Olympus and others. Greater mega pixel capacity expected soon? Skinnyon E-3

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by ., Apr 12, 2008.

  1. .

    . Guest

    I use an E-510 and like it a lot for my needs but am thinking of a
    second body to have two different zooms availably quickly without the
    need to change lens. The E-3 seems to have some real advantages but is
    pricey.

    2 questions:

    Do any of you here have extensive experiance with the E-3 and your
    opinion of it.

    Are there expected increases in mega pixel capacity any time soon for
    Olympus or others?

    Thanks for any info.

    Charlie
     
    ., Apr 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. .

    flaming-o Guest

    Regardless of brand their will always be something newer and better on the
    horizon so you must decide if you really need that second camera body right
    now.
    The phenomenal rate of development of digital sensors has made a
    laughingstock of many of the older posts on this forum about how smaller
    sensors will never have low noise at high ISOs. What is spectacular in the
    Nikon D300 today will be baseline specs in two years.
     
    flaming-o, Apr 13, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. .

    Yoshi Guest

    10 MP are sufficient. What is needed is better photographers.

    Yoshi
     
    Yoshi, Apr 13, 2008
    #3
  4. .

    Tony Polson Guest


    Someone should tell Olympus that. The Four Thirds sensor in the 10MP
    Olympus E-3 is noisy.

    Given that the larger APS-C sensor in the 12 MP Nikon D300 performs so
    much better than the sensor in the E-3, it would appear that smaller
    sensors still suffer critical limitations to their ability to deliver
    low noise images.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 13, 2008
    #4
  5. What is or defines this "critical limitation" of the E-3.
    I guess I'm looking for, just where or how does this occur in E-3, but a
    Nikon
    has no noise. Is it just the sensor in the E-3 or is it all sensors used
    in 4/3
    cameras?

    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 13, 2008
    #5
  6. .

    . Guest

    Always working on that too. But better than what?

    Charlie
     
    ., Apr 13, 2008
    #6
  7. .

    . Guest


    Exactly, and I don't need it right now and so will wait and see.
    Curious as to what is known by some of what experience folks have had
    with E-3 and when mega pixel increases were likely.

    Charlie
     
    ., Apr 13, 2008
    #7
  8. .

    Robert Brace Guest

    Steve:
    The "Reader's Digest" version is that the prevalent common wisdom is
    that the 4/3 sensors just don't have the real estate available to create
    pixels of sufficient size, in sufficient numbers to perform at such a low
    noise level to give sufficient signal without visible noise becoming
    obvious. In other words, and all things being equal and forgetting all
    in-camera processing, given the same number of pixels, sensors of larger
    size (with larger pixels) will generate images with a lower noise level than
    smaller sensors.
    By the way, the D300 is far from having "no noise" in real world use
    (and don't believe anyone who tells you differently). However, whether or
    not the noise is visible (or bothersome in your use) is the crux of the
    matter. I've seen noisy images from the D300 and amazingly clean
    enlargements from the E-3.
    Now be prepared for the influx of the "experts" on this site with any
    and all opinions (some very valid) leaving you where you started i.e.- you
    need to make up your own mind, based upon your own use!!
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Apr 13, 2008
    #8
  9. .

    IV III Guest

    and what is spectacular in the Nikon D300 ? hehehe
     
    IV III, Apr 13, 2008
    #9
  10. .

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    .. wrote:
    | I use an E-510 and like it a lot for my needs but am thinking of a
    | second body to have two different zooms availably quickly without the
    | need to change lens. The E-3 seems to have some real advantages but is
    | pricey.
    |
    | 2 questions:
    |
    | Do any of you here have extensive experiance with the E-3 and your
    | opinion of it.
    |
    | Are there expected increases in mega pixel capacity any time soon for
    | Olympus or others?
    |
    | Thanks for any info.
    |
    | Charlie

    Olympus are in a partnership with Panasonic. That partnership has
    Panasonic making P&S cameras for Olympus and supplying sensors for
    Olympus DSLRs.

    ~From my experience with both brands of cameras, Olympus are not at any
    time soon going to have ground breaking sensor technology. For a long
    time I had considerable faith that Panasonic's experience with Pro Video
    cameras would result in exceptional still camera sensors.

    Too much time has passed without the substantial improvement Nikon came
    out with to think the Olympasonics will never be at the level they need
    to to be at to regain the reputation Olympus had with their OM1 cameras.

    If I were head of the board at Olympus I'd either dump DSLRs from the
    product range or embark on a horrifically expensive R&D program to
    produce a 20MP sensor to rival anything Canon or Nikon will have
    produced by the time it is developed.

    Such events are as likely to happen as my chance of being appointed to
    the board of directors! Bye bye Panasonic. The last of the handful of
    FZ50sI had for Santa shoots is gone. Replaced with Nikon D60s.

    My 20 year loyalty to Olympus ended with the sale of my E2 and the
    introduction of Canon 10D. I never had any loyalty to Canon. Too many
    out-of-the-box faults, too few fixes. My loyalty to Nikon is now
    complete and at unthinkable cost (for me) of a holiday house and new
    car. It wasn't so much the D3 bodies that cost so much but the lenses x6
    I had to buy and the telephoto lenses. My old Canon gear didn't bring
    anything like what I expected.

    Second month and 5th wedding as 100% Nikon and the results are very
    clearly that although I sold many personal assets and didn't upgrade my
    car to change from a mixed bag of brands to one, my photographs are now
    easier to obtain and my dud list reduced to well below expectations.

    Compared to Olympus?

