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

  1. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    The EF mount was in the same situation when it was introduced.

    You argument devolves to "never introduce any new mounts/lenses", you
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Assuming the same technologies are used in both sensors. Which is not
    the case here.

    Whether or not it might make enough difference to make a difference is
    still up for grabs, but we're not quite comparing apples to apples.
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    So what? It's a healthy market.

    And given the lower cost of 4/3 compared to the cost of MF, especially
    digital MF, 4/3 should do as well for all practical purposes.
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  4. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Glad to see that you think 4/3 isn't a bad idea. :}

    (What you likely meant, and what you just wrote aren't the same thing.)
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  5. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Support your answer. Independent verification would be useful.

    At least, something more than "I'm agin it, so there!"
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  6. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Because it isn't competing with 300mm lenses from Canon and Nikon, it's
    competing against theiri 600mm lenses.

    Different format, different numbers.
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  7. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    You went with it too, Bud. Lots of extra cash for a fairly slight
    I threaten you that much? Kewl.

    You're failure to consider anything much beyond the sensor itself (and
    the fact that the different formats do have different optical
    considerations) doesn't negate other advantages.
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  8. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    That would suggest that the Olympus has a smaller pixel pitch wouldn’t it?[/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily. IIRC, there is less of the front of the sensor taken up
    with non-light sensing support circuitry. Have to dig around to find the
    actual area/photodiode of the two sensor technologies.
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  9. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Unless of course Canon brings out the hotly rumored (and highly anticipated)
    dMick, with 4/3 size sensor and 2x crop factor. Then even YOU will be forced
    to compare the Oly 300 f/2.8 to the Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS :) Guess who wins
    that comparison, based on lighter weight, much lower cost and Image

    Sure. As soon as it shows up.
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
  10. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From a f-o-v standpoint, only for full frame sensors, like say the 1Ds or film,
    and of course with the 1Ds you have about 3.5x as much sensor area.

    Drop to the Mark II (1.3x crop) and the 500 f/4 offers similar magnification
    (actually somewhat greater), but with 8 Mpixels and much larger sensor area.

    Drop to the 10D (1.6x crop) and the 400 f/2.8 or f/4 (since the Oly is so
    noisy) is a better comparison for f-o-v (again, it's actually a bit greater
    than the Oly), and you still end up with about 40% more image area.

    Drop to the soon-to-be announced Canon dMick, with 2x crop and 4/3 sensor size
    and now you have to compare the Oly 300 ($7,000, a pound heavier, no IS)
    directly to the Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS ($3,800, a pound lighter even though it
    covers 350% more area (how did Oly screw that up so badly), and with third
    generation Image Stabilization).

    The Oly "competes" with different Canon lenses, depending on the crop factor of
    the body the Canon is used with. And with the longer lenses (smaller crop
    factors) you get a much greater sensor size.

    Bill Hilton, Jul 17, 2004
  11. Which doesn't really help because the area of individual cells in the sensor
    is four times smaller (which is exactly two stops).

    If we asume that there exists an optimal cell size for a particular sensor
    technology, then a full frame 35mm sensors will have 4 times as many
    cells as a 4/3 design.

    The question is: howmany pixels you really need. If the 4/3 design
    provides enough pixels, the 4/3 design is better. If the 4/3 design does
    not provide enough pixels of sufficient quality, you need a larger sensor.

    I don't think you can make a sensor with the quality of the 1Ds at 4/3 format.
    The question then becomes: do you need the quality the 1Ds provides.
    Philip Homburg, Jul 17, 2004
  12. Except the E-1 has more noise, so deduct a stop.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  13. No, the E-1 is priced near the 10D, 300D and D70/100. It underperforms
    compared to those cameras.
    "Feel" doesn't have much to do with performance or image quality - only
    ego stroking.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  14. Which professional?

    If you're a professional, quality is important to you, so you plunk down
    the cash for a high end Canon or Nikon DSLR. Most like a Canon 1D Mark
    II, these days.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  15. Larger, yes. Higher pixel density also. Poor design to boot. The
    Kodak has lots of problems, but I doubt all of them can be attributed to
    the larger sensor. The Canon 1D Mark II has a similar pixel density and
    much, much lower noise.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  16. Not quite. The EF mount was designed for 35mm film - an accepted
    standard. The EF mount was also designed to eliminate potential
    problems for a future line of lenses, not introduce new ones.
    Only if you're pedantic.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  17. Well, if Oly starts using a lower noise CMOS, call me.
    No, we are. Just the Oly is looking more and more like a rotten one.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  18. Given that its client base can afford to charge high rates to buy
    equipment. Can you say the same for 4/3?
    What purposes? It barely tops 5 MP, it has higher than average noise
    and suffers from being poorly supported.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  19. It's not competing against either of them. People who want quality and
    performance inevitably will choose Nikon and Canon in much greater
    numbers than they would 4/3.
    I'd normally agree... BUT IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM A 35 MM LENS
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 18, 2004
  20. Not quite. Just pointing out 4/3 still doesn't outperform anything at
    the moment.
    No, you don't threaten me at all. You do however make illogical points
    and fail to see evidence to the contrary.
    You fail to consider that the 4/3 format is not a radical departure from
    35mm lens design. It isn't - it's a smaller sensor area with lenses
    designed to backfocus closer. EF-S, anyone?
    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.