E3

The E3 has been available for several weeks now and no-one appears to have

talked about it much on this forum. I'm wondering if anyone who has actually

bought it has any thoughts on it's performance? AF speed. Live view. Shutter

noise. What size high quality prints is it capable of making? Would I be right

in thinking that because of the 4/3 format even a lens with F2 in fact boils

down to F4, or is that incorrect? I'm surprised that the DPreview site has not

reviewed this camera yet.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26311349

I agree, when the new Canon 40D came out it was total pandemoniom on the Canon EOS thread. So far the only reviews I got on the E3 are from a couple of magazines and some websites. Shutterbugs rates it "Best Buy" and PPA magazine also rates it very high. As far as prints are concerned 12X18's seems to work very well with this camera.

Thank you both very much. The dpreview link to Kyle Jones and what he has to say sounds "real" and he talks apparently according to his flickr link from the POV of the sort of photograph that usually interests me.

I've had one for about 6 weeks and it's been a great camera. It's a bit noisier than the E-1 re shutter noise, but much faster, esp the frame rate. Image quality is very high and I'd easily print up to 20x24, personally. PhotoAcute usage would probably help.

 

DOF? There's about a one-stop difference practically, IME, vs. 35mm. So an F/2 lens in a 4/3 camera acts like an f/2.8 lens on a full-frame, 35mm camera. The finder is nicer, as is the amount of in-camera information you get.

 

The in-body IS is superb. The AWB is better than my E-1. Noise is 1-2 stops better, ISO 1600 is very usable out-of-the-box; 3200 usable with PP. The handling is better than the E-1, but that's marginal, as it was so good. It's a different camera and it will take me a few months to get used to all the controls and usage. I found myself making mistakes last night shooting indoor track for the first time, which probably cost me 20-30 keepers out of 500 shots.

 

AF speed is better than the E-1, but I'm a bit underwhelmed in low-light, action situations with non-SWD lenses (14-54 & 50-200). I'm getting ready to trade my 11-22 + 14-54 for a 12-60 SWD and my old 50-200 for a newer, SWD version soon to gain a higher AF speed.

Skip thanks very much for your time and trouble to make your detailed reply. I find it very useful and I hope others will too. Best wishes, Al.

"There's about a one-stop difference practically, IME, vs. 35mm"

 

"Practically" doesn't quite match the laws of physics. A 25mm lens will have the DOF of a 25mm lens regardless of the sensor size, so if you photograph a subject at 10 feet and with a 25mm lens at f/5.6 you'll have DOF from 7-17 feet. Shoot the same subject at f/2.8 and your DOF is from 8.3-12/6 feet.

Sorry, .[.Z, but that doesn't make any sense. DoF is a calculated zone of sharpness based

on acceptable circle of confusion for a point and magnification, which implies both a

reference viewing size and a capture format. Read all about it and try some calculations at

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html"

target=new1><b>www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</b></a><br>

<br>

Example: <b>DoF for 25mm lens on 35mm and Olympus E-510</b><br>

<br>

----<br>

Camera, film format, or circle of confusion: <b>35mm</b><br>

<i>Focal length (mm) </i> <b>25mm</b><br>

<i>Selected f-stop </i> f/8<br>

<i>Subject distance </i> 10 ft<br>

<br>

<b>Depth of field </b><br>

<i>Near limit </i> 4.63 ft<br>

<i>Far limit </i> Infinity<br>

<i>Total </i> Infinite<br>

<i>In front of subject </i> 5.4 ft<br>

<i>Behind subject </i> Infinite<br>

<i>Hyperfocal distance </i> 8.63 ft<br>

<i>Circle of confusion </i> 0.03 mm<br>

----<br>

Camera, film format, or circle of confusion: <b>Olympus E-510</b><br>

<i>Focal length (mm) </i> <b>25mm</b><br>

<i>Selected f-stop </i> f/8<br>

<i>Subject distance </i> 10 ft<br>

<br>

<b>Depth of field</b> <br>

<i>Near limit </i> 6.33 ft<br>

<i>Far limit </i> 23.8 ft<br>

<i>Total </i> 17.5 ft<br>

<i>In front of subject </i> 3.7 ft (21%)<br>

<i>Behind subject </i> 13.8 ft (79%)<br>

<i>Hyperfocal distance </i> 17.2 ft<br>

<i>Circle of confusion </i> 0.015 mm<br>

----<br>

<br>

You can see the 25mm lens produces radically different DoF on 35mm format compared to

