Erwin Putts on sensor size and Olympus

Read what Leica doyen Erwin Putts has to say on sensor size and the

Olympus E1 format. It's very favorable mostly to the Olympus long term

choice due to the possible optical improvements from restricting the

sensor size to less than 35mm full frame. Click on link below:<br><br>

<a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html">http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html</a>

I would prefer a few tests over word theory. Optical design has advanced beyond the size parameter alone. Olympus does seem to have decided on a large image circle vs sensor, I give him that point. But let us see real world testing. And the Israeli Air Force test targets are still the best to use. Shalom. Putz may be correct,cost is still a factor,aspheric manufacturing has changed a lot since back when. As for the motorcycle analogy, I don't know. I dislike the feel of leather and shun tattoos,so I do not ride them.

Apologies for misspelling Erwin's name. It is Erwin Puts, NOT Erwin Putts!

For any given level of technology, more sensor (or film) area will better a smaller sensor or

film, for an equal enlargement.

 

The reliable tests (like dpreview's) all show the Olympus cameras to be lagging in terms of

quality compared to the APS sized competition.

Sorry, I meant to say "for an enlargement of equal size."

Huh? Where are those enlarged prints by dpreview? I have never seen them, all they do is 100% on screen.

" For any given level of technology, more sensor (or film) area will better a smaller sensor or film, for an equal enlargement." I learned that in high school physics too. That is why I carry a Sinar Field Camera and Ries tripod everywhere. I rarely shoot with it, but it gets a lot of attention from the ladies..:-) When I want to photograph, I slip out the E-1 and the incredible 50mm f 2.0. (I deconstruct the EXIF data so nooone will know how the image was captured.)

Bas, feel free to download and print out their full sized sample images and the test charts.

 

The difference between the E-1 and 5-6 MP DSLRs is clear, and the difference between the

E-300 and other 8 MP DSLRs is clear too. Olympus lags behind.

Tell us what you found Andrew. How big a difference?. Marginal or compelling? And how is it measured,for the optically naive. I am eager to know more. I go straight to the Conclusions section frankly,what a simple mindset... GS-lifelong learning-Siegel

I shoot a lot of ISO 3200-19200+ on my digital cameras. The Olympus DSLRs have severe

problems above 400.

Gentlemen,<br><br>

 

It's not the E1 versus Canon or Nikon! But rather the APS versus 35mm sensor sizes. Read his "Upshot 2" at the very bottom! He's saying that the Canon 60F2.8 EF-S lens (designed specially for APS size coverage) and a Canon 20D (APS size sensor) will outperform a Canon 1Ds MkII (full frame) mounted with a Canon 50F2.5 macro (full frame), now!

<br><br>

Hence, while Olympus may lag behind Canon and Nikon at the moment, in the long term they will not neccessaryly be hurt by their choice of a less than FF sensor to base their E1, E300 and etc., on. One presumes they'll close with C/N sensor (ultra low noise at high ASA, etc) quality sooner or later. <br><br>

 

But the new Olympus E lenses are excellent, better than Leica focal equivalents in MTF terms, so one's investment in E lenses will not be lost while you wait for Olympus to catch up in sensor quality. Puts' comments on Olympus E lenses though, are based on their (Olympus) published MTF curves. Read Puts' comments on the E1 and E1 lenses at:<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html">http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html</a>

 

<br><br>

Fundamentally, Puts is saying that with digital sensors instead of film (with far less noise than film), the standard bigger is <i>ALWAYS</i> better standard may no longer be true! I think!

Puts might be correct, but I still ain't selling the Canon 50/2.5 that I use with my 10D.

 

--tom

So an E-300 with the kit lenses will out-perform a 350D with kit lenses (if do not go over ISO400)? Just a question of a begineer.

