Olympus EVOLT - 8 MP Consumer DSLR (four thirds)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Richard Cockburn, Sep 27, 2004.

  1. format.

    Oh please. The 4/3 concept works. At least the lenses are designed for
    the format, using a full frame lenses on 1.6x crop cameras is like
    using a medium format on a 35mm camera. It may work, but it is a
    And the lenses are actually smaller/lighter than 35mm lenses, just like
    35mm lenses are smaller and lighter than medium format lenses.
    And the E-300 IS the first 8MP entry-level DSLR. A 8MP Rebel won't be
    out until summer/autumn 2005, if my sources are right.
    jonragnarsson, Oct 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. I respectfully disagree. Look at the smaller sensors like 1/1.8". Every
    year, they are packed with more cells, and every year, the output gets
    better, or at least the same. I see no reason why 4/3 should have to
    use bigger sensors in the future. The MP race seems to be slowing down.
    16MP is already plenty, and some people say it is good as medium
    CCD/CMOS sensors will improve/get cheaper, but I don't see any
    breakthrough regarding lens manufacturing, they have been made using
    the same methods in a century.
    And you know that your wide-angle will be usable on every 4/3 camera,
    you don't have to "upgrade" your lenses if you upgrade the camera.
    (NB. I am supporter of the whole 4/3 concept, btw)
    jonragnarsson, Oct 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Richard Cockburn

    Bill Hilton Guest

    The 300 f/2.8 is about a pound heavier (and much more expensive) than either
    the Nikon 300 f/2.8 with VR or the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS, and the Oly lens lacks
    IS or VR. Since the Oly lens only has to cover 28% of the image area as the
    other two you'd THINK it would be smaller/lighter, but it's not. Same with the
    55 mm macro ...
    Bill Hilton, Oct 1, 2004
  4. Richard Cockburn

    Clyde Guest

    Of course, the 150 f/2 is what you should be comparing. Well, with the
    Canon 300 f/2.8 on a D1s anyway. That would give the same angle of view.
    The 150mm is less than half the weight of the 300mm.

    Clyde, Oct 1, 2004
  5. Richard Cockburn

    Steve Hix Guest

    Compare it with a lens that is actually comparable, like the Canon
    600/2.8...oh wait, there is no such lens.

    Best you can do is the 600/f4L. Which is several pounds heavier, and
    several thousand dollars more than the Digital Zuiko. (That would be for
    one of the Canon 35mm-sized CMOS line. If you're thinking of comparing
    lenses as used on, say, the 10D, then you only have to come up with a
    lens around
    Again, the comparison with a 300mm lens on the high-end Canon would be
    the Digital Zuiko 150/f2. The nearest match being the Canon 300/2.8L.
    What 55mm macro? Olympus doesn't offer one. The 50/f2? Compare it with a
    100/f2 macro from Canon, etc etc etc.

    The comparisons you present are exactly as valid as comparing a 200mm
    lens on a Hasselblad with a 100mm lens from Canon.

    Different formats, different use niches. Different.
    Steve Hix, Oct 1, 2004
  6. If by "works" you mean "takes pictures", yes. It works. But it doesn't
    work as well as a APS-C sensor format or full-frame.
    No, they're often heavier than a comparable 35mm lens. Sure, you could
    argue the crop factor thing, but that's not really saying anything nice
    about 4/3rds.
    We'll see when Oly actually manages to release it.
    Brian C. Baird, Oct 1, 2004
  7. But you have to throw FOV out the window - the 150 f/2 is NOT a 300mm
    lens. It is a 150mm lens. It should cost and weigh less than a
    comparable 150mm f/2. After all, I'm not buying a 300mm lens, I'm
    buying a 150mm lens. Ditto with the 300 f/2.8.
    Brian C. Baird, Oct 1, 2004
  8. Richard Cockburn

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Oh please. The 4/3 concept works. ...
    You can see the silliness of this "field of view" argument by looking at the
    latest Nikon, which offers a 2x crop so with the Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR it has the
    same fov as the Oly with a 300 ... the Nikon covers a much wider area (will
    cover 35 mm format too) yet weighs almost a pound less than the Oly lens
    covering only 28% as much area.
    Bill Hilton, Oct 1, 2004
  9. Richard Cockburn

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Following your logic the 7-21mm lens of an Olympus 5050 camera with a
    1/1.8" CCD should be compared to a fisheye 7-21mm lens of a 35mm
    Alfred Molon, Oct 1, 2004
  10. Richard Cockburn

    Lourens Smak Guest

    Yeah, that is obviously aslo true for the 14mm, I suppose?

    Lourens Smak, Oct 2, 2004
  11. You're right, of course. When you change format lenses change function. But
    when you go to a smaller format you always lose quality in exchange for the
    lower weight of higher magnification lenses.

    So it really doesn't make sense to compare the 4/3 cameras to full frame
    cameras for telephoto work. The 1DsM2 has twice the pixels and well under
    1/2 the noise (per pixel!) so we're talking about a massive difference in
    image quality. The 4/3 system can't even dream of that level of image

    The correct comparison is with a 20D. And since noise in the E-1/EVOLT is a
    full stop or more worse than the 20D, the E-1/EVOLT lens need to be a full
    stop faster at the same equivalent focal length to achieve the same noise
    performance at the same shutter speed.

