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

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

 

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.

 

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

Yoshi

 

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.

 

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

 

Always working on that too. But better than what?

Charlie

 

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

 

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

 

and what is spectacular in the Nikon D300 ? hehehe

 

-----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-----

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Absolute bullshit.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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