Is there a clear advantage of 4/3 over Canon DSLR?

Have been contemplating the defection from a Canon DSLR to the Olympus

4/3 system. I compiled the following comparison comparing various

differences. It seems that the 4/3 is really better in terms of cost,

weight and even speed. Anyone actually have experiences of this

revelation?

 

http://www.katharos.org/david/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=51

I am a Canon user, so I may be unconsciously biased, but I will try not to.

 

Comparing the E1 to the 5D is not fair to the E1. Sure, the 4/3 lenses may be smaller and

cheaper, but the resolution advantage of the 5D is overwhelming. The 5D also has a much

larger range of lenses available and FAR better high ISO noise performance. The faster

max aperture for the 4/3 lenses is overcome by the better high ISO performance and the

availability of stabilised lenses to the 5D.

 

The 5D also offers far better depth of field control.

 

The E1 is a great camera and still holds up well even against recent cameras, but this is

not a fair comparison. Now, if you want to suggest that the E500 is better value than the

EOS 350D, you might have something ...

 

cheers

Adam, I think that that is exactly what I was comiong to as well. If they did update the E1 to an E2 and gave it 10/12 MP, they would really have an excellent and highly compelling DSLR System. Better DOF is not always a benefit for everyone, for example, architecture, product, landscape, etc. Anyway. Just my thoughts.

To be honest though, comparing the 5D to a 10D, 20D, or really any other APS based sensor is unfair as well. If you are trying to convince yourself if the sensor size is competitive the 5D is really only comperable to other Canon, Fuji or Kodak full-frame sensors- it shouldn't even come into the discussion about the Olympus format.

 

There is no clear advantage to any one brand or model over another when it comes to the smaller size sensor other than Canon's advantage when it comes to lower noise starting at ISO 800 and going up. If you shoot alot there, then you need to stay with Canon.

 

What size prints do you make? At 4x6 the APS sensor is supreme in terms of being able to be printed with virtually no cropping at all. What prints I do make are 8x10 or 8.5x11. Crop a Canon image to those sizes and compare it to a cropped Olympus and the advantage shrinks considerably.

 

One of my reason's for switching to Olympus is about to happen in two weeks- I'm getting their 7-14 zoom. Price what it would cost you to buy an equivalent 14mm corrected super wide angle lens without resorting to buying a 5D and the Canon 14mm f2.8 and the Olympus 7-14 doesn't look that expensive at all.

For me, the interesting comparison is the Canon 20D vs Olympus E-1.

 

I think the 4/3 format tends to reduce the effect of sensor resolution (8 vs 5 Mp), especially for larger prints (8x10); for small prints both provide enough detail. Canon has better high ISO performance, faster continuous shooting speed, built-in flash, decent ergonomics and build quality. Olympus has dust-buster, sensor pixel remapping, better build quality (dust and weather-proof), excellent ergonomics, brighter viewfinder (but no focus-point indication), slower AF, no built-in flash, less convenient histogram display, some really excellent (mid-range) f2.8 lenses that compete well with more expensive Canon L-types, and at the moment, significantly advantaged for price.

 

Still haven't made up my mind.

The problem with the Olympus, in a addition to the small sensor, is that it's made by Olympus. They don't exactly seem to be selling like hotcakes, and who knows whether they'll even continue making them. If they don't, a set of lenses that only fit an obsolete digital camera that is no longer manufactured is suddenly worth zero.

 

It might be a fun little system to carry around if you only buy one or two lenses and have plenty of cash to burn. But I think you'd have to be nuts (or REALLY have cash to burn) to make a major investment in it.

Yet another attempt at FUD-mongering (that's fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Make your mind up on the strengths of the systems...

 

And I suggest waiting until after the PMA show at the end of February. A number of manufacturers are sure to make interesting product announcements then.

I had a 300D with a load of lenses and came to the same conlusion as you: an E-1 setup

was cheaper and more practical and image quality wise up to the job. In fact, after

shooting both, the E-1 outperforms the 300D much in that department.

 

In practicality terms, the 5D is a much better camera than the 10D/300D/20D in my

opinion as you can actually get good quality standard zooms for it. (24-70 and 24-105)

But as I use my camera mostly for travel, the weight and bulk of it would still make me

prefer the FourThirds system - even if they were equally priced.

 

Is a 5D the better camera? It sure has higher resolution, but if you don't need that (I don't,

the E-1 at 16x12" looks just fine) why pay for it?

 

I do agree with other people's advice, though: see what the PMA show brings later this

month.

David,

 

I defect not from Cannon but Nikon, which is not what you are doing but nonetheless this may be of some help.

 

I shoot wedding for money, so the cameras (I use 2) are on my neck for about 8 hours, so weight becomes a real concern after hour #4.

