Four-thirds?

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

  1. Charles Schuler

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Every one of my Canon USM lenses focuses (you can see the elements
    moving) when not attached to the camera.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 17, 2004
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Canon's 400 f2.8 equates on the 10D to a 640mm f2.8, to a 520 f2.8 on the 1D
    mkII. Their 70-200 f2.8 equates to 122mm-320mm f2.8 on the 10D, 91mm-260mm
    f2.8 on the 1D mkII (admittedly short)
    Ya got me on the short/wide one, thought, that'll have to be a Sigma. Since
    the 10D has a sensor closer in pixel count to the Oly's, and a price, too,
    that isn't an unfair comparison. I haven't seen an E-1 to heft, but the 10D
    is a pretty substantial camera, in comparison to my old A2 and D30. It's
    close to my 1n, but not quite there.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Where is the Canon 600/2.8 that matches Oly's 300/2.8. (Canon's got a
    600/4L.)

    Where is Canon's 100-400/2.8 to match the Olympus 50-200/2.8? (Canon's
    is a 100-400/4-5.6L)

    Heck, where is the Canon 5.6-11/2.8 lens to match Olympus' 11-22/2.8?
    Covered under "a couple of faster primes", I think.
    You're still not comparing like with like. The Olympus 300/2.8 is not in
    competition with the Canon 300/2.8, but with the Canon 600/4 (since
    there is no 600/2.8).

    Do you get it yet?
    B&H ad)

    Yay!!

    Canon's EF system has been out how long, exactly? How long has the E-1
    been out? If you take your argument further in this direction, Canon
    should never have introduced the EF/EOS product line. After all, Nikon
    had a full line of lenses and bodies, and many of the lenses were less
    expensive than the few initial EF lineup.

    Fortunately, Canon abandoned the FD product line (well, they did later,
    well after the EF line was up to speed), took out a blank sheet of
    paper, and started from scratch. You can bet it didn't look like a good
    idea, at the time, for a lot Canon owners.
    And cheaper lenses for 4/3 will show up, too. Things take time. Sigma
    has already announced some, more will come. Things take time.

    It's not like anyone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to
    throw out your current gear and buy everything new.[/QUOTE]
     
    Skip M, Jul 17, 2004
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Oh, yeah, I forgot. The 70-200 has IS, a feature so far missing from the
    Olympus lineup.
     
    Skip M, Jul 17, 2004
    #83
  4. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Have we forgotten about the Canon 400mm f2.8? Yeah, it's a stonking big
    lens, but it is a great one, too. Gives the same view as a 620mm f2.8 on
    the 10D...
     
    Skip M, Jul 17, 2004
    #84
  5. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Canon's 400 f2.8 equates on the 10D to a 640mm f2.8, to a 520 f2.8 on the 1D
    mkII. Their 70-200 f2.8 equates to 122mm-320mm f2.8 on the 10D, 91mm-260mm
    f2.8 on the 1D mkII (admittedly short)
    Ya got me on the short/wide one, thought, that'll have to be a Sigma. Since
    the 10D has a sensor closer in pixel count to the Oly's, and a price, too,
    that isn't an unfair comparison. I haven't seen an E-1 to heft, but the 10D
    is a pretty substantial camera, in comparison to my old A2 and D30. It's
    close to my 1n, but not quite there.
    (this one is for the bottom posting mavens...;-))
     
    Skip M, Jul 17, 2004
    #85
  6. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Yet. The night is young...
    Yet. (I'd have to check to see what mount adapters are out for the E-1.)
    Yet.

    You act as if either all possible lenses should be released at once, or
    else that nobody else has noticed that it's a new system.
    Perhaps. Their quality is good enough that at least some pro shooters
    have accepted the camera as good enough to use for work.

    There clearly seems to be enough overlap in quality between the 4/3
    system to date and clearly-good enough existing pro dSLR gear to make
    the new system competitive.

    You don't think it makes the cut, and that's fine.

    Other people disagree, and they're voting with their own cash, and
    that's fine, too.

