degree of effectiveness. The E-3 contains a virtual 2.6 ounce (80g) monopod relative to the 40D (but that 80g might actually be due to the extra weight of the E-3's articulated LCD, or the VF with 100% coverage instead of 95% in each direction.) Similarly, the IS versions of the Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 lenses effectvely contain a 55g and a 160g virtual 'pod respectively.
The main value of IS is avoiding the bulk of a 'pod, and dealing with situations where 'pods are not allowed, like many museums. There are also a few situations where IS might help but a 'pod is useless because you have no stable platform for it, like working on the deck of a small boat or from the window of a car; or where a 'pod is very inconvenient, like working in water or on steeply sloping terrain, or when there is little time to set up for a shot before the subject departs or changes "pose".
And to clarify what I thought I had indicated before: for my photography (often wildlife at long distance, as with Lin, and hand-held nature close-ups) I mostly have a need for high ISO not to freeze subject motion but to freeze "photographer motion"; there a 'pod or IS is useful.
For those nature close-ups ("macro"), larger apertures are not an option due to DOF needs (including equal f-stop with a larger focal length and format). Only longer exposure times can get the extra light needed for better, sharper images.
... Whether you can hand hold with IS at less than 1/60th is primarily an individual thing. I can. I have made clean shots with times as slow as 1/25th second but the primary value for me is for telephoto work and yes, you are quite correct that IS (or a tripod) will not help with subject movement.
In my type photography (wildlife) IS is very important. ... IS allows me to use lower ISO and hand hold at focal lengths where I would otherwise be forced to use a tripod and a tripod in not an option for me.
...
Weight is very important and the primary place where one finds the weight is with the tripod, head and lens. Camera bodies - until one considers heavy pro bodies - are not the major issue. The 2.6 ounce difference in weight between the E3 (28.7 oz) and the 40D (26.1 oz) is inconsequential but ...
...
Most wildlife shots in high country are of animals not in fast motion so the stabilization is more important than shutter speed for us.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
An interesting combination would be the E-3 with 12-60mm f2.8-f4. This is roughly equivalent to the Canon 5D with 24-105 IS f4, yet cheaper and lighter, although not significantly lighter. (175 grams is not significant to me.)
There's currently a debate on the dpreview forum comparing the quality of this lens with a 50/1.8 on the 5D. There doesn't seem to be much in it. As far as I'm concerned, I would expect 10mp to be close enough to 12.3mp with regard to resolution and detail. If the E-3 really does have an improved DR and lower high-ISO noise, there would be situations where I would prefer this combination to the 5D/24-105 zoom, considering there is a 2 stop DoF advantage.
Consider the following 2 shots I took yesterday. I wanted good DoF yet a fast shutter speed because in one shot I was on an elephant's back and in the other on a bamboo raft late in the afternoon when the sun had sunk below the mountains.
[attachment=3874:attachment] [attachment=3875:attachment]
To be sure of getting sharp shots as well as good DoF, I chose ISO 1600. One might debate whether a 500th of a sec was really necessary, which is a different issue. Let's assume that it was.
If I'd been using an E-3 with 12-60 Zuiko lens, then instead of camera settings of f16 and f11 at ISO 1600, I could have used f8 and f5.6 at ISO 400 with the same shutter speeds, ignoring differences in ISO accuracy between the 2 cameras.
I think the results might have been at least as good with respect to noise and resolution. Anyone disagree?
Of course, the problem is, I'm not going to buy into a new system because Olympus's latest technology can match Canon's 2+ year old technology, with a slight saving in weight and possibly even lower noise in the above circumstances I've described.
-
Consider the following 2 shots I took yesterday. I wanted good DoF yet a fast shutter speed because in one shot I was on an elephant's back and in the other on a bamboo raft late in the afternoon when the sun had sunk below the mountains.
To be sure of getting sharp shots as well as good DoF, I chose ISO 1600. One might debate whether a 500th of a sec was really necessary, which is a different issue. Let's assume that it was.
