| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2010 02:33:43 PM · #1 |
| I was hoping for more out of Olympus. I'll replace one broken lens then I'm done with Olympus. Any improvements in my gear will be with a new brand, maybe medium format. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 03:47:03 PM · #2 |
| It's hard to understand what the target market is for a professional camera with a very small sensor (about one quarter the area of a 35mm frame). The 1.33:1 (4/3) aspect ratio also doesn't seem to belong on professional equipment. Either 3:2 (like 35mm) or a more square (like MF) aspect ratio would expected. Not saying that there is a technically sound reason for this, just that this is the expectation of the marketplace. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 04:04:27 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 08:25:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's hard to understand what the target market is for a professional camera with a very small sensor (about one quarter the area of a 35mm frame). The 1.33:1 (4/3) aspect ratio also doesn't seem to belong on professional equipment. Either 3:2 (like 35mm) or a more square (like MF) aspect ratio would expected. Not saying that there is a technically sound reason for this, just that this is the expectation of the marketplace. |
I don't mean this to sound rude, but Four Thirds tends to appeal to people who don't continually feel the need to compare everything to film format.
Digital sensors aren't the same as film, and I honestly think it's about time this incessant comparison ends. The Four Thirds system is still fairly new and it's always improving, to the point that for example ISO performance far, far outdoes any film camera. Of course, Full Frame cameras have their benefits but they're also full of disadvantages that I feel work against professionals in a lot of situations.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2010 08:39:32 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
Digital sensors aren't the same as film, and I honestly think it's about time this incessant comparison ends. The Four Thirds system is still fairly new and it's always improving, to the point that for example ISO performance far, far outdoes any film camera. Of course, Full Frame cameras have their benefits but they're also full of disadvantages that I feel work against professionals in a lot of situations. |
Can you name some of them disadvantages? Because I shot 4/3 format for over a year and found many disadvantages to the 4/3 format and small sensor.
Matt |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 09:28:05 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
I don't mean this to sound rude, but Four Thirds tends to appeal to people who don't continually feel the need to compare everything to film format. |
Not rude at all, and a very valid question... my answer is simply that most professionals choose a sensor format that is much larger. The larger size still gives more advantages than disadvantages. The only real disadvantage is in physical size of camera and lens. Well, a large sensor also gives smaller DoF, and that could be a disadvantage, but also is a clear advantage for other applications.
I used the 35mm frame as a common reference. It's also the size sensor used by many pros today, with of course some room on either side, all the way from APS-C (half the area of 35mm) to MF (twice the area of 35mm for typical digital MF systems). |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 03:02:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
, Full Frame cameras have their benefits but they're also full of disadvantages that I feel work against professionals in a lot of situations. |
I have absolutely no idea where a professional would find the 4/3 format preferable over full-frame or even 1.3x crop. You say lots of situations? I am struggling to think of one! Its so-so for amateurs but I dont see a very bright future for this system. Sorry to knock your system of choice!
Excited about the E-5? Until this thread I wouldn`t of been able to name any 4/3s cameras let alone get excited about one. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 03:04:42 AM · #8 |
Ripped from WIKIPEDIA
Advantages
The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter camera bodies and lenses. In particular, the Four-Thirds system allows for the development of impressive f/2.0 zoom lenses, which would be prohibitively heavy, expensive, and difficult to design for larger sensor formats.
Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the sensor is traveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners, and most importantly improved off-center resolution, particularly on wide angle lenses.
Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter than most mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax K), lenses for many other SLR types, including the old Olympus OM System, can be fitted to Four Thirds cameras with simple mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanical adapter rings typically require manual setting of focus and aperture). In many cases this produces excellent results, especially with longer focal-length lenses and lenses at smaller apertures. A series of tests by John Foster (Using OM legacy lenses on E1 body) provides a demonstration.
A smaller sensor makes it easier to achieve a deeper depth-of-field, when needed, reducing the risk of photos that are out of focus.
Disadvantages
Small sensors suffer from some compromises in image quality. Less sensor area to collect light results in lower signal-to-noise ratio. These compromises manifest themselves as lower dynamic range, and noisier high-ISO output. The sensor performance of Four Thirds remains reasonably close to APS-C. However, full-frame 35mm sensors—which are nearly 4x larger—outperform Four Thirds sensors by a wide margin.[9]
Because of the higher crop factor, an image shot at a given relative aperture and angle of view will have more depth of field on Four Thirds.[10] This results in less control over depth of field, compared to larger formats. For instance, a 35mm full frame DSLR can match the depth of field of a Four Thirds camera by simply closing the aperture down two stops. On the other hand, it may be more difficult or impossible for a Four Thirds system to match the shallow depth of field of a 35mm full frame camera with fast lenses. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 07:20:42 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by dd1989:
, Full Frame cameras have their benefits but they're also full of disadvantages that I feel work against professionals in a lot of situations. |
I have absolutely no idea where a professional would find the 4/3 format preferable over full-frame or even 1.3x crop. You say lots of situations? I am struggling to think of one! Its so-so for amateurs but I dont see a very bright future for this system. Sorry to knock your system of choice!
