Has the 4/3 sensor chip stalled at 8 MP?

Jean-Baptiste, care to do that price/performance analysis for the standard zoom lenses, you know the kind that pretty much every photographer uses almost exclusively these days?

PS: Your proposed experiment would be a good one, too bad we live on other sides of the globe. Knowing that the 50/1.8 is quite reasonable but certainly isn't the greatest lens in the world (I used to own one, in fact still do) and 50/2 is an exceptionaly good lens it will be interesting to see what would happen if we take various different images with our respective combos, do whatever processing we like to make the most of the images, print them 10x8, put them on the wall, step back and compare.

Eric, what are you on about "Can we view their work online"? We can't even view your work online, how are we supposed to know you are nothing but a wannabe groupie? At least you can see my work and know I am exactly that.

Bas, I'm a lawyer. While I get a lucrative shooting job here and there, I don't make a living as a photographer; but I'm impressed by those who do. I've also enjoyed working part-time for fun and education in a camera store owned by friends for almost 25 years- it gets me out of the house, its healthier than hanging out in bars and I get a dealer net discount on everything.

 

 

Now that we've cleared that up, I take it the answer to whether we can name pros who use Oly OM cameras is "no." How about actual working pros shooting Oly DSLRs?

Good that clears that up. :)

<p>

I couldn't name a pro that shoots Nikon or Canon either, I am into photography, not caring too much about other photographers and even less about their equipment.

<p>

Come to think of it, a Luminous Landscape article mentioned <a href="http://www.blsphoto.com/">Bruce Snell</a> as pro E-1 shooter. Seems to know what he is doing as well. But no way to tell which of the images on his website were shot using the E-1.

According to one of the sales folks at a store in this area, 3/4 of their sales on Olympus E

system cameras, particularly the E-1, are to professionals. Olympus is his second best selling

line of DSLRs in the professional community, behind Canon.

 

Godfrey

Lee, Sam Abell used Olympus gear as a pro for Natl. Geographic.

<http://www.photo.net/learn/workshops/abell.html>

 

But, it's a sure sign of photographic ignorance to rate a photographer on the gear used.

Hmmmmmm:

 

 

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0202/abell01.htm

Bas: that's a bit harder, because getting the focal lengths to match is tricky. I can give it a shot, though honestly I've not paid much attention to those, I'm typically a prime shooter in the range of normal lenses. Those are the comparisons that matter to me, i.e. to mount on a Canon 5D.

 

Oly 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 (4-8mm), $200. Canon 28-90mm f/4-5.6 (7-16mm), $110.

 

Oly 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 (5-15mm) $500. Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (8-23mm) $200.

 

Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS, Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS: no direct Oly comparison.

JBQ: Sorry while chuckle here, but the 14-54/2.8-3.5 compares to a 24-70/2.8 in optical quality (except it is slightly slower at the long end), not to the two lenses you mention.

 

My brother recently shot my wedding with my E-1 and 14-54 (50/2 for portraits) while a colleague used his 300D and 28-105/3.5-4.5. Ignoring aestetics, the quality of the 300D images is nowhere near the E-1 images. The noise - while technicaly less - is more annoying (both shot at ISO400 for the ceremony) and that 28-105 lens lacks the sharpness and contrast of the 14-54. It's not even in the same league.

If you want an (almost) 1:1 (equivalent) focal length match for comparison, I would compare the 14-54/2.8-3.5 to the 24-105/4LIS. It's a bit faster, but lacks IS. I would expect both of them to be optically similar, with the Olympus being (less than) half the price, half the weight and half the size.

 

For Canon APS-C DSLRs, there is no equivalent as the 17-40 is too short for that and the 17-85 can't compete optically. Though both are around the same price and I guess the 17-40 will come close to it in image quality.

 

Mind you that the 14-54 is a "kit" lens, so few actualy pay $500 for it, rather they get it included in a $1500 E-1 kit and I suspect such kits (well, more expensive than $1500!) will be available with an "E-3".

The only reservation I have about small sensors is noise at high ISO. My Pro 1 takes beautiful, luminious photos at ISO 50, but the highest ISO I can use is ISO 200, and even that is "marginal" IMO. I think ISO 400 on the Pro 1 is worse than ISO 3200 on my 10D.

 

In any event, since I like available light photography, indoors, the small sensor cameras have never met my needs. Image quality aside, they don't focus very well (if at all) in low light.

 

If a small sensor camera was capable of high quality images at ISO's higher that 400 ISO, and if they could focus as fast and decisively as a DLSR in low light, then I wouldn't have reservations about buying one.

Bill - "Ocean Physics -- you're all wet."