If I'd been using an E-3 with 12-60 Zuiko lens, then instead of camera settings of f16 and f11 at ISO 1600, I could have used f8 and f5.6 at ISO 400 with the same shutter speeds, ignoring differences in ISO accuracy between the 2 cameras.
I think the results might have been at least as good with respect to noise and resolution. Anyone disagree?
Of course, the problem is, I'm not going to buy into a new system because Olympus's latest technology can match Canon's 2+ year old technology, with a slight saving in weight and possibly even lower noise in the above circumstances I've described.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand that with tele lenses the IS might work different, better. But still I would say test it before you believe it. There was a long discussion if in body IS works as good as IS built into the lens, especially for tele beyond 400 mm. I dont know, but yes with my 100-400 IS seems to work better, so also with 1/125s and shorter. But still I find it useless for times shorter 1/400 s. Sometimes I found the IS could make things even worse.
For your example, this is quite valid, as with four third lenses f 8 is the diffraction limit, as with canon lenses is about f 11. F 16 degrades the sharpness of the picture. So with the olympus f5,6-8 is an ideal aperture for the same DOF as 8-11 with a canon camera and yes less high iso is needed. But this approach has limits and is only valid as long as you can open the aperture. As long as you compare apples with apples like E-3 with D300 the E-3 is not an bad option, but if you need high iso the E-3 has no chance with a camera like Nikon D3. I perfectly understand the choices, but I am still sceptical that it is the best solution for ultimate picture quality. In many situations it improves the quality, but that is also valid for "better" optics, "better" cameras. But if the DR of the e-3 has improved, this is certainly good news. But a Canon 40 D with good optics wont be significantly heavier as the e-3 with good optics and both will get you great pictures if you are at the right spot at the right time.
As we say here in Austria among photographers: Good light !
Christian
-
For your example, this is quite valid, as with four third lenses f 8 is the diffraction limit, as with canon lenses is about f 11. F 16 degrades the sharpness of the picture. So with the olympus f5,6-8 is an ideal aperture for the same DOF as 8-11 with a canon camera and yes less high iso is needed. But this approach has limits and is only valid as long as you can open the aperture. As long as you compare apples with apples like E-3 with D300 the E-3 is not an bad option, but if you need high iso the E-3 has no chance with a camera like Nikon D3. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you campare the previous 4/3rds models with Canon's cropped format cameras such as the 10D, 20D, 30D and 400D, the Olympus cameras could not compete in terms of noise or resolution at high ISO.
In terms of DoF, the 4/3rds format has a 2/3rds stop advantage (compared with the 20D). But for purposes of noise comparison, (ie. using an ISO 2/3rds of a stop lower and an aperture 2/3rds of a stop wider for the same shutter speed) this doesn't quite work because the Canon ISO ratings are inflated. ISO 1600 is really ISO 2000 and ISO 3200 is really ISO 4000.
Therefore, whilst you can use an aperture 2/3rds of a stop wider for the same DoF, you would only get about 1/2 a stop ISO advantage to lower noise, if you needed the same shutter speed.
Since Canon DSLRs always have had, at least until recently, much lower noise at high ISO than Olympus 4/3rds models, that 1/2 stop advantage of previous 4/3rds models was never enough to even nearly compensate for the inherently higher noise, something that BJL tended to overlook.
However, the new E-3 appears to change things. Apart from some very marginal resolution advantage of the Nikon D3 and Canon 5D due to those extra couple of megapixels, the 2 stop advantage in DoF and ISO should more or less equalise matters. I believe Nikon ISO ratings are also fairly accurate, as is the Canon 40D.
When comparing the D3 with the E-3 under conditions of equal DoF and equal shutter speed, one should be comparing ISO 1600 on the E-3 with ISO 6400 on the D3. Having just seen some comparison shots between the 40D and the E-3 at Imaging Resources (on their Comparator), I could believe that the E-3 at ISO 1600 would be at least the equal of the D3 at ISO 6400.
