PDA

View Full Version : The Olympus e-3 is here.




srf4real
Oct 16, 2007, 07:38 PM
Anyone seen this (http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/index.asp) yet!

Also a new line of lenses which are claimed to be the fastest auto-focus lens available, built for digital specific 4/3 cameras. :)



Clix Pix
Oct 16, 2007, 08:07 PM
Nice, but I think that the 4/3 thing never really took off in the first place and with Nikon and Canon offering full-frame cameras and excellent lens systems, why bother? Olympus is running far behind the others in this race.....

valiar
Oct 16, 2007, 10:20 PM
Nice, but I think that the 4/3 thing never really took off in the first place and with Nikon and Canon offering full-frame cameras and excellent lens systems, why bother? Olympus is running far behind the others in this race.....

I beg to disagree.
So-called "full frame" cameras are, indeed, great for certain applications - but not so great for others.
The same can be said about 4/3 and APS-format cameras: sometimes they are preferable to "full frame", sometimes they are not.

A 4/3 camera system (body+lenses) will generally be smaller and lighter than the equivalent 135-format system. In fact, dramatically so. I can carry my E1 body, the 14-54 and 50-200 lenses in a small shoulder bag without breaking a sweat. I shudder at the thought of carrying a Canon 5D, a 28-70, and whatever Canon glass I need to cover the 100-400 mm. I will probably need a dedicated beast of burden to carry that (otherwise awesome) 135-format system with me.

A smaller sensor also equates to larger DOF at equivalent field of view. My Zuiko Digital 50 mm macro has the same FOV as a 100 mm 135 lens, yet the same DOF as you would expect from a 50 mm. It makes my macro photography somewhat easier than with 135-format equipment.

Finally, it is easier and cheaper to design lenses for a smaller sensor. Some of the Olympus lenses (7-14 and 14-54 come to mind) simply have no direct Canon or Nikon analogs (Nikon makes an excellent DX-format "normal zoom" - I think the 17-55, but it is 2.5x the price of Oly's 14-54 and has no technical advantages over 14-54). As far as image quality goes, I will take Oly's 7-14 over ANY Canon's UWA lens offering for "full frame".

135-format cameras shine in four main areas:
*If you already own a large collection of older or legacy Canikon glass. A very common situation, actually. If you get an APS-format body, all that nice glass will still work - but not really, not quite.

*If you do a lot of architectural photography, and absolutely need a shift lens. There are none designed (or announced) for 4/3. 135-format shifts will work with 4/3 or APS cameras, but a 70 or 56 mm equivalent focal length for architecture is uninspiring. Typical shifts come in 35mm and 28mm flavors.

*If you absolutely, positively need acceptable photos at an ISO setting of 3200. Now, let me make it clear... A "full-frame" sensor that has 2x the area of a 4/3 sensor will NOT be 1/2 as noisy. The laws of physics dictate that if the two sensors are built from identical substrate, the larger sensor will have an ~1.4 times better signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. you will only gain an extra 40% in sensitivity by doubling the chip size). If your "full-frame" camera has an acceptable ISO 3200, an identical 4/3 camera will have an acceptable ISO of 2300. At ISO 100 or 200, where both cameras are virtually noiseless, there will be NO perceivable difference.

*If you need the highest resolution money can buy. Canon has been consistently producing cameras with the highest resolution around in their 1D family. If you need to shoot 22-megapixel frames - the Mark III is pretty much the only choice out there. It will take a while until we see 20mp 4/3 or APS sensors (if they will ever be made). But that kind of resolution is firmly in the medium format ballpark... I.e. it is a specialist application (just like that ISO 3200).

valiar
Oct 16, 2007, 10:22 PM
And to add to the original discussion in the thread... Yay!
Now I only need to come up with some spare cash. $1700 is not as bad as I thought it will be (I was bracing myself for $1900).
E-3 is going to be an awesome camera.

RevToTheRedline
Oct 16, 2007, 10:30 PM
I think I'd much rather have a Nikon D300 over that turd.

Clix Pix is 100% right.

Lord Blackadder
Oct 16, 2007, 10:50 PM
It doesn't sound that bad, but the price is hefty.

valiar
Oct 16, 2007, 11:39 PM
I think I'd much rather have a Nikon D300 over that turd.
Clix Pix is 100% right.

I don't want to sound stuck up, but you have really boosted your credibility by using the word "turd" and the expression "100% right" in one single post. Bravo.

As to the substance, the D300 and E3 are more or less in the same category. If I were buying into a DSLR system right now, it would have been a tough choice.

The D300 has 2 extra megapixels and especially that awesome VGA screen going for it. It can also focus in Live View mode without flipping the mirror (albeit it is still slow). With a judicious choice of lenses, there is now a "full frame" upgrade path. Of the irrelevant (but nice to have) things, the D300 has more focusing points, and faster burst rate.

The E3 has a swiveling (but lower resolution) screen, in-body IS, and an actual working dust elimination system. It has weather/dust seals throughout the body, the lens mount is also sealed - and every pro-grade Zuiko has the same seals. Last but not the least, the ZD lens lineup looks more attractive than Nikon's current offerings. Don't get me wrong - you can shoot any assignment with D300 and Nikkors. But Nikon's DX-dedicated lens lineup can not even begin to compare to Zuikos, and "full frame" Nikkors are huge and don't come in "crop sensor-friendly" focal lenghts. Of the irrelevant (but nice to have) things, E3 can control Oly's dedicated flashes wirelessly.

I know that Nikon also has an anti-dust system in D300 - however, it partially relies on dust mapping and software... Which means it is not as good at actually removing the dust as Oly's SSWF. One thing that I really, really, really hate is seeing dust in my photos... So this (and seals on all lenses and the body) are important factors for me.

The D300 is certainly a *very* nice camera. But to each his own. I will be buying the E3 body as soon as it will actually become available...

RevToTheRedline
Oct 16, 2007, 11:49 PM
I don't want to sound stuck up, but you have really boosted your credibility by using the word "turd" and the expression "100% right" in one single post. Bravo.

As to the substance, the D300 and E3 are more or less in the same category. If I were buying into a DSLR system right now, it would have been a tough choice.

The D300 has 2 extra megapixels and especially that awesome VGA screen going for it. It can also focus in Live View mode without flipping the mirror (albeit it is still slow). With a judicious choice of lenses, there is now a "full frame" upgrade path. Of the irrelevant (but nice to have) things, the D300 has more focusing points, and faster burst rate.

The E3 has a swiveling (but lower resolution) screen, in-body IS, and an actual working dust elimination system. It has weather/dust seals throughout the body, the lens mount is also sealed - and every pro-grade Zuiko has the same seals. Last but not the least, the ZD lens lineup looks more attractive than Nikon's current offerings. Don't get me wrong - you can shoot any assignment with D300 and Nikkors. But Nikon's DX-dedicated lens lineup can not even begin to compare to Zuikos, and "full frame" Nikkors are huge and don't come in "crop sensor-friendly" focal lenghts. Of the irrelevant (but nice to have) things, E3 can control Oly's dedicated flashes wirelessly.

I know that Nikon also has an anti-dust system in D300 - however, it partially relies on dust mapping and software... Which means it is not as good at actually removing the dust as Oly's SSWF. One thing that I really, really, really hate is seeing dust in my photos... So this (and seals on all lenses and the body) are important factors for me.

The D300 is certainly a *very* nice camera. But to each his own. I will be buying the E3 body as soon as it will actually become available...

You are 100% right, I'm sorry I was being a turd.

Wireless flash, that must be a new feature, cause I certainly cant do that with my Nikon setup, oh wait I can. Again like Clix said, oly is Behind the times. And the really need to get off their 4/3rd pedestal.

Westside guy
Oct 17, 2007, 12:05 AM
I think the 4/3 idea was great in theory, but for it to have made a significant impact they probably needed the other smaller manufacturers (e.g. Pentax) to buy in - and that didn't happen. That said, Olympus has historically made cameras that offer a good price-to-features ratio. If you're already a 4/3 shooter, this looks very nice.

compuwar
Oct 17, 2007, 12:18 AM
*If you need the highest resolution money can buy. Canon has been consistently producing cameras with the highest resolution around in their 1D family.

I think Kodak, Leaf, Hasselblad, Aptus, BetterLight, Mamiya, et al. will take exception with that statement. If you're going to argue with statements about format, it makes sense to take other formats into account. :-P

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 12:40 AM
You are 100% right, I'm sorry I was being a turd.

