Olympus E-3

[DarkPenguin]

So, there is no way I'm buying an e-3.  However, the e-510 is $485.  This begs the question.  How do the raw files from the e-510 stack up?  Cause I really like the looks of that 12-60 zukio.

[Marsupilami]

So, there is no way I'm buying an e-3.  However, the e-510 is $485.  This begs the question.  How do the raw files from the e-510 stack up?  Cause I really like the looks of that 12-60 zukio.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not so well, I think. Me and my wife are using the 510 as a camera for ski hiking and similar when we are simple said to lazy to take our canon equipment with us. The 510 with the kit lenses is amazingly lightweight, but quality is not on par with canon 5d for example (sharpness, DR,..) but certainly this is to be expected. I found that image stabilization for example is not very suitable for my kind of work, the pictures do get sharper, but they aren often not sharp enough compared to pictures made from an tripod. So my dream of an compact, lightweight, cheap do all system is not coming true with Olympus. In the moment you use semi pro body like E-3, pro lenses the weight difference is often minimal and also the price difference. A very good system, but Nikon, Canon, Sony have products with similar strenghts and weakness.

[eronald]

A very good system, but Nikon, Canon, Sony have products with similar strenghts and weakness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think there is still only one small camera that can stack up with the heavyweights concerning image quality, and that is the Leica.

But it's not in the same price range, and may lack reliability.

Olympus should do their homework; what we really want is a digital OM4.

Edmund

[BJL]

First, thanks to Quentin and others for testing and observations on the E-3 from the perspective of experienced photographers who are primarily users of other brands and formats. (For all the positive reports, I am still hoping for a mid-level model between the E-510 and E-3, dropping features like 5fps and "full metal jacket" that I have little use for.)


Secondly, on the size and weight of the E system:

... what we really want is a digital OM4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The E-410 (435g) and E-510 (490g) are the two lightest DSLR bodies on the market, both lighter than the OM4 (540g) or even any Olympus "half frame" SLR. Also, I am fairly sure that the E-410 with 14-42 standard zoom (180g) is lighter than any OM or Pen SLR with even the lightest prime lens attached. So it is not as if Olympus is ignoring the desire of some for a small, light SLR kit. And as soon as one adds a "significant" telephoto lens, the weights and sizes of these bodies becomes rather irrelevant.

In fact, many people complain that the E-410 and some other small DSLR's are inconveniently small to handle: perhaps the greater number of controls needed (compared to old style manual cameras like the OM4) and the need for a LCD make it inconvenient to downsize DSLR's much more than has been done so far.

On the other hand, lovers of small, light wide to short telephoto primes to match with small, light DSLR bodies must look elsewhere, particularly Pentax.


How small and light do people actually want their SLR bodies to be?

[eronald]

On the other hand, lovers of small, light wide to short telephoto primes to match with small, light DSLR bodies must look elsewhere, particularly Pentax.
How small and light do people actually want their SLR bodies to be?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pentax 110 system sized


I'm sure we'll get there given another 10 years or so. By that time it'll be all I can carry.

Edmund

[DarkPenguin]

Not so well, I think. Me and my wife are using the 510 as a camera for ski hiking and similar when we are simple said to lazy to take our canon equipment with us. The 510 with the kit lenses is amazingly lightweight, but quality is not on par with canon 5d for example (sharpness, DR,..) but certainly this is to be expected. I found that image stabilization for example is not very suitable for my kind of work, the pictures do get sharper, but they aren often not sharp enough compared to pictures made from an tripod. So my dream of an compact, lightweight, cheap do all system is not coming true with Olympus. In the moment you use semi pro body like E-3, pro lenses the weight difference is often minimal and also the price difference. A very good system, but Nikon, Canon, Sony have products with similar strenghts and weakness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm looking at putting the 12-60 lens on it.  I'm trying to figure out if the raves for the e-3 are due more to the e-3 or that hunk of glass.  Waiting for photozone.de to start testing with the e-3.

[Ray]

I'm looking at putting the 12-60 lens on it.  I'm trying to figure out if the raves for the e-3 are due more to the e-3 or that hunk of glass.  Waiting for photozone.de to start testing with the e-3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since both the 510 and E-3 have the same pixel count, I would think that resolution will be very similar with the same lens, but the E-3 might have more pleasing color and tonality, greater dynamic range and certainly less noise at high ISO.

Photozone provides useful tests but can't account for QC variation amongst different lens copies.

Since my only camera is now the 20D and the most useful lens the Canon 24-105 IS, I just checked what the Photozone tests have to say about the 24-105.

Apparently, at 105mm it's equally sharp at f5.6 and f8, but actually sharpest at f11. I'm going to have to check this out for myself. Shooting at f11 and ISO 100 is difficult in a cabaret night club environment, albeit with flash. However, if f11 at ISO 200 is sharper than f8 at ISO 100 (at 105mm) then I'll use the former.

So far, I get the impression that this lens at f8 (at 105mm) is sharper than at f5.6.

