| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/24/2003 02:22:51 PM · #1 |
Olympus E-1 Review
June 24th News Release
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 14:28:10.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:30:17 PM · #2 |
| It says it's the first 4/3 camera on the market. What exactly does 4/3 mean? I'm ignorant about that aspect but other than that seems like the Canon 10D is a much better deal. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:38:37 PM · #3 |
4/3 refers to the size of the sensor (4/3"). Price will come down...the 10D was priced in much the same fashion when it was announced. The lens price and selection (they have a reasonable range as is but it would be nice to have more options) will be the interesting bit. I like the idea, looks like a good way to go. I'll be very tempted to go in this direction when I upgrade to the DSLR.
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 15:42:18. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 03:44:39 PM · #4 |
4/3 is a format for teh CCD. Basically they're going to keep the sensors small, and create lenses around it to fit the sensor (rather than creating large sensors to fit the lenses). The problem is that this is sort of late and by the time they have enough lenses (you can only have four right now, versus the huge amount of lenses Nikkon/Canon has), Canon will probably have cheap full-frame DSLR's anyway. They're also going to have problems cramming more pixels into the sensor later at the small size.
For example, the D60/10D has 6.1 megapixels, about 1.6 time smaller than 35 mm format. If you convert that density to 35 mm size, you should get about 15+ megapixels. So the technology is there to do it but the current problem is yield issues and expensive wafer (which will come down in price in a couple of years). The technology issues of cramming more pixels in the same space is probably harder to solve than yield issues and this is the real limitation for 4/3.
The idea of interchangeable lens is sound but unless Canon or Nikon buys into it, i think the E-1 will not have much of an impact.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:33:01 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The technology issues of cramming more pixels in the same space is probably harder to solve than yield issues and this is the real limitation for 4/3. |
Dunno, this seems a bit backwards. Cramming more stuff in a smaller space is what the semiconductor industry has been about for the last 30 years.
Going to larger component areas and maintaining yield is the new problem, not higher integration and shrinking the die size. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:35:24 PM · #6 |
Cramming into smaller spaces require new manufacturing technology (which takes longer to get), yield issues can be solved with current technology, that's what I mean. Also, having more pixels in a tight space creates noise issues (thermal noise), much more important in imaging than in other semiconductors.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
The technology issues of cramming more pixels in the same space is probably harder to solve than yield issues and this is the real limitation for 4/3. |
Dunno, this seems a bit backwards. Cramming more stuff in a smaller space is what the semiconductor industry has been about for the last 30 years.
Going to larger component areas and maintaining yield is the new problem, not higher integration and shrinking the die size. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 04:54:21 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Cramming into smaller spaces require new manufacturing technology (which takes longer to get), yield issues can be solved with current technology, that's what I mean. Also, having more pixels in a tight space creates noise issues (thermal noise), much more important in imaging than in other semiconductors. |
new manufacturing technology comes along every 18 months or so (effectively Moore's Law)
Yield issues are harder to fix, and historically have been resolved by making the thing smaller (as defects are fundamentally area dependent)
Most yield improvements come from design changes to increase the tolerence to process variations (nothing to do with area yield defect issues) or reduction of process variations (improved control, again nothing to do with area yield defects)
Moving to a new process typically reduces the power (hence noise) and can allow you to implement the same number of features in the same area, with increased distance between the features, or higher feature density.
Its just harder to make a bigger piece of silicon than it is to make a smaller piece with good yield - things like the size of a dust particle don't change |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 05:11:10 PM · #8 |
Innovative stuff on this one, particularly like the idea of the "shake the censor at startup to get rid of dust thingie". Large buffer, hope image quality is ok.
Imagine my surprise by the way, when the 602 did a 6mp Tiff exposure bracketing today. That's 3x17mb of data and it was buffered before it wrote to the Microdrive.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 05:15:54 PM · #9 |
You said it -- 18 months. By then, Canon would have worked out its yield issues (actually it's more die cost for them) for the FULL frame sensor, while Olympus is struggling to produce more than 5 megapixels, Canon would make its full-frame sensors much cheaper. There would be no need for the 4/3 system.
We have a lot of small sized sensors out there, 5 megapixel sensors (Canon G2/G3 sized sensors) have been around for several years, and yet there is no increase in the megapixel count for 2 years. I think they've ran into unacceptable noise issues. The problem with imaging noise issues versus digital noise issues is that the front end of the sensor is analog and is most susceptible to noise. Once the noise gets sampled, there is really nothing you can do about it.
