Olympus E300/E500 forum

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Alfred Molon, Dec 9, 2005.

  1. Alfred Molon

    SMS Guest

    Ugh, me too. Unfortunately the "rocket ship to the moon" in terms of
    stock didn't materialize, as it went from $50 down to less than $1
    within a year! Did it begin with a T?
     
    SMS, Dec 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    If you need a camera with a larger sensor, then buy a camera with a
    larger sensor.
    The size advantage is not so big if you compare a 4/3 camera with an
    "APS" DLSR, but it gets very substantial if you compare 4/3 cameras with
    full frame cameras.

    With larger sensors you get lower noise, but at a very high price. To
    reduce noise levels into half, you need to quadruple the area.
    Quadrupling the area means that the volume (and weight) of the lenses is
    eight times as as big.

    <sigh>

    4/3 300mm F2.8 = APS 400mm F2.8
    You have to compare same with same.
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Bill Hilton Guest

    What this means is Oly has a built-in (size) disadvantage against
    I do and I did, I'm using 1.3x and 1.0x digital cameras and wouldn't
    use an Oly 4/3 if someone gave me one for free. If I wanted a small
    sensor camera I'd get a light-weight one that fits in my pocket, not
    something the size of the 35mm based bodies.
    50% for Canon's 1.6x sensor, 60% for Nikon's 1.5x sensor ... most
    buyers seem to feel this is indeed a big advantage. Wait until all the
    Nikon 1.5x dSLRs are 12 Mpix and see how slow the Oly sales get.
    300 f/2.8 is 300 f/2.8 when used on the same sized sensor, so it is a
    compare of "same with same" (except the Nikon also does much more).
    The Nikon 300 f/2.8 is lighter than the Oly and costs thousands of
    dollars less, yet it will cover full-frame for use with 35 mm film
    bodies or the Kodak 14n full-frame dSLRs, or cover the 1.5x sensor of
    the basic Nikon dSLRs (with a 35 mm equivalent fov of 450 mm) or cover
    the 2x sensor of the D2x in high-speed mode (600 mm fov equivalent,
    just like the Oly). Sigh on that one, if you even understand the
    implications.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 12, 2005
  4. Alfred Molon

    Frank ess Guest

    I don't think Olympus are losing them. Some 'white-collar' crook is
    taking them home in his backpack, and selling them on eBay:
    item 8361994618
     
    Frank ess, Dec 12, 2005
  5. Alfred Molon

    Allen Guest

    the rest of the companies are losing their shirts.

    WOW! Case solved, good work detective ;)

    Allen
     
    Allen, Dec 12, 2005
  6. Alfred Molon

    Jeff Guest

    Why don't you tell us then instead of resorting to cheap name-calling
    (usually a sign of someone who's lost the argument)?
     
    Jeff, Dec 12, 2005
  7. Alfred Molon

    SMS Guest

    It's a very big difference in terms of total area, but of course the key
    issue is the pixel size. The main reason for the dismal noise
    characteristics of the Olympus is the very small pixel size.

    No one knows what Olympus was thinking when they went the 4:3 route.
    They eliminated two of the most important attributes of D-SLRs over
    compact digital cameras. 4:3 is destined for the trash-heap of digital,
    just like APS failed in the film world.
     
    SMS, Dec 13, 2005
  8. Alfred Molon

    Dave Guest

    35mm film was originally from half frame 70mm movie film.
    to say nothing about all those 3/2 800X533 pxl format images wasting
    resolution on all those 4/3 800X600 pxl format monitors.


    Dave
    East Englewood

    The proof is in the print.
     
    Dave, Dec 13, 2005
  9. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    50% more area gives you 22% less noise (numerically, take the square
    root of 1.5), which corresponds to an ISO difference between 100 and 122
    (or 400 and 488). Not much.

    If the Canon (APS) sensor has a better noise performance, it's not that
    much because of the size difference, rather mostly because of a better
    sensor design (and perhaps some in-camera noise reduction software).
    But the sensor size is obviously not the same, as I clearly wrote.
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 13, 2005
  10. Alfred Molon

    ian lincoln Guest

    Permanently locking themselves into such a small sensor was silly. 1.5
    would have been more sensible than 2.0 reduction. With sensor prices coming
    down all the time incremental increases in size but level costs seem to be
    the nikon route. Now down to 1.3. I spose eventually noise reduction
    technology will improve but the overall cost of the olympus system is
    prohibitive. Especially considering the software built to compensate for
    bad lenses. Each lense can tell the camera what its weakness are and the
    camera will over expose the corners or whatever to compensate. Thing is
    this makes the whole thing expensive whereas i would prefer to spend the
    same money on a better lense.

    I should think cropped sensors will stay with us in the budget end of the
    DSLR market but FF ones will gradually come down as yields improve. Or they
    may keep the market seperate by price and simply keep upping the megapixels.
    I am going to keep my bodies and hold out for a £1000 full frame.
     
    ian lincoln, Dec 14, 2005
  11. Alfred Molon

    ian lincoln Guest

    As far as olympus relability is concerned the lens guard/on off switch of
    their compacts is their biggest weakness. Having worked in a shop that
    accepts repairs i saw more of these than anything else. Also olympus was
    ahead of sony for owners coming in with a functioning camera except black
    pictures. It would seem the ccd itself was no longer recording an image.
    Dying just outside of warranty is what olympus and sony do best. Shame cos
    they both take great pictures.