Wireless flash, that must be a new feature, cause I certainly cant do that with my Nikon setup, oh wait I can. Again like Clix said, oly is Behind the times. And the really need to get off their 4/3rd pedestal.

The Nikon D300 does NOT have a wireless TTL flash controller built in. The E3 does.
I know that you *can* do wireless TTL with Nikon bodies and Speedlights (I think you could even do it back in the film days). However, it will require an external controller that costs on the order of $150 or so.

And now show me some of your pictures.
No, really :)
I would really love to see what work you have been doing with your technologically superior equipment. After all, everyone knows that if your pictures are shot by an "N" camera, they are twice as good as if they are shot by a camera of another brand.
And if you want to argue, saying that something is "bad" just because you think it's "bad" is hardly and argument.

By the way, here is some of my work - all done with some antiquated and hopelessly outclassed cameras. Some of these cameras do not even have autofocus!

http://signoflife.zenfolio.com

Butthead
Oct 17, 2007, 12:41 AM
I beg to disagree.
So-called "full frame" cameras are, indeed, great for certain applications - but not so great for others.
The same can be said about 4/3 and APS-format cameras: sometimes they are preferable to "full frame", sometimes they are not.

A 4/3 camera system (body+lenses) will generally be smaller and lighter than the equivalent 135-format system. In fact, dramatically so. I can carry my E1 body, the 14-54 and 50-200 lenses in a small shoulder bag without breaking a sweat. I shudder at the thought of carrying a Canon 5D, a 28-70, and whatever Canon glass I need to cover the 100-400 mm. I will probably need a dedicated beast of burden to carry that (otherwise awesome) 135-format system with me.

A smaller sensor also equates to larger DOF at equivalent field of view. My Zuiko Digital 50 mm macro has the same FOV as a 100 mm 135 lens, yet the same DOF as you would expect from a 50 mm. It makes my macro photography somewhat easier than with 135-format equipment.

Finally, it is easier and cheaper to design lenses for a smaller sensor. Some of the Olympus lenses (7-14 and 14-54 come to mind) simply have no direct Canon or Nikon analogs (Nikon makes an excellent DX-format "normal zoom" - I think the 17-55, but it is 2.5x the price of Oly's 14-54 and has no technical advantages over 14-54). As far as image quality goes, I will take Oly's 7-14 over ANY Canon's UWA lens offering for "full frame".

135-format cameras shine in four main areas:
*If you already own a large collection of older or legacy Canikon glass. A very common situation, actually. If you get an APS-format body, all that nice glass will still work - but not really, not quite.

*If you do a lot of architectural photography, and absolutely need a shift lens. There are none designed (or announced) for 4/3. 135-format shifts will work with 4/3 or APS cameras, but a 70 or 56 mm equivalent focal length for architecture is uninspiring. Typical shifts come in 35mm and 28mm flavors.

*If you absolutely, positively need acceptable photos at an ISO setting of 3200. Now, let me make it clear... A "full-frame" sensor that has 2x the area of a 4/3 sensor will NOT be 1/2 as noisy. The laws of physics dictate that if the two sensors are built from identical substrate, the larger sensor will have an ~1.4 times better signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. you will only gain an extra 40% in sensitivity by doubling the chip size). If your "full-frame" camera has an acceptable ISO 3200, an identical 4/3 camera will have an acceptable ISO of 2300. At ISO 100 or 200, where both cameras are virtually noiseless, there will be NO perceivable difference.

*If you need the highest resolution money can buy. Canon has been consistently producing cameras with the highest resolution around in their 1D family. If you need to shoot 22-megapixel frames - the Mark III is pretty much the only choice out there. It will take a while until we see 20mp 4/3 or APS sensors (if they will ever be made). But that kind of resolution is firmly in the medium format ballpark... I.e. it is a specialist application (just like that ISO 3200).


1. LOL, I do not consider ISO 3200 a 'specialist' application. In fact, if PnS digicams (not withstanding Oly's PnS ISO 10k :D ) had decently low noise at ISO3200 or higher, they would be *fantastic* improvement that would allow so many more non-flash natural light images being captured by PnS afficiandos (beginning photogs). They will come, it may take time, but full-frame PnS sensors will be insanely great...just like the compact 35mm film cameras of decades ago, Rolleflex (sp?) comes to mind.

2. I shudder to think how bulky that E-3 is compared to the Full-Frame Olympus OM1/OM2 (well since I have both of those old classics, I do know :eek: and the difference is far more substantial than the difference btw a Canon 5D and Oly E-3). There is no valid reason why Oly or any other manufacturer (following Apple's lead in making sexy thin computers) cannot make smaller, compact, lighter weight dSLR FF lenses, not unlike the lenses that comprised the revolutionary OM series. See my sig ;).

Steve Jobs (new iCEO of Olympus Camera Co): Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm pleased and excited to announce today, the new Olympus iPico full-frame dSLR, the world's smallest and lightest weight dSLR.

Interviewer: But Mr. Jobs, didn't Olympus just introduce yesterday, the 4/3rds Pro-level dSLR the E-3?

Steve Jobs: It's too BIG! It's old, obsolete!

3. DOF, now that's a 'specialty' application. Olympus made what some consider the best of the best in PC lenses in the 24mm wide-angle shift lens. If they could do that, then there seems no reason they couldn't design a tilt/shift lens to compete with the 35mm film versions that Canon & Nikon (well the newer Nikor 85mm T/S Macro will work...transmit aperature data to a dSLR)...if you really need great DOF. T/S lenses are awesome, and fully manual (though I think Oly could start a revolution there too and come out with an AF version).

http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pcex.html
Want extreme DOF? get a specialty full-frame lens, picture below is impressive!

http://www.naturfotograf.com/images/d95cones.jpg

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 12:55 AM
I think Kodak, Leaf, Hasselblad, Aptus, BetterLight, Mamiya, et al. will take exception with that statement. If you're going to argue with statements about format, it makes sense to take other formats into account. :-P

I was talking about "35mm-like" equipment.
But you are absolutely right - MF backs will always "outmegapixel" any new 1D Mark X. And this is precisely the reason I would not buy that new Mark...
Instead, I am building my second SLR system around a Mamiya RZ67. Right now I only have a film back, but I hope to get a digital one as soon as I can afford it!

RevToTheRedline
Oct 17, 2007, 12:59 AM
The Nikon D300 does NOT have a wireless TTL flash controller built in. The E3 does.
I know that you *can* do wireless TTL with Nikon bodies and Speedlights (I think you could even do it back in the film days). However, it will require an external controller that costs on the order of $150 or so.


http://signoflife.zenfolio.com

What the heck are you talking about? My D80 can do wireless TTL, I'm pretty dang sure the D300 can. And for a matter of fact I was just using it today.

EDIT: it's 1am, I was using it yesterday :)

compuwar
Oct 17, 2007, 01:01 AM
I was talking about "35mm-like" equipment.
But you are absolutely right - MF backs will always "outmegapixel" any new 1D Mark X. And this is precisely the reason I would not buy that new Mark...
Instead, I am building my second SLR system around a Mamiya RZ67. Right now I only have a film back, but I hope to get a digital one as soon as I can afford it!

Have you considered 4x5? BetterLight seems to have *relatively* reasonable pricing compared to any of the MF vendors. If I thought I could sell a higher volume of landscape prints, I'd so have one of their backs.

Having shot a fair amount of MF and LF film, I consider MF "35mm-like" equipment, if you ain't got that swing... :)

The Nikon D300 does NOT have a wireless TTL flash controller built in. The E3 does.
I know that you *can* do wireless TTL with Nikon bodies and Speedlights (I think you could even do it back in the film days). However, it will require an external controller that costs on the order of $150 or so.


The D200 has a commander-mode built-in flash, and DPR's preview of the D300 has this custom setting:

======================================
e3 Flash cntrl for built-in flash TTL
Manual
Repeating Flash
Commander Mode Set the mode for the built-in flash.
======================================

Since it says "Commander Mode," that means it'll do iTTL to all the iTTL-capable Nikon Speedlights. No external controller required.

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 01:14 AM
1. LOL, I do not consider ISO 3200 a 'specialist' application.

It is no doubt nice to have a camera with working and noise-free ISO 3200.
However, it is definitely a specialty application.
The problem is, you do not see the world at ISO 3200! Someone has estimated that the "sensitivity" of darkness-adapted human eye is on the order of ISO 800 (and it is much less under "ordinary" lighting). Such a sensitive camera will essentially be a poor man's nigh vision device :D.
Speaking from a more practical standpoint, i believe that all modern cameras woth no exception (yes, including the precious Canons) are horrible above ISO 800. Some are more horrible than the others. Canon is probably the least horrible of them all. Oly is probably one of the worst. But even if I were a Canon user, I would never shoot at ISO above 100 or 200 unless I absolutely have to. Thus, ISO 3200 is definitely a specialty application as far as I am concerned - at least, this is what I meant.