Then there is of course issues with optics with a small sensor -- meaning, less control over DOF versus 35mm format, and actual resolving power (diffraction issues), which could limit the pixel count sooner than 35 mm format.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
Cramming into smaller spaces require new manufacturing technology (which takes longer to get), yield issues can be solved with current technology, that's what I mean. Also, having more pixels in a tight space creates noise issues (thermal noise), much more important in imaging than in other semiconductors. |
new manufacturing technology comes along every 18 months or so (effectively Moore's Law)
Yield issues are harder to fix, and historically have been resolved by making the thing smaller (as defects are fundamentally area dependent)
Most yield improvements come from design changes to increase the tolerence to process variations (nothing to do with area yield defect issues) or reduction of process variations (improved control, again nothing to do with area yield defects)
Moving to a new process typically reduces the power (hence noise) and can allow you to implement the same number of features in the same area, with increased distance between the features, or higher feature density.
Its just harder to make a bigger piece of silicon than it is to make a smaller piece with good yield - things like the size of a dust particle don't change |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 05:17:22 PM · #10 |
That's the only thing i'd like to see on the 10D :) (the SuperSonic marketing named sensor)
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Innovative stuff on this one, particularly like the idea of the "shake the censor at startup to get rid of dust thingie". Large buffer, hope image quality is ok.
Imagine my surprise by the way, when the 602 did a 6mp Tiff exposure bracketing today. That's 3x17mb of data and it was buffered before it wrote to the Microdrive. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 05:55:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Journey:
It says it's the first 4/3 camera on the market. What exactly does 4/3 mean? I'm ignorant about that aspect but other than that seems like the Canon 10D is a much better deal. |
//www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 05:57:13 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by paganini:
We have a lot of small sized sensors out there, 5 megapixel sensors (Canon G2/G3 sized sensors) have been around for several years, and yet there is no increase in the megapixel count for 2 years. I think they've ran into unacceptable noise issues. The problem with imaging noise issues versus digital noise issues is that the front end of the sensor is analog and is most susceptible to noise. Once the noise gets sampled, there is really nothing you can do about it. |
There might also be the issue that there isn't really a consumer market for higher megapixel sensors. 3Mp is more than enough for an 8x10, most people hardly ever go beyond 4x6.
A lot of the effort seems to be going to towards shrinking the form factor and improving the shutter lag/ processing overheads or improving the picture quality, not increasing the resolution. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:05:29 PM · #13 |
8x10? You gotta be kidding me for 3 megapixel camera :) I'd think that 6 mp barely covers 8x10 (300 pixels per inch requirement).
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
We have a lot of small sized sensors out there, 5 megapixel sensors (Canon G2/G3 sized sensors) have been around for several years, and yet there is no increase in the megapixel count for 2 years. I think they've ran into unacceptable noise issues. The problem with imaging noise issues versus digital noise issues is that the front end of the sensor is analog and is most susceptible to noise. Once the noise gets sampled, there is really nothing you can do about it. |
There might also be the issue that there isn't really a consumer market for higher megapixel sensors. 3Mp is more than enough for an 8x10, most people hardly ever go beyond 4x6.
A lot of the effort seems to be going to towards shrinking the form factor and improving the shutter lag/ processing overheads or improving the picture quality, not increasing the resolution. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:13:21 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by paganini:
8x10? You gotta be kidding me for 3 megapixel camera :) I'd think that 6 mp barely covers 8x10 (300 pixels per inch requirement).
|
Have you ever actually tried ?
150 dpi is perfectly acceptable with a chemical printer (e.g., frontier mini-lab etc) or lightjet.
Remember - I said 'consumer market'. Actually for that market, 2Mp is more than adequate for 8x10s at 150dpi. 3Mp is certainly more than enough.
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 18:13:46. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:15:59 PM · #15 |
yes, and it's not that acceptable (to me at least....)
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
8x10? You gotta be kidding me for 3 megapixel camera :) I'd think that 6 mp barely covers 8x10 (300 pixels per inch requirement).
|
Have you ever actually tried ?
150 dpi is perfectly acceptable with a chemical printer (e.g., frontier mini-lab etc) or lightjet.
Remember - I said 'consumer market'. Actually for that market, 2Mp is more than adequate for 8x10s at 150dpi. 3Mp is certainly more than enough. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:16:52 PM · #16 |
We're getting off topic.. anyway, Gordon, let me ask you this:
if you haven't bought the D60 today, would you buy the Olympus E-1 or the Canon 10D or other cameras?
In other words, do you think the viability of the E-1 is going to last....
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:23:57 PM · #17 |
As a format it makes sense - there is nothing mystical about 35mm as a image size.
Certainly right now I'm lugging around a load of expensive glass which is over spec-ed for what I use (because of the more stringent requirements to resolve an image, compared to the bit I actually currently use with the D60) and lenses designed for that format would be lighter/ cheaper/ faster.