Consumer Reports (9/05) didn't think so Gus. On the other hand, they made it a close call for all the big models. As fast primes says, Olympus bodies have some catch up,first generations. The E 300 kit lens is not for judging a whole lot,but it is possible your statement is correct. (It gets to be marginal and not really imporant. Buy a good lens.) If you look for system,-more than one lens-you can prosper with Canon,Nikon,Olympus,or K-Minolta. And K-Minolta is no slouch with their innovation and lenses. IF,qualifier, you want an L bracket for the Olympus,or a TTL cable adapter to use with the Quantum T4d flash, guess which system will get first attention by the accessory makers,that is no baloney. So,the ratings maybe could be weighted by users to a 'hamburgers and fries' marketplace. You like 'sushi,' look a little farther/ longer. A drowzy and humble metaphor as Scorpio rises in the Southwest. (For that a sensor cooled in in liquid NO2 is best)..GS

Andrew, you mean those out of camera JPEGs taken with default seettings by an obvious gear head with less photographic talent than I do? I think I'll pass, thank you.

 

Besides I can print my own E-1 files (which I have) and my own 300D files (which I have) and come to the conclusion that the E-1 outperforms it in every department except high-iso noise, which isn't a problem if you simply don't shoot at high ISO settings; 400 is plenty high for me and 99% of the time my camera is stuck on 100.

 

"I shoot a lot of ISO 3200-19200+ on my digital cameras" -- So there you have it, of course the E-1 is going to suck for you, I won't deny noise is much worse. Although one of these days you do have to tell me which digital supports ISO 19200+.

 

Fast Primes: I agree with you there. A bigger slab of Velvia is simply more of the same thing. 8 megapixels are 8 megapixels, no matter what size the chip is. Sensitivity of the two can, in time, come so close that there is no difference. And the E-1 sensor isn't noisy simply because it is the size it is; cut a 4/3 size patch out of the chip in the 1DmkII (with much better noise characteristics) and you end up with a 5.9MP sensor. And no one would complain about the E-1 of it had a 6MP sensor with the noise characteristics of the 1D! Of course 4/3 at 8MP will be a little noisier, but not much, and such a chip would be a lot less noisy than the E-1 is now at 5MP. The second part of the resolution equation is lens design. Here the quality difference in the real world can be off-set by telecentric designs needed for a sensor to overcome the cornershading problem, which severely limits resolving power on the 1DsII, so much so the lower res, smaller chipped D2X shows as much or more detail in the real world, especialy in images with important detail everywhere in the image, like landscapes.

 

Gustavo: I have used neither of those, but looking at sample images in reviews, that would be my conclusion. (again, in all but the noise department) Stick a 14-54/2.8-3.5 on an E-300 and it will blow the 350D away. (And Canon won't sell you a lens like that, for whatever reason)

Thanks for the answer Gerry, very explanatory.

I will jump into the DLSR, in a couple months , and my selection is narrowed to a 350D or a Minolta D5. I do not own lenses but these are my preferences.

I can also get a E300 in a good price (half of a 350D) but I am not too conviced. I have to say that it is a very hard choice and I wanna to do the right one.

Thanks

Thanks Bas.

I like the depth-of-field one gets with the 35mm format - moving to a smaller sensor makes it that much harder (I believe) to produce photos with shallow DOF - or are they going to supply us with high quality compact affordable f/0.5 lenses??

haha, no, I guess not quite that fast. :) I understand your concerns, I had them too. But it is not nearly as bad as you think. In fact, Olympus is bringing out a 14-35/2 later this year, which makes the DOF somwhere in between an f/2.8 on an APS-C sized sensor and one on full frame.

 

So for the standard professional zoom - which for the competition don't come any faster than f/2.8 - the advantage will be with 4/3, not with APS-C! Only full frame will beat it.

 

Of course, Oly doesn't have faster primes, so there that advantage is still with the other brands.

<i>"Besides I can print my own E-1 files (which I have) and my own 300D files (which I have) and come to the conclusion that the E-1 outperforms it in every department except high-iso noise"</i><br>

Bas,<br>

Can you elaborate a bit on this statement please? You are stating that at low ASA the Olympus E1 produces better pictures than the Canon 300D? Which lenses are on each and how is the final judgment made?<br><br>

Tom,

<br>

If you're using a 10D, Puts implies that the new Canon 60F2.8 EF-S lens will definitely outperform the 50F2.5 FF macro!

<br><br>

After reading Puts, I'll be taking the Olympus E systems more seriously from now on. I can't understand though, why they didn't come straight out with 25mm F1.0 (normal) and 14mm F1.4 (28mm equivalent) fast primes right off the bat though! THAT would have gotten my attention!