Excited about the E-5? Until this thread I wouldn`t of been able to name any 4/3s cameras let alone get excited about one. |
Take the E-3/E-5 as the top Olympus body. It's the most weathersealed body on the market, no other camera is as resistent to the elements, combined with any High Grade or Super High Grade lens and you've got a combination that can happily be rinsed under a tap. That's important to a professional in a lot of situations. If you spend your life in a studio then it might not matter, but for any one who makes their money outdoors...
The E-3 was also famed for having simply the fastest AF system of any camera, combined with fast lenses like the 12-60 and you've got a very fast system.
The crop factor is also very beneficial for shooting long, lenses like the 300mm f2.8 and the 150 f/2.0 are great in these situations.
Oh, and people say that the sensor limits the availability of wide angle, when in fact there's a 7-14mm.
There are PLENTY of professionals using E-3s. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 09:28:43 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by dd1989:
, Full Frame cameras have their benefits but they're also full of disadvantages that I feel work against professionals in a lot of situations. |
I have absolutely no idea where a professional would find the 4/3 format preferable over full-frame or even 1.3x crop. You say lots of situations? I am struggling to think of one! Its so-so for amateurs but I dont see a very bright future for this system. Sorry to knock your system of choice!
Excited about the E-5? Until this thread I wouldn`t of been able to name any 4/3s cameras let alone get excited about one. |
Take the E-3/E-5 as the top Olympus body. It's the most weathersealed body on the market, no other camera is as resistent to the elements, combined with any High Grade or Super High Grade lens and you've got a combination that can happily be rinsed under a tap. That's important to a professional in a lot of situations. If you spend your life in a studio then it might not matter, but for any one who makes their money outdoors...
The E-3 was also famed for having simply the fastest AF system of any camera, combined with fast lenses like the 12-60 and you've got a very fast system.
The crop factor is also very beneficial for shooting long, lenses like the 300mm f2.8 and the 150 f/2.0 are great in these situations.
Oh, and people say that the sensor limits the availability of wide angle, when in fact there's a 7-14mm.
There are PLENTY of professionals using E-3s. |
Those lenses you mention are so expensive you need to work for NatGeo so they can buy them for you to use.
As for the E5, how are they improving image quality without a new sized sensor? With software, and that scares me a bit.
Olympus should abandon the DSLR market and make MFT cameras as they are good at it and there seems to be a market for these cameras.
Message edited by author 2010-09-15 09:38:50. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 12:42:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
Take the E-3/E-5 as the top Olympus body. It's the most weathersealed body on the market, no other camera is as resistent to the elements, combined with any High Grade or Super High Grade lens and you've got a combination that can happily be rinsed under a tap. That's important to a professional in a lot of situations. If you spend your life in a studio then it might not matter, but for any one who makes their money outdoors...
The E-3 was also famed for having simply the fastest AF system of any camera, combined with fast lenses like the 12-60 and you've got a very fast system.
The crop factor is also very beneficial for shooting long, lenses like the 300mm f2.8 and the 150 f/2.0 are great in these situations.
Oh, and people say that the sensor limits the availability of wide angle, when in fact there's a 7-14mm.
There are PLENTY of professionals using E-3s. |
I work the sidelines with a lot of professionals and I've never once seen one of them with an Olympus 4/3 system, only time I see one is in the hands of a PWAC.
The 7-14 that you mention is $1500 and equal to a 14-28 which many normal systems cover easily. The 300MM you mention is $1500 more than a brand new Nikon or Canon which are equipped with IS. And best I can tell it's also the longest lens available. I'm still not seeing any advantage to the 4/3 system and I left it for those exact reasons when I went professional.
