OK: convince me [re: four thirds]

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

My three favourite companies: Leica,. Panasonic, and Olympus have all converged

in this. All my reading says that since it is the smallest of the three popular

sensors, it is automatically inferior to the APS and the full-frame (yes: Canon

EOS 5d-that is what I will be saving for).

 

Olympus tried it in the early 60s with half-frame 35. I used one & loved it;

but I even 8x10 is a stretch to print respectably. Is Olympus as a company

genetically predisposed to smallness?

 

Can any E-3 user make a case for me that this is either (a) it, or (b) the

coming thing?

[ronald_moravec1]

In case you have not figured it out, it is all about sensor size, not MP count. Like film, bigger is better.

 

If you want to keep to smallish prints, it is probably ok. APS is the bottom limit for me.

[leandro_dutra1]

The size difference against APS-C isn?t relevant, because the Four Thirds format uses better the image circle than the 3:2 one.

 

The difference from 24׳6mm (double frame, actually) is important, but the costs are only one third and the bulk one half (roughly, check the specs yourself).

 

The Olympus Pen (18׳6mm, single [cinema] frame) was quite good, and reached much larger than 8ױ0 with the right materials and process.

 

Yes, Olympus does care for portability and tries to make technology to serve people, not pixel peepers.

 

The E-3 image quality is second only to 24׳6, barring the edge cases of exotic lenses and very high sensibility (ISO setting). But it is practically immune of all sorts of problems of having legacy designs in the digital age, specialy but not only vignetting, and thus have higher image quality in the general case. It is not as fast as the double frame cameras, but with the price difference you can pay much better glass, and you have much more to lug around.

 

I suggest you take a look at Zuikoholic and specially the Olympus forum at DPreview, or even at the reviews at this site. Most of what you will read at these places will give short thrift to the myths you have been feeding yourself.

[akochanowski]

Jack, before you can get an educated answer you have to define what you're looking to do.

The Oly approach has noise limitations compared to Nikon/Canon. If what you need is a

smallish camera to do street shooting in reasonably good light, it's great. The files from

my tiny E-400 at 100-400 ISO are very, very nice. Oly's lenses are VG to great. <p>But

the system does have limitations. You cannot compare the breadth of lenses, especially

short primes, from Nikon to Olympus, not to mention specialty lenses. The current Nikon

D300, which I use for client and street work, produces superb results all the way through

1600 ISO, and even 3200 is good enough. From what I saw it has a nicer response than

the new E-3. I was initially looking forward to seeing if the E-3 would be smaller and

tidier than the D300, but it is not. They are almost exactly the same size and weight, and I

am a bit mystified why it is as large as it is. FWIW I am not sure if the sensor size has

anything to do with Oly's somewhat quirky approach to their system. I just think there isn't

an appreciable advantage to the system being a viable alternative to the class of camera

that uses APS sensors like the D300 IF you need an all-purpose, high frame rate, low light

camera. But as I said above, for everyday walk-around shooting, the E-400 or E-500

series bodies are perfectly good.

[richsimmons]

A lot of people look down on Olympus, but I've had mine (E-500) for almost two years and I've been happy with it. But...I'm getting to a point where I want more. Specifically in lower light. Although I get good results with the flash and diffuser. Where the camera works well, I think it works really well. I can't speak on the E-3 from experience, but the sensor has been changed and even though it is the same footprint, according to the specs, the pixels have been enlarged, creating a more robust photo opportunity. I've been thinking about jumping ship to a D300 because it and the E-3 are around the same price, but the Nikon has better performance and a larger range of lenses.

[leandro_dutra1]

Compared to cameras such as the D300, the E-3 has better weathersealing, better dust removal, better viewfinder, in-body image stabilisation and built-in flash (to activate remote flash units).

 

I don't mean the D300 has none of these, but I compare in general to cameras in its class.

 

The point is that the E-3 usually looks big and weighty if you compare it to cameras at the same price level, but which are actually less featured.

 

So yes, the E-3 is smaller, lighter and cheaper than comparable APS-C cameras; which is not to say they don't have advantage in edge cases such as extremely low light.

 

But where Four Thirds actually shines is at lenses. Yes, there are relatively few, but they are a more coherent system, barring two particularities: lack of support for the Leica aperture ring at the Olympus cameras, and need of a camera of the same brand as the lenses to support firmware upgrades. And there are wider (7?14mm 1:4, equivalent to 14?28mm in double [24×36mm] frame) and longer lenses (800mm, equivalent to 1600mm) than usually available elsewhere. Also, the 'crop factor' makes for smaller, lighter, faster and often (not always) cheaper lenses for the same equivalent focal length.

 

I also tend to believe miniaturisation is the future. And the Leica name thrown in makes me juice for glass.

 

Simmons, the E-510 was already an upgrade from your E-500, seems like the E-3 is even better. You should give it a try if you can get a loan or something the like, before changing systems.