Of course, Olympus does not have a monopoly on fast lenses. A D3 or 5D with an equally fast lens will have an advantage but at the cost of greater shallowness of DoF and greater weight. The greater shallowness of DoF might sometimes be desired, but never the greater weight.
What we appear to have now from Olympus is a cheaper and lighter package that can (perhaps?) equal the quality of some current full frame 35mm DSLRs in every respect except dynamic range. The DR of the E-3 might have been improved as a result of lower noise, but it's really too much to expect a smaller sensor with smaller pixels to match the DR of a significantly larger sensor of about 4x the area.
-
*chomp*
In terms of DoF, the 4/3rds format has a 2/3rds stop advantage (compared with the 20D). But for purposes of noise comparison, (ie. using an ISO 2/3rds of a stop lower and an aperture 2/3rds of a stop wider for the same shutter speed) this doesn't quite work because the Canon ISO ratings are inflated. ISO 1600 is really ISO 2000 and ISO 3200 is really ISO 4000.
*chomp*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153770\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This isn't true with the 400D or the 40D. Canon's ISO ratings on those cameras pretty much match everyone elses.
-
This isn't true with the 400D or the 40D. Canon's ISO ratings on those cameras pretty much match everyone elses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I mentioned in my post that the 40D now has a more accurate ISO but neglected to include the 400D. However, both these cameras are relatively new.
Slightly off topic, I wonder if this fact is always taken into consideration when people compare shadow noise in 40D images with the 20D and 30D, especially at high ISOs and particularly at the maximum ISO which is used for no other reason than to facilitate a fast shutter speed.
-
Well, I mentioned in my post that the 40D now has a more accurate ISO but neglected to include the 400D. However, both these cameras are relatively new.
Slightly off topic, I wonder if this fact is always taken into consideration when people compare shadow noise in 40D images with the 20D and 30D, especially at high ISOs and particularly at the maximum ISO which is used for no other reason than to facilitate a fast shutter speed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm pretty sure it isn't. I don't think Askey takes it into account other than to note if the ISOs are non standard.
-
... Nikon has no stabilized standard zooms, the greatest black mark for me with the D300...
Well, except for the 18-55 VR, 18-200 VR, and 24-120 VR...
After using the Canon and Nikon stabilized lenses for so long, I find the E-3's in-body IS a bit disconcerting to use - you have no way of knowing if it's working or not until you can review your images, but with lens stabilization, it's readily apparent in the viewfinder.
-
When comparing the D3 with the E-3 under conditions of equal DoF and equal shutter speed, one should be comparing ISO 1600 on the E-3 with ISO 6400 on the D3.
Huh? When light levels are that low, the last thing I'm thinking about is how I can handicap my camera's settings to match an Olympus E-3... I'm more concerned about getting a usable image. What does Olympus offer (at ISO 1600) that will match an f1.2 or 1.4 lens at ISO 6400 for low-light shooting?
Just because it can't be done with a 4/3 camera is no reason for me not to do it with a D3 or 1D III.
-
What does Olympus offer (at ISO 1600) that will match an f1.2 or 1.4 lens at ISO 6400 for low-light shooting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing! It's well established that smaller formats are handicapped if you want great shallowness of DoF. But conversely, the smaller format has the advantage if you want extensive DoF with fast shutter speeds for hand-holdability or moving subjects, so much so that even the P&S G9 will beat the Canon 5D or Nikon D3, certainly in terms of noise and will probably at least equal the resolution. (Comparing the G9 at f2.8 and ISO 80 with the 5D or D3 at ISO 1600 and f13.)
I'm still waiting for Ronnynil in another thread to post some comparisons, so I can't be certain yet if that G9 lens at f2.8 is sharper than a Canon or Nikon lens at f13 .