Now as far as the size goes, Oly does make an awesome small camera... It is called the E-410. If you couple it with one of the old OM lenses with an adapter, it makes an awesome street camera!

E3 is not a small camera (though it is, I think, very slightly lighter than the D300). However, the 4/3 lenses, such as the 14-54 and 50-200 are definitely smaller and lighter then the equivalent FF lenses. Overall, Oly system does win over Canikon in terms of weight and size - even with the E3 body. And then there is the E-410 :)

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 01:16 AM
What the heck are you talking about? My D80 can do wireless TTL, I'm pretty dang sure the D300 can. And for a matter of fact I was just using it today.

EDIT: it's 1am, I was using it yesterday :)

If it is indeed so - I stand corrected.
I do not use TTL flash anyway... And do not own any of Oly FL's either.

RevToTheRedline
Oct 17, 2007, 01:19 AM
If it is indeed so - I stand corrected.
I do not use TTL flash anyway... And do not own any of Oly FL's either.

Wireless flash is awesome, if you do indeed get yourself the E3, by all means get yourself a good flash. There is no such thing as a flash too powerful. I've had a ton of people ask me why I went with Nikons best flash, I'd still want more if I could get it.

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 01:21 AM
Have you considered 4x5? BetterLight seems to have *relatively* reasonable pricing compared to any of the MF vendors. If I thought I could sell a higher volume of landscape prints, I'd so have one of their backs.

Having shot a fair amount of MF and LF film, I consider MF "35mm-like" equipment, if you ain't got that swing... :)

The stuff I am shooting will always have some motion, thus a scanning back probably won't cut it. I will also be doing some people work with that Mamiya. In additio to these constraints, I want slightly more mobility than a 4x5 will permit.

And, yes, I understand what you mean by saying MF is "35-mm like" :)

Wireless flash is awesome, if you do indeed get yourself the E3, by all means get yourself a good flash.

What would I need a flash for? :D

I do have a studio lighting system (3 Elinchrom monolights) for shooting still lifes and models... But it stays in the studio, and I rarely use it.

I don't like working with a flash.

RevToTheRedline
Oct 17, 2007, 01:27 AM
What would I need a flash for? :D

I do have a studio lighting system (3 Elinchrom monolights) for shooting still lifes and models... But it stays in the studio, and I rarely use it.

I don't like working with a flash.

I like to use it for fill flash outdoors.

compuwar
Oct 17, 2007, 01:28 AM
I do have a studio lighting system (3 Elinchrom monolights) for shooting still lifes and models... But it stays in the studio, and I rarely use it.


I'll trade ya for a Novatron pack and 3 heads that do get used- I mean it seems such a waste to let some good Elinchroms sit unused...

srf4real
Oct 17, 2007, 02:39 PM
Funny how dust reduction and live view were just a dream to most other mid range system users until just the other day... I honestly was not expecting so many critical posts, I was creating this thread in my joy and excitement. I don't mind if you don't care for the system, use what u like.:cool: I like excellent hq glass designed specifically for my sensor at a reachable price that fits whichever 4/3 shooter I buy next - maybe that E3 in the future. I'm looking forward to that new standard class tele giving me a reach of 140 - 600mm equivalent in 35mm format. Did I mention that it's only 5 inches long and less than $400? I know the quality will be there in the glass, because it is an Olympus lens.;)

Westside guy
Oct 17, 2007, 03:00 PM
Funny how dust reduction and live view were just a dream to most other mid range system users until just the other day...

This statement doesn't actually make much sense, given what's already out there / already announced in the same price range as the E3. If you'd posted this a year and a half ago, when Olympus announced the E330 - then maybe you'd have a point. But Olympus is not the only company offering either feature, either at, around or below the E3's price point.

That E3 is certainly a nice offering for people that have bought into the 4/3 system, though, as I previously stated.

RevToTheRedline
Oct 17, 2007, 03:14 PM
It's also funny that Live View and dust reduction are things that don't make a good SLR either.

OreoCookie
Oct 17, 2007, 03:21 PM
It's also funny that Live View and dust reduction are things that don't make a good SLR either.
You're correct about the former, but I strongly disagree on the latter: dust reduction is just being introduced by the Big Two and essential for dslrs -- especially when you change lenses a lot.

netdog
Oct 17, 2007, 03:29 PM
I think the 4/3 idea was great in theory, but for it to have made a significant impact they probably needed the other smaller manufacturers (e.g. Pentax) to buy in - and that didn't happen.

Panasonic / Leica bought in, and not only are the L1 and Digilux 3 extraordinary cameras, but the Leica lenses out so far (14-50, 25, and 14-150) are remarkable.

The Canon/Nikon set just doesn't get how great and different the Digilux 3 is compared to the approach that the mainstream is taking.

When you see someone slag an L1 or Digilux 3, you can bet that they have never actually used one for any prolonged period.

srf4real
Oct 17, 2007, 03:34 PM
No negative comment on the glass available to 4/3? I believe that the system is about to hit its stride and take over a larger portion of the prosumers out there looking for features that have been deliberately witheld from them by canon and nikon for sake of a lower price point. The e510, e330, e410, blows away either with features and quality of kit glass. How much are you willing and able to spend for in body image stabilization, dust reduction, live view, (I know I never use it) and weather proofing? The e3 only gives the pros another option to the e1 without having to let go of all that killer glass and start over. The next gen will be even better. Unless like valiar said, you have a specific application which another system suits better, or you're in the mindless megapixel race, Oly, Panasonic, Leica, and Sigma will get you some professional quality results second to none. :rolleyes:

RevToTheRedline
Oct 17, 2007, 03:46 PM
You're correct about the former, but I strongly disagree on the latter: dust reduction is just being introduced by the Big Two and essential for dslrs -- especially when you change lenses a lot.

Well I hope Olympus can do better with the dust reduction then Canon, because it's anything but impressive, worse then nothing at all in fact.

Dust reduction isn't an end all fix either, you will still eventually get dust that sticks on so good it requires sensor swabbing with liquid.

OreoCookie
Oct 17, 2007, 03:56 PM
Well I hope Olympus can do better with the dust reduction then Canon, because it's anything but impressive, worse then nothing at all in fact.

Dust reduction isn't an end all fix either, you will still eventually get dust that sticks on so good it requires sensor swabbing with liquid.
Olympus has dust reduction ever since introducing dslrs of their own. They are several generations ahead of Nikon and Canon. Plus, their sensor is smaller, so dust reduction systems (as opposed to removal!) are easier to build. (FF dslrs don't have dust reduction yet!)

It's not a fix, but certainly helps. It might `just' save you a Benjamin for cleaning your sensor by your service partner of choice.

Westside guy
Oct 17, 2007, 04:53 PM
I think the 4/3 idea was great in theory, but for it to have made a significant impact they probably needed the other smaller manufacturers (e.g. Pentax) to buy in - and that didn't happen. That said, Olympus has historically made cameras that offer a good price-to-features ratio. If you're already a 4/3 shooter, this looks very nice.

Panasonic / Leica bought in, and not only are the L1 and Digilux 3 extraordinary cameras, but the Leica lenses out so far (14-50, 25, and 14-150) are remarkable.

You're arguing at a tangent to what I said. I wasn't saying the 4/3 systems are worse - or better, for that matter - than the 3/2 systems. But while a handful of companies did buy into 4/3, with the exception of Olympus they're all afterthoughts in terms of marketshare. To significantly impact things market-wise, they needed someone else that actually has measurable market share - e.g. Pentax, Fuji, KonicaMinolta - to also offer actual 4/3 bodies and/or lenses (Fuji is a member of the consortium, but that seems to be in name-only since their dSLRs are based on Nikon bodies).

compuwar
Oct 17, 2007, 05:04 PM
You're correct about the former, but I strongly disagree on the latter: dust reduction is just being introduced by the Big Two and essential for dslrs -- especially when you change lenses a lot.

No, cleaning your sensor is essential- a lot of dust removal/reduction systems don't work to the tune of actually making things worse. What we're seeing is marketing feature creep. There are just not a lot of new bells and whistles to list in marketing brochures and these features are market-driven (just like "full frame" 35mm sensors) not necessarily technology-driven.

