| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/26/2005 03:24:13 PM · #26 |
| How does the E-1 perform at higher ISO ratings (in low light)? The sensor is smaller than the 300D and D70, but has about the same number of pixels. The lens is an f-stop faster, but is the sensor "slower" (ie does it have more noise)? |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 03:32:09 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
What does IS have to do with stops? If I use a tripod then what can you say?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 03:39:46 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
People are used to having lenses named in terms of focal length relative to a 35mm film sized focal plane. The new 4/3 standards does not use 35mm as a reference point in naming their lenses. Why should they when none of these new lenses are intented to be used with 35mm film cameras or the equivilent so-called full frame sensors.
I think a fixed size for the sensor is part of the new standard so there will be no crop factor variation from one camera to the next. |
For one there is no "crop" factor when dealing with the E-1 because it is a full frame camera. For two they name the lenses just like they should. It is the physical length of the lenses and has nothing to do with a 35mm camera. It just so happened that because the sensor is half the size you get twice the magnification.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 04:31:58 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
What does IS have to do with stops? If I use a tripod then what can you say? |
Obviously if you use a tripod IS isn't needed. I can say they have always had great glass, but anybody who invests in an Olympus system is crazy. Also the "crop" is not a factor only when printing on a paper size with a 4:3 ratio. So a 4x6 would entail cropping the image.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 02:11:36 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
It's significantly worse for Olympus because they only have one size sensor, and judging by it's 2x crop, will only ever have one size sensor. (Unless they've going even more telephoto.)
I couldn't care less what the real mm rating is. Do I care my point and shoot is actually 5.7-16mm? Of course not. I only care what the effective range of the lens is. |
I am terribly sorry to hear that you're obviously misinformed. The Olympus system does not have a crop factor at all -- it is a full frame system.
As it is full frame you will obviously be aware that there cannot be a crop factor.
Of course you only care about the effective focal length of your point-and-shoot -- which is why I checked two previous point-and-shoot cameras that I owned and nowhere on them could I find a reference to the effective focal length.
Sure they tell you how many times zoom the lens is (for example my powershot G3 says it is the times 4 lens).
So carrying on from what you've said that you want them to list the effective focal length -- what would you have Olympus do? Something that no other SLR company in the world appears to do anywhere on the lens and stipulate how many times multiplication you get from wide-angle to tell photo end of each lens?
And would you have Canon do the same with their EF-S lenses?
No of course you wouldn't because it would be totally ridiculous and stupid.
Also, maybe you could inform me of any other system that goes out of his way to inform you what it's lenses are equivalent to compared with 35mm terms?
I suggest that you look into several different lens systems before you criticise Olympus are doing what everybody else does. Including that you look closely at the lens system that you yourself have chosen.
I would also suggest that you read up a little bit more about the four thirds system to gain a greater understanding about it.
It appears to me that several people on this site have the distinct problem of not being able to acknowledge the advantages of another system other than the one that they have chosen. This appears to be particularly true of the four thirds system -- and is generally an indication that people are jealous that they made the wrong choice. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 04:37:34 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
What does IS have to do with stops? If I use a tripod then what can you say? |
Obviously if you use a tripod IS isn't needed. I can say they have always had great glass, but anybody who invests in an Olympus system is crazy. Also the "crop" is not a factor only when printing on a paper size with a 4:3 ratio. So a 4x6 would entail cropping the image. |
On the bright side - you have to crop less to get 8x10's / 16x20's which are pretty common these days. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 03:37:20 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Runwin:
... It appears to me that several people on this site have the distinct problem of not being able to acknowledge the advantages of another system other than the one that they have chosen. This appears to be particularly true of the four thirds system -- and is generally an indication that people are jealous that they made the wrong choice. |
Maybe not so much jealousy, but certainly a lot of ignorance. dpc really has gotten to be quite "Canon-headed" as a community. Many confuse Canon's dominant market share with Canon always being better.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 03:44:10 PM · #33 |
The olympus is a FF camera? Since when is 18.00mm x 13.50 mm full frame? I'm fairly certain that standard film is 36mm x 24mm.
edit: or is it that olympus has standardized the lens to match what it would be as a 35mm camera? I'm not really following very well here.
Message edited by author 2005-08-27 15:45:08.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 03:48:02 PM · #34 |
| Good to see other manufacturers competing with C & N. It's good for all of us if it doesn't become a 2 horse race in the SLR market |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 04:03:54 PM · #35 |
"Full Frame" seems to be used in a couple different ways. To most of us, it means "same size as 35mm film" (the nominal "standard" for film/sensor size in this dSLR world). Canon makes pro bodies with sensors this size, and the lenses for them perform exactly as they would, angle-of-coverage-wise, on a 35mm film camera. Canon's 20D and 350xt use a smaller sensor (still considerably larger than the sensors on prosumer cams and a fair amount larger in terms of area than the Olympus sensor) and it has a "crop factor" of 1.6.
This means that the focal length of the lens x 1.6 equals its effective focal length in terms of the "standard" 35mm film reference point. This means that if you use a 100mm lens on a 20D Canon body, the angle of coverage being recorded on the sensor is the same as what a 35mm film camera would cover with a 160mm lens. In other words, the 20D is effectively cropping a smaller image circle out of the area covered by the lens. Going in the other direction, a 90mm lens on a 4x5 inch view camera has the same angular coverage, approximately, as a 28mm lens on a 35mm film camera.
Now Olympus has a 2x "crop factor" relative to that same "standard" 35mm film camera's angular coverage. A 100mm lens on the Olympus covers the same angle of view as a 200mm lens on a 35mm film camera body. The reason Olympus calls their sensor "full frame" is because its proportions are much more square; you can make a 4x5 or 8x10 print without cropping, i.e. "full frame".
This is significant because to make an 8x10 from a 20D image we have to crop a LOT off the long dimension, effectively eliminating maybe a quarter of our pixels from the final image. So in terms of traditional image proportions, the two sensors are much closer to each other in size than their dimensions would indicate.
That's my take on it anyway.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 05:24:02 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
What does IS have to do with stops? If I use a tripod then what can you say? |
Obviously if you use a tripod IS isn't needed. I can say they have always had great glass, but anybody who invests in an Olympus system is crazy. Also the "crop" is not a factor only when printing on a paper size with a 4:3 ratio. So a 4x6 would entail cropping the image. |
WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU DO SAY WHO IS CRAZY OR NOT ANYWAY? And yes I am yelling! It is these close minded statements that really get me going. Anyway I prefer 4x5 and 8x10 which is better for the 4/3 system. I'm not saying that Canon is bad in any way. Olympus is just an alliterative to Canon or Nikon. It was the best choice for me and what I do. The lenses are great and dare I say just as good if not better then Canon lenses. I bet you never even picked up an E-1 and tried it out. I'm sure you just wrote it off and just followed the rest of the herd. Moooooo. Sorry if I offended anyone here but some people...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 04:35:48 PM EDT.
