Olympus E-system, one person's opinion

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by RichA, May 28, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
    designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
    circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
    sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of

    The whole article;

    RichA, May 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Tom Scales Guest

    Oh please.
    Tom Scales, May 29, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    TAFKAB Guest

    The problem with articles like this is that the proof is easily available,
    and the proof, the pictures, show that this isn't the case. It's a good
    read, but all the theory is irrelevant when you can simply examine some

    Besides, there's those damned laws of physics involved. Smaller sensors
    will, in general, mean higher noise given the same resolution.
    TAFKAB, May 29, 2005
  4. RichA

    Trapezium Guest

    You're really going to have to cease this pointless trolling, my lad.

    However, while we're on the subject of 'dedicated digital lenses', it's
    worth pointing out that this is one of 'the' great con-tricks being
    perpetrated by the manufacturers.

    I have yet to see any real advantage of this 'designed for digital' glass.
    The theory is good - but, in practice, it just doesn't pan out. Take
    Pentax, for example, they've started on this 'designed for digital'
    nonsense - yet the best results come from the use of their top notch 35mm

    It's all kidology - and expensive kidology at that.
    Trapezium, May 29, 2005
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It's only trolling if you disagree with it I guess?
    Where can a comprehensive comparison between both be seen? I don't
    mean just photos but actual optical tests.
    RichA, May 29, 2005
  6. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Trapezium wrote:

    Really now.. My experience using film OM lenses vs their ZD lenses is
    exactly the opposite.

    And this means that any "designed for digital" lenses made for other systems
    will follow pentax, if this is even true?
    Stacey, May 29, 2005
  7. RichA

    Trapezium Guest

    Given the generally noisy image quality for the two current Oly DSLR's, I'm
    surprised you can see any difference.

    And let's not forget the vignetting of those so-called 'Designed for digital
    from the ground up' Zuiko's - a phenomenon so bad that Olympus gave the E1
    vignetting compensation, and was later forced to add the same feature to the
    E300 via firmware.

    Perhaps it's to do with the decision by Olympus to use that little toy
    sensor of theirs?
    Trapezium, May 29, 2005
  8. RichA

    Emma Knaps Guest

    C'mon Richy boy! We all know your trolling ways from
    rec.arts.movies.current-films. You just keep posting
    seemingly innocent things about inflammatory subjects
    and then you watch the threads go down in flames.

    It's getting annoying.

    Emma Knaps, May 29, 2005
  9. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    It is not "whole" at all. For example, there is no mention of noise.
    Alan Browne, May 29, 2005
  10. Weight matters a lot to me, and I think it's nice that one can buy
    fast lenses that don't weigh a ton. Your mileage may of course vary.
    Ben Rosengart, May 29, 2005
  11. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    The Oly E 4/3 system is not 'dedicated digital lenses' it is a whole new
    lens system and camera mount.

    Pointless trolling indeed.
    Alan Browne, May 29, 2005
  12. Could it be because most people aren't "Noise Nerds"? Take one factoid;
    E-series sensors are noisier than Canon & Nikon. Then state your opinion
    as a fact, "E-series noise is unacceptable at ISO XXX." Now take your
    opinion, and extrapolate it to absurdity "Noise will be unacceptable at
    ISO 100", and use that to sound the death-knell of the whole concept. Is
    Olympus paying of ALL of the actual professionals? I've read lots of
    reviews of the Olys, and haven't seen one mention of unacceptable noise.
    Brion K. Lienhart, May 29, 2005
  13. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Here's something to consider, that some people actually shoot at ISO 100
    rather than leaving the camera set to ISO1600!

    If you had a clue about any of this, you'd know at ISO 100 they are right
    there with any other camera is at "normal" ISO levels.
    Stacey, May 29, 2005
  14. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Yep, it's comical reading Alan and David HARP on this one facet of image
    quality, looking at 100% crops of images, none of which can be seen in the
    size prints or on full screen size images these cameras are designed to
    produce anyway. Notice these same people NEVER post anything other than
    test shot crops?

    Maybe this review don't mention it because in real world use the noise at
    iso 100-400 isn't an issue? Nah we all must restrain ourselves to ONLY look
    at 100% crops from anything we shoot to judge the image by!

    I'm sure these same people were the ones who would decide which film
    negative shot was best by looking at it through a microscope rather than
    judging the "image quality" by it's content, the colors rendered, overall
    lens contrast etc. Guess it makes it simple if you only have one thing you
    look at?
    Stacey, May 29, 2005
  15. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Let me refresh you on the issue that's been bothering some of us about
    the 4/3 system.

    1) We're not concerned about current noise in current images, while
    recognizing that most images are being taken at ISO 400 or lower.

    2) The noise graphs at dpreview put current Oly cameras at a serious
    noise disadvantage with other current cameras.

    3) As pixel densities go up over time, it is thought / assumed that Oly
    will have more and more difficulty with the margin of noise. If they
    manage well, all the power to them.

    4) In Oly's favour, some lenses are faster than their 35mm counterparts,
    so at least for wide open shooting, a stop of ISO is effectively gained.

    As to the 'nerd' issue, this is an equipment group. Discussions of
    equipment (of any kind) usually revolve around limits. Everyone talls
    about "how much resolution", "how fast is the glass", "how fast is the
    data transfer", "how many frames per second",... so talking about
    limitations in noise is just another parameter. As the sensor size is
    the smallest of the DSLR lot at this time and unable to be larger in the
    4/3 system, then it's not surprising that it is a magnet for doubters
    regarding the noise issue.

    Alan Browne, May 29, 2005
  16. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Stacey wrote:

    Again, you're missing the key point. The concern with 4/3 is the future
    of the system, not its current state (which is already slightly limited,
    but where will that limit shrink to?).
    Funny, how when faced with technical facts you suddenly revert to 'safe'
    areas like "content", "color" and "lens contrast" where there is are no
    or few issues.

    Alan Browne, May 29, 2005
  17. Alan Browne wrote:

    And once again, this is all your *OPINION*. Yet, you keep stating it as
    if it's a widely accepted fact.
    Brion K. Lienhart, May 29, 2005
  18. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    Hmm so lets see which is more important to image quality, "content, color
    and lens contrast" or noise in crops at 100% that can't be seen in the
    final print..
    Stacey, May 29, 2005
  19. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    Why do you even care -this- much? Elsewhere you posted "I couldn't care
    less" yet anytime olympus and/or 4/3 is mentioned you start posting this
    That's not what you've said in other posts. And again why should you care so
    much that you can't let go of the subject?
    Compare them to other cameras using the -kodak sensor- and get back to us.
    Again it's the kodak sensor not the slightly smaller sensor that acounts for
    most of the difference.

    Yet you blow off issues such as lens bokeh, color saturation and detail
    separation issues etc as being unimportant when they have MUCH more of an
    effect than noise seen in 100% crops ever will.

    BTW since you brought it up, what's the data transfer rate on your minolta?
    The E300 is doing 9MBs with the extream III sandisk cards.. ;-)
    Stacey, May 29, 2005
  20. RichA

    Rich Guest

    C'mon Richy boy! We all know your trolling ways from
    rec.arts.movies.current-films. You just keep posting
    seemingly innocent things about inflammatory subjects
    and then you watch the threads go down in flames.

    It's getting annoying.


    So the only things that should be posted
    are things that the status quo can simply
    nod sagely about? What planet are you
    from? If you don't agree, say so, but don't
    try to stifle any debate because it bothers
    you. In fact, you're best bet would be
    to avoid the thread, it's easy, even you
    can do it.
    Rich, May 30, 2005
    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.