    I also think olympus make the best hybrid cameras by far. Seem to win a
    group round up everytime. They seem to favour wide zooms rather than
    telezooms. I know of a wedding photog who swears by his oly.

    Canons quality control seems to be rather suspect. The latest recall was
    for the 24-105f4L lens. Personally the way to avoid the pitfalls of canon
    products is to not buy one within the first 6 months of release.

    Personally minolta are the best value and are an underated brand. Their
    antishake system seems to best overall. Putting it in a £500ish camera is
    brilliant.
     
    ian lincoln, Dec 14, 2005
  12. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Normal DSLRs are also limited - the sensor can't become bigger than
    24x36mm. But it's true that a camera with a larger sensor has some
    advantages. You'd probably use it for low light action shots, where long
    exposures are not an option. On the other hand a camera with a smaller
    sensor will have a DOF, size and weight advantage, especially for what
    concerns the lenses. This may not be so apparent with current APS DSLRs,
    but is very obvious with full frame DSLRs.
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 14, 2005
  13. Alfred Molon

    ian lincoln Guest

    You consider that a limit?

    But it's true that a camera with a larger sensor has some
    You'd probably use it for low light action shots, where long
     
    ian lincoln, Dec 14, 2005
  14. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Since the lenses for the cameras in question are designed for a 24x36
    sensor, "limited" may be too strong of a term. By that logic, any size
    sensor could be said to be "limited" since it could always be improved upon
    by making it larger.
    DOF advantage is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. A camera that
    can't achieve a shallower DOF is at a disadvantage, in my opinion, since you
    can always get deeper.
    And Oly certainly hasn't shown a real size advantage in their lenses vis a
    vis Canon's equivalent lenses on their full frame cameras. Oly's camera
    bodies are, indeed, much smaller than the Canon 5D and 1Ds, but the bigger
    zooms are the same size, or larger.
     
    Skip M, Dec 14, 2005
  15. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    Not true. Shooting macro DOF is always a problem and landscape shooting can
    be a problem as well, f22 isn't a good solution. I shoot mainly landscapes
    and macro stuff so the DOF is an advantage.

    But performs the job of a lens twice the size a FF camera needs. It's like
    comparing 35mm to medium format, a lens equal to a 300mm f2.8 would be a
    HUGE lens for a 6X4.5 system and a 300mm f2.8 on a medium format camera
    doesn't perform the same task that a 300mm f2.8 does on a 35mm body. I use
    a 300mm lens as a "normal" lens on my 8X10, does that mean it's the same as
    when a 300mm lens is used on a 4:3 camera just because the mm of focal
    length is the same?

    The other thing some of you don't seem to understand, a 300mm f2.8 is going
    to be a big lens because of the fstop, the format it's made for doesn't
    change that fact, it DOES change the FOV which is what most people consider
    is important.
     
    Stacey, Dec 15, 2005
  16. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    It's actually 1.7 if you convert it to the standard print sizes like 8X10
    etc. It's only the fact they chose a different format that caused it to be
    "2.0" using the wide side of the format. In hight it's 1.7.
     
    Stacey, Dec 15, 2005
  17. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    It is too true. There's less than a stops difference in depth of field
    between an f2.8 2x and an f2.8 FF. I can still get to f16 with whatever
    lens I use.
    Compare the Oly 35-100 f2 to the Canon 70-200 f2.8. The Zuiko is larger,
    heavier, more expensive and lacks IS, and it IS the equivalent of the latter
    on a full 35mm frame camera. And that one stop advantage only brings it
    into line with the Canon as far as DOF. I did say "zooms," not "teles."
     
    Skip M, Dec 16, 2005
  18. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    In one breath you say "DOF is critical" when it applies to limited DOF, then
    say "it's only 1 stop" on the other end?
     
    Stacey, Dec 16, 2005
  19. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    I said, "at a disadvantage," not "critical." And, since a lens can't get a
    larger aperture, but certainly can go smaller to compensate for its sensor
    size, I'll stick to my original statement.
    And quit quoting me out of context. That "1 stop" comment wasn't part of
    this discussion. That was about the 1 stop larger aperture that the Oly
    35-100 f2 has compared to the f2.8 Canon 70-200 IS.
     
    Skip M, Dec 16, 2005
  20. Alfred Molon

    buck Guest

    Stacy:

    To change the subject and ask a question, Im having trouble with the 14-
    45 lens that came with the Olympus E-300 two lens kit.

    It never seems to get a good focus.

    I can't fault the camera because I get great results with the other lens
    (40-150). The 40 -150 focuses well throughout its full zoom range.

    Should I contact the Vendor (B&H) or Olympus. the kit is about 3 weeks
    old.

    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    buck, Dec 16, 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.