daniel_kreithen1

I would strongly suggest your first lens purchase be small enough to fold up inside the camera. After all, what's the point of buying a very nice, small, light camera like the 45FA and carry around huge lenses? I would take a look at the 135mm lenses, which are a good all-around focal length while still being small enough to fold into the camera. The Rodenstock Sironar-N is actually smaller than most in this focal length and takes 40.5mm filters. Or the Sironar-S is somewhat larger and gives slightly more coverage.

 

You won't get much in the way of movements with a 90mm lens, is my guess, given the body design. If you're after a Super Angulon, I would also consider the equivalents in other brands as well, unless there's something compelling about the particular choice (for example, the 110XL is a unique focal length, etc.).

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.

Congratulations on the new E-1. It's selling for a bargain price these days. Increasing sharpness IS necessary if you want to use JPEGs out of camera and not do any post-processing. As others have said, do not ignore RAW, it can do amazing things. I use Raw Shooter Premium and it is very good, as are other products. Lithium-ion batteries need a few charge-discharge cycles to attain maximum capacity when new, so the capacity will increase during the break-in period. Also, some power management issues: the screen draws the most power, so minimizing use of it will help. Also, turn down the screen brightness as far as you dare, and set the review default for as short a time as possible (perhaps 0 if you're using RAW - you can recover significant highlights using RAW so exposure is not quite as finicky). Good luck.

The 2x "factor" is a misnomer. In the Olympus system, since it's designed for digital from the ground up, all the lenses are dedicated to the system. So there is no "crop factor", the lenses are designed to project an image circle that is the size of the sensor. It may help you to think of the focal lengths in terms of their 35mm equivalents, which is where the "2x" comes from. All the cameras you mention are good and will produce good results. They all have different strengths (Canon - high ISO performance, Nikon - reasonably well-built, Oly - dust-shaker and reasonably well-built) and weaknesses (Canon - as you noted, toy-like, Nikon - lousy viewfinder, but they all have that, Oly - high ISO performance, but still better than the equivalent ISO film)...it is up to you to set your priorities. As mentioned before, there are fewer lenses available for the Olympus right now, since it is a relatively new system. But if what is available meets your needs, then that is a moot point. All the Olympus lens offerings are good to excellent optically. Most (but not all) are very good value for money. If you decide on Olympus (I did because of the bang for the $$$), you should also look into the E-1, which is selling now for fire-sale prices given the build quality, and the 14-54mm lens, an excellent all-around lens. Don't let 5 MP be a deterrent to you unless you're planning on making prints larger than 12" x 16" routinely.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CCeT&tag=

 

This should tell you how to remove the top cover, which is easy. I'm not sure how to tighten the hot shoe, though. While you have it off, clean the glass surfaces of the viewfinder. Hope this helps.

Just get a generic 46mm cap. Problem solved.

http://t5r.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/e1/clonetests.htm

The finders on the Rebel XT, D50, D70, KM 5D, and, unfortunately, the E500 are passable, but that's about all. From what I've seen by handling various models, the better finders amongst the currently less expensive models are the KM 7D, the Oly E-1, and the first Pentax *istD, with the Pentax and KM better, and the Oly still very good. At the time I bought, the price advantage was with the E-1, so that's what I bought, and I've been very happy with it. Right now, a new E-1 is a steal, priced around $750 or so (body only). If you go for the 14-54, you'll have a very nice setup for not a lot of money (in digital camera terms, anyway). If I were to have to decide between the models on the less expensive step down, I'd look closely at the KM 5D and the Oly E-500. The are less expensive than the Nikon and Canon competitors and are quite credible machines.

Was the battery in the D70, and was it on? I think it has some sort of LCD overlay over the focus screen, and without power it appears to be very dark. I'm not 100% sure of this, better check for yourself.

Go to www.micro-tools.com and find the "lacquer sticks" under the paint section. Or any repair shop ought to be able to do this.

I think what full-time focus means in Canon-land is that even if the camera (and lens) are set to autofocus, you can still grab the focus ring and focus manually (to touch up the focus, for example). This is only possible with some lenses, I think they need USM motors to do so (i.e., the cheap lenses cannot do this). Of course, the E-1 can be set to manual focus, but that's not what I think he was referring to. But you can set the E-1 body to S.AF + MF, which means that it will do a single autofocus action, then immediately enable manual focus. I think it's a menu setting.