[akochanowski]

Leandro, no real argument from me whether the E-3 has some nice features, but in the

end, for me to justify an appreciably worse low light performance in a pro-spec camera, it

had to be smaller and faster in operation than a Nikon. The E-3 is neither. To get the great

Oly lenses, you are forced to bundle it with the 12-60 or 14-54, both of which are as big

as or bigger than equivalent Nikkor lenses. You do not have the option of any small

primes, while in the Nikon system you have a number of 1.4 and 1.8 lenses to choose

from. Nikon's focusing system on the D300 is state of the art, as is the flash. Maybe Oly's

is as good, maybe not. My point is, the E-3 doesn't stand out enough to justify a switch

for me. Internet tales of bad focusing and high ISO banding don't help either.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2424806756_b8235fb3fd_o.jpg"><br>

Restaurant Kitchen - Mountain View 2008<br>

<i>Olympus E-1 + Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH</i><br>

</center><br>

<br><br>

Why should any of us who USE the cameras have to "convince me" to other users? That's

the job of the camera manufacturer and retailers.

<br><br>

Do your research, buy what suits your needs and desires best.

<br><br>

Every camera system has its compromises. I have three systems: I use them for different

things.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br><br>

[leandro_dutra1]

One can't be all things to all people. The E-3 is fully-featured, and thus can't be too small and light; it is relatively cheap; if you want smaller and cheaper, go for the E-420 or E-510, or even wait for the E-520 which should have similar low light performance to the E-3 and E-420.

 

Sometimes one wants a precise combination of features from some product, and it simply isn't possible to get it at a certain price or from a certain manufacturer. Such is life. Olympus, being a relatively small player since the (great) Olympus Pen F, can't have a huge lineup covering all niches.

 

The E-3 does not perform the same as APS-C at ISO 1600 or 3200; if you can live with huge telephoto glass, an inconsistent confusing line of lens and higher prices, by all means get an APS-C camera. Just don't express envy when you see what the equivalent focal length we can get from such lightweight combinations as enabled by the Four Thirds system.

 

BTW, there is the option of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10, it might be more according to your wants if you find the E-3 heavy and expensive. But it is not a professional camera, albeit by a small margin except at shooting speed.

 

It seems to me that, after so many explanations, you are still missing the point: the 12-60mm is not small, but it is a wicked fast focusing, high-resolution 24-120mm equivalent-to-24×36mm lens, the best performing in its class. Try getting a lens with similar quality, range, performance, image quality and _equivalent_ focal lengths in other systems.

 

Yes, we have no fast small primes, only great fast primes like the Leica 25mm 1:1,4 and the Zuiko Digital 5mm 1:2. They are not small, but they are just great. And that brings back what we said before: we have the system with the most consistent lineup, with the more consistent quality, but not as full a range. BTW, do you know about the Sigma Four Thirds lenses?

[godfrey]

Minor correction to Leandro: I'm sure he meant the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro.

 

The Olympus ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro is small, light, and a stunningly good performer. The

Olympus ZD 25mm f/2.8 will also be available very soon.

 

Godfrey

[leandro_dutra1]

Yes, Godfrey, the 50mm. Why have people forgotten the SI units? I love the old Leica '5cm' lens designation.

 

I thought about the 25mm and 35mm lenses, but I wouldn't call them fast primes, reserving this designation for 1:2 or better lenses.

[godfrey]

Not sure what you mean by "SI units". 5cm would have been perfectly fine, you just typed

5mm instead. ;-)

 

The 25 and 35 mm lenses are not 'fast' to the expectations of today's technogeeks, but

they're small, light and fast enough ... certainly faster than most people's use of a kit zoom

with an f/3.5-5.6 range.

 

Godfrey

[leandro_dutra1]

SI are the specs that give you the nice system of km, hm, dam, m, dm, cm, mm?

 

Yes, I got it wrong, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. And the use of the SI units would have made my error worse.

 

Agree about the lenses, it was just that I didn't want to have the original poster barking at me that 1:2,8 ain't fast, even more so because he already thinks that Four Thirds doesn't perform as he'd like in low light -- entirely on hearsay from pixelpeepers, it should be noted.

[Greg M]

"My three favourite companies: Leica,. Panasonic, and Olympus have all converged in this. All my reading says that since it is the smallest of the three popular sensors, it is automatically inferior to the APS and the full-frame (yes: Canon EOS 5d-that is what I will be saving for)...."

 

Enjoy your 5D...

[neild]

The SI unit for length is the metre (m). Centimetres and millimetres are derived units. To express the above-discussed lens in SI units would be to say it is a 0.05m f/2 macro.

 

Sorry, just being pedantic - not intending to attack you or anything! :)

[markci]

To be even more pedantic, "derived" units are things like pascals, hertz, tesla's, etc that have different dimensions than the base SI units. Millimeters are such are just prefixed base units.

