paul_p3

<p>As an above poster pointed out, Oly said they'll probably stay at 12mp.</p>

<p>This is a brave, common sense solution to the MP madness. How many MP do you need? Where will it end?</p>

<p>I've taken the view that my E-1 (5mp) can get me prints as big as my printer will print.. the E-3 gives slightly bigger prints with more detail and more cropping room. But I don't fill up 2GB cards every 5 mins and it also saves on computer processing time when editting and storage space. And what will your extra 3MP get you? [12mp + 3 = 15] A bit extra print size and slightly more cropping room?</p>

<p>IMHO, it's not worth it, Oly should stay with 12 and devote their energies into creating a wider ISO range. I actually think they should have stayed at 10MP but that wouldn't have been comercially feasible seeing as P&Ss are appearing with 12mp.</p>

<p>So Olympus have been quite sensible in this, they've gotten out the MP race and they're at a level where the majority of users won't need more.</p>

<p>I notice this new 12MP oly only hase a 4 stop ISO range plus 1 more 'boosted'. The E-1 had 5+1 as did the E-3.</p>

<p>If Oly has got rid of the XD slot, this is oly being ruthless and going all out for sales. The forcing users to use XD has put many off over the years (or so countless forum posts attest ;-))<br>

As such, it looks like a camera that will sell outside the 4/3rds community with other-brand dSLR owners.</p>

<p>Small & fully featured was the recipe that made 'OM' a sucess. Looks like Oly is about to repat it.</p>

If it was technically feasible, the 2nd question would be is it economically? as I'd think that 'politically' for the 'standard' to be seen as a competitor to the bigger/more popular formats/brands, it would have to have that gap in it's lens range filled.

Would I buy one? Yes... as I do the odd bit of building PGy and I hae the converging verticals I end up with. I have to say though I feel Oly's T&S, should it ever appear, would have a gasp-inducing price tag. I hope I'm wrong... but I reckon it'll be about the same price as a 50-200 SWD but under a 7-14/4. FYI, Nikons 2 are just over a grand @ £10x0 and Canons 3 are £850-ish.]

That would make them approx. 48 and 70mm on 4/3rds. I'd have thought them too 'tele' to do photography of buildings around a city centre. [Well in the UK at least, we tend to have narrow streets here and you find yourself backed up against a far wall, with the lens as wide as it will go and thus you will tend to include all sorts of unwanted items in the frame.] The 7-14 sounds a good idea...

But if *I* was to consider buying a 35mm 'OM' T&S lens for 4/3rds, as they can be quite expensive, I'd consider buying a 35mm dSLR [a used canon 5D comes to mind] and buying a EOS 'T&S' lens so that I'd have full compatibility of lens/body and the lens will be working at the 'focal length' the designers meant.

Just because you have an Olympus camera, doesn't mean you can't look at different brands for a certain applications!!! I'd certainly price out all the various alternatives and weigh them up. However, you'd have to factor in 'sensor cleaning kits' if you buy outside of 4/3rds. :-) [if I said I was sorry about the bitchy last sentence, I'd be lying in the extreme. :-)]

p.s. 4/3rds doesn't have a 'tilt & shift' lens for the format as yet. Plus as the 4/3rds dust shaler' works, many 4/3rds users have absolutely no idea about sensor cleaning or methods empoyed therein nor about 'DXO' optics correction software or similar. As for 'stopping down a lens to make it sharper'? that practice is 'sooo last century'!!!

;-)

You have been warned! :-) Also, as an earlier posted mentioned, don't use IS when the body is on a tripod, your comment gave the appearence that you do this (sometimes?)

I think one poster hit the nail when he reported that you have the camera set up with low "Sharpening" and "Contrast" settings. Bump them up, especially the former, and you should be happier... or bump them up when you convert the raw file.

I too have had a beef with Olympus/four-thirds 'lack of resolution' or 'bluriness':

http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00R8mw

... but when I stood back and considered things afresh, I think I was simply expecting too much. And having the ability to look into images at 1:1 [100%] did more harm than good as it caused doubts. Look at your images 'zoomed out' and any 'unsharpness' goes.

Re: a duff 14-45. Well it isn't impossible but from what I gether, the standard 'kit' lenses are very well thought of and it is just their build quality, when compared to their higher tier stablemates, that is lacking.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/std-zoom.html

and

http://web.archive.org/web/20070813231330/www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1445_3556/index.htm

Quote

"Verdict

Regarding its price tag the Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 is a very good deal with a good build quality combined with a very decent optical performance. The most pronounced weaknesses are very strong barrel distortions at 14mm and some chromatic aberrations at 14mm @ f/3.5 (easily correctable via tools)."

