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

  1. Because there's no way to increase the pixel count without increasing noise.

    If you don't mind being stuck at that pixel count with those noise levels
    till hell freezes over, it's a fine camera.
    It's not about lenses I own, it's about the lenses I don't own but would
    like to. Where are the fast primes for the E-1? Where are the tilt/shift
    Yup, the wait is getting long. I decided to pass on the 6MP generation and
    do medium format film. But scanning's getting old, and the
    affordable/liftable 1Ds is nowhere in sight. Sigh. But I sure as hell won't
    be buying anything that doesn't have at least a potential upgrade path to
    the quality I'm getting now.
    Except for the minor problem that there isn't a 16mm rectilinear lens for
    the E-1, so your comparison is totally bogus. The widest rectilinear lens is
    a 22mm equivalent, which is a completely different class of lens. There are
    five good prime lenses in the 20 to 24mm range for the 1Ds: three Canon and
    two Sigmas (if you need the speed/price), three of which are faster than
    that zoom, and any of which will be a lot better on the 1Ds than that zoom
    on the E-1.
    Yup. One probably will need primes, but that's not a change here: I don't
    own any zooms. But I bet that if you did am honest comparison between prints
    from the 1Ds with the 16-35/2.8 at 22mm and the 11-22 zoom on the E-1 at
    11mm, you'd find that the 1Ds prints were a lot better.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    I was thinking lemmings at the edge of a cliff ... hard to see how this format
    will gain much market share ...[/QUOTE]

    "Knowledgeable" types said the same thing about 35mm kit back in the

    I doubt that it will supplant the high end of dSLR gear, but figure it's
    going to find a healthy niche position. Their small/faster lens line,
    for starters, is pretty compelling.

    There's only so much call for 16x20 and larger prints, after all. The
    E-1's first cut looks pretty good, and the technology is not at its
    upper limit just yet.
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. It's a pleasant surprise when a camera's rep exceeds a review. The users
    on dpreview's forum are wild about this camera - from the first moment
    they pick it up. The rep is that the images are correct straight from
    the camera, and require no manipulation in Photoshop. That would indeed
    be a pleasure.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 16, 2004
  4. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    I'm sure it's a nice system, but the real question is whether or not enough
    people will buy it to make it economically feasible for the partners to keep
    supporting it with new lenses and bodies.[/QUOTE]

    Already seems to be doing well enough. It's clear that Sigma, for
    example, waited for a while before they announced that they'd be making
    lenses for 4/3 bodies.
    For you. (Then again, there are apparently some number of people
    invested in other systems who are switching to 4/3.)

    I don't see the problem as being much different to, for example, the
    initial adopters of Canon EF gear, back at the end of the FD era.

    Heck, I just sold off my FD gear a couple of months still
    worked, after all.
    Larger sensors certainly will; but an unavoidable side effect of using
    the bigger sensors is that everything else has to be sized accordingly.
    (You can get down to Olympus OM scale, roughly, but even that isn't
    going to be quite as useful unless battery tech improves a lot in the
    You're assuming that the 4/3 sensor is at the limits of its potential
    growth. It's not.
    The only reason it's not there now is cost, product differentiation, and
    probably chip yield. Give it a year, maybe less.
    They certainly should be. And 4/3 should see similar growth in

    The advantages of 4/3 now, though, will still be there. Smaller, faster
    lenses are a Good Thing(tm). And, as previously mentioned, there's a lot
    of market for images smaller than 16x20.
    Actually, APS didn't lose out to 35mm (except at the upper end). It lost
    out (actually, is losing out) to relatively cheap digital cameras. IIRC,
    APS was never aimed much above the snapshooter market segment, even
    allowing for the odd Canon EOS1X7 or Nikon Pronea.

    It's the digital p&s cameras that are eating APS' lunch.

    4/3 is never going to sweep the market, but at the same time, it looks
    like if fits nicely into a healthy niche in the market.

    Sort of like Olympus previous 35mm slr lines, and probably healthier
    than the old Pen FT half-frame niche that they sold to for so long.
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
  5. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    hard to see how this format
    And they said the same thing about APS 10 years ago. 4/3 looks like APS for
    digital to most of us.
    "faster" than what? Only one lens in the Oly lineup is faster than f/2.8 and
    it's just an f/2. Big deal.
    Finally, something we can agree on :)
    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2004
  6. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Compare it to Canon with L-series glass. It's a lot closer.
    There is more than just price to considers.

    The smaller/lighter/fast lenses are pretty compelling.
    It isn't, invariably. (Nothing is, in *all* cases.)

    But it is competitive enough to be healthy.
    Most of them are written by pros with long-time investment in existing

    That's not a bad thing, mind, but it needs to be part of the evaluation.

    Most people will go with something else, but some won't. (I think it
    will be enough to sustain the format.)