The Olympus (well, the E-1 anyway, best to check the owners manual for the E-500) will not do a full-time manual focus. It has a similar (but not identical) feature, though, which is that you can set it to single autofocus, and after it completes its focussing, then it will switch to manual automatically. This allows you to "touch up" the autofocus if you feel it has not focussed on what you had really intended. Functionally, it is similar to FTM focussing, but not identical. As I said, I know the E-1 does this, but it's best to check on the E-500. Perhaps the users manual is downloadable from the Olympus website.

Check out the following link:

 

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503362.html

 

And, yes, I think that the price is quite good, especially with the lens included.

Looks like a IV to me. The IV 5x7 has a front standard mechanism similar to a 4x5 III, which is to say that the tilt mechanism is at the base. To be sure, get the serial number and give Bob Solomon at HP marketing a call (if you're located in the US). He will be able to tell you for sure.

Actually, there were Linhof lenses, not just Linhof-select. The Linhof 220 has a "Linhof" brand lens, which was produced by Rodenstock. I believe there were other Linhof brand lenses as well, most if not all of them were produced by Rodenstock, presumably to Linhof specifications.

BTW, if you're in the US, hold off on buying Olympus until Oct 1. Rebates start again then, and run until Dec. 1. I think this will amount to $150 extra off your desired system.

Well, since the E-500 is not even available yet, please tell me how you know it is "noisy"? And since when is the overriding performance measure for anything noise? I guess that back in the "good old" film days, ISO 400 film and above was used for nothing, since it was way, way, way, too grainy, huh? Let's not get absurd here, can we please?

Not crazy at all. I think, owning a 10D, that you know what 5-6 Mpixels can really do (and not do, for that matter). I find that the "feel" of a camera is really important to me, and it seems to be for you as well. You should be excited to pick the camera up and make pictures with it. That's something the specs cannot tell you, you have to try the camera in your hand yourself. Since you've had the camera in your hand, I can only assume that you like what you've seen. As others have said, don't be so quick to dismiss the JPEG engine. I've found (with probably not enough time spend, admittedly) that it can take a fair while to better the results that are out of camera with JPEG. So I normally shoot JPEG, and only use RAW when I know I'll want to do some post-processing (difficult/contrasty lighting, etc.). So far I have not felt the need to invest additional money in RAW processing software. I'll certainly review that decision when the E-3 or other new bodies come along. Good luck, and I suspect that you'll like it...but as you already know, an equipment change will not make you a better photographer. What it may do is motivate you to take more pictures, though. This can only be a good thing.

A word of caution: The E-1 has had a firmware update which affects focussing speed (the latest version 1.4). If the camera you tried was version 1.0, then it will have focussed slower than the same hardware will with the updated firmware. As far as brighter viewfinder: what you were probably seeing was a design choice - more finely ground "ground glass" focus screens will appear to be brighter, but are more difficult to manually focus, since they tend to lack contrast. The E-1 viewfinder (in my opinion, having tried both) is easier to manual focus, but you may have found it less bright. This is no indication of anything in particular other than the choice made by the design of the focus screen. I find the D70 virtually impossible to manually focus. An SLR will stop down the lens to working aperture just before opening the shutter, so the view through the finder is no indication of the pictoral results. A lower number F-stop on the lens means that it is capable of transmitting more light to sensor, so is called a "faster" lens and should allow hand-holding the camera in lower light, everything else being equal. If you're really interested in "clear" 16" x 20" prints (you didn't say if 16x20 was expressed in cm or inches - or feet or meters for that matter), then I would strongly urge you to consider a medium format film camera, or the most expensive pro Nikon or Canon bodies that are currently on the market. But how often do you print at that size vs. the money you'll spend?