Happy photography!

I hadn't noticed that bit. That ["interchangeable focus screens"] used to be a feature that set the better cameras [read: 'Pro'] away from the entry-level ones. Here we see it on a 'mid level' body.

Michael, it looks like it follows the practice set by the E-3 in that it is a manufacturer replaced screen:

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e30/spec/

Quote: "Focusing screen:- Fixed, Neo Lumi-Micro Mat screen

(Interchangeable; FS-3 Focusing Screen is available at an Olympus authorised service centre.)

The FS-3 is the same screen the E-3 uses! That too is Olympus-only replacable.

Actually reading this specs page, you can not only adjust the brightness of the 2.7" screen, you can change the 'Colour temperature control' as well. Tell me that that is new and I've not forgotten it on the E-3? Speaking of which, it has lost the white dot on that rear screen, the dot that hid the 'auto brightness adjust sensor'.

What is "Exposure reference adjust:- ±1 EV range selectable in 1/6 EV steps" ???? Sounds interesting!

HLD4, same battery grip as the E-3. I suppose that's good news for some?

I'd have hoped they'd have gone to 14 bit raw by now and that they'd have increased the custom reset and my modes quantities and that they'd have provided a 3rd axis of rotation for the IS it does up/down & side to side now, doesn't it? Couldn't they add 'rotate' as well?

Reading the specs through, it's exactly like the E-3 but with slight additions to the firmware [art filters, multi-exposure, etc] while removing odd bits of hardware [internal eyepiece screen, external remote port (it uses the RM-UC1 Remote Cable instead), etc]

I can't help but want them to price it lower but if they price it w-a-y low, there goes an E-3 level camera for entry level prices... talk about cutting your own throat come next iteration of models!!

Mario, you are looking for anything with an 'OM' mount.

The OM camers are no longer in production so neither are the lenses, so you'll have to buy 'used', unless shops have got remainder 'un-sold' stock.

Ask, or look on Ebay for: 'Olympus OM' or 'OM' lenses, 'Olympus Manual lenses' or 'Olympus Zuiko' (though not 'Olympus Digital Zuiko') and make sure they are compatible with an Olympus 'OM' film mount.

But there's more knowlwdgeable guys on here to advise you, John Hermanson? for one. (sorry about the spelling John)

I can't see why they wouldn't (except for a purposly written command in the firmware that a m4/3 camera won't work without a m4/3rds lens... and why would they purposely restrict on a possibly big unique selling point?)

m4/3 cameras use the main imager to meter so what difference does it make as to what lens is in front? [Though I'll qualify that statment by saying lenses brighter than f1.4 ma not meter correctly as that value is outside the 4/3rds lens range so who knows how the metering firmware will react?]

Harvey, there are a lot of us that agree with you i that we'd like a moderate amount of MP which would allow us to have a bigger ISO range with better quality at each setting, a higher threshold before we see diffraction, we'd see less camera shake with the bigger pixels, and there's the (hopefully) better DR that the bigger photosites will allow. [the 'fill-factor' being similar, of course]

Yes, I'd far rather have better images from more scenarios than bigger, cropable prints from less.

But we are probably a small perecentage of Olympus sales andas Patrick says, the ignorati see 12 as bing 4 more than 8!!

Where are Olympus going with m4/3rds? Well I think it safe to say they'll do their best to remain equal with the others in MP terms.

Now given the shape of their m4/3 prototype, that was a pont & shoot with a bigger sensor, it was not the mini-dSLR that Panny produced as it's first m4/3rds model. Thus I think Olympus is going after the 'everyday user' and/or 'advanced photographer' who both want something small and portable but has great image quality that they can take to places where a dSLR is 'too much of a camera'.

Olympus is in the habit of putting out really nice, quality gear that hs a price tag to match. I think their m4/3 range may be olike that initially. Sort of like 'build it and they will come' only'build it and they will buy it at the price we set'. :-)

Thus think of m4/3rds as a really, REALLY good quality point & shoot, imho.