I shoot mostly with a 35-70 in the studio and a 400 prime in the field. I'll often put a 10-20 on for landscapes or wider studio shots (my studio could stand to be about 8' deeper.) My pictures still sell, despite not having this "essential" technology- so your definition of essential certainly isn't the same as my definition, and I suspect it's not the same as the dictionary definition.

Now, I'm pretty careful about handling and pointing the camera when I do change lenses, but I don't find myself cleaning my sensor an abnormal amount of time.

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 05:25 PM
It's also funny that Live View and dust reduction are things that don't make a good SLR either.

I beg to disagree about dust removal.

I used to have a Canon 300D, and dust accumulation was driving me nuts.

The damn thing needed cleaning every two weeks or so with that vodoo stick and some pec-pads. Cloning dust out in the sky is not too bad, but it really sucks in, say, portrait shots.

I have never, ever had to clean my E1's sensor. Ever.

Yes, there IS some dust on it after two years of use. Probably sticky pollen. However, these 3 specks are only visible at F22, on a very, very light background after auto-levels are applied in Photoshop. And they are only slightly visible even then - because this dust sits on the SSWF itself, about 3mm from the sensor - not on the hot mirror or sensor glass. This is a piece of very nice engineering.

It is sometimes funny to watch how people justify it to themselves that dust is somehow "OK". I have even seen an article about it on such an esteemed site as Luminous Landscape. Repeat after me: dust sucks. Dust can ruin your shot.

Oh, and, RevToTheRedline, I would still like to see your work. You know - these awesome pictures you are taking with that powerful flash and dusty (but still teh uber) "N" camera.

By the way, I did pre-order my E-3 today. Wonder when it will actually ship...

No, cleaning your sensor is essential- a lot of dust removal/reduction systems don't work to the tune of actually making things worse. What we're seeing is marketing feature creep.

Precisely!
Check this favorite link of mine out:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

I have not seen a test of Nikon's system yet, but from the specs it looks suspiciously like the system Canon has. Complete with software dust mapping. Which is hardly encouraging...

RevToTheRedline
Oct 17, 2007, 05:38 PM
Precisely!
Check this favorite link of mine out:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

I have not seen a test of Nikon's system yet, but from the specs it looks suspiciously like the system Canon has. Complete with software dust mapping. Which is hardly encouraging...

That article makes me laugh. Automatic dust removal is such a gimmick to me. This proves it.

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 05:50 PM
That article makes me laugh. Automatic dust removal is such a gimmick to me. This proves it.

It is definitely not a gimmick in its Oly incarnation according to the article's authors. It does not remove 100% of the dust (it would have been surprising if it did), but it definitely works - unlike the "marketing checkbox" systems that Sony and Canon have.

wmmk
Oct 17, 2007, 07:11 PM
Nice camera. If it was faster (8fps) and less pixel-dense (6MP would be nice), I'd seriously consider it. 4/3rd might not be perfect, but honestly, compact(ish) constant f2 zooms at 28-70 and 70-200 FL equivalents would be a pleasure to use. That fastest AF claim is interesting as well...

Lovesong
Oct 17, 2007, 07:55 PM
While I don't want to start another flame war, and show myself to be ignorant, incapable of understanding or accepting other people's opinions, and utterly stuck in my world views, a la RevToTheRedline, there is one quintessential issue that all 4/3 suffer from, and that is the viewfinder. Perhaps I have been spoiled by my years of film shooting, and my 5D, but I actually need to see what it is I'm taking a picture of. About a year ago I got my dad an e-500 for his birthday, and while I feel that the build and overall image quality of that camera is great (especially for a low-end model), I felt like I was shooting in a tunnel with it. This is a small thing, maybe even a personal preference, but it's a large part why I went with a FF camera.

srf4real
Oct 17, 2007, 08:44 PM
there is one quintessential issue that all 4/3 suffer from, and that is the viewfinder. Except for the pentaprisms in e1 and e3, you are right on with that.;)

e3: Eye-level TTL Optical Pentaprism
Field of view approx. 100%
Magnification 1.15x with a 50mm lens and -1 dioptre
Dioptre adjustment -3 to +1 dioptre
Built in eyepiece shutter
Focusing screen: Interchangeable type
Mirror: Quick return mirror

Lovesong
Oct 17, 2007, 10:23 PM
Except for the pentaprisms in e1 and e3, you are right on with that.;)

e3: Eye-level TTL Optical Pentaprism
Field of view approx. 100%
Magnification 1.15x with a 50mm lens and -1 dioptre
Dioptre adjustment -3 to +1 dioptre
Built in eyepiece shutter
Focusing screen: Interchangeable type
Mirror: Quick return mirror

And away I go being proven ignorant and irrelevant :o

valiar
Oct 17, 2007, 11:19 PM
...there is one quintessential issue that all 4/3 suffer from, and that is the viewfinder. Perhaps I have been spoiled by my years of film shooting, and my 5D, but I actually need to see what it is I'm taking a picture of...

This is indeed true of most 4/3 bodies - except the E1 and, looking at the specs, E3.
I absolutely don't like the viewfinder in my E330, and I did try the E500 in the store... Ugh.
However, I love my E1 - I can easily focus manually even without a split screen. Its eyepoint also makes for quite comfortable viewing.
From what I have read in E3 hands-on previews, its viewfinder visually looks a bit larger than the one in 40D. Of course, both E1 and E3's viewfinders cannot really compete with your 5D.

OreoCookie
Oct 18, 2007, 04:36 AM
This is indeed true of most 4/3 bodies - except the E1 and, looking at the specs, E3.
I absolutely don't like the viewfinder in my E330, and I did try the E500 in the store... Ugh.
Agreed, that was the reason I opted against an Olympus dslr. That was also the reason I sold a D70 after only one week after trying a D80 once. Too bad the E3 didn't come out earlier.

srf4real
Oct 18, 2007, 08:36 AM
I ended up getting an eyecup magnifier for my L1, and at first wasn't sure it was worth the $30... but after a couple of weeks I find myself focusing manually much more often with confidence. I was about to spring for a Pentax k10d because of the viewfinder issue (plus weatherproofing for less than $1000) but then I came across the deal of a lifetime on the L1 kit. At the low price they're asking for the e3, I'll have my cake and eat it too within a half a year.:D

Mr. G4
Oct 18, 2007, 08:07 PM
That article makes me laugh. Automatic dust removal is such a gimmick to me. This proves it.

It's only a gimmick only when you don't have.
Why would Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax went out of their way trying to mimic Olympus if they all tough it's a gimmick. Just stop and think about for a second and be honest with your selves, wouldn't you like to be at the beach or anywhere dusty and change the lens whenever you want?

And this one is my favorite video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkUyOAsYKm8) and this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA1TMwsXQFY)

compuwar
Oct 18, 2007, 11:19 PM
It's only a gimmick only when you don't have.


No, possession of a gimick doesn't in any way affect its gimmickyness.

I
Why would Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax went out of their way trying to
mimic Olympus if they all tough it's a gimmick. Just stop and think about for


As we've already said- because of marketing. Lots of industries add gimmicks to increase sales, sell to the uninitiated (which is after all, the largest market and the way to grow a market,) etc.

I
a second and be honest with your selves, wouldn't you like to be at the beach or anywhere dusty and change the lens whenever you want?


No. I'd rather carry a backup body with a wider lens. Every single time.

Mr. G4
Oct 19, 2007, 01:11 AM
No, possession of a gimick doesn't in any way affect its gimmickyness.

No you didn't get my point or you don't want to get it.
When someone doesn't have a working dust remover built in their camera, they always come up with that lame argument that it's a gimmick.


As we've already said- because of marketing. Lots of industries add gimmicks to increase sales, sell to the uninitiated (which is after all, the largest market and the way to grow a market,) etc.

So I guess Canon really think that their high end models are really for the uninitiated since they went and add "live view" on them, since it's another gimmick when Olympus came out with it more than a year ago with the E-330...yeh I heard that before too in regard to Mac Vs PC.


No. I'd rather carry a backup body with a wider lens. Every single time.

Good for you, but I guess nobody have money to throw away nor enough power to carry each body for each lens.

Oh here I found your picture

http://www.hot-screensaver.com/wp-myimages/photographer.jpg

compuwar
Oct 19, 2007, 09:29 AM
No you didn't get my point or you don't want to get it.
When someone doesn't have a working dust remover built in their camera, they always come up with that lame argument that it's a gimmick.


Or they understand that even one that "works" doesn't completely remove dust like cleaning the sensor does, so they'd rather just clean the sensor at regular intervals and have a clean sensor rather than a cleanish sensor.