 

The camera is totally seal and has a the supersonic dust filter which is a real plus, with 700 images as an average for wedding.

 

But the real selling point is the fact that the images have a nice film-like quality, in my business supersharp is not always a good thing, and in my opinion the best looking flesh tones (skin) of any system.

 

My advice is, look at what do you want the camera to do and how will the camera help you rather than pixel count.

 

Hugh

My observation has nothing to do with sensor size. But it's still a valid consideration.

 

Olympus digital cameras typically produce less saturated colors than other brands, with more natural skin tones. This is a major plus for people photography, but potentially a drawback for those who want punchy colors for landscapes, flowers, bugs, abstracts, even architecture.

 

Even my cousin, who only knows the on/off switch and shutter release button, comments on how nice skin tones are from Olympus digital cameras, even with direct flash.

 

The cameras have great ergonomics and the entire package tends to be a bit more lightweight and compact than other dSLRs, without sacrificing quality.

 

I didn't get an E1 because I needed something with faster framerates and AF for action photography, so I got a Nikon D2H. But of all the runners up that I considered at that time - 10D, 20D, D100, D70 - the E1 was a very strong contender.

 

The issue of noise at higher ISOs comes up often. Here's my point of view: Some serious film photographers used nothing but Velvia, an ISO 50 film. These folks wouldn't even consider using something like Fuji Superia X-tra 800, other, perhaps, than for happy snaps of birthday parties. I preferred Provia but that's still only a 100 film. Just because a dSLR *can* be cranked up to 400 or higher doesn't mean we *must* use it that way. If you're content to use a digital camera within its sweet spot, noise isn't a factor.

<i>Yet another attempt at FUD-mongering (that's fear, uncertainty, and doubt).</i>

<p>

I don't own any stock in Canon or Nikon, so I'm not "mongering" anything, I'm offering advice. If you don't like it, shove it.

<p>

<i>Make your mind up on the strengths of the systems...</i>

<p>

A lot of people followed this brilliant advice when they bought VCR's. As I recall, they wound up with BetaMax.

<p>

At any rate, as a "system" the Olympus barely qualifies. Only Canon and Nikon make "systems" worthy of the name.

Ocean Physics has spoken.... Now if we'll all just ignore him, he'll go on back to the Canon forum (after maybe a quick stop in the Pentax forum to say the same thing) and give his latest advise on how to shoot clear blue skies, sensor cleaning and which third-party lenses to buy.

OP appears not to understand what a camera system is. The traditional foundation of an SLR system consists of at least one professional quality camera and one more affordable "consumer grade" camera (Olympus offers two of the latter).

 

Traditionally there are two classes of lenses:

 

Pro quality, usually fast non-variable aperture primes and zooms. There's a fast 300/2.8 Zuiko along with a teleconverter, along with other fast primes and zooms, and soon there will be a fisheye.

 

More affordable lenses should also be available. Nowadays those are usually compact variable aperture zooms. Olympus offers several of these.

 

Within those categories photographers buying into a system usually expect at least one or two basic macro lenses, which Olympus also offers. While it may not match the outstanding macro and micro system of the old OM lineup, neither does anything Nikon currently offers. And adapters are available for those who wish to use the OM gear with Olympus dSLRs.

 

There should be a dedicated flash unit and accessories. Olympus offers these.

 

What Olympus *doesn't* offer is a bunch of cheap crap designed to appeal to the ignorant masses. Nikon and, especially, Canon have an advantage there, if it can be called an advantage. But why would Olympus even want to sell plasticky lenses with plastic lens mounts and inner components held together with tape (yup, some of the cheapo Canon and Nikkors are made this way).

 

While I do think that Olympus has fumbled around a bit since the heyday of the OM system, it does appear that they've chosen to take the high road, choosing to offer a smaller system of quality components rather than a bunch of junk at Wal-mart prices. Their P&S digicams are very well made - we have three in our family, five years old and older, and all continue to work perfectly.

 

But some folks go gah-gah over thick catalogs full of lotsa stuff. And that's why there's more than one manufacturer of camera gear. Because some camera manufacturers have their fingers firmly on the pulse of the brain dead consumers.

 

BTW, other than an OM-1 and a few Zuikos and my C-3040Z, I'm a Nikonista, and former user of Canon FD, Minolta, Ricoh K-mount and Miranda gear. I don't have any axe to grind. Well, other than feeling the need to reproach ignorance, however pointless.

