Olympus DSLRs barking up the wrong tree.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

I have been using the Olympus E10 which is an old camera. But in some

respects it is far superior to current DSLRs. It sports a superb

permanently mounted lens, which can take on any Canon L lens. It is

completely silent in operation, and the shutter allows flash synch up

to the top 1/640 sec shutter speed. It also allows constant viewing

in the LCD due to having a fixed mirror. You lose all these features

in the new Olympus DSLRs. Olympus should remake this camera with real

manual focus, much quicker image processing and write speeds, and

bigger chip. It would kill the DSLR market overnight.<p>Blame

unimaginative, risk averse Olympus execs. Where is Maitani when we

need him!?

 

<p>I have pics <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00Cvhg">HERE</a>

[basscheffers]

The problem isn't with the technology, it's with the customers. They judge cameras by sensor size, megapixels and high-ISO noise and, in the case of SLRs, number of lenses available. For all of these, more is better according to them. Just look at the 1DsII worshippers vs. D2X realists...

 

You can make an E-10 like camera now, but few will buy it, unfortunately.

 

And mind you: if Oly would stick a biger chip in your E-10 upgrade, it would either need a bigger lens to retain both zoom range and maximum aperture, or sacrifice on of the two.

 

The E-1 is very quiet indeed and I don't need to fast flash sync, but I do like it's excelent lenses, which is a feature you certainly do not lose compared to the E-10! It's great just the way it is for me.

[robin_sibson1]

Most manufacturers have more modern cameras of this general style in their range, and they have an appeal to some users. Which night was it that they were going to kill the DSLR market?

[ilkka]

The 'constant viewing LCD' has some benefits but is really not a good viewfinder when compared with the groundglass of an SLR. It is very hard to judge fine detail from the LCD and it is especially bad in high contrast lighting. The design also has implications on maximum achievable processing speed, and it consumes more power. So the threat to DSLRs is, shall we say, exaggerated.

[dan_brown4]

Uhm, what about the C-7070 and C-8080, aren't those cameras what you are yearning

for? BTW, I have a C-7070 due to arrive tomorrrow to compliment my Nikon DSLR kit.

[scott_eaton]

Claude wants real time LCD viewing, along with manual focus lenses. Boy, put me on that waiting list :-)

[peter_white2]

Claude,

 

What do you mean by "take on any Canon L lens"? Is it sharper than my 135mm f:2L? Does it have a wider maximum aperture?

 

How does it compare to my 20D in noise at ISO 800?

[peter_nelson1]

<I>It sports a superb permanently mounted lens, which can take on any Canon L lens.</I><P>

Do you have any actual evidence of this, or is it just your subjective opinion?<P>

 

I'll bet there are plenty of Canon "L" primes and even short ratio zooms that could blow the socks off that Oly lens in speed, edge-sharpness wide open, chromatic aberration, and flare.<P>

 

I'll also bet that the signal noise levels in my 20D, especially at higher ISO's are better than the Oly.

[sl attanapola]

Why should the Olympus lenses be inferior to those made by Canon or any other manufacturer??

 

Even Luminous Landscape and several people who I know who use/used Canon dSLRs and L glass have commented on how good the digital Zuiko lenses on the E series SLRs are.

[troyammons]

Oly E10 lenses are superb and as good as anything out there. I also owned a E10 and E20 and was originally waiting on the Dslr, but the wait was too long so I bailed.

 

Glad did not wait, because even though their DSLR is a decent camera the 4/3 chip is too limited. Eventually they will just run out of room for pixels. Also being a tele fan that $6000 300mm lens is a little too much for me.

[bytesmiths]

"... even though their DSLR is a decent camera the 4/3 chip is too limited. Eventually they

will

just run out of room for pixels." -- Troy Ammons

 

"640k should be enough for anyone." -- Bill Gates

 

Anyone who makes such statements about future technological issues must be pretty

young!

 

The 4/3rds format is based on a balance between *current* pixel density and yield. Pixel

density is increasing exponentially, while yield is increasing linearly. This means that

sensors will tend to get smaller. People who buy APS or full-frame cameras because of

sunken cost of existing glass (whether owned outright, or on the used market) are riding

the falling edge of the bell curve. People who go with new formats are riding the leading

edge.

 

This is not to say either approach is "bad", it's just that you'll have to make up some other

reason for sticking with older technology. Look within yourself, and come up with an

honest one.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>Why should the Olympus lenses be inferior to those made by Canon or any other manufacturer??</I><P>

 

We're talking about the E10 lens, not Olympus lenses in general. <P>

 

The lens had a 4X zoom ratio. There are just too many compromises in making a lens with that wide a zoom ratio to make a good one. And if you could it would cost more than the whole Olympus camera.

[david_bedell]

"This is not to say either approach is "bad", it's just that you'll have to make up some other reason for sticking with older technology. Look within yourself, and come up with an honest one."

 

Man, I have been so wrong! I thought I wanted to take photographs with a shallow depth of field (without shooting with a long telephoto all the time)...which means I need a big sensor. I didn't realize that makes me a technological luddite! Since I don't want to fall behind, I'd better forget about shallow depth of field.

[david_bedell]

"People who buy APS or full-frame cameras because of sunken cost of existing glass (whether owned outright, or on the used market) are riding the falling edge of the bell curve. People who go with new formats are riding the leading edge."