They are the ones who won't stand about during rain 'to get the shot' yet they'll pobably make use of those creative filters. It actually looks like a fine basic camera if you ignore the more zany of the highlight features... it's got much of the E-3 within it but for less £/$. And they've 'fixed' the 2 troublesome buttons, the AEL and the DOF preview. Though they've put a small(er) eyepiece around the viewfinder thus that dioptre wheel will self-adjust when getting it in/out of a bag. The E-3 was perfect in this regard in that it fixed this fault that was also in the E-1.

What I found notable is the 14-54 ll, did you see the eclectic line-up of DZs that got the CD-AF firmware upgrade a week or so ago? [The updated lenses are the 35mm F3.5 Macro, 25mm F2.8 pancake, 35-100mm F2, 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm F4.0-5.6] Spot the odd lens out? ;-)

http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/software/firm/e1/

The 14-42 and 40-150 are a given.. as is the 25/2.8. I can see why they included the tiny 35/3.5.. BUT the 35-100/2? LOL I thought at the time they've included that as a signal that says "don't worry, we'll do all the lenses from all the tiers... even the top tier".

However, the 14-54ii blows that out the water as it looks like thee are some lenses that can't be made to do CD-AF.

The pitch & roll 'level' inicators? The E-3 should have had that seeing it has the same IS measuring points. Not that that alone is a great thing, just useful to have, I suppose.

The user-implemented aspect ratios: when I read of the 6:6 capture, I thought for a mad moment that we could be seeing a square sensored camera. Alas, it's a normal 4:3 ratio sensor that achives these ratios via cropping out of that initial area.

While I was wrong and thaat it didn't 're-use the same moulds as the E-3', I still think we're bound to see a E-4 next summer. More MP, faster FPS, different button/dial placment (more refined) and an AF system with 'helper' points, a 3in flip/twist screen with far more rez. What else?

Just two nipicks: the flange back distance of micro 4/3rds is 'approx.' 20mm, it is not 20mm exactly. Just in case you're doing maths about all this. On proper 4/3rds, the distance is 38.67mm so that's the figure to 'half' to get the flange back distance, approx that is.

RE: "dust" and it being a problem. 4/3rds cameras have the dust shaker which is remarkably successful, so successful that it's rarer than the rarest thing to see 'dust' threads on the various Olympus/4/3rds fora.

Good luck

Apurva Madia said "I fail to imagine a serious still photographer wasting his time shooting video."

The key word in that sentence was 'serious', imho.

What this technology [video in a still camera] offers is flexibility for web contributors such as those writing

for blogs, news articles or other such pieces. Granted, a 5D mk2 may seem overkill for that type of user but this

technology will trickle down.

The other type od consyumer whom I consider a good fit for a dSLR-cum-video camera is a parent caturing their

family as they grow. This person will get good quality stills & video at birthdays, partys, in the park, kids

first bike ride, etc.

And if I broaden my thinking, what about 'students' undertaking mdia courses, or those who are just 'messing

around'. Or how about researchers recording their experiments, archologists their digs?

The big selling point of dSLRs capturing video is that they accept a complete rane of lenses from fisheye to

super-telephoto.

I'm all for motion capture on still cameras as it adds flexibility but just as long as it doesn't impinge still

image quality.

Peace.

Michael C said "I want the sleek G9 like body with a retractable lens for pocket carrying ability with all the features listed above. I'm spoiled now.....i want it all in the name of simplicity. An absolutle photographic machine that can be carried in a coat pocket :) I'm not asking for much am I ?"

Hi Mike, don't know if you know this but look at the lens range available for micro 4/3rds.

There's the 14-45mm/F3.5-5.6 O.I.S. and 45-200mm/F4.0-5.6 O.I.S. that will probably come as a 2-lens kit.

There's also a 14-140mm/F3.5-5.6 O.I.S on the cards, a 7-14mm/F4 and a 20/1.7.

I know it's not you're 'super zoom' 1-lens-does-it-all approach you desire but that 14-140 surpases that 35-210mm of the G9, it'll also have more ISO range and better IQ throughout same. The lack of a mirror will make it quieter, it does 3FPS and you have a 14-28/f4 zoom for wide-angle and a 40/f1.7 pancake for narrow DOF/low light stuff.

If you can live with panasonic's choice of image quality in their jpgs, it's an option. Plus there's always RAW with a 3rd party convertor. I know I sound like a panny salesman but it is a new approach to things and it seems like a good fit to your wants/needs... plus the next model of the Panny m4/3rds line will have a HD movie mode.