    Since the "crop factor" going from 1.6 to 2.0 is 1.25, the DOF difference is
    compensated for as well. So images with the E-1/EVOLT at, say 300mm and
    f/2.8 will be nearly identical to images taken with the 20D at 375mm and
    f/4.0 at twice the ISO but the same shutter speed.

    But if you increase the focal length by 1.25 or 1.4x, and reduce the f stop
    by one stop, you'll find yourself with a lighter cheaper lens.

    Basically, the 4/3 idea doesn't fly because of the loss of sensitivity at
    the same noise level in the sensor. I can always shoot with a higher ISO in
    the 20D for the same image quality.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 2, 2004
  12. Richard Cockburn

    Lourens Smak Guest

    Actually it works better in some aspects, is my experience.
    You should open your eyes instead of repeating the bigger=better mantra.

    Lourens Smak, Oct 2, 2004
  13. Richard Cockburn

    Clyde Guest

    That depends on whether you are a camera equipment buyer or a photographer.

    If you get your kicks buying camera equipment, you are right. The focal
    length would be the critical thing. The 300mm and the 150mm wouldn't
    compare at all. Then all the other specs are also critical. I suggest a
    database to keep track or your collection.

    However, if you are a photographer you are buying tools to do something
    particular in capturing pictures. Telephoto lens are a good example. You
    buy them because you want to get a shot of something at a particular
    distance to be a particular size in your picture. In that case FOV is
    everything; focal length means nothing. 300mm on an 8x10, 6x7, 35mm,
    Nikon DSLR, or 4/3 system all means completely different FOV. So, a
    300mm lens would be a different tool for different purposes on the
    different systems.

    When you take up photography, you'll learn then soon enough.

    Clyde, Oct 2, 2004
  14. Richard Cockburn

    Clyde Guest

    Which Nikon DSLR has a 2x crop?

    Clyde, Oct 2, 2004
  15. Richard Cockburn

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Clyde
    I don't follow Nikon too closely but I think the model # is the D2X ...
    recently announced 12 Mpix model with 1.5 crop with a mode to run at 6.8 (?)
    Mpix at higher frame rates with a 2x crop, IIRC.

    The 300 mm f/2.8 VR lens announced with this body gives you the identical crop
    and fov with the 2x mode as the Oly system, except the Nikon 300 f/2.8 has VR,
    has coverage for 2x and 1.5x and 1x bodies, costs less and weighs less than the
    Oly 300 f/2.8. Hmm ... wider coverage, less weight, lower cost, Vibration
    Reduction ... advantage Nikon?

    Look, I'm sure the Oly 4/3 system is a nice little system, but the advertising
    that claims it's cheaper because of the smaller sensor is a lie (you can buy a
    Canon 1Ds Mark II and a Canon 300 f/2.8 IS cheaper than you can buy the Oly 4/3
    body with their 300 f/2.8 for example), and the advertising that claims it's
    smaller and lighter because the lenses only have to cover roughly 1/4 the area
    are obviously false as well.

    Bill Hilton, Oct 2, 2004
  16. Richard Cockburn

    Matti Vuori Guest

    Most people buy lenses that help them get a suitable angle of view from a
    given distance, or whatever. They realize that the focal length is just a
    variable derived from the goals and circumstancies. If you don't, too bad
    for you, as you'll make very bad choices. But of course you won't, nobody
    would be that stupid. But some trolls would pretend that they are,
    Matti Vuori, Oct 3, 2004
  17. I don't possibly see how. As much as I like to compare various camera
    formats based upon their technical aspects, at the end of the day you
    still have a camera and it will take pictures.
    No, the bigger=better mantra of sensors is based on physics. Physics
    tends to be a more reliable than half-assed opinions.
    Brian C. Baird, Oct 4, 2004
  18. Of course, you forget the whole argument FOR 4/3rds in the first place.
    I.e. "You won't have to pay a lot to get the field of view you want!"

    Which has proven to be bullshit.
    Brian C. Baird, Oct 4, 2004
  19. Brian C. Baird wrote:
    But there is the question of how far along the bigger=better road you want
    to go. Different people have different needs and expecations, and some
    may find that the 4/3 size gives them all they need. Others will need
    even more than the 35mm full-frame size. It's the 35mm=perfection mantra
    that I don't agree with.

    David J Taylor, Oct 4, 2004
  20. Sure, but 35mm is a good enough starting point - it has tons of legacy
    support and you can get very low noise levels out of a sensor that size.
    APS-C gives you good noise performance too, but drop below that and
    you're in digicam country with poor performance past ISO 100.

    I realize if all you shoot is landscapes this isn't much of an issue,
    but one of the biggest draws of digital has been low noise performance
    at high ISOs. Smaller sensors are always going to give you higher
    noise, and now that 4/3rds is trying to make a 8 megapixel grab I don't
    see how they're going to pull a rabbit out of their hat any time soon.
    Brian C. Baird, Oct 4, 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.