    What a waste of a perfectly good opportunity Olympus had. Some of the
    best lenses in the world won't overcome some of the worst cameras
    they've ever made. No worse example of their mistakes than when the D300
    (twin lens kit) started selling in department stores at less than 50% of
    it's six months earlier RRP. They might sell a few E3s to die hard
    devotees but really,

    Olympus are well and truly out of contention as a supplier of
    professional level cameras. I never thought I say that!

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIAq0lhuxzk5D6V14RAiGDAKCj4Y+itGB/Bsdkzos5CsRKgQlRZACeIMYp
    DiAQw226Dslbm0ehHLI+LWk=
    =CuBl
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 14, 2008
    #10
  11. There are only so many photons to go around, and they are emitted
    randomly. That gives an upper limit to noise-freeness in regard
    to pixel size. That's an unalterable physical fact.

    Of course, you can "denoise" any image, turn it into an oil
    painting ...
    The D300 is not, exactly, a "smaller sensor", and the pixel pitch
    is 5,5µm. The E-3 has a pixel pitch of less than 5µm, less than
    80% of the possible pixel size of the D300 --- and the D300 has
    22% *more* pixels. Larger ones!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 14, 2008
    #11
  12. .

    JG Guest

    Noise is not really an issue on E3, read the reviews. However noise
    and the removal of it regardless of camera brand should be part of
    your workflow. There is enough software out there cheap enough or even
    free that deals with noise. So noise is simply a non issue for you.

    If you already have Zuiko glass why don`t you consider either hanging
    on until 520 comes out ( very soon ) and grabbing a 510 at fireside
    prices or grabbing a second hand E1.

    Be warned though about the E1. Many 510 users have got one for a back
    up body and it became their camera of choice!

    Do not listen to the crap on here about 4/3, noise and other so called
    limitations, a camera is just a tool and it is the glass that matters
    really. Forget megapixels as well, it is only a small part of the
    equation.

    Email replies remove REMOVE
    Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
    http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
     
    JG, Apr 14, 2008
    #12
  13. .

    . Guest

    You talk my language. I do discount a lot said by some, because of
    various loyalties and think the 4/3 and Olympus overall provides what
    I need. I'm no pro but do ok with my gear at mostly bird photography.
    I used Nikon when I was interested in film photography back many
    years, and might have gotten into that brand again when shopping for
    digital but I liked the spiel when the e-510 came out and went for it.
    I'm not sorry and don't get into discussions of whos camera is better
    that who elses. My results are making me happy. I like my 3 Zuiko lens
    alot.

    As to mega pixels I do some drastic cropping (birds) and think any
    large jumps in that department are a big help as so much of my frames
    are waste. While I say that I'm always working on my approach to get
    closer and long lens are of course a big help.

    Charlie
     
    ., Apr 14, 2008
    #13
  14. .

    Yoshi Guest

    Absolute bullshit.
     
    Yoshi, Apr 14, 2008
    #14
  15. .

    Paul Guest

    Isn't that a little like saying, "Don't worry about the film you're using,
    it's the glass that matters"? Yes, the glass does matter, but so does
    whatever the image actually falls on.
     
    Paul, Apr 14, 2008
    #15
  16. Bob,
    Thanks. That is a very nice description.
    I have a Canon 30D and my son has a E-500, both 8meg devices. I can not
    see any
    real difference in picture quality. The 4/3 image does need more enlargement
    to match the physical image size of the 30D. But, I'm not a color or
    resolution wizard.
    The one thing I do know is that I will never buy another Nikon. I have a
    pile of AIS lens
    and they don't work for crap on a Nikon, except for a D200 and up. But,
    they work and
    meter fine on both the Olympus and the Canon. There is no way I will
    ever let Nikon stick
    it to me again.
    By the way, I really like the Canon 30D. It's not the pictures, it the
    physical part and
    the speed of operation.

    Regards,
    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 14, 2008
    #16
  17. .

    frederick Guest

    But s/n ratio should be looked at from the POV of an entire image, not a
    fixed number of pixels.
    I've seen E3 and other Olympus sensor analysis that showed the main
    problem isn't sensor/sensel size so much as the fact that the olympus
    sensors clearly underperform on a square measure basis compared to the
    better sensors of Canon, Sony/Nikon. If they could get their act
    together on that, then 4/3 might have a future.
     
    frederick, Apr 15, 2008
    #17
  18. .

    . Guest

    As someone who already own an Olympus what, in your opinion, is going
    to be noticed as a difference in my images and the images produced
    with the D300?

    Charlie
     
    ., Apr 15, 2008
    #18
  19. .

    JG Guest

    To a certain degree, but nowhere near critical as to what is spouted
    on here.

    Email replies remove REMOVE
    Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
    http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
     
    JG, Apr 15, 2008
    #19
  20. .

    Robert Brace Guest

    Steve:
    OK, now you've got me totally confused!
    If I understand what you wrote above, "But, they work and meter fine
    on both the Olympus and the Canon", you have Nikkor AIS lenses which, when
    mounted on the Canon or the Olympus, "work and meter fine".
    I don't think so.
    As much as I can identify with your dissatisfaction with Nikon's
    improvements to their lenses when progressing from AIS to the current, I
    can't agree they have "stuck it" to you.
    I've been shooting Nikon for over 45 years (among others) and have
    always stuck to their Pro bodies. Because of that I am still using the 50mm
    lens I bought with my first F Nikon on my current D2 series. I think I had
    it AI converted somewhere around 1979 or so.
    So I have always looked upon the Nikon Pro series bodies as an
    investment and not an expense!
    My son shoots a 20D and loves it but also has a FM2n I bought him in
    about 1988, as I recall.
    So YMMV but keep shooting!!
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Apr 15, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.