The following shot at f8 is clearly sharper than the previous ones I posted. This is a 50% crop. Tonight, the camera will be set on f11 most of the time   .

[attachment=4589:attachment]

As a matter of interest, this shot is an excellent example of the ETTR principle. In ACR default mode (no personal adjustments), the image looks clearly overexposed.

[attachment=4590:attachment]

However, just one click on the auto button fixes everything. It now looks perfectly exposed.

[attachment=4591:attachment]

In case anyone is wondering why I'm frequenting such places where the entertainers are transvestites, it's because there are no cabaret shows on this island with female performers. Thai girls are too shy to engage in such activities   .

[Rob C]

Ray

Auditions for the new assistant/sales person then?

Rob C

[eronald]

In case anyone is wondering why I'm frequenting such places where the entertainers are transvestites, it's because there are no cabaret shows on this island with female performers. Thai girls are too shy to engage in such activities   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A lot must have changed, in me young days the Thai cabaret acts were famous precisely because they proved the performers  to be real women.

Edmund

[Ray]

A lot must have changed, in me young days the Thai cabaret acts were famous precisely because they proved the performers  to be real women.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really! Is Thailand becoming less liberal? I would have thought just the opposite.

Are we talking about the same thing, Edmund? I'm referring to the traditional American/European cabaret show with perhaps a stronger emphasis on the naughty. Not the Go Go bars with scantilly clad women sliding up and down poles, where photography is strictly forbidden, nor the extravaganzas featuring elephants and Thai girls in traditional costume with sometimes a bit of modern choreography thrown in.

The last such extravaganza I saw was Siam Niramit in Bangkok. I had to leave my camera at the entrance.

[attachment=4597:attachment]

Disgusting!  

[espressogeek]

I have been following all of this and all I can say is I need to see it. I don't doubt the e-3 is a fantastic camera and the weather proofing is certainly a big plus. However all things being equal, and they never are, a larger sensor has some major advantages in most areas. It is my understanding that a 5d for example, with its much larger sensor, would not require a lens that resolved as much detail over the image circle to resolve the same amount of detail a 4/3 body would have given the same field of view. The same priciple viewed another way could say that the oly lenses would need to have twice the resolving power as a lens on FF to obtain the same amount of detail. My understanding of this is elementary at best so please forgive me if I have miscontrued some of the above.

Please understand that I am not a fanboy of Canon or anyone. I started off with  Oly and I LOVED my camera. I always found it to be lacking that certain something that I found with my Nikon. And now I am looking for something lighter weight than the Nikon and with better low light performance so I purchased the 40d. I don't much care for the 40d over ISO 1000 , the colors look a little off to me, and I would give the nod to Oly glass but is it twice as good?

[Ray]

It is my understanding that a 5d for example, with its much larger sensor, would not require a lens that resolved as much detail over the image circle to resolve the same amount of detail a 4/3 body would have given the same field of view. The same priciple viewed another way could say that the oly lenses would need to have twice the resolving power as a lens on FF to obtain the same amount of detail. My understanding of this is elementary at best so please forgive me if I have miscontrued some of the above.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's my understanding too. If a 35mm lens on the 5D can resolve say 40 lp/mm at 60% MTF, then a Zuiko lens needs to resolve 80 lp/mm at 60% MTF in order for the 4/3rds sensor to capture the same 'picture' resolution, ignoring the slight discrepancy in pixel count between the E-3 and 5D. Because of the E-3's lower pixel count (compared with the 5D), an equivalent Zuiko lens needs to have slightly more than double the resolving power to compete.

That's a tall order. I doubt that the best Zuiko lenses have over double the resolving power of the best 35mm lenses. However, if you're comparing the E-3 with the Canon cropped formats, the Zuiko lenses should often produce sharper results due to a lack of high quality EF-S lenses. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 might be an exception. I'm thinking of getting that lens for my 20D.

[DarkPenguin]

Well, the pop photo charts have the 40D at 2100 (lines of something or other) and the e-3 at 2020.  If I recall their methods the former should have been taken with a 50 1.4 and the latter with the 12-60.  (For some reason.  Maybe they don't have a 50 equivalent.)  Make of that what you will.

[espressogeek]

Lack of EF-S lenses or not there are some fine lenses for Canon such as the 85/1.8, the 50/1.4 and the 24L and 35L as well as a few others. Zooms are another story. I am not all convinced that the 17-40L is really good enough but I know from experience the Oly zooms are top notch as far as consistency goes. I loved my 11-22 when I had it.