Hi all! This is the view of a non-professional photographer. I had the E-300 before, then bought a Canon 300D, then finally stuck with Pentax *istD. For (my Epson inkjet and pro shop) A3 prints I cannot recognize which came from which unless you look at the cropping (more rectangular in Canon and Pentax). I did get good (relative) shots from any of those cameras (small birds, landscapes, macros). The only thing I didn't like about the Olympus was the viewfinder since I wanted to use manual focus lenses - that's why I went with the Pentax. Cost-wise, probably they will all cost the same in the long run (for a non-professional) since I only bought 4 lenses total for each of these "systems". Weight-wise they feel like they have the same weight after 2-3 hours hanging on your neck. :-) So whatever system probably there is, it is still depends how the user becomes comfortable with it.

I think sensor size is important (I'm not talking about numbers of pixels, although this is not irrelevant - I'm talking about the physical size as measured in mm or inches). Why do I think size matters? Because of DOF. Note that I'm not saying that bigger is better than smaller; I'm saying that if you like deep DOF then the small 4/3 sensor may well be perfect for you.

 

However, if you like to be able to isolate your subject without having to save up your $$$ for an as-yet unavailable digital Zuiko 40mm f/0.5 lens then a larger sensor would be better. This is without even considering anything else like noise, number of Mp, etc...

 

What do you want to use it for? What style of photos do you like taking? Answer these questions and you can eliminate a lot of potential choices in an instant. Just my $0.02...

Neal, while it is a consideration, few people actually seem to need it quite that shallow. The 50/2.0 is tack sharp at f/2.8 (and as good wide open as the best of primes) and gives very little DOF that way.

 

I like my DOF shallow when called for, but I don't really miss the DOF of my 50/1.4 on 35mm film.

 

It also works the other way; when you are in lower light and want a reasonable DOF, you only need, say, f/4 where a bigger sensor would need a stop more to achieve the same DOF. The often heard "no fast primes for low light" view of the FourThirds system is a non-argument to me as even when the lights are off, I more often than not need the same DOF to compose a shot as I do in daylight; a shot of people at a table in restaurant simply doesn't work at f/1.8 as most of the people would be out of focus!

Funny. I didn't make any charts. I didn't ask for advice on any forums. I did try out the E-1 in the store,with my own CF card. The results were good enough for my needs. I liked the two basic lenses they had at the time, and then bought one as a kit for a lot more than you,David, will need to pay.<p> If you are going to change from Canon,do it for the best reason of all. I just got a kick and still do handling the E-1. Yeah,the E 10 was OK too, Not knocking it. Olympus was a bungee jump at the time,-Olympus,didn't they stop making these SLR things? I even found the viewfinder acceptable, though smaller than what I was used to. I was lucky,in that I didn't own a single EOS lens. But lucky Iwas so tickled with the C 5050 over my tests with some small Canons...Realistically, you could try out the E system as a second system at the current prices-cheap actually. I believe it is still a leap of faith to go with anything but the big two,but hey,why not,aint like buying a PT Cruiser.<p> But the financial exposure,with two good lenses, need not be too great. Unless you are set on a big lens lineup of wide angles and fisheye and teles. Then, maybe the charts and numbers are really important. In that event, don't budge until we see the doors open at the PMA. I expect big news that will settle some of these questions for at least a week or two :-) Cost,weight,and speed are compromises. Add dust removal,weatherproofing,and lens/camera synchronicity. I like knowing they are there. And I still respect Canon even after my divorce from the brand, sort of. I can always go back.<div></div>

Just an example of the versatility of the E1 System

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4083075-lg.jpg

 

Taken with a Nikon Lens

Bas, I'm not knocking smaller sensors; in fact, I already suggested that the smaller sensor could be perfect for some people becase they like the DOF characteristics of the smaller sensor. I'm not even suggesting that the smaller sensor should become extinct. OTOH, there are many who seem to dismiss the larger sensors, suggesting that they should become extinct (I'm not saying that this is your view, but every time I mentiuon this factor I seem to attract comments defending the smaller sensors - as if people perhaps feel insecure about them or something).

 

I'm quite sure the smaller sensors (APS and 4/3) will not become extinct. After all, many people do like the larger DOF (which I already acknowledged above) that they give, and they also like the longer reach because of the crop factor. This has a clear advantage for those who like telephoto lenses.

 

All I'm saying is that DOF should be considered. If David likes larger DOF then I've already suggested that 4/3 may well be the way to go. I find it peculiar that people are always forcing me to defend the larger sensor (full-frame in particular) when it needs no defending. All who do not want FF can merely not buy into it to get what they want. I shot FF for years when I shot film, and I happen to like the characteristics of that format better than the smaller formats. That's my personal choice and I have only ever presented it as my personal choice.

 

The reverse is not true: there are many people around who like crop sensors and at the same time seem to be hoping that FF will become extinct. That's a very ungenerous view as far as I'm concerned. I don't campaign for crop sensors to become extinct!