    Frankly, most will buy some digital p&s, and be happy with it.
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
  7. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Wait for the (sorta) budget-level SLR. That will likely be down in the
    *ist size range.
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
  8. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Looked at an *ist the other day, that one's a little TOO small, at least for
    my hands, and my hands aren't all that big. But it's the size that could
    really utilize the smaller sensor, if the Oly is bigger, one has to wonder
    why bother?
    Skip M, Jul 16, 2004
  9. I had a Canon APS Elph. It was a great product in spite of being APS, but
    most APS cameras were not great. 4/3 will run into the same brick wall as
    APS. It's an attempt to go to a smaller sensor size so you can have cheaper
    cameras and lenses. But with film, at least the quality scaled linearly with
    frame size. There will be some good 4/3 products and some poor ones. There
    was even an APS SLR at one point, and it was closed out at a very cheap

    Canon will bring out a full frame, or close to full frame, consumer digital
    SLR for $1000, and that will be the end of 4/3. Consumers like an upgrade
    path, even if they'll never upgrade, and a large selection of lenses, even
    though they'll only ever buy a few.
    Steven M. Scharf, Jul 16, 2004
  10. And the whole world consists just of wide angle zooms? Try a 50mm prime
    for a change.
    Philip Homburg, Jul 16, 2004
  11. Charles Schuler

    Charlie Self Guest

    Just bought an *ist. My hands are small--for my size (but I'm 6'2" and kind of
    chunky these days)--but I like all the controls except the jog dial. I have to
    use a fingernail to hit the arrows correctly. But with the menu set-up on here,
    unlike my Dimage 7i, the menu is used for basic set-up, when you've got plenty
    of time, so doesn't need much attention during most shooting.

    Charlie Self
    "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
    D. Eisenhower
    Charlie Self, Jul 16, 2004
  12. Charles Schuler

    Chris Brown Guest

    Retrofocal zoom lens in "not as sharp as prime" shock!
    Chris Brown, Jul 16, 2004
  13. Charles Schuler

    Clyde Guest

    That sounds very much like what was said when medium format film cameras
    came into the market against large format film cameras. Or when 35mm
    stepped in against MF.

    Since 35mm never got any real market share.... ;-)

    Clyde, Jul 16, 2004
  14. Charles Schuler

    Clyde Guest

    Assuming that sensors need to be as big as possible. 35mm film beat out
    larger formats because it worked well enough for the customer. No, it
    wasn't the technological "best", but it was good enough. Despite the
    geeks here, good enough will always win in the market. The customer
    doesn't give a damn what camera or sensor size was used to get the
    picture. They only care if it's good enough.

    The E-1 seems to be very popular in the wedding photography business.
    For that market, it seems to be good enough. I'm guessing that it's
    smaller size, 1# less weight, toughness, range of lens, good out of
    camera quality, and 5MP is good enough for the market. Otherwise, it
    would be so popular.

    No, it isn't likely to compete in the market to replace 4x5 cameras, but
    it doesn't need to. Don't forget that this is a pro camera and most pros
    work in very limited markets. It's the advanced amateurs that need the
    ability to do EVERYTHING. Doing everything is a bad marketing strategy
    for pros.

    So, it seems to me that it is aimed at a market that is already loving
    it. That is a business success.

    Clyde, Jul 16, 2004
  15. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    And they said the same thing about APS 10 years ago. 4/3 looks like APS for
    digital to most of us.[/QUOTE]

    "Some", rather then "most". You need to realize that the group posting
    here is not representative of the entire market. (Now, don't you just
    feel special? :} )

    The APS equivalent is clearly the 2/3 or smaller sensors of typical p&s
    I'm looking at Canon's lineup. There is a lot of f/3.5 and slower lenses
    in their zoom lineup, some 2.8s. Other than two macro lenses, I'm only
    considering L-series glass, and except for a couple of faster primes,
    pretty much everything is f/2.8 and slower.

    And for a given focal length, they're pretty much all heavier/larger.

    It might be worth it, but there is something to be said for hauling less
    weight on my back all day.
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
  16. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Because there is more to a camera than the minimum size of the body for
    a given sensor?

    I'm not too bothered by the E-1's size; the original OM bodies were too
    small for me to use comfortably, my hands aren't small enough.
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
  17. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    I think that there were three; Canon, Nikon, and Minolta briefly made
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
  18. It's hardly new. It's a different lens format for a small sensor.
    Whoopdity doo.
    What do you expect from a wide angle lens wide open? Start doing real
    comparisons and you'll see there isn't much advantage to a new lens
    mount. The legacy for 35 mm exists, the need/demand for larger sensors
    exists and 4/3 does a poor job delivering on its promise of lighter
    weight and smaller size.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 16, 2004
  19. Limited lens selection? Overpriced lenses? Potential of not having new
    lenses developed if the thing flops?
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 16, 2004
  20. Too bad they're not really smaller, lighter or faster. And they have
    that annoying focus-by-wire thing.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 16, 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.