I haven't done any scientific tests, just looking at (Frontier) prints from both systems. The Canon ones were taken mostly with 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 primes and 70-200/4 zoom; the ones taken with kit and other consumer zooms aren't even worth looking at.

 

The E-1 prints were both from 14-54 and 50-200 lenses, I don't have any primes for it yet.

 

With the Canon I find delicate detail (foliage, not the logos on bottles of beer or coins that are so popular in these tests) become "mushy", to pick a word to explain it. And I find the same for the colours, they just look bland and sterile. It's all very personal taste, but that's how I see it. I find the same with magazine prints from a 1DsII; they just don't measure up to the scanned slabs of Velvia on the next page over, for the same reason. My theory still is that it because of the excessive processing needed to make those CMOS sensors so noise free.

 

But alas, people like the "silky smooth" Canon look.

 

I'd love some primes, though. Most notably a 25/1.4 (no need to go faster for me, I prefer smaller) and maybe an 18mm too. At introduction Olympus wanted to take the weight of the professionals' shoulders and the ones that had gone digital were shooting with a 1D and 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. In hindsight they should have thought about what their traditional, loyal, customers were: OM shooter with primes.

I don't know about those loyal OM customers. They are the rascals here who are still happy with the mechanically sophisticated OM series and the OM lenses and film. If I were going to begin a new system, the Gerryflex, I would introduce some quality zoom lenses, and then think about a few specialized and costly prime lenses for the perfectionists. And maybe some fast zooms (which are about to be released at prices I dare not suggest.) For Gus, who is new at the game, I would say, try to have a feel of the metal,to see if you can love it in your hands. The E-1 could be on your list with the 14-54 because of its extraordinary price for a top notch camera. It will fulfill your needs at or below ISO 400(the lowest "EV" ambient light level I deal with sans flash). And take it with you in the shower if you choose. Aloha, Gerry. The discussion goes on...ad infinitem.

If one takes the noise issue out of the equation a lot changes. As a previous film user, I shot with Provia 100 most of the time and was pretty free to capture the world as I know it,not caves. But I could alsao get very good quality with Fuji 400 negative film. That is the tops I went for... I have not even bothered fooling with higher ISOs in digital, but if I did, I might be swayed to the Canon system,(can't see why f 2/8 at 1/15 is not handhodable,but I have tripods and monopods galore). Or--- I might not care, since a smaller sensor gives rewards in terms of lens size and camera weight and possibly mirror slap sound levels. Starting from a large sensor as in 24 by 36 is one approach,obviously coming sooner than anticipated. Olympus took a different route with advantages from engineering approach, and I am making a bet they will be able to make a mark in future bodies for their already fine ED lenses. Chit chat and tables often skirt the lenses themselves, and they are the prize in the E system. Plus the logic of a sealed body and lots of nice buttons (well sealed too) that fall to hand in the E-1. If one takes time to read Doctor Philip Greenspun's essay (PHD in IT) on 4/3 he makes a great case for the 4/3 standard despite the juggernaut of the other big sellers. Anyone who has been around a while has a vested interest in using Canon or Nikon lenses. I do not. So I don't really care much how the image is captured. And yes, I think the 4:3 aspect is just hunky dunky incidentally. Check the spiel on the bottom of this essay,gents and ladies:

http://philip.greenspun.com/photography/olympus/e1

keep in mind that if you double the size of the image (and 35mm sized sensors are linearly 2x the size of 4/3) you need to stop down 2 stops to get the same depth of field. this in turns means you are 2 stops slower in shutter speed to keep exposure correct. The Olympus 4/3 may not be usable above ISO 400, but in terms of shutter speed, that's like using ISO 1600 shutter speeds with 35mm since you will have to stop the 35mm camera down 2 extra stops to get the same DOF. If you don't want to lose 2 stops of shutter speed, you'll need 2 stops faster film instead.

That is actualy very true, Joseph! Most people just complain you can't go shallow enough (I don't agree, 4/3 can go shallow enough for me) but nobody thinks about the flip side you mention. I have just as much DOF at f/5.6 as 35mm users have at f/11.

 

And to be honest, there are more situations where I want a bit more in low light.