    What I can't figure out is why you're so all-fired heated up on the
    issue. It almost sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.

    Don't worry about it, nobody's trying to force you to use the E-1.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #86
  7. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    It's also clear to me that equating a 300 mm f/2.8 4/3 lens to a 600 mm f/2.8
    35mm system lens is equally or even more silly :)[/QUOTE]

    Not if they share essentially identical field of view values on their
    respective bodies. Which is the point.
    Oh, I doubt if it will ever empty another feedbag, no.
    That just leaves those of us who are either just get into the game, or
    who have just (finally) abandoned (much) older glass for new digital
    horizons. (And *thank* you for using "moot" instead of "mute"! I'm just
    a tech writer, not even an editor, but it drives me nuts.)
    Good on 'em, I say. Canon kept me fed and in school for several years, a
    long time ago. I still have lots of admiration for their approach to
    camera system design. (And I may yet end up going for the mark II.)
    Unless they introduce the new body RSN, I don't see how it could make
    much impact on the year's sales. Certainly wouldn't hurt, though.

    When's the next big photo trade show, September? (I've been away for too
    long, when is Photokina these days?)
    Time will tell. To me, things are as interesting in the photo world as
    they've been at any time in the past 25 years or so.

    Now, if MF digital backs cost less than a down payment on a house...
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #87
  8. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Some EF lenses use Electronic Manual Focusing, others use mechanical
    manual focusing. (I should have said "some", since not all are.)

    There are at least two different USM motors used in Canon's lenses.

    The M-1 rotor is on one side of the output ring, with the manual focus
    ring on the other side. Either the USM rotor or the manual focus ring
    may turn the output ring.

    The other version, the L-1 motor, uses Electronic Manual Focusing
    instead. Electronic manual focusing detects how much you've turned the
    focus ring and then uses the focusing motor to focus the lens by the
    same amount.

    The M-1 motor is 62mm diameter, the L-1 77mm.

    According to Canon, the 50/f1.0, 85/f1.2L, 135/f2L, 400/f2.8L, and
    1200/5.6 lenses use EMF. (Which makes sense, given the difference in the
    size of the two motors.)

    Canon's not the only one to use this approach; Contax used it in their
    G2, Olympus used it before the E-1 on the ES-10, and IIRC, Minolta used
    something similar in their A1.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #88
  9. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Of course you could. Nobody is denying that.
    No, it just happens to have the same angle of view of a 600mm lens for
    35mm.
    No, it is a 300mm lens designed to cover a smaller circle. It is *not* a
    300mm lens designed for a 35mm-format diagonal (about 43mm).

    No more than saying that a Canon EF 50mm lens is just a Hasselblad 50mm
    lens with a cropped field of view. Which is roughly the argument you're
    trying to peddle here.

    They are two completely different designs, aimed at different purposes
    that just coincidentally happen to share the same focal length.
    Well, that would be pointless, managing to miss the main reason for the
    new format...which is not being forced to use existing lenses and bodies
    at their existing sizes and weights. Neither company would do anything
    that silly.
    Bigger, high-quality sensors will always be more expensive and
    lower-yield than smaller high-quality sensors. This should be clear to
    anyone working in the silicon business, the which I've been around for
    the past 25 years. (It only seems like magic, it's not, quite.)
    It's easier to make smaller-format high-quality lenses than
    larger-format lenses of the same quality at a given price point.
    (Priced any MF lenses lately?)

    In the end, it all boils down to either approach being viable, depending
    on the user's needs. The criteria are several, and they're
    interconnected. It happens to be related to the reasons why
    professionals choose between view cameras, multiple MF types, 35mm SLRs
    and RFs, film or digital imaging up to today.

    What's great is that we have this embarrassment of riches in terms of
    stuff to choose from.

    I think it's a Good Thing(tm), myself.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #89
  10. But perhaps IS is a feature better built into the camera once, rather than
    adding to the cost and complexity of every lens?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 17, 2004
    #90
  11. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Sure. If I don't have to do it, I'd rather not.