Rather than engineering a situation where dust removal becomes more important maybe you should consider the reliability and longevity implications of additional moving parts- I'm on my third primary DSLR body and I've yet to miss this "great feature" and I've yet to miss selling an image because of a dirty sensor.

If my sensor isn't all spotty without this feature, if millions of images have been sold made by cameras without this feature, and if this feature in its best implementation doesn't solve the problem, then how is it not a gimmick?

The day my customers regularly start rejecting my images because of sensor dust is the day I'll think it's not a gimmick.


So I guess Canon really think that their high end models are really for the uninitiated since they went and add "live view" on them, since it's another gimmick when Olympus came out with it more than a year ago with the E-330...yeh I heard that before too in regard to Mac Vs PC.


Live view has positive implications for the journalist market. It actually solves a problem that's been a problem for media pack photographers for decades. Yes, there are a lot of gimmicks in the computer industry, what's your point?


Good for you, but I guess nobody have money to throw away nor enough power to carry each body for each lens.


If it's important enough that on-the-fly lens changing in a dirty environment would be necessary- it's important enough to have a second body. You may consider it "throwing away money" but a lot of us do ROI calculations and determine that a single body is even more costly if it breaks down.


Oh here I found your picture

http://www.hot-screensaver.com/wp-myimages/photographer.jpg

Nope, I don't shoot Canon, and I use a tripod not a monopod :-P

For what it's worth, if you think adding anti-dust to his bodies would have him carrying fewer bodies on a golf course, you're an idiot.

scotthayes
Oct 19, 2007, 10:28 AM
where did my post go?

All I said was it was an ugly camera and put a link to a review.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oops, wrong thread. guess I spent a little to much time in the pub after work.

saltyzoo
Oct 19, 2007, 11:22 AM
I've never understood the vile passions against Oly. I luv em. You don't have to.

Mr. G4
Oct 19, 2007, 11:47 AM
The day my customers regularly start rejecting my images because of sensor dust is the day I'll think it's not a gimmick.

You had to be foolish to submit a picture to with dust spot on it...you are worst than I though.

Live view has positive implications for the journalist market. It actually solves a problem that's been a problem for media pack photographers for decades. Yes, there are a lot of gimmicks in the computer industry, what's your point?


That is exactly my point, people like you who are so blind that don't see further than the tip of their nose and couldn't agonize progress when there is one.

For what it's worth, if you think adding anti-dust to his bodies would have him carrying fewer bodies on a golf course, you're an idiot.

Is that all you have, resolve to name calling ... what a pity.

srf4real
Oct 19, 2007, 12:58 PM
Come on guys, where's the love? We're all fellow photographers and mac users I hope. It doesn't matter if your preferences are different, but this pissing contest has to go before the mods intervene... so here's a picture of a homeless cat at the beach sleeping under a park bench. Be grateful. Critique away.:cool:

>taken with a 4/3 camera<:eek:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n30/srf4real/_1010876.jpg

baby duck monge
Oct 19, 2007, 01:26 PM
I am Spartacus.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1216/1224669578_54e6431f6d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/babyduckmonger/1224669578/)

Taken with a 4/3 camera.

saltyzoo
Oct 19, 2007, 01:31 PM
Both taken with a 4/3 Oly:

http://www.saltyzoo.com/gallery/data/586/medium/070623_150404_79-1280.jpg


http://www.saltyzoo.com/gallery/data/585/medium/070622-0070-1280.jpg

Mr. G4
Oct 19, 2007, 02:01 PM
Here some love for you.

With E-500 and Zuiko 14-54

http://cybercambodia.com/topass/2007/fs/FS_01.jpg

valiar
Oct 19, 2007, 02:18 PM
Or they understand that even one that "works" doesn't completely remove dust like cleaning the sensor does, so they'd rather just clean the sensor at regular intervals and have a clean sensor rather than a cleanish sensor.

Rather than engineering a situation where dust removal becomes more important maybe you should consider the reliability and longevity implications of additional moving parts- I'm on my third primary DSLR body and I've yet to miss this "great feature" and I've yet to miss selling an image because of a dirty sensor.

If my sensor isn't all spotty without this feature, if millions of images have been sold made by cameras without this feature, and if this feature in its best implementation doesn't solve the problem, then how is it not a gimmick?

This is one of the funniest exchanges I have read in the last few days.
Just like Mr. G4 said, people who have no "feature X" in their camera will go to earth's end to justify to themselves and everyone else that "feature X" is a "gimmick".
And you are proving Mr. G4 right with every post you make.

Now as far as your uninformed comments on dust go...

The sensor in my E1 is not, as you said, "cleanish". I consider it *clean* for all practical purposes (there are three small specs that are marginally visible only at f22, with extreme levels adjustment).
I have not had to clone out a dust spot a single time since I have started using the camera.
I also did not have to clean the sensor a single time. It Just Works (TM).

If you still don't get it - let me spell it out for you: no vodoo sticks, no Eclipse, no pec-pads, no shooting the sky at f16 over and over and over again. Nothing like that. And I do not have more visible dust in my images than I had with my other cameras. It is not a quality for convenience compromise, as your post might suggest. I can see NO dust. None. Zero.

On the other hand, dust was driving me ******* crazy on my Sigma SD9 and Canon DRebel. There was some even after vodoo stick treatment. Even after Eclipse and pec-pads. Even after spending 40 minutes doing nothing but cleaning the sensor. Ever tried cleaning out those pesky specs in the top right corner of the sensor?
Dust was creeping in even if I was not changing the lenses.

My approach in pre-Oly days was to clean the sensor bi-weekly. I loathed the experience, and it was more of a compromise anyway. I would get the big specs off, introduce 2-3 small ones in the process, and if these were not in inconvenient locations, I would leave it at that.

Your "moving parts" argument is rather laughable too. The ultrasound emitter used by E-cameras is a solid state device. It is bolted to a flat piece of optical glass placed before the sensor. There are no moving parts in this system. There is nothing to break. This dust reduction system will most certainly outlast any shutter or mirror mechanism.

So, guess what, Sherlock - dust IS a problem. Maybe not for you, but certainly for many people, including me. Before I had a first hand experience with 4/3, I did not have an opinion on this feature (I was rather sceptical). After owning the E1, I will NOT buy another DSLR without this feature.

Now for some love :)
Image below shot with a E-330IR (E-330 disassembled, and converted for IR-only use):

http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p342054911-5.jpg

compuwar
Oct 20, 2007, 02:07 AM
This is one of the funniest exchanges I have read in the last few days.
Just like Mr. G4 said, people who have no "feature X" in their camera will go to earth's end to justify to themselves and everyone else that "feature X" is a "gimmick".


The reverse is also true, so no gain there- you can see lots of posts about how essential "feature X" is for any given feature unique to a camera model or brand. However, since most photographs sold are made with cameras without this feature, it can't be all that essential can it?


Now as far as your uninformed comments on dust go...

The sensor in my E1 is not, as you said, "cleanish". I consider it *clean* for all practical purposes (there are three small specs that are marginally visible only at f22, with extreme levels adjustment).


You may consider it clean, but independent testing has not come to the same conclusion. Therefore, I'll stick with independent testing results and their categorizations. "We would rate the effectiveness to 50%." and "Although the result after the second cleaning cycle wasn't very impressive, we still counted over 30 spots gone. We were hoping to get more off with the first two cycles." Neither of those statements seems to be a resounding endorsement- better than the competition sure, better than a clean sensor, I think not. I'll stick with cleanish until I see independent results stating otherwise- and I'll also weigh those results against the smaller sensor size which affects the amount of charge and how much dust is attracted to the sensor.


I have not had to clone out a dust spot a single time since I have started using the camera.
I also did not have to clean the sensor a single time. It Just Works (TM).


I've done very few sensor cleanings over three bodies digital bodies. I hardly find it onerous. It doesn't take me more than 2 minutes to do it either, once it might have taken me 4 minutes because the first time I had to dig for my A/C adapter, unpackage a new set of swabs and read the instructions. I've cloned out dust once in the last 4 years- hardly a drain on my time.



If you still don't get it - let me spell it out for you: no vodoo sticks, no Eclipse, no pec-pads, no shooting the sky at f16 over and over and over again. Nothing like that. And I do not have more visible dust in my images than I had with my other cameras. It is not a quality for convenience compromise, as your post might suggest. I can see NO dust. None. Zero.



