«

Hi All,

Olympus announced yesterday two new dSLR:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=916
and
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=915

Cheers,

Wayne
--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45ec7649$0$16556$(E-Mail Removed) u...
> Hi All,
>
> Olympus announced yesterday two new dSLR:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=916
> and
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=915

Probably the most interesting announcements of PMA, for me. CMOS sensors
from Matsushita? If they can control the noise, they've got a couple of
winners. Pricing is odd, though. The model with IS is only a $100 (US) more
than the lower model? Who would bother with the lower model?

>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
> --
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

"Kinon O'Cann" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:h10Hh.10528$PG5.9984@trndny07...
>
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:45ec7649$0$16556$(E-Mail Removed) u...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Olympus announced yesterday two new dSLR:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=916
>> and
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=915
>
> Probably the most interesting announcements of PMA, for me. CMOS sensors
> from Matsushita? If they can control the noise, they've got a couple of
> winners. Pricing is odd, though. The model with IS is only a $100 (US)
> more than the lower model? Who would bother with the lower model?

Because it's smaller?


Regards,

Per Nordenberg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jag använder en gratisversion av SPAMfighter för privata användare.
10484 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
Hämta gratis SPAMfighter idag!

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:58 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Olympus announced yesterday two new
>> dSLR:http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=916
>> andhttp://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=915
>
> Eh. I'd never buy a four-thirds camera. Those sensors are just way too
> small. 1/4 the size of a 35mm frame means 4 times the noise. I'm
> waiting to see if any manufacturer announces a new full-frame body at
> PMA.

Many expect Nikon to announce a FF or perhaps near-FF, at 1.1x.
We'll see...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> says...
>
>> Eh. I'd never buy a four-thirds camera. Those sensors are just way too
>> small. 1/4 the size of a 35mm frame means 4 times the noise.
>
> Nonsense. Maybe two times, but not four times.

I agree. You are exactly right.

To achieve the same photon shot noise levels, a sensor 1/4 the area must use
an exposure four times longer.

Thus the larger camera seems to be four times more sensitive. ISO 800 here
looks like what the 4/3 users see at ISO 200.

But noise goes down as the square root of the measurement, so the amplitude
of the 4/3 camera noise is only twice that of the FF camera.

So, as you point out, the smaller camera is only twice as bad.

So while a photographer would find the 4/3 camera to have "four times the
noise", we theoreticians realize that it's only twice the noise.

David J. Littleboy
(E-Mail Removed)
Tokyo, Japan

babaloo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Pictures suggest Olympus has given up trying to move users to
> non-traditional form factors. These cameras resemble a 1930s Exacta, the way
> consumers expect a "serious" camera to look. One wonders when Leicasonic
> will abandon their form factor.

I agree - the new bodies are a throwback to an earlier age - I did
admire Oly for going with bodies that were all 'digital', ie the lens
mount being flush against the left edge.

Keith wrote:
> babaloo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Pictures suggest Olympus has given up trying to move users to
>>non-traditional form factors. These cameras resemble a 1930s Exacta, the way
>>consumers expect a "serious" camera to look. One wonders when Leicasonic
>>will abandon their form factor.
>
>
> I agree - the new bodies are a throwback to an earlier age - I did
> admire Oly for going with bodies that were all 'digital', ie the lens
> mount being flush against the left edge.

When you state "left edge", I can only assume that you mean when holding
the camera for use.
If you actualy look at the picture if the Oly P1 on dpreview.com you
will see that the lensmount is closer to the left hand edge of the
camera body than on the Evolt 1.
It looks like Olympus decided that the more complicated porromirror
finder and sideways swinging reflex mirror added too much bulk to the
left hand side of the camera body.
The hump for the pentaprism isn't any taller than the box that they hid
the porromirror finder from the Evolt 1 in.

I believe that they emphasis on "telecentricity" requirement for
"digital" lenses has made the FourThirds un-nessesarily bulky compared
to film SLR cameras that have a similar negative size to the 4/3 sensor.
The Olympus Pen-F was the roughly same size as the Evolt 500, but the
1/2 135 frame it makes is twice as tall as a 4/3 sensor.
Pentax made a tiny film SLR camera (the Auto110) using 110 cartridge
film, which has a frame size similar to a 4/3 sensor.
I could probably fit 4 Auto110 cameras with 24mm lens attached into the
same volume required for just the Evolt 1 body alone.

Canon, Pentax, Nikon and Sigma have demonstrated with their own DSLR
cameras and lenses that the whole "telecentricity" emphasis was merely a
boondoggle and had no practical reason behind.
Maybe it was done to justify a new camera design that required
purchasing new lenses or an expensive adapter, rather than using
existing Olympus OM SLR lenses straight out of the box.

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <45ee0099$0$31107$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
>
>
>>Canon, Pentax, Nikon and Sigma have demonstrated with their own DSLR
>>cameras and lenses that the whole "telecentricity" emphasis was merely a
>>boondoggle and had no practical reason behind.
>
>
> Have you ever seen wide angle samples of Canon cameras and compared them
> to wide angle samples of 4/3 cameras?

Do you mean lenses that are wide angle on a 4/3 camera (eg: 17mm and
shorter), or do you mean lenses that would be wide angle on a full 135
frame or APS-C but used on a 4/3 camera (eg: 35mm and shorter)?

The fact that wide angle lenses have always had a light fall-off problem
at wide apertures (some lose a full 2 stops from the centre to the edge)
makes me uncaring of the problem (that has always been there) if it
shows up on larger sensor cameras.

>>Maybe it was done to justify a new camera design that required
>>purchasing new lenses or an expensive adapter, rather than using
>>existing Olympus OM SLR lenses straight out of the box.
>
>
> The adapter is cheap and was initially given away for free.

I suppose which part of the world you live in.
The adapter was never offered free as part of the camera kit in
Australia, to the best of my knowledge.

"Kinon O'Cann" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:45ec7649$0$16556$(E-Mail Removed) u...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Olympus announced yesterday two new dSLR:
> > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=916
> > and
> > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=915
>
> Probably the most interesting announcements of PMA, for me. CMOS sensors
> from Matsushita? If they can control the noise, they've got a couple of
> winners. Pricing is odd, though. The model with IS is only a $100 (US) more
> than the lower model? Who would bother with the lower model?

In addition to being smaller, there is an underwater case that was announced
for the E-410. The grip is different between the two. Finally, the E-410 will
be available about 2-3 months sooner than the E-510.

--
Michael Meissner
email: (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.the-meissners.org