Olympus E-3

[Ray]

With that said, I did have the chance to use an E-3 and 12-60 for a couple of actual feature shoots. I have posted in this thread about that. And to repeat what I have said, it appears to me that the Olympus produced the sharpest files out of the camera that I have seen except maybe for the Mamiya/Leaf. They also have the best color and the best skin tones.

That's quite a remarkable claim considering the 5D is also praised by some MFDB users for its skin tones and has an extra 2.7mp. I would still like to see how the E-3 + 12-60/4 compares with the 40D+EF-S 17-55/2.8. That EF-S lens might be equally sharp and of course has the advantage of being 1 stop faster. Combine that additional speed with the 1 stop noise advantage of the 40D and you get a 2 stop advantage in low light conditions.

The problem for me of course, being somewhat careful with my expenditure and wanting to maximise the performance of my dollar, an E-3 plus a couple of lenses is likely to cost as much as the next upgrade to the 5D which is expected within the next 6 months.

[SecondFocus]

"That's quite a remarkable claim considering the 5D is also praised by some MFDB users for its skin tones and has an extra 2.7mp."

- Not a claim on my part, just my observation, but it seemed very obvious as I reviewed the photos. Out of the camera, the sharpness and skin tones were amazing. And the color saturation was perfect. While I would prefer the 12+ mpx, for my work with this type of system, 10 is just fine.

"...being somewhat careful with my expenditure and wanting to maximise the performance of my dollar, an E-3 plus a couple of lenses is likely to cost as much as the next upgrade to the 5D which is expected within the next 6 months."

- I completely agree with getting the most for your money. I must look at the results for my clients and my time spent to provide it. I would not take adding or replacing a system lightly. I would only do so if it would substantially improve the quality of what I deliver as well as reducing my work load to do it. The Olympus system for me fulfills a lot of my requirements. To remain competitive, especially now in photography, sometimes you have to make changes.

A few years ago I had to make that type of decision when I went from PC to Apple. And no I don't want to start that discussion. But after 20 years on PC's I saw that the competitive advantage for this work went to Mac, and so did I. I spent the money, made the changes and it was one of the best things I have ever done.

[amin]

I've always liked the little sigma 30/1.4 except for its wonky triangular bokeh it exibits sometimes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've seen the same wonky triangles (due to lens coma) with a number of my Canon lenses, including the 50/1.4 and 24-105L.  The Sigma is no worse than the 50/1.2L in this respect.

[250swb]

.........there's simply no reason for me to buy more camera equipment unless such equipment can clearly do something I can't already do with the equipment I already have.

I entirely agree with you Ray. But my scepticism about the whole Canon ethos has been concerning me for years. And I jumped the DSLR ship from Canon because one other manufacturer was always in the frame when it came to my overall satisfaction with the images produced. And it wasn't initially Olympus.

But now I have some superb lenses, an E510 for more informal work and grab shots, and an E3 to fully take over from my Canon. And for the first time in ages I don't look at my pictures and wish I'd used my Leica instead.

[Ray]

I entirely agree with you Ray. But my scepticism about the whole Canon ethos has been concerning me for years. And I jumped the DSLR ship from Canon because one other manufacturer was always in the frame when it came to my overall satisfaction with the images produced. And it wasn't initially Olympus.

But now I have some superb lenses, an E510 for more informal work and grab shots, and an E3 to fully take over from my Canon. And for the first time in ages I don't look at my pictures and wish I'd used my Leica instead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have an Epson 7600 large format printer. I like prints that I hang on my wall to be fairly large, like 23'' x35".

I'm waiting for Canon to buy out Olympus and employ the Zuiko lens technology and expertise to produce better Canon lenses for future generations of FF 35mm 39mp sensors   .

[Ray]

- I completely agree with getting the most for your money. I must look at the results for my clients and my time spent to provide it. I would not take adding or replacing a system lightly. I would only do so if it would substantially improve the quality of what I deliver as well as reducing my work load to do it. The Olympus system for me fulfills a lot of my requirements. To remain competitive, especially now in photography, sometimes you have to make changes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you considered the extra realism and 3-dimensionality of the larger format that owners of MFDB systems are so much aware of? Have you not noticed this effect of full frame 35mm?  