As I've said, independent testing finds the Olympus system good, but not perfect- since you're hardly an unbiased opinion we'll have to disagree.

FWIW, I don't shoot the sky at f/16 over and over and I don't have any visible dust in my images- in fact Wiley's just picked up some images I shot the week before last week for a textbook- so it's not just *my* opinion that the images are publication-quality. They're passing muster by photo editors, including one for the cover- that works for me, your mileage obviously varies.


On the other hand, dust was driving me ******* crazy on my Sigma SD9 and Canon DRebel. There was some even after vodoo stick treatment. Even after Eclipse and pec-pads. Even after spending 40 minutes doing nothing but cleaning the sensor. Ever tried cleaning out those pesky specs in the top right corner of the sensor?


I have yet to spend more than 2 minutes per camera actually cleaning sensors on three different cameras (two S2Pros and a D2x) each time.


Dust was creeping in even if I was not changing the lenses.


I know folks who shoot in quarries with DLSRs without this essential feature who manage to sell their images too. I've done post-flood insurance shoots under very dusty conditions and industrial manufacturing shoots in places where you need a dust mask- but maybe it's just that you're shooting unsealed consumer cameras where I've mostly had my D2x when shooting in hostile environments.


My approach in pre-Oly days was to clean the sensor bi-weekly. I loathed the experience, and it was more of a compromise anyway. I would get the big specs off, introduce 2-3 small ones in the process, and if these were not in inconvenient locations, I would leave it at that.

Your "moving parts" argument is rather laughable too. The ultrasound emitter used by E-cameras is a solid state device. It is bolted to a flat piece of optical glass placed before the sensor. There are no moving parts in this system. There is nothing to break. This dust reduction system will most certainly outlast any shutter or mirror mechanism.


You do understand that it takes vibration (also known as movement) to create sound even above 20KHz? Generally, introducing another component that may fail into the equation isn't something I want when my cameras function just fine without it.


So, guess what, Sherlock - dust IS a problem. Maybe not for you, but certainly for many people, including me. Before I had a first hand experience with 4/3, I did not have an opinion on this feature (I was rather sceptical). After owning the E1, I will NOT buy another DSLR without this feature.


Well Watson, to me sensor cleaning is elementary. Perhaps if I were like you and couldn't clean my sensor after 40 minutes or shot with an unsealed body I'd feel differently, but since I'm not and since I am selling pictures without it, I'll live without the gimmick thanks.

Critique away.:cool:

>taken with a 4/3 camera<:eek:


A tiny bit of fill to bring out the cat's eyes and some fur detail would have been nice- maybe a silver light disc for the fur (instead of flash.) Overall though, it's a well-framed shot and I like it.

valiar
Oct 20, 2007, 02:57 AM
You may consider it clean, but independent testing has not come to the same conclusion. Therefore, I'll stick with independent testing results and their categorizations.

No, still does not compute, does it?
What part of "clean" aren't you getting?
My sensor is clean, because I *see* no dust on it. No matter how many times I change lenses, I do not see more dust appear on it.
Most people who use 4/3 cameras share the same experience.
This is really the only thing that matters.

Obviously, if the sensor is purposely dusted, you will *need* to perform a wet cleaning. Duh. The system is, as is evident from that test I have linked, not designed to get rid of 100 particles in one fell swoop. Bummer. But if you are getting these particles on the sensor only a few at a time (like you will in normal use), the sensor will stay absolutely clean.
And, by the way, this is exactly the conclusion the authors of that test came to.
If you missed this part, read the test report again. It is almost at the very end.

I've done very few sensor cleanings over three bodies digital bodies. I hardly find it onerous. It doesn't take me more than 2 minutes to do it either, once it might have taken me 4 minutes because the first time I had to dig for my A/C adapter, unpackage a new set of swabs and read the instructions. I've cloned out dust once in the last 4 years- hardly a drain on my time.


http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=366270
^^
This forum member will strongly disagree with you.
Nuff said.
Of course, he did not perform the cleaning correctly, but this is not the point.
It is not the first thread like that that I see, and not the last. Go to DPR forums, and you will find an "I have runed my sensor" thread like that daily. Honest.
Let me say it again - manual sensor cleaning sucks, and you will not clean out *normal* contamination as with your swab as well as the constant utrasound treatment will do it. You will get rid of some specks, an introduce a few others. Sometimes you end up simply relocating the dust. Yes, it happens even to the best of us.
If, as you claim, you simply swab the sensor for two minutes "blindly", and consider the job done, you are not cleaning it thoroughly enough.
It will work just fine for you, if you never have to shoot at apertures smaller than f5.6 or f8. But for some types of photography you actually *need* to stop down. And it is then when the "ouch" moment of truth comes. Of course, you do claim that you shoot the sky at f16 every day, and never see dust... But, conveniently enough, you do not provide any examples.
I know what sensor dust is from direct experience - I shot with an older Canon DSLR, and I shot with a Sigma. The Sigma actually has a seal on the mirror box that supposedly prevents dust from getting in - I still got plenty of dust spots. The word "annoying" is an underestimation - and I have hundreds of ruined shots to prove it.
Finally, dare I suggest you actually use one of these cameras yourself before going to the forum and declaring something a "gimmick" like you have just done. I don't think you have ever held an Olympus camera in your hands.:D
As for the "moving parts", I think you do not understand what is usually meant by "moving parts". The displacement of the SSWF is on the order of a few microns, and it is entirely a solid state device. Ultrasound emitters last virtually forever - I have a few sonicators in our lab that date back to early 90s - late 80s, and still going strong. It might also be of interest to you that we actually use these sonicators to clean silicon and glass surfaces to do surface chemistry. Swabbing just does not cut it - but 25 kHz ultrasound does a marvellous job.

valiar
Oct 20, 2007, 03:34 AM
Nikon can replace the filter, I'm not sure you could get one from them as a discrete part. You can also remove the AA filter and see what that does for your pictures! One of the IR modifying places does removal and perhaps replacement with something else.

Nikon does free quotes, send it in and have them do it or call and see if they'll quote over the phone.

FWIW, I've never seen anything about just using a dry cloth *or* using a hard object from anywhere I'd trust. I use Pec pads even though they're frustrating instead of the chopped up Rubbermaid spatula that most folks recommend (the rubber isn't hard) and I always use cleaning solution.

This is a direct quote from that "ruined sensor" thread I have linked above.
It is SO funny :D
Sure, sensor cleaning is easy and fun for you... You even use the word "frustrating" there, as I can see. And then there is all that talk about chopped up Rubbermaid spatulas... In a thread about a ruined sensor... Priceless.
Don't get me wrong - I still have a chopped up Rubbermaid spatula in my toolbox. I know exactly where you are coming from.
But I really like it how you come to an Oly thread right afterwards and declare the SSWF a "gimmick".
Of course, cleaning the sensor with a chopped up Rubbermaid spatula (or folded up Pec-pads) has that genuine, macho, Wild West feel to it.

Owned.

compuwar
Oct 20, 2007, 07:03 AM
This is a direct quote from that "ruined sensor" thread I have linked above.
It is SO funny :D
Sure, sensor cleaning is easy and fun for you... You even use the word "frustrating" there, as I can see. And then there is all that talk about chopped up Rubbermaid spatulas... In a thread about a ruined sensor... Priceless.


"Compared to" as in "there's an easier way, I just don't use it." Why not? Because the extra 30 seconds doesn't make enough difference to me. Why? Because I'm not inept enough to not be able to clean my sensor after 40 minutes.

It's also nice how you don't seem to be able to address the fact that without your gimmick photo editors seem to be perfectly happy with the images produced. Maybe it's because it's not as necessary as you seem to think.

srf4real
Oct 20, 2007, 08:04 AM
I wonder if any product I have doesn't include a 'gimmick' or two that seduced me into buying it... like that side-view mirror defrost feature on my Chevy. You might not have it, or believe it works, but I never seem to have a problem with foggy mirrors.:confused:

Yeh, the cat was shot with no flash in the shade and I had to p/p in a lot of fill light just to achieve the detail that is there in that pic... I could have isolated him and done a little more work specifically I guess, or used the flash (why didn't I think of that!). It only cost me a can of tuna. At least I didn't have to filter noise out of the shadows in development.

Honestly, the one thing I love in the 4/3 system more than anything else is the sensor size giving me a 2x crop factor on the super tele lenses because I shoot surfers and waves that can require a lot of reach like 200 yards without a boat... and I prefer the discretion/mobility achieved with a hand held set-up that still brings out detail and sharpness without needing a wheelbarrow to lug around the equipment. It's certainly a day sport shooter's dream setup. A very modestly priced yet top quality lighter and smaller than the competition zoom lens gets me my results when it counts.