 

Over the last few days haven't we seen lots of discussion about how profitable APS and larger-sensored cameras are? And how less profitable small-sensor point and shoots are? I think pixel desnsity and yield are very meaningful, but profit is more so.

[david_bedell]

Back to the original post...

 

A friend's husband made a living shooting urban landscapes and fashion with an E-10 for a number of years. He's moved on to other equipment now (I don't know what kind), but the E-10 images were always fantastic. It seemed like a pretty capable camera in the right hands.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Why should the Olympus lenses be inferior</i><P>By and large most of them aren't, and in fact the wider Olympus offerings could likely teach Canon wide primes a thing or to.<P>Regardless, zooms are for <b>amatuers</b>, and I'll stick to my Canon primes vs 'alternative' camera systems that make little sense.

[david_bedell]

"Regardless, zooms are for amatuers"

 

Amateur professional photojournalists, that is.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Hey who was ever hurt by a little hyperbole!?

 

I bet it can take on any Canon L zoom that even approaches its specs. This is a 35-180mm equivalent with a max aperture of 2.0/2.4

 

Anyway, the E10 remains a unique camera by virtue of its pellicle mirror, leaf shutter, viewable LCD, silent operation, and I am pretty sure superlative lens.

 

My original point was that this camera should be reincarnated in a new form that addresses the fatal flaws of the original camera.

 

Incidentally this camera is descended from the IS-3 which was 35mm SLR with a fixed zoom lens, or actually ZLR Zoom lens reflex.

 

If they made the E10 with the same type of performance as a Canon 20D, in terms of useable ASA ratings, and frames per second, with a rubberised water resistant body, it would be the perfect Digital camera, and all in one that you could take anywhere, and do anything with.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

If they made the camera like I specified, and additionally to military specifications, they could probably get a nice contract with the DOD to produce them for use in the field. It would be a photojournalist's dream camera.

[peter_white2]

Ah! So we have been arguing over hyperbole. Now I get it. So when you said "take on any Canon L lens", that meant, any L lens that approaches its spec. I get it!

[orensztajn]

And what about the E-300, it is not a more modern model that could match a 20D (bellow 400 iso)?

[scott_eaton]

<I>Amateur professional photojournalists, that is.</i><P>No, <b>amatuers</b> - learn to read. The number of full time professional Nikon and Canon users I see <b>regularly</b> using zooms is actually less than the number of professional Olympus users I see, which is darn near an oxymoron in any case. Are you too lazy/stupid/fat to compose the shot properly in the first place? <P>Canon's L-glass designation for their lenses is an obsolete marketing term that's been obsolete for over a decade and doesn't mean squat either on a dSLR. Canon should instead paint any zoom in their lineup that doesn't perform worse than a 28-200 Soligor a bright, day-glo orange. That would amount to what, two lenses?

[peter_nelson1]

<I>If they made the E10 with the same type of performance as a Canon 20D, in terms of useable ASA ratings, and frames per second, with a rubberised water resistant body, it would be the perfect Digital camera</I><P>

 

Not without a better lens, it wouldn't.<P>

 

And that's the problem. A DSLR with a permanently-mounted lens HAS to have a zoom. And to meet different users' needs there will be pressure to give it a wide zoom ratio, which will inevitably degrade the performance.<P>

 

I have a 20D, with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. As zooms go, it's pretty good - very sharp at f/4 and smaller, and somewhat acceptable even at f/2.8, and good "edge" sharpness as long as we define the "edge" in terms of the 20D's cropping factor!<P>

 

Since I just bought it and all my other lenses are Nikkors, it's the only lens I use with the 20D, and it's a good focal length range for MOST of my shooting, since I MOSTLY shoot studio fashion, figure, and glamour. But on those occasions when I wanted to shoot something else it was often not wide enough or not long enough.<P>

 

So that's the problem with your idea - one lens cannot do it all, and do it well.

[matthias_meixner2]

>The 4/3rds format is based on a balance between *current* pixel density

>and yield. Pixel density is increasing exponentially, while yield is

>increasing linearly. This means that sensors will tend to get

>smaller.

 

You forgot physics. In 1/60th of a second only a limited number of photons hit the chip. And these are spread across the number of pixels on the chip. Therefore, the more pixels on the chip, the less photons hit each single pixel. If you crank up the number of pixels you end up in a situation, where it is unlikely that a single pixel is hit by more than one photon, so in effect turning your chip into a sensor that dithers the image in black and white.

 

If you want to have more colors, you need to spend more photons per pixel. E.g. if you allow up to 255 photons to hit a pixel, you may have 256 shades of grey (or about 16 million colors). So how do you make more photons hit a pixel? You have about two possibilities: Either make larger pixels (lower resolution) or expose longer

(low ISO rating).

 

These limits already show up in compact digital cameras as noise and

low ISO ratings.

 

Therefore, the only way to increase resolution while keeping low noise and high ISO ratings is to increase the sensor size.

[andrew robertson]

I love it how people gloss over the smaller sensors (which, barring some phenomenal sensor

breakthrough means noisier images) in 4/3rds DSLRs, and the extreme lack of lens options

when comparing system SLRs, and the extremely inflated price of Olympus prime telephoto

lenses.