Four-thirds?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charles Schuler, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Luckily it doesn’t need to be twice as sharp then. My 10D does not have a
    sensor twice as big as the E-1, on my camera the 300mm lens gives the same
    FoV as a 480mm lens, if I cropped the image a little so I had a 5MPix image
    I would have the equivalent of a 525mm lens. If Canon make a new version
    of the 10D with a 1.6x crop factor and 7.5MPix then they will have a camera
    that can produce a 5MPix image from a 300mm lens that will have the same
    angle of view as the E-1 gets on its 300mm. What exactly is the gain when
    using an E-1?

    Of course the Olympus lens only needs to produce an image circle half the
    diameter of the Canon’s. This allows them to make the lens smaller,
    lighter and cheaper. Unfortunately Olympus has actually made the lens
    heavier and more expensive. :(

    Essentially the idea of 4/3 is supposed to be to make a smaller, lighter
    system that costs less but performs as well as the 35mm D-SLRs. If they
    achieve that goal then things might get interesting.
     
    MarkH, Jul 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Ha-ha, nice one. This is an example of telling part of the truth to fool
    people isn’t it?

    I would encourage everyone interested to check the link and take a look at
    the horrific ISO1600 and ISO3200 noise from the E-1.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page15.asp

    Hell, I don’t even like to use ISO3200 on my 10D, but the ISO 1600 from the
    E-1 is way worse.
     
    MarkH, Jul 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Maybe you could provide a link?

    There is no way to take your post seriously if you hide the source of your
    info. How do we know this isn’t some piece that Olympus paid someone to
    write?

    We have had a thoroughly dishonest person on this group post quotes from
    Sigma’s website in the past, claiming that they back up his assertion that
    Sigma is better than everything else.
     
    MarkH, Jul 18, 2004
  4. Skip M wrote:
    []
    There are the Minolta A1, A2 and Z3 - not DSLR.
    I want anti-shake on wide-angle as well, thanks, so that I can do better
    with indoor shots of rooms and spaces in the 1/10 - 1/2 second range.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 18, 2004
  5. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The E1 has a metal body, enviromentally sealed and capable of
    withstanding the intensive use a professional would subject the camera.
    It also has an ultrasonic wave filter, which cleans the CCD every time
    you switch it on.

    The 300D and the D70 by contrast have plastic bodies and are aimed
    towards the ambitioned amateur.

    For what concerns image quality pixel count isn't everything and 5MP is
    enough for many applications. The E1 with noise filter enabled has the
    same noise levels as the 300D and D70 at ISO 800 and only slightly
    higher at lower ISOs, but still low enough for professional work.
    Unlike you, professional buyers of photos are not purists obsessed by
    noise levels; it's sufficient for them that noise levels are low enough
    not to matter.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 18, 2004
  6. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_
    01.htm

    The cell size difference between the E1 and the 300D/D70 is so small as
    not to really matter. There is for instance a factor of 8.4 between the
    cell area of 8MP prosumer CCDs and 6MP APS size CCDs, but compare the
    size of the D70 CCD with that of the E1 CCD:

    E1: 18x13.5mm (cell size: 7.0 micrometer)
    D70: 23.7x15.6mm (cell size: 7.9 micrometer)

    We are talking about 7 micrometer vs 7.9 micrometer pixels - not really
    a huge difference (cell areas are 62 vs 49 sq. micrometer, 27% larger
    pixels which translates into 13% higher noise levels - that's just 1 dB
    of noise level difference).
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 18, 2004
  7. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_
    01.htm

    The cell size difference between the E1 and the 300D/D70 is so small as
    not to really matter. There is for instance a factor of 8.4 between the
    cell area of 8MP prosumer CCDs and 6MP APS size CCDs, but compare the
    size of the D70 CCD with that of the E1 CCD:

    E1: 18x13.5mm (cell size: 7.0 micrometer)
    D70: 23.7x15.6mm (cell size: 7.9 micrometer)

    We are talking about 7 micrometer vs 7.9 micrometer pixels - not really
    a huge difference (cell areas are 62 vs 49 sq. micrometer, 27% larger
    pixels which translates into 13% higher noise levels - that's just 1 dB
    of noise level difference).

    By the way, since size differences are so small, it would have been
    smart if the manufacturers would have all standardised on one common CCD
    size (either 4/3" or the APS size of Canon). That would have facilitated
    the emergence of an APS size standard for interchangeable lenses.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 18, 2004
  8. Charles Schuler

    Justin Thyme Guest

    Uhm... Fourthirds doesn't relate to the physical size of the sensor, it
    relates to the aspect ratio - 4:3. 2/3 sensors are 2/3" diagonal. 4/3" is
    33mm diagonal, 35mm has 42mm diagonal, Canon/Nikon SLR's have about 26mm
    diagonal sensors. Fourthirds sensors are 21mm diagonal.
    The 4:3 aspect ratio exactly matches 8x6" enlargements, and is close to
    10x8" enlargements. 35mm and most DSLRS are 3:2 aspect ratio, which means
    printing in these enlargement sizes requires cropping.
    Printing a Canon/Nikon 3:2 6MP image at 8x6 only uses 5.3MP and at 10x8 uses
    5MP, The E1 uses 5MP and 4.7MP respectively, so it's 5MP isn't significantly
    behind the Canon/Nikon 6MP.
     