I'll buy the e3 in a while to take advantage of weather-proofing plus larger prints options. I won't mind having a viewfinder that rocks as well.

This bottle nose dolphin is a good example of a subject shot 100 yards out with a ZD40-150mm 3.5/4.5 with nice contrast and detail, hand held and framed on the fly... keep in mind this is a standard kit lens that comes with the e-systems consumer models.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n30/srf4real/dolphin.jpg

and 100% crop.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n30/srf4real/crop-1.jpg

compuwar
Oct 20, 2007, 08:19 AM
This forum member will strongly disagree with you.
Nuff said.


Anyone who doesn't follow the manufacturer's directions, nor the generally accepted practices is not an example of why not to do something.


Of course, he did not perform the cleaning correctly, but this is not the point.


Sure it's the point, ignore the proper way to do it at your peril. It's like not unloading a firearm before cleaning it- because someone blows their head off isn't a good reason to keep a dirty gun.


Of course, you do claim that you shoot the sky at f16 every day, and never see dust... But, conveniently enough, you do not provide any examples.


Obviously, you're not able to read well, as I've never said I shoot anything at f/16. I shoot with a D2x, and diffraction from the small photosites would be apparent at f/16. According to the calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm the Olympus E-3 (4/3 at 10MP) will start to have diffraction problems at f/8.



Finally, dare I suggest you actually use one of these cameras yourself before going to the forum and declaring something a "gimmick" like you have just done. I don't think you have ever held an Olympus camera in your hands.:D



I've never shot with an Olympus digital for two primary reasons:

- My primary market is Fine Art Nature. Olympus simply doesn't offer any glass over 300mm. In fact the only glass over 300mm for 4/3 are two slow Sigma lenses that I can get in a Nikon or Canon mount. Even with the field of view equivalence it doesn't change the magnification and it's limiting to only have 300mm and 420mm (with a TC) options.

- Anyone who has a list of approved cameras that I've encountered does not accept any 4/3 system camera. I see no good reason to artificially limit which markets my shots can enter without a good reason.

- I'm already diffraction limited early, losing isn't appealing.

But again, since photo editors are accepting my images without this system, and customers are purchasing my images without this system for me it's certainly a gimmick. I'm glad there's a gimmick for people who can't clean a sensor in 40 minutes of trying though.

compuwar
Oct 20, 2007, 08:32 AM
I wonder if any product I have doesn't include a 'gimmick' or two that seduced me into buying it... like that side-view mirror defrost feature on my Chevy. You might not have it, or believe it works, but I never seem to have a problem with foggy mirrors.:confused:

Many people buy based on gimmicks, which is why manufacturer's marketing departments insist on them. It doesn't have to not work to be a gimmick- the light-up keyboard on my MacBook is certainly a gimmick for me because I've been touch typing for about 25 years. It certainly wasn't something that influenced my decision to purchase in any significant way though because in general, I don't make purchasing decisions based on gimmicks. I happen to think it's a neat gimmick though because it pleases my sense of aesthetics when I look at the machine in the dark. If you're not a touch typist, you might find the feature essential and the raised bumps on the f and j keys gimmicky since you can just look at where your fingers are...

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 08:48 AM
The D200 has a commander-mode built-in flash, and DPR's preview of the D300 has this custom setting:

======================================
e3 Flash cntrl for built-in flash TTL
Manual
Repeating Flash
Commander Mode Set the mode for the built-in flash.
======================================

Since it says "Commander Mode," that means it'll do iTTL to all the iTTL-capable Nikon Speedlights. No external controller required.

The D70 also has commander mode. It's old tech and low-end, given that you can fetch one for about $400.

OreoCookie
Oct 20, 2007, 08:56 AM
- My primary market is Fine Art Nature. Olympus simply doesn't offer any glass over 300mm. In fact the only glass over 300mm for 4/3 are two slow Sigma lenses that I can get in a Nikon or Canon mount. Even with the field of view equivalence it doesn't change the magnification and it's limiting to only have 300mm and 420mm (with a TC) options.
300 mm correspond to 600 mm on FF, the same maximum focal length Nikon and Canon offer. Needless to say that the Olympus lens is a lot, lot cheaper than either of the 600 mm cannons. And faster.

(Note: I'm using a Nikon.)

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 09:01 AM
There's a 1200-1700mm from Nikon. That would equivalent to 1800-2550mm on a crop body.

There's also the reflex 2000mm, if that counts.

Clix Pix
Oct 20, 2007, 09:25 AM
I am on a local store's waiting list for the D3 and the D300. I'm excited about both cameras, they each offer some exciting features. My interest was NOT, however, pricked by the gimmicky built-in sensor cleaning, nor by the live view feature. OK, fine, they'll be on the cameras but neither feature is a reason for buying one camera or camera brand over another....

OreoCookie
Oct 20, 2007, 09:30 AM
There's a 1200-1700mm from Nikon. That would equivalent to 1800-2550mm on a crop body.

There's also the reflex 2000mm, if that counts.
That's hardly something remotely affordable (I haven't seen a price quoted, but only that it is only produced upon request, so I assume it's five digits) or `luggable' (that thing apparently weighs 16 kg (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm) :eek:).

There are also Sigma zooms (a 300-800 and a humongous 2.8/200-500 which you can combine with a 2x converter, yes). But effectively, the focal length range stops at 600 mm (+ tele converters). Even those are, ahem, expensive ($6k+).

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 09:34 AM
The 1200-1700mm was available until 1999 on special order for $75000.

Sometime ago one a used one in good condition was being offered on fredmiranda for $40000 (Tokyo pickup preferably).

That could be considered affordable compared to the new MF Zeiss 1700mm f4 which weighs 256kg.

OreoCookie
Oct 20, 2007, 10:12 AM
The 1200-1700mm was available until 1999 on special order for $75000.

Sometime ago one a used one in good condition was being offered on fredmiranda for $40000 (Tokyo pickup preferably).

That could be considered affordable compared to the new MF Zeiss 1700mm f4 which weighs 256kg.
You're right, it could be considered a bargain since I don't have to sell my house to buy one ;) :D

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 10:14 AM
I'm not sure your house is remotely enough for the Zeiss.

Mr. G4
Oct 20, 2007, 10:51 AM
I am on a local store's waiting list for the D3 and the D300. I'm excited about both cameras, they each offer some exciting features. My interest was NOT, however, pricked by the gimmicky built-in sensor cleaning, nor by the live view feature. OK, fine, they'll be on the cameras but neither feature is a reason for buying one camera or camera brand over another....

That's because you bought into the system already. With your 2 pro and semi pro bodies, you probably have a consequence line up of lens that you come to love and work with and that you would never want to part with. Serious photogs don't buy into a body but the system. BTW, if the feature is not important for you, why did you decide to upgrade? You will be able to take the same and beautiful pictures as you did before those D3 and D300 were announced.

Now let's wait six months after you have your new bodies, and assuming that those "gimmicks" as you said work, and let's hear your opinion then.

All the people who talk in this thread beside the Olympus user have not a slide idea of what they are talking about.

Clix Pix
Oct 20, 2007, 10:59 AM
That's because you bought into the system already. With you 2 pro and semi pro bodies, you probably have a consequence line up of lens that you come to love and work with and that you would never want to part with. Serious photogs don't buy into a body but the system.

Now let's wait six months after you have your new bodies, and assuming that those "gimmicks" as you said work, and let's hear your opinion then.

Yes, that is very true....as a Nikon user for many, many years I do have a nice collection lineup of lenses in which I have indeed made a substantial financial and emotional investment. I would definitely not be willing to sell them all to switch systems. Even in the unlikely event I were to consider doing so, chances are that it would be to make a lateral move to Canon, and that would have to be for a very, very compelling reason.

OK, fine, in six months I'll try to remember to come back to this thread and state my opinions on the automatic sensor cleaning and the live preview features.... :)

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 11:09 AM
E-3 is 12-bit. Uncompetitive on arrival.

jlcharles
Oct 20, 2007, 11:51 AM
E-3 is 12-bit. Uncompetitive on arrival.

What a bunch of crap. The 5D is 12-bit and it's a hell of a camera. Show me the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit. I would surmise that you can't see a visible difference.