    And that 600/4L is a nice lens...but it's more than 5lbs heavier than
    the 300/2.8.

    Look, if I was invested heavily in Canon or Nikon AF gear, this thread
    would probably never have come up. But I'm not. I'm in the enviable
    position of being free of any such encumbrances (and my old FD gear paid
    for a very nice digital darkroom setup, thank you very much).

    I get to choose what I want to use, given my known interests in subject
    matter; a clean slate.

    I'm not, at the same time, confused about the Olympus 300/2.8 being
    nothing different to a Canon 300mm lens, but cropped. It isn't. It's a
    different lens designed for a different format. It's bloody expensive,
    too, but so is the Canon 600mm lens that matches its angle of view.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #91
  12. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Oh, hurrah. I can spend $5K more for a body, so I can crop a a frame by
    50% (from 43.2mm to 21.6mm diagonal) to match the angle of view of
    another camera using a sensor with a 22.5mm diagonal measure.

    You cut your 11.1MP (effective) image to 5.6MP to beat out a camera with
    a 5MP sensor. (Actually, a bit worse, since the 1Ds' frame will need to
    be cropped a bit more to fit an 8x10 format printed, for those who still
    do that sort of thing.)

    What I can't figure out is why your working so hard apparently to
    convince yourself not to buy something you claim from the outset to not
    be interested in. Why should you care what someone else might choose to
    use?
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #92
  13. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    There are two types of USM focusing. Most EF lenses use the M-1 motor,
    and work as you describe. Some, mostly larger diameter barrels, use the
    L-1 motor, which provides electronic manual focusing, where rotation of
    focusing ring is sensed, and the focusing motor is driven electronically.

    See a little upstream in this thread.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #93
  14. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Yep.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #94
  15. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    And yet the Canon lenses don’t appear to be dearer?
     
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
    #95
  16. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Personally I don’t agree that this is a valid comparison.

    At any given pixel pitch the Canon cameras can have a higher resolution and
    the image can be cropped to equal the Olympus. Therefore the Canon 300
    f2.8L IS can exactly match the Olympus equivalent with lower cost, less
    weight and IS. The Canon lens also produces a larger image circle which
    allows it to be used with a larger sensor.

    How is using a smaller sensor a free ride to better images?
     
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
    #96
  17. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Are you on drugs?

    It has already been pointed out to you that the Oly 300 f2.8 is heavier
    than the Canon 300 f2.8

    If Canon make a 35mm sized sensor or a 1.3x crop factor sensor or a 1.6x
    crop factor sensor with a pixel pitch the same as the Oly then you could
    have the same image from the Canon 300 f2.8 as the Oly with the Oly 300
    f2.8. Canon offers this with less cost and less weight.

    The only way for Olympus to offer higher resolution with their 300 f2.8
    than Canon is to use a smaller pixel pitch. i.e. inferior image with more
    noise.

    You can get even smaller, lighter and cheaper if you look at cameras with a
    smaller sensor, why not get an Olympus 8080?
     
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
    #97
  18. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Let's word it differently then. With an APS sized sensor a lens with a
    smaller diameter would suffice. 35 mm lenses are just used for
    compatibility reasons, but you could make an SLR with an APS sized
    sensor and a smaller lens mount and save on size and weight.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 17, 2004
    #98
  19. Only by using smaller, higher noise, pixels. Moving to a smaller format
    involves compromising image quality. It's the same with both film and
    digital. If you can live with the quality loss, you can use a smaller
    format.

    Digital's neat in that the hit for moving to a smaller format is a lot less
    than that hit for film, but it's still a hit.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 17, 2004
    #99
  20. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The comparison should be between the Oly 300 f2.8 and a Canon 400 f2.8
    (both have a 35 mm equivalence of 600mm).
    No, because the pixel counts would be different (the Canon having more
    pixels due to the larger sensor). But cou could do a crop with the Canon
    image and get the same image as from the Oly (assuming both lenses had
    the same MTF).
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 17, 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.