Matt |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 12:47:57 PM · #12 |
| You obviously went professional before realising Zuiko glass doesn't need IS because, the E-5 for example has 5 stop in body IS... |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 01:17:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
You obviously went professional before realising Zuiko glass doesn't need IS because, the E-5 for example has 5 stop in body IS... |
I moved to Canon in 2006 when I was shooting with very aging E1's and grips. It was 2+ years later when they finally replaced the E1 camera. But I'd personally never go back to Olympus. I'm not a hater, I just see the advantages for ME that Canon and Nikon offer. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 01:31:35 PM · #14 |
I'd be really excited about the E-5 if someone gave one to me :)
I think the one disadvantage that I've read about so far is really the price. I think someone said the price was close to one of the newer Canon's or Nikon's (cannot remember the style number) so they didn't see any incentive to spend the extra $$ (I'll have to find the comment i read). I'll be curious to see how fast the price drops. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 01:32:58 PM · #15 |
| For the first 90 days it will be more expensive then drop, Olympus always do this. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 01:32:59 PM · #16 |
| For the first 90 days it will be more expensive then drop, Olympus always do this. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 09:58:14 PM · #17 |
A few things I like so far.
Aspect ratio is selectable. 4:3(Default)/3:2/16:9/6:6/5:4/7:6/6:5/7:5/3:4
Electronic level gauge in viewfinder.
HD video
No more xd card slot. CF/SD Dual-Slot, CompactFlash Type I (UDMA), SD Memory Card(SDHC/SDXC compatible)
Multi exposure capability, up to 4 exposures on same frame.
Wireless flash.
7 exposure auto bracketing.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2010 09:59:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
I'd be really excited about the E-5 if someone gave one to me :)
I think the one disadvantage that I've read about so far is really the price. I think someone said the price was close to one of the newer Canon's or Nikon's (cannot remember the style number) so they didn't see any incentive to spend the extra $$ (I'll have to find the comment i read). I'll be curious to see how fast the price drops. |
Want to buy an E3 body? :) |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 11:03:22 PM · #19 |
| My point was that the E-5 is no more than an E-3+E-P2. I feel no impelling reason to upgrade. I've been with Olympus for nearly 40 years and now I find out that the street they've taken me down is a dead end. I'll keep the film and digital equipment I have but it may be time to look elsewhere if my technique and passion increase. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 11:30:38 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
I'd be really excited about the E-5 if someone gave one to me :)
I think the one disadvantage that I've read about so far is really the price. I think someone said the price was close to one of the newer Canon's or Nikon's (cannot remember the style number) so they didn't see any incentive to spend the extra $$ (I'll have to find the comment i read). I'll be curious to see how fast the price drops. |
Want to buy an E3 body? :) |
I'm not quite ready to do that yet since I just got the E-520 and I still have the E-500. I'll keep ya in mind tho lol because I do want to upgrade to that level some day. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 04:02:40 AM · #21 |
E-3 owners asked for things and they go it.
Better high ISO/low light performance - Done
A better screen - done
Few more megapixels - done
Some video capability - done
The upgrade might not immediately be worth it from an E-3 to an E-5, but like every one who upgrade from a smaller and cheaper body to an E-3, this gives people good reason to do the same, for example from an E-520 to an E-5.
I just don't know how people feel they were lead down a dead-end street? The E-3/E-5 are great cameras, and I can only assume professionals who really make their money from photography are able to invest in the Pro level glass to match. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:54:44 AM · #22 |
| Let's wait and see on the high iso performance. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 03:14:18 PM · #23 |
| Somelovely shots on Facebook from official Olympus page. |
|
|
|
10/09/2010 10:48:16 AM · #24 |
Just to bump this up, here's a review that has convinced some people that the E-5 might not be so bad after all...
review - last page
It's a link to the 4th part of his review. You can click on the links to get back to the first page.
I'm sure I'll be sticking with Oly - I like the lenses (and yeah, i hate the noise). My next step will be to jump up to the more expensive bodies, but it's going to be a while before I do that.
Enjoy! |
|
|
|
10/09/2010 11:46:24 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Just to bump this up, here's a review that has convinced some people that the E-5 might not be so bad after all...
review - last page
It's a link to the 4th part of his review. You can click on the links to get back to the first page.
I'm sure I'll be sticking with Oly - I like the lenses (and yeah, i hate the noise). My next step will be to jump up to the more expensive bodies, but it's going to be a while before I do that.
Enjoy! |
The images look good and the ISO performance is very good as well, but... My only problem is he uses jpeg exclusively and didn't mention RAW at all. All his observations on image quality are made from jpegs and he also used the in camera filters. That doesn't tell me much. I didn't read anywhere if he used in camera de-noise and I'm guessing he did. I'm sure the camera is an improvement over the E3 but it doesn't go far enough imo. Price is too high as well. I would have considered upgrading but only if it were under 1200 for the body.
Message edited by author 2010-10-09 11:47:13. |
|
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: 07/30/2025 03:34:06 AM EDT.