4/3 System format sensors. But field of view makes a difference. If you pick a lens with

similar field of view for the 35mm camera, you'll see the numbers come into closer

alignment at f/8:<br>

<br>

----<br>

Camera, film format, or circle of confusion: <b>35mm</b><br>

<i>Focal length (mm) </i> <b>50mm</b><br>

<i>Selected f-stop </i> f/8<br>

<i>Subject distance </i> 10 ft<br>

<br>

<b>Depth of field</b> <br>

<i>Near limit </i> 7.77 ft<br>

<i>Far limit </i> 14 ft<br>

<i>Total </i> 6.28 ft<br>

<i>In front of subject </i> 2.23 ft (21%)<br>

<i>Behind subject </i> 4.04 ft (79%)<br>

<i>Hyperfocal distance </i> 34.3 ft<br>

<i>Circle of confusion </i> 0.03 mm<br>

----<br>

<br>

Closer, sure, but given the different sizes of the formats and the iris physical dimensions

due to the difference in focal lengths required, 4/3 System format renders about 2 stops

more DoF with a lens of comparable field of view:<br>

<br>

----<br>

Camera, film format, or circle of confusion: <b>35mm</b><br>

<i>Focal length (mm) </i> <b>50mm</b><br>

<i>Selected f-stop </i> f/16<br>

<i>Subject distance </i> 10 ft<br>

<br>

<b>Depth of field</b> <br>

<i>Near limit </i> 6.35 ft<br>

<i>Far limit </i> 23.6 ft<br>

<i>Total </i> 17.2 ft<br>

<i>In front of subject </i> 3.7 ft (21%)<br>

<i>Behind subject </i> 13.6 ft (79%)<br>

<i>Hyperfocal distance </i> 17.3 ft<br>

<i>Circle of confusion </i> 0.03 mm<br>

----<br>

<br>

It's easier to compare the numbers in a table format: <br>

<br>

<table border="1" cellpadding="4" align="center">

<tr>

<td><b>Camera/Format</b></td>

<td>35mm</td>

<td>Oly E-510</td>

<td>35mm</td>

<td>35mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>Focal Length</b></td>

<td>25 mm</td>

<td>25 mm</td>

<td>50 mm</td>

<td>50 mm </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>f/number setting</b></td>

<td>f/8</td>

<td>f/8</td>

<td>f/8</td>

<td>f/16</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>Focus setting</b></td>

<td>10 feet</td>

<td>10 feet</td>

<td>10 feet</td>

<td>10 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>Near limit</b></td>

<td>4.63 feet</td>

<td>6.33 feet</td>

<td>7.77 feet</td>

<td>6.35 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>Far limit</b></td>

<td>Infinity</td>

<td>23.8 feet</td>

<td>14 feet</td>

<td>23.6 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>Total</b></td>

<td>Infinite</td>

<td>17.5 feet</td>

<td>6.28 feet</td>

<td>17.2 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>in front</b></td>

<td>5.4 feet</td>

<td>3.7 feet</td>

<td>2.23 feet</td>

<td>3.7 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>behind</b></td>

<td>Infinite</td>

<td>13.8 feet</td>

<td>4.04 feet</td>

<td>13.6 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>Hyperfocal</b></td>

<td>8.63 feet</td>

<td>17.2 feet</td>

<td>34.3 feet</td>

<td>17.3 feet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b>CoC</b></td>

<td>0.03 mm</td>

<td>0.015 mm</td>

<td>0.03 mm</td>

<td>0.03 mm</td>

</tr>

</table><br>

<br><br>

(APS-C format sensor cameras (1.5x crop factor) give closer to the 1-stop DoF gain

mentioned above.)<br>

<br>

Godfrey<br>

Skip and Godfrey -- Helpful posts.