    Justin Thyme, Jul 18, 2004
  9. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    The second or third time you buy a lens that doesn't, or can't use it, you
    could be glad that the body doesn't have it. Especially if the system
    contributes to increase bulk and weight in the body. The Canon 70-200 f2.8L
    weighs in at 2.8 lbs, the 70-200 f2.8L IS tips the scales at 3.2 lbs, a 4 oz
    difference. Not much, but do you want to carry that around in your camera
    when you are using the 16-35 f2.8L or a perspective control lens that
    doesn't need IS? That logic cuts both ways.
    We'll see how in camera anti shake works when Minolta comes out with theirs,
    there is a real world answer.
    BTW, I have 2 IS lenses, with a 3rd on its way.
     
    Skip M, Jul 18, 2004
  10. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    I thought those were digital AS, but, now that I think about it, it would
    make sense for Minolta to try optical AS out in a smaller format before
    putting it in the DSLR.
     
    Skip M, Jul 18, 2004
  11. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Funny you should mention that, the first half of that quote is suspiciously
    close to something GP posted in support of the Sigma SD9/10, including the
    claim that the poster has owned every interchangeable lens DSLR.
    I wonder if GP has switched his loyalty from one underdog (Sigma) to another
    (Olympus.)
     
    Skip M, Jul 18, 2004
  12. Tell me, for which manufacturers is reducing the cell size an independent
    goal?

    Everybody wants more resolution (at least, that will be the case until you
    hit something like 20 Mpixels). You can make bigger sensors, or you can reduce
    the cell size. Making bigger sensors is often a problem, so you have to reduce
    the cell size.

    That only works as long as better technologies allow you to keep the noise
    down.

    Film manufactures also want high resolution and high sensitivity. Except
    that they are not really making any progress. Film is a very mature product.
    To only thing that is left is very small improvements and trade-offs.

    We will see the same thing with sensors: there is a good chance that in ten
    years time manufacturing techniques for sensors are mature, and just the
    trade-offs remain.
    I think the 1D mark II can do 8 Mpixel at 8 fps. I don't need camera that
    can go faster than 3 fps, so as far as I am concerned the CPUs are already
    fast enough for 21 Mpixel sensors.

    And even then, the only real requirement for the CPU is the ability to
    dump the RAW files in DRAM memory fast enough. That is a non-issue.
    Those 8 MP sensors already have a noise problem at ISO 100. Which means
    that a 32MPixel 4/3 design is going to have a noise problem a ISO 400.
    Great.
    It has lots of pixels and a relatively low noise level. More pixels is
    very important if you want make big prints. And given that large digital
    prints cost close to nothing in some places, there reason enough to get
    lots of pixels.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 18, 2004
  13. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    You keep comparing the E-1 with lower priced, lower niche cameras, while the
    10D is comparable in build quality (from all accounts, because I can't find
    one to handle) and price.
     
    Skip M, Jul 18, 2004
  14. And of course, if noise and color accuracy is important to you, you just
    skip the Fuji S2...
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 18, 2004
  15. Skip M wrote:
    []
    No, the Minolta system moves the sensor, not the lens. The weight penalty
    seems minimal.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 18, 2004
  16. Hey there, new to the group though I've been lurking a bit.

    I took a quick look at Canon's 70-200 L-series, with and without IS.
    The IS version of their f/2.8 is about 50% higher in cost and weighs
    about 5.5 ounces (160 grams, or about 12%) more than its non-IS
    counterpart. I found no other directly comparible lenses in Canon's
    lineup.

    Based on this one datapoint, I'd have to say that the weight
    difference is noticeable during a day of shooting handheld. For
    shorter durations, the weight difference probably doesn't matter
    too much. The price for the IS is significantly higher.

    BJJB
     
    BillyJoeJimBob, Jul 18, 2004
  17. Charles Schuler

    Clyde Guest

    <snip>

    Why do you say that the E-1 isn't a pro level camera? It has the same
    ruggedness, the same weatherproofing, and the same duty cycle of other
    pro level cameras. It has all those that the 10D, 300D, and D70/100 do
    NOT have. It's also marketed as a pro level camera to pros. Every review
    I've read seems to think that it's a pro level camera.

    Basically, you are the only one I've ever heard that didn't think it was
    a pro level camera. If you are going to take on the world, please back
    it up a little better.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Jul 18, 2004
  18. Charles Schuler

    Clyde Guest

    Why? So, it has a tad more noise? Just run it through Noise Ninja and
    get rid of it; just like you would with any image from any digital camera.

    Besides, noise isn't the worst thing to hit photography. I and many
    others have taken good photos from ISO 3200 film in 35mm. Yup, it was
    grainy. So what.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Jul 18, 2004
  19. Sure, Nikon D70s and Canon 10Ds make great backup cameras to working
    pros who also own high-end prop dSLRs. This is because they already
    have invested in the lenses.

    I don't see Oly fitting into that picture, frankly.
    Did I say that?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  20. You can go check the resolution, noise and performance charts over at
    dpreview.com the same as I can. I suggest you do it.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
    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.