[tim_huggins]

You might want to do a little more research. 4/3's is NOT smaller than APS. It is a different aspect ratio, so terms like bigger/smaller are meaningless. As others have pointed out above, 4/3 is a more useful and practical aspect ratio (given the size of standard crops), and 4/3 was designed from the ground up as a digital format. So it doesn't inherit any shortcomings from previous design considerations and limitations.

 

If you believe that 8 x 10 was stretch for a Pen print, you've obviously never seen one. The SLR Pens were universally recognized as indistinguishable from double frame 35mm quality up to 16 x 20. Personally, I've never seen a sharper tranny than what has come out of my Pen's with even the workhorse 38mm, f1.8 lens.

 

By all means, buy that Canon and spend 4 times more heavy, bulky gear. Then you can post your insightful opinions over with the folks on the Canon forum who wouldn't know a quality camera if it bit them in the behind. Hmmmm, does Canon even make a collimating lens??

[neild]

<i>"Millimeters are such are just prefixed base units."</i>

<p>

Very true Mark, but the SI unit for mass is the kilogram, not the gram. As the SI unit for length is the metre, it is therefore not the millimetre.

<p>

However, I am not of the view that lens characterisitics should be quoted in SI units anyway. A 50mm lens is a fine description AFAIC!

[rendy_setiadjie]

One thing to answer : "How big you want to print your pictures ? "<br>

Agree that 4/3 is the smallest sensor of all and the most noisy SLR over others. <br>

But, when we print the result even till the enlargement more than 1 meter, I'm still impressed with the 4/3 system ! where is the noise ? you'll amazed by youself ! :) <br><br>

And the most important factor for me to stay with 4/3 : Color fidelity. <br> Olympus is not the most accurate color reproduction camera but very nice and pleasant to our eyes (natural looking).

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Thanks everyone for your well thought out opinions.

 

Godfrey I would strongly disagree with your statement that it's the job of the manufacturers & retailers to tell me why their camera is best. I much prefer to ask people who use the equipment and who have nothing to gain from a sale. Which is why I started this thread.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/72-modeling.jpg"><br>

<i>Panasonic L1 + Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH</i><br>

</center><br>

Jack,

<br><br>

The manufacturers are the source of accurate information about the equipment. Not how well it performs, not how suitable it

is to your needs, but specifically what it is, how it works, etc. That is the information that you should make your informed

judgement from, not the marketing sales spin in which they are trying to *convince* you of something, as well as credible

reviewers and your own personal evaluation.

<br><br>

Owners/users of camera equipment can only give you their opinions. Opinions might be valuable, if you know the source well

enough to understand how credible the opinions are.

<br><br>

I see no reason to convince others to like or respect equipment I like. If I'm trying to convince you of something, I'm trying to

sell something just like the manufacturer is. I answer people's questions, when posed, as to whether a particular piece of

equipment does a particular job and what I think of it. That's a different thing. If I'm answering an objective question about

how something performs, I'm offering my experience for you to benefit from.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[GerrySiegel]

Jack, you might, if you haven't already read enough, scan the comments of a bunch of Amazon buyers on that shopping site regarding the E-3 body. And the even more interesting comments re the new versatile 12-60 zoom lens that goes along with that level item. Won't necessarily make the sale,natch, but will add to your knowledge base before you go for broke. I see above that Ray Hull has been "sold" on the system and has bought into it big time with no sensor deprivation outcome. Whatever fits your final fancy, go for it. (Or... just ask your doctor: " Is 4/3 RIGHT for ME?" :-))

[jo_dinning]

Well I love my L1 - the results I get with the 14 - 50mm f2.8-3.5 lens are fantastic. Too many folk on this forum spend time looking at the tech spec rather than the real prints! I doubt you will be disappointed with a 4/3 system and the smaller, lighter and excellent lenses are nothing but a joy to use.

 

Don't get me wrong - if fisheye is your thing then you might be stuck... but as with most things, you'll probably never have a need for such a thing!

[leandro_dutra1]

Olympus has a Zuiko Digital 8mm fisheye lenses. And also the wider lens around, the Zuiko Digital 7-14mm 1:4.

[ilkka]

4/3 is a big improvement over small sensor digicams. I use one as a small travel camera. I am waiting for the small new 2.8/25 to make it even better at that. I would not want it as my only DSLR. I would prefer not to use it in the dark. There are few really fast lenses available (1.4/25 and 1.4/30 from Panasonic/Leica and Sigma, respectively), unless you adapt a 1.2 or 1.4 film lens, and then focusing will become a problem. Like all things in life, it is a compromise. Some subjects and situations are much more accepting to its limitations than others. Just as some people are more accepting to its limitations than others. You can only make up your own mind.