 

Yes, he sure is. But if he were using the weatherproof Oly E-1 and E system lenses, he wouldn't have to worry about being all wet, he could just keep shooting in the ocean spray, rain, poolside, or however else he chooses to become "all wet".

What was the question again ?...

 

The 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS but much larger than the ones on compact models. It is a nice system for the present.

 

Its future is more uncertain that Canon or Nikon. So investing in their top lenses must be seen on a short term basis : pro intensive use.

 

Their actual 2 lenses with body kit offer (E500: $900) is a great value and appealing to the prosumer who wants more than a top compact model but doesn't want to spend too much on its complete set.

 

With film gear, investing in lenses with the option of upgrading the body in the future was often the way of thinking. With digital, it is far more riskier. Still, many people do it.

Friends,

 

So what is the answer? Invest in Olympus or not?

<I>So what is the answer? Invest in Olympus or not?</i><P>

 

How much do you want to gamble on a system that could become obsolete and unsupported

before you're through using it? This is a risk with every manufacturer, but some face more

uncertainty than others. Personally, I'd bet that Nikon or Canon are more likely to have a

long, healthy future than the Olympus 4/3 format, but who knows for sure?

Wasn't Four Thirds supposed to establish a new digital standard from the ground up, unburdened by the legacy of 35mm lenses? Has anyone other than Olympus jumped on the Four Thirds bandwagon? It strikes me as a digital version of APS (the film format, not the APS-C sensor) that was well-intentioned but basically pointless. If that's an uninformed misconception, please correct it.

Panasonic and Sony are both in the 4/3 cooperative. Neither has released an interchangeable

lens still camera yet. It takes some time to develop this stuff.

 

Godfrey

I saw several at an event in Japan with actual OM gear(I have no idea what the event was), W.

Eugene Smith apparently used the Pen system for PJ work, but I'm not a rabid fanboy and

have no web references for you. You are, however, trying to prove a negative which is a

logical fallacy.

So what is the answer? Invest in Olympus or not?

 

Marks answer was -- How much do you want to gamble on a system that could become obsolete and unsupported before you're through using it?

 

I agree totally, and Oly has a history. What's that saying, something about fooled once...

"Has the 4/3 sensor stalled at 8 MP" Perhaps & perhaps not. Who knows what electronic wizardry will come next. Perhaps a 3x4MP Foveon? At this time I have little need for anything more than the 5MP E1 & it's excellent 14-54 & 50-200 lenses.

"I've never known a professional or semi-professional photographer who's shot Olympus. I

don't expect that to change.....Again, WHO? Do these "pros" have names? Can I view their

work online?.....I take it the answer to whether we can name pros who use Oly OM cameras

is "no." How about actual working pros shooting Oly DSLRs?"

 

OK Eric, I'll give you a small number of names who have used or currently use Olympus

cameras (some film, some digital): Josef Koudelka, Marc Riboud, Gene Richards, Susan

Meiselas, Chris Steele-Perkins, Paolo Pellegrin, Thomas Dworzak, Alex Majoli.......

 

You wanna see their work online? Use google, you'll find no shortage of hits. Just because

the local AP stringer and the staff photographer at the Beaver Creek Bugle use Canon or

Nikon doesn't mean that all photographers do.

Invest? I just bought a camera with some lenses I like. I am sure it will last this amateur long enough to have been a good purchase. If I want to invest in Olympus, I'll call my stock broker.

 

I wouldn't call introducing one (yes, only one, the OM-707) consumer quality AF camera with a handfull of similar lenses and then dropping it "having a history". I doubt any "investors" got hurt.

Godfrey - "Panasonic and Sony are both in the 4/3 cooperative."

 

Actually, it's Sanyo, not Sony. Sanyo supplies most of the innards of the Oly DSLRs, just like they do the contract manufacturing for the Oly point and shoots.

 

It looks, to me anyway, that Oly got their suppliers, Sanyo and Kodak, to let them add their names to the list of four thirds "members". Fuji, as far as I can tell, only provided a patent for dust protection. Sigma makes some lenses with the Oly mount, just like they do in Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Minolta mounts (without Sigma having to be a "member" of anything).

 

If Panasonic actually does, at some point, produce a four-thirds camera, they will be the first company to actually join Oly in some sort of "4/3 cooperative", as you put it.

Bas said:

 

I wouldn't call introducing one (yes, only one, the OM-707) consumer quality AF camera with a handfull of similar lenses and then dropping it "having a history". I doubt any "investors" got hurt.

 

First, what hat did you pull "investors" out of on my statement Oly has a history. I don't give a damn about investors, I care about photographers in the "having a history" statement. Secondly, I think you need a history lesson. Oly ignored the total OM system not one camera. Unhappy photographers, not investors. Regards