... or you could wait for the Canon or Nikon 'mirror & prism-less' APS line that, no doubt, will be under discussion as we speak. ;-)

In one of his most talked about Rockwell-esque musings, MR applauds the Canon G10 for having the image quality of

a MF capture up to A3+ YET in an ever so smaller and cheaper package which will suit a good proportion of

photographers. i.e he's finally figured for himself that a lot of people just need 'enough' of a photo and

they're happy with that.

Quote: "an inexpensive pocket camera can produce very high quality images, at least on moderate sized prints,

which is what most photographers end up making."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Yet curious that that reasoning doesn't get passed on to 4/3rds!

p.s. did you 'get' the title? I should have a column... ;-)

"I'm sure mini-camera haters call it "four turds" "

I'm tempted to go visit 'Passion for Best' and find out who these 4 are.

http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/

p.s what's chinese footware got to do with (digital) photography?

.. if you're a beginner as it doesn't sound like it's a dedicated flash. By dedicated, I mean one that mates with

the camera's function 100%. Stuff like 'red eye', 1st or 2nd curtain sync, mororised head, the high speed mode

down to the basic reporting of, and taking into account for flash exposure, of the cameras exposure settings. [in

'Dedicated' units

this is all done 'behind the scenes' by the electronics, with a non-edicated model, you have to have a pretty

good idea what you are doing so as to hand-hold the camera-flash and guide them in fulfilling your goals.

'Dedicated' units are the most automatic flash units there are, set it in 'Auto TTL', put the camera in 'P' and

'Auto ISO' ith ESP' metering and then just select what flavour Flash mode you want [red eye, slow1 or slow 2,

fill-in, etc] and press that shutter!!! Roughly speaking of course...

That should get you pretty good images 90-odd % of the time.

With a non-dedicated flash unit, all you'll have as a way to control the flash in using the flash in it's 'Auto'

mode. This is where the flash unit itself measures the output with a front mounted sensor. It'll still work but

it's not as easy or seamless as a dedicated unit, but you'll pay £2-300 for a comparable power dedicated FL50®.

The lower powered FL36® is about £160-180 odd but if you look for the FL50 or 36 without the ® bit, these are

discontinued models so are being sold off.

The only MZ54-4i I can find are 'dedicated' to canon or nikon.

http://www.metzflash.co.uk/pages/metz13.htm

Now, as to using the 54 on your E500, well that's another thread.

Try to get your money back as, unless it is a metz flash that is designed to with with Olympus 4/3rds, chances

are it won't even fit your body unless/until you buy the right foot (module) for it (£50-ish + P&P) Olympus – SCA

3202 module

http://www.metzflash.co.uk/pages/FAQ.html

The older 54 MZ3 could work with Oly models and DOES have some sort of 'dedication'... I think it's like at

80-90-odd percent functionality of the proper Oly flashes, it just doesn't do certain things or certain things

well, iirc. But you had to buy the 3202 foot for it. Like thus:

http://www.fotosense.co.uk/metz-54-mz-4i-hotshoe-flashgun-for-olympus-digital.html

That looks like a deal for a basic MZ54 4i but they (fotosense) incorporate different modules (feet) according to

what brand you buy.

The Good point about these units are they can be used over many brands.. you just buy the right modules... so

that's a plus point if you run 2 systems. Plus it has a load of good features, it's powerful, the 2nd light, it

bounces &

twists, etc, It is a GOOD unit! But it is better if it's a unit that fits Olympus Digital bodies, even better if

it's 'dedicated' but if it's for a nikon or canon that you CAN'T buy a module for, I'd try and sell it on as

you'll be stuck with 'Manual' or 'Auto' flash use.

Now there's nothing wrong with 'Manual' or 'Auto' flash use, it's just that there are easier ways of working out

there.. especially for a newcomer. Then again, Manual flash use is how you LEARN photography and actually knowing

what you are doing is never a bad thing.

A confusing answer I know. Good luck

No-one has stated they bought 4/3rds for 'the telephoto effect the 2x multiplier gives to lebnses' nor do they hanker after the doubling of the DOF.

Think about it... no-one bought 4/3rds for the properties of the 4/3rds system, they all, and I include myself in this, bought 4/3rds because of economic or other more practical matters. In fact, it wouldn't matter to many of this community if the 4/3rds sensor was APS in size and/or 3:2 in shape.

Just thinking aloud...

... and is related to bit depth rather than compression per se?