[SecondFocus]

Have you considered the extra realism and 3-dimensionality of the larger format that owners of MFDB systems are so much aware of? Have you not noticed this effect of full frame 35mm? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes Ray, I have been shooting MFDB with a Mamiya 645AFDII and the Leaf 65 back. And there is that 3-dimensionality look with MFDB. I also do see it with the Olympus, not as much perhaps, but yes it is there. And no, I do not see the same look at all with full frame Canon digital on the 5D, 1Ds or 1DsMkII.

I also see that 3-dimensionality look with medium format film.

[SecondFocus]

I have finally got around to doing a blog post about my shooting with the E-3 and the 12-60 lens. You will also find some photos from a couple of my shoots with the system which were for actual magazine features.

Just go to my website at http://SecondFocus.com and click on blog.

[Ray]

Yes Ray, I have been shooting MFDB with a Mamiya 645AFDII and the Leaf 65 back. And there is that 3-dimensionality look with MFDB. I also do see it with the Olympus, not as much perhaps, but yes it is there. And no, I do not see the same look at all with full frame Canon digital on the 5D, 1Ds or 1DsMkII.

I also see that 3-dimensionality look with medium format film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry! I didn't notice this reply. If you're finding that extra sense of 3-dimensionality with the Olympus 4/3rds system (which sensor is 1/4 the area of ff 35mm) and you also see a similar effect with MF, then that clearly gives the lie to the claim by MFDB users that this effect is due to sensor size.

This is something that I've been hinting at all along. The effect is dues to lenses and lighting. The unpalatable truth appears to be (IM very HO) that many Canon lenses are crap at full aperture. The excuse appears to be that one doesn't use lenses at f1.2, 1.4, 1.8 etc in order to get a sharp result, but to get a shallow DoF.

Well, the fact is, if you're not getting a sharp result at the plane of focus, not only is the effect of shallowness of DoF diminished, but you lose that sense of realism and 3-dimensionality. Some lenses, however, actually are as sharp at f2.8 as at f8. I think Canon might have at least one such lens, the 400/2.8 non-IS version.

I once did a comparison using my highly regarded Canon 50mm/1.4, shooting scenes at infinity at f1.4 and f8 so that DoF was not an issue. The difference in resolution and accutance was like comparing a good lens with a coke bottle.

Even heavy and expensive lenses like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too good at full aperture. The MTF curve (at f1.2) is like that of a very cheap lens at f8. But people like to kid themselves that their equipment is better than it really is. Very few of us are interested in the truth.

[SecondFocus]

As far as medium format and the 3-dimension look goes, I don't know what to say except that it is there and like I have said I am no camera gear geek. Perhaps it is the larger MFDB sensor size giving greater and smoother tonal range or something. Or like you said, lenses and lighting. So maybe just saying it is sensor size is over simplified by the people saying that. Personally, I am only going with the results. And the Olympus results were excellent.

[Ray]

Personally, I am only going with the results. And the Olympus results were excellent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Would you care to give us some examples using the same subject, perhaps a gym lady with sinuous muscles, using the E-3 with 12-60 lens and the 5D with 24-105 lens, being careful to get equivalent apertures for both cameras, ie. f2.8 at 12mm for the E-3 and f5.6 at 24mm for the 5D, or some other equivalent combinations?

I almost forgot; since the subject is likely to be moving slightly, you should also usr the same shutter speed, which means ISO 400 for the Canon and ISO 100 for the E-3, or the same ratio at other ISOs.

[SecondFocus]

Would you care to give us some examples using the same subject, perhaps a gym lady with sinuous muscles, using the E-3 with 12-60 lens and the 5D with 24-105 lens, being careful to get equivalent apertures for both cameras, ie. f2.8 at 12mm for the E-3 and f5.6 at 24mm for the 5D, or some other equivalent combinations?

I almost forgot; since the subject is likely to be moving slightly, you should also usr the same shutter speed, which means ISO 400 for the Canon and ISO 100 for the E-3, or the same ratio at other ISOs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray I would love to but it just won't happen. All of these shoots are assignments and typically I don't have the time with everything going on to to comparative camera testing, especially with a crew standing around. They are also all strobed so ISO400 shots are not in the mix either.

