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

  1. []
    Dearer than what, precisely? Are you saying that IS and non-IS lenses are
    the same price?

    David J Taylor, Jul 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    That's a pretty small selection of Canon's range, and the 50 f1.0 is not a
    current Canon lens (and hasn't been for quite some time).
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    Justin Thyme Guest

    Olympus have to some extent countered that too. Normal CCD sensors have
    quite a bit of the area of each pixel taken up by electronics to control the
    pixel. That space is not light sensitive. The olympus E1 ccd has moved the
    control electronics to the back of the chip so that almost all the pixel
    space is light sensitive. As a result they are able to reduce the noise
    level in the chip to lower than what would normally be present in a 5MP
    sensor of that size.
    Justin Thyme, Jul 17, 2004
  4. Charles Schuler

    Justin Thyme Guest

    Would you really? is the canon lens as sharp as the olympus? Remember, the
    canon lens is designed around having an image recorded on a 35mm sized piece
    of film. Does it deliver enough detail to have it's image cropped down to be
    the equivalent of a 600mm lens? Sure it might if it is stopped down, but can
    it do it at F2.8? I very much doubt it would, as people don't cut the centre
    out of their 35mm neg and then blow it up to 30"x20".
    The olympus is designed to be precise enough to give a sharp image on a much
    smaller sensor, so it's resolving power has to be greater. This is where the
    extra weight and cost in the olympus comes from.
    Considering how far sensor technologies have come in the last few years (3
    years ago 2MP was high resolution) it is fair to assume that within a couple
    of years the technology will be there for a low noise, high MP sensor at the
    4/3 size. Sure, the noise levels in larger sensors will have dropped
    accordingly too, but the yield rate and hence production cost for small
    sensors will always be better.
    Justin Thyme, Jul 17, 2004
  5. I don't know about AF zooms, but if I look at my manual focus Nikkors,
    I don't want the 16/3.5, 20/2.8, 24/2, 35/2, 50/2 (or 50/1.8) to be
    any smaller.

    Of course there is an advantage for long lenses, but nothing prevents Nikon
    or Canon from producing special cameras with an 4/3 sized sensor.

    I don't know if it really helps though. You would have to compare for example,
    a 1Ds with a 300/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter with a 4/3 sensor and a 300/2.8.
    Philip Homburg, Jul 17, 2004
  6. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    I’m saying that the Canon IS lenses don’t appear to be dearer than the
    Olympus lenses (which don’t have IS). I’m sorry that I didn’t make that
    clear enough.

    I was responding to the suggestion that the Olympus non-IS lenses didn’t
    need IS as it would be better to put the IS in a camera body instead of
    each lens.

    I am also doubtful about how well the in-body IS would work compared to
    having IS in the lens, without seeing the results of tests on a body with
    IS compared to Canon’s IS lenses, I will reserve my judgement until I have
    read the results of those tests. It is easy for people to say that
    something would be better another way, it is another matter to have actual
    evidence that the alternative method does actually work better.
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
  7. []
    Oh, thanks. I haven't compared those particular prices.
    Yes, I was hoping that someone had indeed done that comparison.
    Konica/Minolta claim that the in-camera stabilisation works to lower
    jitter frequencies than lens-based, but of course that's the only type
    they offer!

    (requires member access - which is free)

    David J Taylor, Jul 17, 2004
  8. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    No, I don’t think so.
    Oh dear, You have just said the same thing that I did! A sensor from Canon
    of the same or larger size, with the same pixel pitch will capture the same
    detail and same resolution as the Olympus (Given same MTF on lenses). Of
    course there will be more image if the sensor is larger, but that can be
    cropped away.

    So why is it so great to buy a camera that captures a smaller image? Is it
    price or weight? But the 300 f2.8 is heavier and dearer despite the
    smaller image circle, so why not by the Canon and capture the same image +
    some more that can be cropped if desired?

    If you compare a four-thirds image to a crop of a larger image from a
    sensor with the same pixel pitch, you have the same image. So the image
    from the Olympus 300 f2.8 is the same as the centre part of the image from
    the Canon 300 f2.8 (Unless the Olympus has better MTF values), so why is
    the Olympus lens dearer and heavier?
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
  9. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Is this true? Do you have anything to back it up? I have a 10D and I
    regularly use enlargements of a crop of a 35mm image, every shot I take
    is a crop of a 35mm sized image.

    If you can provide MTF charts or reviews that back up your claims that
    the Olympus 300 f2.8 is a sharper lens then I will happily concede your
    BTW: I have seen comments about the Canon 300 f2.8 IS being the sharpest
    lens made by Canon (I don’t know if that is actually true), so please
    forgive me for not accepting your viewpoint without any evidence to back
    it up.

    Who are you arguing with? Who is claiming that the larger sensors are as
    cheap to make as the smaller sensors?