Though JPG compression will reduce bit depth while 'compressing' so I suppose I should shut up here and not venture any further into stuff I know nothing about? ;-)

Daniel, that sounds like a 'sick' camera that needs to go the doctors for some medicine. :-)

If you can't do a 'reset' with buttons, take the battery out for "approximately one day" and that resets the camera [E-3] back to initial 'factory default settings'... which is what you want. This is what my E-3 manual says so I assume the E-500 may be similar? It may help and costs nothing to try, right?

If it's not that, and the lens are sat in the mount right (should think so if you're swapping lenses, don't press the lens release button when installing them) and it has a battery with power? and it is set for SAF or CAF (if fitted with a sigma 4/3rds lens, make sure the lens AF/MF switch is at AF) and make sure you haven't set the AEL/AFL modes to 'AF with the AEL button' [Yes, I've done that! Next time I used the camera I couldn't work out why a half press of the shutter button wouldn't focus the camera. :-)]

If it just returns incorrect focus, it could be 'Fluff' on the AF sensors. There's a pit in the bottom of the mirror box where these sensors are located and fluff, hairs or debris that covers them will return incorrect focus.

But if buttons around the arrow pad (4-way buttons) dn't work, that sounds like a hardware fault that a camera doctor has to fix. Hope not for your sake as a fix will probably cost what the body is currently worth. I have a C5050 that is pulling this cxxp and I wouldn't say I've had a 'lifetimes use out of it'. Guys still own/use/sell OMs from the 70's yet here's a camera from this decade that's gone kaput!

Good luck

Patrick, it was above f5.6 and below F10.

Stefan, no, I don't shoot RAW as DPreview says there's basically no benefits to it, i.e. there's no more detail

or DR that convertors can get out of the data. I look at that the other way, Olympus have rung every bit of IQ

out of that imaging system as they can without lumbering the user with big file sizes and lengthy raw conversion

routines. ;-)

As to the in-camera image settings: I'm just getting used to the E-3, I've had it 10-11mths and I've used it

about 3 times in that period. In fact, I've doubled that usage in the past month alone.

Sharpening: I take your point about minus sharpening, used to do that on the E1.

Noise Filter: 'Off' or 'Low'? Well it's that compromise you have to make, isn't it? I'd like to use 'Off' but I

think the noise may be too bad as I tend to under-expose to preserve highlights so I'm trialing 'Low' for the

present. I will have to remember to try 'Off' soon.

Bob, I tried to provide a sample but, to be frank, I'm not sure what I'm talking about [plus, I can't remember

what compression the jpgs where saved at] so can I retract and give Oly the benefit of the doubt? When I look at

images normally, they are fine so ingore this pixel peeper. I've gone through them again and the shutter speed

dips below the 1x focal length rule and it was quite windy on top of the hill where some shots where taken.

One day I'll go out into some fields with grass and trees at near, mid and far distances and shoot through all

the NF settings and see what's what.

Thanks all

That will take you back to the default settings it had when new.

It's usually by pressing 2 buttons simultaneously for 2 secs.

Walt said "it's not much smaller than the Nikon D60 or Canon Rebel XS."

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Canoneos1000d/images/sidebyside2.jpg

I read the other day that the G1 was 'marginally smaller than the E-420 and 5g heavier." So it's getting near the

limit of un-usable with big lenses, right? But the real space and weight savings will be in the associated lens

range. The 'advanced amateur'/'enthusiast'/general dSLR owner/womanwon't mind buying the 2 lens kit that'll give

them a 28-400mm range at f3.5-5.6. Add in the diminuitive 7-14/f4 and the 20mm/f1.7 pancake, and the 'superzoom'

14-140mm/f4-5.6 and you have a very useful lens range that offers choice, truely wanted items. I'm no big fan of

panny or their processing (Read: IQ) but I'll give them their due on this gear. A User will fit a 2-lens kit in a

very small camera bag and if they want to travel light, they'll go with 1 lens and it'll be the pancake or the

'superzoom'.

Add a small flash like a FL20 or 36 (or their versions of them), a memory card or 2, spare battery, one of those

4-5" 'tripod' cum base, maybe a IR remote of some sort, and you have a the basis of a all-rounder travel kit that

you can take on aircraft andwon't look out of place at little johnnys footy game or little Jasmines 6th birthday

party at MacDonalds.

12MP is way too much pixels for an awful lot of people but that's fine, the user will not outgrow the gear...

it'll be enough for them.