 

Surely, the more choices we have, the better it will be. Market forces will determine how things turn out. If FF is really not so good in the eyes of the masses then it will eventually die out (I hope not though!) - OTOH, if crop sensors are shunned by the masses then they will die out (I really don't think this will ever happen BTW). Time will tell.

 

If I was rolling in cash then I'd buy an E-1 + lenses - why not? I'm sure it's a very fine camera. I still have my old 10D and I won't be selling it - sometimes even I like the fact that it has a cropped sensor! I'm really not against Olympus or 4/3; I merely favour FF, that's all. The original question was about a comparison of the 4/3 system with Canon (sensor size not specified, but it is sure to be larger). I think my response was on-topic and gave a valid viewpoint about the dilema facing David. He can choose to ignore me if he wishes, but your reply to me sounded to me like you thought what I was saying was inappropriate. Sorry if I've mis-understood you.

It might just be FUD if Olympus hadn't orphaned their OM system years ago. Olympus has

shown its stripes - if their camera system isn't doing as well as they'd like they have no

problem just dropping the whole thing. This is the first reason why I'd be wary of

Olympus - despite the superb quality of engineering their management seems to be intent

on shooting the company in the foot.

 

Secondly, the 4/3 system concept was a solution to a problem that no longer exists. When

it was put on the drawing board, probably around 2001 or so (when OM was orphaned)

the problem was making large chips cheap enough to offer at attractive prices. Nowadays,

this is not such a problem and despite the naysayers claims, larger chips are getting

cheaper and cheaper. The benefit of the 4/3 chip size (greater yield per wafer) has been

largely offset by advances in technology that allow greater yields even for larger sensors.

 

The downside of the 4/3 system is that the chip size is smaller than APS-C and 35mm,

which means that any comparison of the performance of a 4/3 sensor with its larger

competitors will show image quality fall apart at high ISO speeds. Coupled with the fact

that there aren't any cheap fast lenses for the 4/3 Olympus cameras, this is crippling if

you want to use the camera in low light levels without flash.

 

You can get a pretty good deal in the E-300 and two lens kit for $999, though, and if you

weren't very interested in acquiring affordable fast or long lenses in the future, and if you

aren't into available darkness photography, it seems like a great deal.

FWIW; I don't think that there is much difference in D.O.F on the 4/3 format vs the A.P.S format. Urban legend!

Andrew,

 

Don't count your blessings too fast. Canon's been making cameras for many decades, but the EF mount is less than 19 years old. I've been around long enough to see one Canon line be completely abandoned overnight. The one and ONLY company that's made a long term committment with a lens mount is Nikon. Within their own current lineup today, in EFS lenses some (make that many) Canon DSLR owners already have a set of lenses that will be of no use to them if they ever decide to migrate to any model with a sensor bigger than the APS format.

Nikon has completely abandoned lens mounts before. They have also decided to eliminate

their manual focus gear. How long before all their lenses are 'G' mount?

 

Pentax seems to be doing better than Nikon in terms of compatibility right now, never mind

Leica.

Olympus could not continue to keep production lines for manual focus film cameras any more than Canon could keep making FD bodies and lenses forever back in 1986.(But the orphans phased out for parts for 10 years and still operate) Nor could cameras like Topcon stay alive with the small bore Exacta mount my camera broker friend says. The orphaned camera argument is pretty thin sounding as witness all the talk by OM users that their product is still functional and have a look on KEH web site under manual OM. (Except for some plate to attach the flash to the prism I recall). Open question: When did an orphan become a classic. A classic orphan, a good Dickensian ring that. As a predictor of shopping strategy hazard,bit skimpy. So stick with what whom you trust. E system is 3 years and counting. When will it become respectable enough for polite company. I have to chuckle a little at the orphaned OM comment,sorry. I have seven FD lenses, and I am betting that that Gandy guy will have an adapter out one day. And I won't want it. That was then,and this is now.

Neil, you don't need to defend anything. There is a time and place for the format!

 

My problem - and my only problem - with FF is the cost and size of the good quality lenses for it, something that isn't going to change. With the smaller 4/3 sensor, I can afford some great lenses. A good example is Practical Photography magazine of a few months ago with a feature in which a guy was shooting a 1Ds with 28-135 lens. Needles to say the photos looked rediculous; lacking any sharpness and contrast compared to the reasonable professionals that shoot the same camera with L zooms. An E-1 with 14-54 would have produced much better quality as no number of megapixels will make up for a shoddy lens.

 

And that is what most "buy Canon, you will get cheap full frame in a few years" posters seem to forget. They see only the advantage of the bodies and not the dissadvantage to lenses if you aren't able to afford L zooms, or don't fancy carrying their weight around.