what do you think about Olympus sensor dimension

[andrea_nobili]

hello,

what do you think about the dimension of Olympus sensor?

It is 4:3 so it's litlest than other reflex sensor, what is the quality

difference beetween the other reflex as canon, nikon?

 

Thanks

Andrea

[leicaglow]

Andrea, For all the crazies that want full frame sensors, they're barking up the wrong tree. The new game is sensor density and image processing on the chip or electronics. One reputable photo mag (albeit amatuer) compared a well know camera maker's FF sensor against another's DX size chip. For sharpness and color, the smaller sensor won, though the dynamic range of the FF was better.

 

I just read a great article about what's going on in this area in the Jan/Feb issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine.

[h._p.]

A good big 'un will generally beat a good little 'un but, as Michael says, the name of the game these days is sensor density. It seems to me that the main driver for full frame sensors is to enable wide angle use of legacy lenses but now that more super-wide lenses are becoming available for small sensors, that may not be a big issue any longer. The learning pages on this site have some usefull ideas on the subject as, for example... http://www.photo.net/learn/fisheye/<div></div>

[mark u]

I think that when Olympus designed the four thirds system - which they did from a blank sheet of paper with no legacy concerns - they made some good choices and some that have been overtaken by the pace of technological development. The choice of sensor size probably falls into the latter category, and was probably influenced by their perception of the likely trend in sensor cost and yield for a given sensor size. The cost of larger sensors has fallen dramatically, and continues to do so, undermining the cost advantage of having a small sensor. The trend can be seen at various size points. For example, the 3MP Canon D30 camera sold for close on $3,000 when it was first released, whereas now cameras with slightly larger sensors than the D30 e.g. Pentax 110D can be bought for less than $400. Now you can buy a Canon 5D for about $2,200. Apart from portability issues, a physically larger sensor will ultimately have an advantage over a smaller one so far as image quality is concerned simply because it captures more light. It also offers more design scope in the trade off between megapixels (which now exceed the requirements of 99% of users given the sizes at which they will print) and the impact of small pixel size on the ability to capture a high dynamic range between highlight and shadow and to give low noise results in dim lighting conditions without using unduly long shutter speeds.

[dankapsner]

I appreciate reading the thoughtful responses. I am learning to use an Olympus E-1, and

regularly use Canon 10D, 20D, and 1D cameras as well. In my experience the E-1 makes

wonderful files up to ISO 400. At ISO 100 it rivals any of the above and perhaps even

surpasses them--it can produce lovely color. Up to ISO 200 it is a close call, and ISO 400 is

very useful, but if I have to shoot at ISO 800 or above (and I frequently do at weddings) I use

the Canon 20D. I shoot exclusively in RAW and convert using Adobe Camera Raw. As far as

the aspect ratio, it is closer to 4x5 than 4x6, and I like it! I don't know if I will invest in future

Olympus offerings--it really is a drag to have to use two different systems to shoot at high

ISOs--but I do like many of the qualities of the E-1, and the 14-54 lens I use is excellent.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <I>I think that when Olympus designed the four thirds system - which they did from a blank sheet of paper with no legacy concerns </I><BR><BR>But then the aspect ratio of that "blank sheet of paper" is 4/3 ; a printers standard 8.5x11" size before any of our great- grandfathers were born!

[glyn r]

Lets not get into this discussion again. Canon/Nikon v Oly. They are all good cameras. All can make exceedingly good photos. The good big un argument didn't win against 35mm so it will go nowhere. Leica have 4/3 and APSH in their cameras.

[neild]

It seems to me that there will always be people "defending to the death" the system in which they have made a substantial investment. In terms of the "Oly vs Canikon" debate these people occupy both camps (so no, I am not attacking a particular group - I myself have both Oly and Canon gear and see benefits of each).

 

The most useful way to answer your question Andrea is to suggest that you try out each of the cameras in your budget from all manufacturers and then decide for yourself which gives you the most value for money. I know this is not the answer you really want but it is the best advice I think.

[mark u]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

 

8.5x11 is a rather N American thing. I think e.g. Quarto somewhat predates it (10x8).

[kelly_flanigan1]

Paper sizes are like lens mounts; there is always another standard; variant coming out each year. <BR><BR>With digital everyone is an expert; so the many hundreds of old paper standards are being ignored.<BR><BR> Thus fine art stuff for printing is requested almost always a microgrunt larger than a standard roll size; or sheet size; one smiles and figures in the waste and cutting costs.<BR><BR> Most of the cost in inkjet paper folks buy is in the converting; cutting out smaller sizes; boxing it labeling it.<BR><BR> In printing most of the time here one assembles the oddball fineart jobs in the rip box to reduce waste abit; nesting the odd stuff like a puzzle to reduce waste. One might have a 42" roll of fine fart cloth in the printer that has a wholesale printers cost of 200+ bucks for 40 feet.<BR><BR> A fine fart job then comes in thats 42.2 inches by 19.3 inches; and one has to run the job longways, with alot of material going into the rubbish bin. Then the fine fart customer after seeing the print "thinks its too big" or "measured their frame wrong" and one trims the 42.2 back to say 41 inches. <BR><BR>Thus the job could have been run sideways and the scrap radically reduced. Digital just means double the scrap manytimes since each customer now has their own paper sizes; and inkjet inks are free! :)<BR><BR>

[andrew robertson]

Too small. When they spec'd the E-1 back when the OM system was being discontinued, the

smaller sensor probably made a lot of sense - sensors were expensive, and the bigger they

were the more expensive they got.

 

Nowadays they seem too small. Olympus lags behind in high ISO performance and barring

a breakthrough always will. I love Olympus and wish them the best.

[andrew robertson]

Also, Olympus said they would have smaller and lighter lenses, which hasn't proven to be

true at all.

[dogbert]

Not to mention the smaller view finders that go with smaller formats - a real pain. The smaller lenses actually need to be made to much tighter standards as they have to withstand enlarging the image many more times. This along with the lower production runs has negated Olympus' ability to deliver more economical lenses.