I think you're correct. The Olympus camera and lenses are more affordable than some other brands, when comparing like-to-like. The sole exception I can see is the 300mm Digital Zuiko lens, which IS more expensive than the comparable other brand products. If you don't care about ultra-telephoto lenses (which are quite specialized in application, but are "high profile" optics), then some examples: 11-22 Olympus current B&H price = $675, Canon 17-40L (on an APS-C camera) = $699, but the Olympus lens is at least a stop faster and a bit wider. Olympus 14-54 = $430, Canon has no real comparable lens of similar focal length and speed, but the 17-85 IS is considerably slower, costs $600, and is inferior optically. Or consider the Nikon 17-55 is a half-stop faster at the long end, and costs $1200 (and is an excellent lens, from what I've read). The 14-54 really makes the Olympus system in my opinion, there is no comparable lens from other manufacturers that has the combination of quality, speed, weight and volume. The Oly 50-200 runs $850, is excellent optically, but there is no directly comparable Canon lens. It's bracketed by the 70-200/f4L which is >$1100, and the 75-300 IS which runs $420. The first of these is a match optically, but is slower, and the second which is inferior optically and is considerably slower. The Oly 50 Macro is a tremedously good lens which runs $450, compared to the Canon 60mm macro which costs the same and is a stop slower. Another tip is that for the past two years, Oly USA has run rebates in the March time frame which are significant ($100 on the 50-200, for example), so if they run the same offer this coming year, that's the time to buy. So, no, the Oly lenses are not cheap, but are very well priced when compared to appropriate similar optics.

 

If it were me, I would not hesitate to buy the E-1, which is a rock-solid camera whose build quality can only be compared to Nikon and Canon equivalents that currently cost 4x as much. The E-300 or the (apparently) soon-to-be announced E-500 with 8 Mpixels will give you more raw resolution, but the E-1 produces better image quality in every other respect. The E-1's 5 MPixels can produce dead-sharp 8"x10" prints without a problem. If you print larger, then you will see a difference with higher resolution with some subjects, including some of the ones you mention (landscape, ruins). For people, unless you're starting a personality cult, an 8x10 print ought to be big enough, but the E-1 will do fine even at larger enlargements for this type of subject.

 

If you want to travel light, an E-1 or E-300 and the 14-54 are a great choice. If you're at all concerned about build quality and weather sealing, then the E-1 is the obvious choice. The other lenses you might consider are the 50-200 (a bit big and heavy to carry around all the time) or the 11-22, which is not as useful a general purpose lens as the 14-54.

Hi Peter, good to see you from the other thread... :^) I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't venture an opinion on the future of any particular system, but I thought I might elaborate on the statement I made "over there" about one of the more interesting evolving technologies out there. There are surely others that exist and are probably at least as interesting and relevant. The one I mentioned is abbreviated MEMS = Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems. One link that talks about it further is http://www.memsnet.org/mems/what-is.html. Basically, it is a collection of technologies which concentrate on mass-fabricating extremely small mechanical systems using IC fabrication type processes. It is possible to make nano-level motors and mechanical switches, all mounted on silicon substrate. There is a lot of interest out there in this sort of technology, but here's how I think it might apply to our parochial interest - cameras. Keep in mind that I'm free-wheeling here, so there is probably a show-stopper of which I'm unaware.

 

Imagine if you will a CCD or CMOS imaging sensor that is covered by, in addition to an anti-aliasing filter (as most sensors used by cameras are these days), a large collection of small, independently controllable, light-tight "flap" that is mounted over each photosite. With the appropriate control circuitry, it should be possible to expose each photosite for a different amount of time! So, areas of shadow would be exposed for longer times, while bright areas could be exposed for much shorter times. This would mean that you might strive on each "picture" or "exposure" to make sure that the resulting image from the CCD is a uniform field. If you measure the times that each individual pixel is exposed, those times should be directly but inversely proportional to the amount of light that strikes each photo site. These times could then be translated to an exposure value for each pixel. The example I've just given would only work for black-and-white, of course, but I suspect that a Bayer type filter could be made to work with such an arrangement. Anyway, this type of sensor might be interesting, because it effectively does away with the noise issue. Each CCD site integrates to a level that far exceeds the noise level. The tradeoff here is that since each photo-site is exposed for a different amount of time, subject motion will appear differently in each pixel. This might be a show-stopper. On the other hand, there is software even now freely available that attempts to deconvolve subject motion or the effect of camera shake thereby "sharpening" a photo. These sorts of algorithms might be of use in a future sensor I described. Right now, the processing power to accomplish this is far too much to live in a camera body, but that will not always be the case.

 

Like I said, free-wheeling here...so it's probably a lousy idea...but interesting all the same. I would not be surprised to hear that one of a number of camera companies are looking closely at these various technologies in order to perfect manufacturing to drive costs to a level suitable for consumer markets.