The best I can do is give you my observations and the photos I have posted on my blog at the moment.

[eronald]

Even heavy and expensive lenses like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too good at full aperture. The MTF curve (at f1.2) is like that of a very cheap lens at f8. But people like to kid themselves that their equipment is better than it really is. Very few of us are interested in the truth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, to be courteous, there are other things in life apart from MTF. If had the 85/1.2 as an only lens I'd be perfectly happy. If there is one lens that has really earned its reputation as a magical lens it's that one, who cares about its real sharpness ?

By the way, I did my own tests with the 85/1.2. And found that at 20 yards or so the focus detent "clicks" are too far spaced for the DOF of the lens wide open. In other words it simply cannot be sharply focused at long distances, which may explain your results.

And if you really want to claim that lenses cannot be sharp near their maximal aperture, i'll be delighted to lend you my Canon 200/1.8 some time.

Edmund

[Ray]

Ray, to be courteous, there are other things in life apart from MTF.

Edmund,
Of course there are, and let me say, I've never found you less than courteous   .

What I'm advocating is more MTF charts so I can get on with other aspects of my life instead of wallowing in subjective impressions which are confused by QC variations in copies of the same model of lens.

I want MTF charts so I can walk into a shop, look at the MTF response of say a particular copy of a Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens and get a clear indication that the lens is sharper than my Canon EF 24-105 and/or Sigma 15-30 (which of course should have their own MTF charts) at certain apertures and f stops and be able to make a buying decision on the spot.

Relevant to the point, I've recently been using my 5D so much that the mirror flew off its mount. The camera's in for repair at the Bangkok Canon Service Centre. I'm now travelling with only one camera, the 20D, so I thought I might be able to justify the purchase of a 40D with the apparently excellent EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, the main incentive not being the 40D but the 17-55/2.8 lens which according to Photozone's test results is remarkably sharp.

However, I've been bitten more than once buying a Canon lens without testing it first. Nevertheless, because it was possible to get from the Canon Service Centre to a major Canon retail outlet by skytrain, I made an attempt to buy the 40D with EF-S 17-55 lens. I could have got the package at a good price, but it was just too much trouble to thoroughly test the lens. The shop was very small and crowded, people milling around bumping into each other; I wasn't carrying my tripod. I took a few snap shots with both lenses at 28mm and f4, focussing on stacked camera boxes in the shop. I then examined the results on my laptop in a nearby restaurant, in between mouthfuls of food.

The results were inconclusive, so I didn't buy. I'm not interested in duplicating focal lengths for the sake of an extra 1/2 to 1 stop in aperture size. My Sigma 15-30 is f3.5 at 15mm with the bad parts cropped off on a 20D.

Due to a lack of MTF charts, Canon lost a sale. I was deprived of the full enjoyment of my meal and wasted a couple of hours of my life.

By the way, I did my own tests with the 85/1.2. And found that at 20 yards or so the focus detent "clicks" are too far spaced for the DOF of the lens wide open. In other words it simply cannot be sharply focused at long distances, which may explain your results.

That's something I haven't fully considered, although I am aware that lens sharpness is not necessarily consistent from infinity to close-up. I believe there are certain models of macro lenses that are extremely sharp at close distances but mediocre at infinity. I think there might even exist certain dedicated macro lenses that won't even focus at infinity.

I recently compared my Canon 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 24-105 at 50mm, shooting a test chart from just a few feet distance. Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are hopless at full aperture, far worse than the 24-105 at 50mm and full aperture.

The Canon 200/1.8 is one of those rare lenses that is not only very sharp at f8 but even sharper at f4. The copy of the Canon 400/2.8 (non-IS) that Photodo tested is not quite as sharp at f8 as some the best lenses, but is at least sharper at f2.8 than it is at f8.

And if you really want to claim that lenses cannot be sharp near their maximal aperture, i'll be delighted to lend you my Canon 200/1.8 some time.

Edmund, you're a true gentleman and a scholar   . That's a lens which is too heavy for my current purposes, travelling light. But I believe you because I've seen the MTF charts. Thanks for the offer  .

