Olympus E-3

[Marsupilami]

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

[Lin Evans]

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

[meyerweb]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[BJL]

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!

[Marsupilami]

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

[Lin Evans]

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]

[Lin Evans]

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]

[Ray]

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   .

[BJL]

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]

[Ray]

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.

[Marsupilami]

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

[Ray]

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.

[DarkPenguin]

*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.

[Ray]

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.

[DarkPenguin]

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.

[CJL]

... 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.

[CJL]

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.

[Ray]

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   .