I'm sure the telecentric designs are the way to go if you don't want to use micro lenses but with micro lenses a lot of the effects of non-telecentric lenses are compensated for. Is it optimum, probably not. But it does work and it does work well. From a marketing/finance perspective this is brilliant too. Think about it, if Oly can persuade the public to buy into the smaller format their lenses will have to draw an image circle much smaller than their competitors. By using the "equivalent to 35mm" phrase they can pass off their 300mm F2.8 at the price of the 600mm competitor. Is this lens really that much more expensive to make to spite the fact that it draws a smaller image circle and is half the focal length? This makes good sense for others who design lenses specifically for the 4/3 system too. I am generalizing a lot here but I have always been suspect after learning more about what it takes to resolve detail in regards to the lens/media combination. If the lenses really do resolve twice as much as their full frame counterparts then more power to Oly. I would love to have something the size of the M8 with that 25/1.4 hanging off the front of it and an articulating LCD with live view and I am all for competition and choices.

[Rob C]

espressogeek

You are quite right in your thinking about the differences about format/matching lenses: increasing the frame size does not mean that the lens required to cover the larger size is putting down information across a larger area with the same sharpness as is possible across a smaller format wth a lens designed for the smaller format. The compromises in covering a larger area won´t allow it.

This has already been stated here, but people only remember what suits the personal agenda. That´s natural if annoying.

Though well aware of the fact that you can´t just scale upwards without penalty, I did exchange a large (ish) Nikon system for a small Pentax 67 ll one. Expensively, I proved my own point, but still hoped it would help stock move along better. Unfortunately for me, I had neglected to factor in the spread of the digital revolution and I should have saved my money.

You can´t beat physics; ignore the snake-oil salesmen.

Rob C

[BJL]

... all things being equal, and they never are ... a 5d for example, with its much larger sensor, would not require a lens that resolved as much detail over the image circle to resolve the same amount of detail a 4/3 body would have given the same field of view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point about all things never being equal, which is what makes these theoretical comparisons rather pointless. With the E-3, the fact is that the mid- to high- level 4/3 lenses have enough resolution to keep up with the 10MP sensor, so that 10MP is the main limit on resolution (assuming good RAW conversion without heavy handed NR). Meaning that the E-3 (and even the E-510 and E-410) give just slightly less total image detail than the 12.7MP 5D or the 12MP D300 and D3, with only the far more expensive 1DsMkIII or MF backs offering a truly worthwhile increase in image resolution.

If instead one is focal length limited in the telephoto range, the pixel spacing is a fairly good rough measure of how much detail you get with a given focal length, and there the E-3 and its smaller siblings have a modest advantage over current "APS-C" options, and a significant advantage over all larger format options, in particular the D3 and 5D.


The resolution limits of the good lenses in various systems probably become more significant limits on overall resolution as pixel counts move well beyond 10MP, to say 16MP, at which even some good Canon L lenses start to show their limitations with the 1DsMkII.

But I suspect that most of us have little use for image resolution much beyond 10MP or 12MP, or beyond what the best lenses in any DSLR system can offer with a sensor of sufficient resolution: the exceptions being people for whom 35mm film resolution was not nearly good enough.

[BJL]

... if Oly can persuade the public to buy into the smaller format their lenses will have to draw an image circle much smaller than their competitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really: the competition for FourThirds is and always has been from formats like EF-S and DX, with the E-3 for example competing with the 40D, D300, A700 and so on. And there, the difference in image circle size, focal length and so on is only about 20%, about "half a stop".

FourThirds competes with the high end 35mm format sector only in the rather faint, distant way that 35mm format competes with medium format: the differences are so great that each format fills a quite different niche. (In fact the gap 4/3 to 35mm is larger, a linear factor of two, almost like 35mm vs 6x7 MF.)

[espressogeek]

I just wanted to throw that out there. I don't see the e-3 being any "sharper" than top of the line examples from other vendors. But then again it all depends on what you use that system for and I'm sure the E-3 is better at some things. Perhaps I'll take another look at 4/3 someday but for now I'll do the bigger is better thing and enjoy the shallower DOF and better potential low noise performance.

[DarkPenguin]

Played around with one of these today.  Very impressed.  The viewfinder is surprisingly huge.  Very nice.

The E-3 with 12-60 and 50-200 gives a nice 24-400 equiv range in two lenses.  Getting really wide is something of a problem.  The 7-14 is supposed to be very nice but costs more than I want to spend for that range.  There is a rumour of a lower cost 8-something or other that might bridge the gap.

May just have to buy one.

[Ray]

Played around with one of these today.  Very impressed.  The viewfinder is surprisingly huge.  Very nice.

The E-3 with 12-60 and 50-200 gives a nice 24-400 equiv range in two lenses.  Getting really wide is something of a problem.  The 7-14 is supposed to be very nice but costs more than I want to spend for that range.  There is a rumour of a lower cost 8-something or other that might bridge the gap.

May just have to buy one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When you say 'played around' does that mean you shot some test images? I played around recently with Canon's EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. There's no doubt it's a sharp lens, in the centre, but corners and edges are very soft at wide apertures. At f4 and 28mm, for example, my 24-105 produces a significantly sharper result near the edges and corners, using my 20D.

The differences between the two images near the edges is much greater than the differences near the centre, which is a pity. I suspect that Zuiko lenses have better edge performance. Can anyone confirm this?