From the looks of it panny have gone after the low-end dSLR user, i.e. the newcomer, the parent, the enthusiast,

the advanced amateur. Oly seem to have tackled a different market in that they are going after a hybrid of the

p&s cum low-end dSLR user. That is basically everyone under 'advanced amateur'. My money would be on Panny except

if Oly makes a real 'quality' piece of kit, y'know, gear that is nice to own that feels and looks like a million

dollars.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The bad thing about m4/3rds is that we now have 2 4/3rds systems and there's now caveats about what works with

what and all that stuff. It has lost that 'everything works with everything else 100%' thing and that is messy in

the consumers eyes.

Yeah, I've read this EVF is supposed to be quite big and recall someone saying its approx the size of a 35mm

format viewfinder. The technical specs are:

It's 100% and has 1.4x magnification (0.7x in 35mm terms) It's a SVGA resolution, 480,000 dots, LCD that is lit

seperately by R, G and B light flashing alternately at 180 times per sec.

It has a 'Quick Magnification' feaure that as soon as you turn the MF ring (in MF) and half press, the centre of

the EVF magnifies and shows you a bigger representation of your focussing. It disappears when you let the shutter

button go, I hear, (and maybe once you stop turning the MF ring?)

The UKs 'Amateur Photographer' has just done a 'Preview' on it and the guy liked this Quick Magnification feature

along with the EVF.

He pointed out it had flaws in that if you panned fast, the edges to images split into their RGB components

momentarily. He said the rear screen didn't do this.

Overall, he liked it and siad it was like a shrunken L1, it being 2/3rds the size, and they seem to have

addressed all the 'concerns head on'.

My own point of view is that it'll be the lenses that could have hindered this format: seeing they have a

45-200/F4-5.6 OIS in the offing, that and the 14-45 is the 2 lens kit most of anyone will ever need. In fact, the

m4/3 lens range is quite clever. a 14-140? That's your 1 lens solution right there. The 7-14 copy is a killer

lens that everyone will want (like they do for the big 4/3rds version already) and the 20/1.7 pancake will keep

those guys happy. There's not a bad decision amoung that lens roadmap, imho.

The bad point is that it has no movie mode (punters will expect it as digicams have it)

Now before someone tells me it's to stop moire, etc. Yes, I know that. But why? Are 4/3rds sensors more

suseptible to it than formats with bigger pixels?

I ask because I think I'm not that happy with photos from my E-3 of grass or vegetation. When I moved up from the

5mp E1 to the 10MP E-3, I was expecting a noticable improvment in detail in photos. Now I'm not sure I've got

that. I know a 50% increase in pixels is only a 25% increase in resolution but while my camera/lens will catch

small lightposts on a distant horizon, any grass from 10 - 20m outwards is just rendered like coloured clumps and

there's no definition of single blades of grass or similar in vegetation.

I'd shot at ISO200 with the noise filter on low and sharpening at 0. When I tried to USM in photoshop, all it did

was highlight the odd noise speckle amoung the grass detail, this 'detail' being 'streaks' or 'blotches' of

darker hues and shades.. not detail as such.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the small pixels means the AA filter needs to be strong to avoid moire, look at

the weaker filtered G1 samples for moire if you don't believe me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2897447593_10d0c47568_o.jpg

Now part of my 'issues' are because I'm looking at images at 100%, but I remember doing the same to sigma images

of a Venice townscape including a distant bridge with crowd scene but my chief memory of that image is seeing

spectacles/sunglasses on a head on a tiny person in a big crowd on far bridge, etc. It was truely impressive per

pixel detail.

Yet my camera returns clumps of grass sporting 'shades of colour' instead of detail and this is stuff far nearer

to the camera than this sigma stuff I recall. Yet when I zoom out of the E-3 images, they look OK and those

distant 1 pixel wide lamposts have gone near invisible.

But lets not make this a foveon V bayer thread: my basic question is do smaller pixels require stronger filters

and thus is 4/3rds heading for a future of more quotes like this:

"There is a softness / lack of resolution that robs otherwise perfect shots of the pixel-level crispness that

some of the E-3's competitors can offer. Of course at normal viewing sizes we're not talking about a deal-breaker

here, but if you're likely to really push your E-3 to the limit on a regular basis it could be important."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page22.asp

I'm not unhappy with the E-3, I'd just expected more from their renowned 'designed for digital', 2x the MTF over

35mm, top-notch lenses on their flagship camera. I always thought that "well, it may be a noisy sensor but it'll

hold its own in recording detail against its peers"

Am I expecting too much?