OreoCookie
Oct 20, 2007, 05:40 PM
I'm not sure your house is remotely enough for the Zeiss.
Houses in Munich go for about $500-600k, that should suffice for the down payment ;) :p

OreoCookie
Oct 20, 2007, 05:53 PM
What a bunch of crap. The 5D is 12-bit and it's a hell of a camera. Show me the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit. I would surmise that you can't see a visible difference.
Computer screens have only 8 bit per color, so you cannot see the difference. It may make a difference when you fiddle with RAW files, but even then, it won't make much of a difference if your picture is properly exposed.

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 05:53 PM
What a bunch of crap. The 5D is 12-bit and it's a hell of a camera. Show me the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit. I would surmise that you can't see a visible difference.

You might choose the 5D over the S5 Pro because of the FF sensor. What does the E-3 have to offer image-wise? Megapixels? What about the D300 then?

jlcharles
Oct 20, 2007, 06:17 PM
How about the lens system. I'd love to have a 300mm f/2. Isn't going to happen on any system. Except Olympus makes a 150mm f/2 (300mm equivalent) and it's only $2200. Not too bad.

Plus with an adapter, you can mount your old OM series lenses.

I am a Canon owner, but I like the offerings of the other companies as well.

The fanboy bs has got to stop. The way some of these comments have gone, you'd think the CEO of Olympus (or Sony in the other thread) had run over your dogs.

cube
Oct 20, 2007, 06:25 PM
Nikon has a 200mm f2 VR. That makes it 300mm equiv.

There's also a manual 300mm f2, if you can find one.

jlcharles
Oct 20, 2007, 07:07 PM
The Nikon is also $3800.

To use your words, the manual one is uncompetitive on arrival.

The 35-100 f/2 is pretty sweet as well. Although pricy.

How about slapping a bigma on one of these and getting a 100-1000 equivalent FOV? Or a sigma 300-800 and getting a 600-1600?

Olympus is turning this into a very nice system, although it's probably not for someone like you who cares more about specs than producing photographs.

compuwar
Oct 21, 2007, 12:39 AM
300 mm correspond to 600 mm on FF, the same maximum focal length Nikon and Canon offer. Needless to say that the Olympus lens is a lot, lot cheaper than either of the 600 mm cannons. And faster.

(Note: I'm using a Nikon.)

Yes, but my 400/2.8 on an APS-C body is the same 600mm field of view and I can add a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter (I'm not a fan of the 2x TC) and get acceptable pictures at longer ranges (840/4 and 1020/5.6.) Olympus only offers a 1.4x TC, so I'm dropping an additional $7200 to go past 840mm on the Olympus system to get the Sigma 300-800/5.6.

I have two more longer primes, 500mm and 600mm to choose from with Nikon or Canon. The 500/4 gives me 750/4, 1050/5.6 and 1275/8 equiv., and the 600/4 gives me a 900/4, and 1260/5.6 equivalent-- so actually if you're going to compare apples to apples, both Nikon and Canon offer more range on their crop factor bodies with their lenses. (I'm pretty sure I'd have stability issues with the 600 plus the 1.7x, so I'm omitting it from the comparison.)

Now throw in the fact that I own one and rent either of the other two in most major metro areas for the Nikon and Canon systems and it just simply doesn't make sense for me and my type of shooting. Neither does a view camera- and I've spent a lot more time cleaning dust out of 4x5 and 5x7 film holders. I'm glad 4/3 works for some people, it's a non-starter for me.

The 1200-1700mm was available until 1999 on special order for $75000.


That's about $24,000 less than the price of the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 prime. I've only seen one being used in field conditions. The photographer either had the sales to justify it or the money to spend.

My 400/2.8 AFS-II was an ROI justified purchase. If Sigma ever releases the 300-500/2.8 I'll be knee-deep in spreadsheets.


How about slapping a bigma on one of these and getting a 100-1000 equivalent FOV? Or a sigma 300-800 and getting a 600-1600?

The Bigma is f/6.3 on the long end and while it's a stellar lens for its price, it's not in the same league as the primes from Nikon or Canon and I'd assume Olympus. I own one, and when it was all I had to shoot I made do and missed lots of shots due to the slow speed. It's 1/3rd of a stop slower than the 300-800.

cube
Oct 21, 2007, 03:48 AM
The Nikon is also $3800.

To use your words, the manual one is uncompetitive on arrival.


The manual one, which is giving you 450mm f2 equiv. has no equivalent in any other system.

milozauckerman
Oct 21, 2007, 01:40 PM
The E-3 is an interesting camera, but rather expensive for what it is. Put the street price at $1000-1100, and we're talking.

I'm about to hit submit on my 5D order, but I've spent some time looking at the two nearest Nikanon competitiors. IMO, the K10D + Pentax 31/1.8 + 16-54/2.8 (or whatever that range zoom is from Pentax) is probably the best value among crop-sensor cameras. You've got excellent lenses right there, plus access to decades of K-mount and screwmount lenses.

Olympus doesn't really offer much - a line-up of zooms that are small for what they are, but still larger than standard 35mm primes. I would be far more interested in Oly bodies if they'd put some R&D into a three-lens set of fast, 4/3 primes - those could be downright tiny.

OreoCookie
Oct 21, 2007, 03:56 PM
Yes, but my 400/2.8 on an APS-C body is the same 600mm field of view and I can add a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter (I'm not a fan of the 2x TC) and get acceptable pictures at longer ranges (840/4 and 1020/5.6.) Olympus only offers a 1.4x TC, so I'm dropping an additional $7200 to go past 840mm on the Olympus system to get the Sigma 300-800/5.6.
Yes, you're right, one should take the crop factor into account, at least for Nikons. Since professional Canon bodies have been FF for quite some time, I don't think your argument is particularly fruitful as most people who have these kinds of lenses also have a FF body to go with. For Nikon lenses, you're right.
Now throw in the fact that I own one and rent either of the other two in most major metro areas for the Nikon and Canon systems and it just simply doesn't make sense for me and my type of shooting. Neither does a view camera- and I've spent a lot more time cleaning dust out of 4x5 and 5x7 film holders. I'm glad 4/3 works for some people, it's a non-starter for me.
That may very well be, but I think Olympus has covered 95 % of the viewing angle range (7-300 mm, corresponding to 14-600 mm on FF) -- which is more than sufficient for most applications.

Clix Pix
Oct 21, 2007, 06:36 PM
In shooting professionally, flexibility is key. Nikon and Canon shooters can walk into camera shops which cater to professionals and rent lenses and bodies as needed; as far as I know, these same shops do not offer Olympus, Pentax, etc., as rental bodies and lenses.

srf4real
Oct 21, 2007, 08:52 PM
I think you're correct Clix Pix in most places. I hope that the introduction of the E3 helps to change this... in a best case scenario the 4/3 system will continue to catch on and be more pro friendly while Nikon and Canon will always do well. Who can complain about the competition! It's what makes these guys innovate new technologies and spend that money on r&d... bring the prices down, make lighter more durable bodies and lenses, and so on. Only a camera manufacturer doomed to fail ignores what the other guy is doing.;)

compuwar
Oct 21, 2007, 10:20 PM
Yes, you're right, one should take the crop factor into account, at least for Nikons. Since professional Canon bodies have been FF for quite some time, I don't think your argument is particularly fruitful as most people who have these kinds of lenses also have a FF body to go with. For Nikon lenses, you're right.


Canon also makes professional crop factor bodies, and since the crop factor bodies put more pixels on the tighter angle of view, I think you'll find most folks who shoot at 400, 500 and 600 with primes aren't shooting full frame bodies. Certainly, almost 100% of the bird and wildlife shooters that I encounter in the field who are shooting Canon are on crop factor bodies.

Now, you may be technically correct in the statement because it also covers old film bodies left at home, but they're certainly not attaching them to their supertelephoto primes where I see them shooting. In fact, when I shot my avatar picture, I was one of only 3 Nikon shooters out that day, and everyone else (about 8 other photographers) was shooting crop factor Canon bodies except the local TV cameraman doing a story on the Eagles and us, who had a Sony Betacam. That's pretty representative of all the places I shoot where I see long Canon glass- I can't recall seeing a "full frame" Canon with a supertele since everyone pretty-much went digital.


That may very well be, but I think Olympus has covered 95 % of the viewing angle range (7-300 mm, corresponding to 14-600 mm on FF) -- which is more than sufficient for most applications.


But we weren't talking "most applications-" I don't think there's a DSLR manufacturer out there who doesn't have something for "most applications."

Also, once you've dropped $6000 or more on a lens, you're generally talking specialization. Specialists often prefer tools that are outside of the normal range. As I said before: I'm glad 4/3 works for some people, it's a non-starter for me.