 

Z -- Helpful first post. :-)

 

As a Canon p & s snapper, another feature that appeals to me is the articulating lcd. Wonder if you've had occasion to try that, Skip ?

Godfrey, the distances I quoted were from actually taken from that website.

 

The point is, Skip was guesstinating about DOF when the fact is that it is quite wider that he estimated. If you care about limited DOF, then four-thirds cameras might not be your first choice.

Your statement <i><b> "A 25mm lens will have the DOF of a 25mm lens regardless of

the sensor size..." </b></i>is either completely incorrect, as the DoF calculations and

charts all show, or true but non-information (as the statement says nothing about

comparing the DoF of a 25mm lens on one format vs another).

<br><br>

I have no trouble obtaining shallow DoF with 4/3 System cameras. I use fast lenses and

open them up when I want to obtain shallow DoF. A 25mm f/1.4 lens focused at 7 feet and

set to f/1.4 produces about 6" in front of and behind the focus plane in acceptably sharp

focus ... that's shallow enough for me.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

Godfrey the epoint is that Skip was pulling conclusions out of the same place you've got a bug stuck.

 

I'm glad you've got no problems with your latest photo crush. You've had them for Hassie, Nikon, Pentax and a host of others, and have been equally vociferously defensive about them while playing dilletante... before selling them off.

You're trying to insult me because you don't like the fact that your statement is incorrect,

the same way that Skip's statement was incorrect. The data I presented corrects both

Skip's mistaken estimate and your mistaken statement.

 

What equipment I choose to work with is my business and no concern of yours, thank you.

 

G

I am also looking at the E-3 as a potential buyer. One concern I have is the very strong AA filter that requires that images be sharpened a bit during post processing. For those that actually use the E-3 (skip? Godfrey?) in practice has this caused an issue in final image quality?

Hi Alan,

 

The E-3 is one of the two bodies I will choose between this year so I am not shooting work

with one yet, I'm also still in the investigation process. To that end, I have both been

collecting RAW sample files and making a few of my own by the grace of using my local

dealer's demo unit.

 

So far, I'm liking what I see. I like the handling and feel, the 4/3 System format is

appealing to me as it provides a bit more DoF (which is usually what I need rather than

less) at a larger lens opening (also what I tend to need to reduce exposure time). The

noise levels are low, and I'm pleased with results from the Olympus ZD and

Panasonic/Leica lenses that I've tried on it. The performance is quite good and I've found

Live View to be very useful.

 

Processing the E-3 RAW files in Lightroom, I don't see much if any problem with

sharpness that I could attribute to the AA filter ... I haven't seen anything to indicate that I

need to do more sharpening than I do with other 8-10 Mpixel bodies.

 

For the record, I have fairly complete and comparable kits in both Pentax and 4/3 System

lenses, and I've produced a lot of work with both systems this past year. The E-3 is very

appealing to me but I will not buy anything until I see what Pentax has to offer this year as

well. I am not in any rush to buy as the bodies I currently use (Pentax K10D, Panasonic L1

and Olympus E-1) continue to perform to my satisfaction. Each system has its advantages

which appeal to me for different purposes.

 

Godfrey

Godders, I used correct number but incorrect description. Thanks for the supercilious attitude and correction.

 

Your flitting from camera to camera and system to system is amusing to me, and if you don't like others knowing about it, too bad.

You're welcome.

 

I don't care that others know you find my equipment usage amusing, I make no secret of

my interests in photographic equipment. It's no basis on which to base an insult.

 

I suppose you have used just one brand/type of equipment for the past forty years, right?