[eronald]

Ray,

Canon CPS will arrange for a loaner, you should join. I guess a discreet tip will do wonders too over there ...

Edmund, you're a true gentleman and a scholar   . That's a lens which is too heavy for my current purposes, travelling light. But I believe you because I've seen the MTF charts. Thanks for the offer  .

Yes, I wish they would miniaturize it, I hesitate to take it out. But the images it makes are interesting, even more than the charts  



[/quote]

[Ray]

Yes, I wish they would miniaturize it, I hesitate to take it out. But the images it makes are interesting, even more than the charts

Edmund,
You've certainly captured some curves there which are quite different from MTF curves   .

The lady on the right seems to be more in focus, but I'm not sure this image is showing the full potential of one of Canon's finest lenses. I was expecting something perhaps a little more razor sharp. What camera did you use and what f stop?

Canon CPS will arrange for a loaner, you should join. I guess a discreet tip will do wonders too over there ...

You know, I never thought about asking for a temporary replacement. In my 50+ years of sporadic amateur photography, this is my first experience of a camera failure.

If I had got a replacement, I sure could have used that 200/1.8 lens last night in the cabaret night spots in Koh Samui. I was using my 20D with 24-105 fully extended which is about 168mm in 35mm terms; pretty close to 200mm.

Unfortunately, the 24-105 is a bit soft at the long end, just a bit, nothing serious. But it sort of takes the edge off images such as the following, taken last night. They're reasonably sharp but not tack sharp.

Because they were processed on my laptop, I'm not sure how color and tonality will appear on an expertly calibrated monitor. You'll have to make allowances there.  

[attachment=4562:attachment]  [attachment=4563:attachment]

And, of course, the 100% crops.

[attachment=4565:attachment]  [attachment=4564:attachment]  [attachment=4566:attachment]

These are photos of blokes, by the way.... just in case it's not obvious to all   .

[Rob C]

Edmund,
You've certainly captured some curves there which are quite different from MTF curves   .

The lady on the right seems to be more in focus, but I'm not sure this image is showing the full potential of one of Canon's finest lenses. I was expecting something perhaps a little more razor sharp. What camera did you use and what f stop?
You know, I never thought about asking for a temporary replacement. In my 50+ years of sporadic amateur photography, this is my first experience of a camera failure.

If I had got a replacement, I sure could have used that 200/1.8 lens last night in the cabaret night spots in Koh Samui. I was using my 20D with 24-105 fully extended which is about 168mm in 35mm terms; pretty close to 200mm.

Unfortunately, the 24-105 is a bit soft at the long end, just a bit, nothing serious. But it sort of takes the edge off images such as the following, taken last night. They're reasonably sharp but not tack sharp.

Because they were processed on my laptop, I'm not sure how color and tonality will appear on an expertly calibrated monitor. You'll have to make allowances there.   

[attachment=4562:attachment]  [attachment=4563:attachment]

And, of course, the 100% crops.

[attachment=4565:attachment]  [attachment=4564:attachment]  [attachment=4566:attachment]

These are photos of blokes, by the way.... just in case it's not obvious to all   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some effin´nightmares you must have, mate!

Rob C

[Ray]

Some effin´nightmares you must have, mate!

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eh! How come? I'm not photographing my dreams here, Rob, but anything which is unusual, grotesque, fanciful, interesting or which simply catches my eye. It's one of the reasons I like to travel.

As a matter of fact, it's so long ago since I had a nightmare, I can't remember when   .

[Rob C]

Eh! How come? I'm not photographing my dreams here, Rob, but anything which is unusual, grotesque, fanciful, interesting or which simply catches my eye. It's one of the reasons I like to travel.

As a matter of fact, it's so long ago since I had a nightmare, I can't remember when   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That´s the trouble, Ray: all that travel into the grotesque, the fanciful and the unusual. You have been de-sensitized so now have lost the thrill of the nightmare!

Sweet dreams. ?

Ciao - Rob C

[Ray]

That´s the trouble, Ray: all that travel into the grotesque, the fanciful and the unusual. You have been de-sensitized so now have lost the thrill of the nightmare!

Sweet dreams. ?

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm prepared to make some sacrifices, Rob. One can't have everything. I'm willing to forgo the nightmares   .