    I have only mentioned that the quality from Canon should theoretically
    match Olympus, even when cropped to the same size. I never mentioned
    anything about matching the price. But talking about price, the $1000
    saved on the price of a 300 f2.8 would probably cover a larger sensor
    fairly easily.
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
  10. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Yes and Canon claim that putting the IS in the body would not work as well
    as their in-lens IS. I don’t think that we can really trust the
    manufacturers to admit the competitions product is better. What we need is
    a 3rd party to test the different systems and let us know which is better.

    If anyone comes across such a test, please advise the group.
    MarkH, Jul 17, 2004
  11. Charles Schuler

    Clyde Guest

    Comparing to the Canon D1 MII, the closest pro level camera I can find,
    it seems smaller and lighter to me. The Canon is 6.1x6.2x3.1 inches and
    weighs 1.2 K.

    The Olympus E-1 is 5.6x4.1x3.2 inches and weighs 660 g. That size
    difference isn't that great but it is significant. It weighs HALF as
    much as the D1 MII body! That is very significant for carrying around
    all day as a pro.

    Don't forget that these weights are just for the body too. With smaller
    lens the difference is even greater.

    All number from DPreviews.

    Clyde, Jul 17, 2004
  12. You mean being forced to use tried and true mount with a wide selection
    of lenses and many used lenses available?
    Of course. The question is, will those smaller sensors give better
    optical quality than the large sensors? The answer is no. Smaller
    sensors will have more noise at equal sensitivities.
    Medium format suffers from a small market... like 4/3 will.
    Sure, but that doesn't mean some new ideas are just bad and will fade
    away. Like 4/3.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
  13. Short answer: no.

    Long answer: Hell no.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
  14. But the point of 4/3 was the lenses were supposed to be cheaper. So why
    pay OVER 600mm lens prices for a 300mm lens?
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
  15. You made the 1Ds comparison, not me.
    Because you insist 4/3 has advantages over existing mounts. It doesn't!
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
  16. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Yes, if Canon feels there is actually a market for these small sensor designs
    then why not bring out a 4/3 sized sensor on one of the existing bodies? Call
    it the dMick (short for "digital with Mickey Mouse-sized sensor") ... all the
    current lenses would work on it and if there is sufficient demand they could
    bring out an entire line of Mick-Lite lenses down the road. They could
    probably sell the body for $700 on the Rebel body or $1,100 or less on the Elan
    body. And they would probably have the lens design talent to actually make the
    smaller coverage lenses lighter, a trick Olympus seems unable to figure out.
    Ah, but the Canon lenses already out there are actually lighter than the Oly
    4/3 lenses. Now that we have the dMick you can drop that silly comparison
    between the Oly 300 f/2.8 and the Canon 600 f/2.8, since the dMick has the same
    2x crop factor so will have the same fov with a 300 as the E-1 ... and the
    Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS is a pound lighter, offers Image Stabilization and costs
    $3,200 LESS than the Oly 300.

    The other fixed focal length Oly lens is a 50 mm f/2 macro ... Canon's 50 mm
    f/2.5 macro is about half as expensive ($229 vs $450) and, once again, weighs
    less. Even though the Oly lenses only have to cover about 28% as much area as
    the Canon lenses they still seem unable to make them as light, forfeiting one
    of the claimed advantages of 4/3.
    It SHOULD be, but clearly Oly hasn't caught on to this yet since the Canon
    lenses that fit the dMick are lighter and cost less even though they offer
    coverage for about 350% more area.

    Bill Hilton, Jul 17, 2004
  17. But still has higher noise than the 6.3 MP CMOS Canon uses and the 6.1
    MP CCD Sony makes for Nikon.

    Of course, Canon and Nikon sell a lot more cameras that Oly, so I'm sure
    their sensors cost less too.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
  18. Have you seen pictures from Canon L glass in that focal length? Oly
    will have a hard time competing against that.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
  19. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Only if you are using the Canon 10D as the body and requiring equivalent f-o-v.

    And you apparently haven't heard of the new Canon dMick, which will offer a 4/3
    sized sensor with 2x crop ratio, meaning you can now directly compare Canon
    lenses to Oly lenses ... and the Oly 300 loses because it's a pound heavier,
    lacks IS and costs $3,200 more.

    (just kidding about the dMick ... they could if they wanted to, but that would
    be insane :)
    Bill Hilton, Jul 17, 2004
  20. The E-1 isn't really a pro level camera. The comparison should be
    against the 10D, 300D or Nikon D70/100. The E-1 is not smaller or
    lighter than those.
    You fail to realize the 1D Mk II has a vertical grip and was designed to
    be a heavy, rugged camera. It also wipes the floor with any digital SLR
    below it.
    Whoopidity doo.
    Brian C. Baird, 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.