 

G

<i>The data I presented corrects both Skip's mistaken estimate and your mistaken statement.</i><p>

 

After looking at Godfrey's data and doing some research on my own, I agree that there's a mathematical 2-stop difference in DOF. For me, it seems closer to 1 stop, but that's a very subjective judgment. (I prefer a nicer term than what was used before)<p>

 

Sharpness? I use +2 or +3 right now. I haven't settled on a specific setting for my E-3. I tend not to oversharpen though, preferring to use the JPG's right out of the camera if possible.<p>

 

As far as Z's comments, I think that they're way off color and totally inappropriate. If you think someone's wrong or mistaken, then present a lucid argument, as Godfrey did. And the comments about his system switching is crazy....who cares? Does anyone care if someone switches car brands every 2-3 years? Or juice brands? or anything else? I think not.<p>

 

Skip

Thanks Skip.

 

Subjectively, I agree with you... the precision of the mathematical calculations is based on

an arbitrary CoC constant anyway. Some people like to use a different constant to hold the

calculated zone of acceptable sharpness to a tighter or looser standard.

 

I generally want more DoF rather than less for street shooting: I use a one-stop addition

when setting focus using the distance scale (use the f/8 markings when setting f/5.6, for

instance) with adapted lenses. It gives a little more range to work with overall with a

healthy safety margin for range errors.

 

Godfrey

Al Durer,: <p><i> (SNIP) Would I be right in thinking that because of the 4/3 format even a lens with F2 in fact boils down to F4, or is that incorrect? </i><p>I do not own the E-3 but to put you (<i>and perhaps everyone else with the misconception</i>) straight on ``<i>light value</i>``: <br>f/2 is f/2 is f/2 - period.

Skip Williams: <i><br>(SNIP) DOF? There's about a one-stop difference practically, IME, vs. 35mm. So an F/2 lens in a 4/3 camera acts like an f/2.8 lens on a full-frame,</i><p>Make them stop that Lord! <br>f/2 is f/2 is f/2 - period. Any (all) aperture f/stops are a measure of the <i><u><b>value</b></u></i> of light passing through the aperture: nothing more-nothing less.

Ed Green. Thanks. Sorry to be dim but though I can see that light wise f2 lets in that much light I thought I read that DOF wise small sensor cameras like 4/3 have greater DOF than full frame? Is that not the case. Am willing to learn?

Separate the notions of lens speed for exposure and DoF as they are independent.

 

- A lens set to f/2 allows the same amount of light energy to pass through it and strike

the recording media in a given amount of time regardless of format or focal length. So an

exposure of 1/100 sec at f/3.5 on a Minox B (8x11mm film) is the same as an exposure of

1/100 sec at f/3.5 on a Hasselblad.

 

- DoF is dependent upon image magnification, focus distance and physical iris size. In a

smaller format, you need a shorter focal length to achieve the same field of view as in a

larger format. Consequently you have a smaller iris opening to achieve a given f/number,

which increases DoF. As seen in the prior posts in this thread, the calculated DoF

difference between a 35mm film camera and a 4/3 System format DSLR is 2 stops, so ..

with respect to DoF .. when using lenses of comparable field of view set to the same focus

distance, the 4/3 System will produce the same DoF as the 35mm film system with a two

stop smaller lens opening (eg: 25 mm @ f/8 @ 10 feet on 4/3 produces DoF comparable to

50 mm @ f/16 @ 10 feet on 35mm film).

 

4/3 System is simply a smaller format than 35mm film, just like 35mm film is a smaller

format than 6x6cm medium format. One of the primary things that set formats apart from

one another, from an aesthetic point of view, is the unique relationship between DoF and

FoV that each format provides. 4/3 System is only marginally smaller than DSLR systems

with a 1.5x or 1.6x "crop factor" sensor ... similar differences are there, but they're often

difficult to see since the format size is so much closer.

 

Hopefully that is clear. There always seems to be an amazing amount of confusion around

this point.

 

Godfrey

Godfrey, thanks very much, your explanation is very clear and it's very good of you to take the time. Best wishes, Al

A recent review of the E-3 online with a bunch of sample images. It is a little too much for my budget now,maybe next year:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html