 

That said, bigger silicon area = lower noise. That's physics and it won't change. But I suggest from my above comments that there are plenty of interesting games that could be played with significantly increased processing power and novel technologies. So who knows what the future might bring?

This is beginning to be tiresome. So by that logic, the "fundamental flaw" of 35mm cameras is that they use only a 24mm x 36mm frame size of film. Clearly, medium format, or better yet, large format (16 x 20, anyone?) is less flawed than 35mm.

 

I find that the Olympus E system is extremely well thought out to essentially duplicate (and in some specifications surpass) the performance of 35mm film. There is some way to go for that in terms of dynamic range, but that is the case for all the brands we've been discussing. Current medium format digital backs do exceed the dynamic range of film, however. There are technologies out there (not yet cost effective, granted) that might very well tip the balance to modest sensor sizes. There are more ways to skin a cat than the sledgehammer approach of more silicon surface area. If you doubt this, go to Google and type in "mems", then start reading. Then imagine a mems device which acts as a shutter for each pixel, timed independently...and start considering the possibilities and engineering tradeoffs inherent in a design which might use that technology. And this is only one example of an enabling technology that I happen to be aware of.

 

Next, the E system will not be "rapidly outdated", unless as you say, Olympus pulls the plug. I don't think that's likely in the near term (say within 5 years) because the process of thinking the E system design through should have made clear to Olympus engineering that the maturation process would take longer than that. And, Panasonic is joining the mix in the near future, which ought to give the 4/3 standard a shot in the arm. OK, this last bit is still in the rumor category, but what is certain is that Olympus and Panasonic are teaming to produce a DSLR. So frankly, the bald and unsupported assertion that the 4/3 system has no future is absolutely unfounded. Remember, we're only at the beginning of what mass-market digital imaging will be capable of.

 

Chris, that reminds me...if you do decide to go for the E-300, call Olympus and ask if they still are giving away (for free!) an E to OM adapter ring. If they send you one, then you can use older OM glass on the E body (no auto-focus, manually stopped down). Some of the OM glass is quite good and cheap, used.

Chris, an entirely rational response to a sometimes irrational interchange. Good luck no matter what you decide. And, you're right, medium format right now is untouchable for quality vs. cost (with equipment bought used, of course).

"and is really a lot worse than it looks."

 

This reminds me of a famous quote of George Bernard Shaw, who was a music critic writing for a major London newspaper at the time. It was something along the lines of "Wagner's music is really much better than it sounds."

 

But I suspect in this case that you were being unintentionally funny.

Peter, thanks for qualifying your comments. I cannot speak with authority on the E-300, as mentioned above I've not used one. I have an E-1. However, I do know that the E-300 firmware has been updated since the Askey review. I don't know what changed in that firmware release, though. It is possible that the initial firmware had over-aggressive noise reduction applied, I simply do not know. I think the reputation of the Kodak sensors that Olympus used in the E-1 and E-300 having high noise is a function of design tradeoffs. I can make an arbitrarily low noise sensor at the expense of dynamic range - simply clip the shadows, then measure the standard deviation of a uniform image. I suspect that Canon does some of this, since to my eye the Canon CMOS sensors (of equivalent size) do not have the dynamic range and anti-bloom characteristics exhibited by the Kodak sensors. Coupled with the fact that noise levels are easy to standardize and measure, while dynamic range characteristics are difficult to measure, the various review sites and marketing literature from Canon tend to emphasize only one of the collection of specifications that shows Canon's products in a good light (after all this is Canon's marketing department's job). But if low noise is the most important thing to someone, then Canon is obviously the way to go. To those whose overriding consideration is something different, there are different choices to be made. For example, many medium format back manufacturers choose Kodak sensors, and many of them don't even offer ISO settings greater than 400. In a market clearly driven by overall image quality, I think that speaks directly to the quality that the sensors are capable of.

 

In answer to others who have pointed out that Nikon and Olympus are roughly equal in size...Nikon's main business is cameras and lithographic steppers, I believe. Olympus' main money-making products are medical devices (next time you need a colonoscopy, check on the brand of endoscope - it's probably an Olympus). I suspect that as a percentage of the corporation, Nikon's photo division far exceeds the size of Olympus'.