The goal of a full frame sensor only makes sense for legacy support. So I prefer the idea of a sensor and lens range designed to work together, rather than shoe-horning one to meet the other.
All that said, if they don't get a few other big players signed up and a good lens range, its dead in the water.
... and I'm also thinking of buying a 3Mp camera for every day shots (consumer type) and will no doubt be perfectly happy with the 8x10s I can get from that - if I even go beyond 4x6s. lightjets take either 200dpi or 300dpi input
Message edited by author 2003-06-24 18:25:56. |
|
|
|
06/24/2003 06:52:27 PM · #18 |
Not sure it'll be cheaper. The list price for the 28-105 mm equivalent 4/3 lens is $600. Not exactly cheap, considering it's not an ED (L equivalent)lens... Canon's 28-135 mm IS is cheaper, so are a slew of other decent consumer lenses. Also, the 300 mm (600 mm equivalent) lens is $8000, the Canon 600 mm F4 L lens is less than that. So i doubt it's cheaper.
To me the issues for the 4/3s are:
1. No major vendor support other than Kodak, and Kodak isn't known to make good lenses (see their cameras :))
2. Less DOF control with smaller sensor compared to full frame 35 mm.
3. Lens diffraction issue past certain resolution (35 mm reaches it later)
Another advantage for 35 mm -- if you want to shoot film, you can't use the lens from 4/3 to shoot with a film body.
I think the only audience for Olympus is for maybe upgrades form E-10/E-20 family or people without legacy lenses, though investing in the system and paying $2000 for it WITHOUT the reassurances that the system would still be here 5 years from now is very risky.
As far as your 3 megapixel camera goes -- buy a used D30?? :) Actually the Canon PRO IS (forget the exact model number, but it's like 2-3 megapixels and has a really nice lens)
Originally posted by Gordon:
As a format it makes sense - there is nothing mystical about 35mm as a image size.
Certainly right now I'm lugging around a load of expensive glass which is over spec-ed for what I use (because of the more stringent requirements to resolve an image, compared to the bit I actually currently use with the D60) and lenses designed for that format would be lighter/ cheaper/ faster.
The goal of a full frame sensor only makes sense for legacy support. So I prefer the idea of a sensor and lens range designed to work together, rather than shoe-horning one to meet the other.
All that said, if they don't get a few other big players signed up and a good lens range, its dead in the water.
... and I'm also thinking of buying a 3Mp camera for every day shots (consumer type) and will no doubt be perfectly happy with the 8x10s I can get from that - if I even go beyond 4x6s. lightjets take either 200dpi or 300dpi input |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 08:49:36 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by paganini:
As far as your 3 megapixel camera goes -- buy a used D30?? :) Actually the Canon PRO IS (forget the exact model number, but it's like 2-3 megapixels and has a really nice lens)
|
heh - I'm thinking Pentax Optio S
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 09:48:22 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
As far as your 3 megapixel camera goes -- buy a used D30?? :) Actually the Canon PRO IS (forget the exact model number, but it's like 2-3 megapixels and has a really nice lens)
|
heh - I'm thinking Pentax Optio S |
Don't you still have a G2 Gordon?
More on topic, I'm looking at the E-1 and thinking, this is a glorified version of my C5050. The advantages are the higher ISO, assuming the noise reduction is at least equal to my 5050. Also the 128M cache is cool. It looks like practically the same body as the 5050 with a bigger lens, or lenses. I'm stunned that Olympus would stay with a 5MP instead of expanding to try to beat Canon, Fuji and Nikon. Well I shouldn't be, judging by their 700 series. I really love my C5050 and am not remortgaging my house to get an E-1. If I'm going to spend that kind of cash, I'll have a Fuji S2. The size of the camera makes little difference to me. I can't believe that's the big to-do by the reviews. They will have to come down on the price though or they won't sell any.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2003 09:52:41 PM · #21 |
Yes I still have a G2 - though I might well sell it if I can get a decent offer.
I'm looking for something small - the G2 is certainly not that. The optio S is tiny and the quality seems pretty good - I want something I can take biking and fit in a saddle bag.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2003 12:04:56 AM · #22 |
Gordon, if you are looking for small check out the powershot s400.
Our German exchange student purchased one of these before she left. Wow, what an outstanding little camera! Exactly the same physical dimensions as a pack of cigs. And it's very much capable of being placed in your pocket or saddle bag for "around town" travel.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2003 03:40:50 AM · #23 |
Lest we forget, there's also a ditribution of light issue with using lenses developed for 35mm in digital photography: it isn't just as straight-forward as slapping a sensor into the bit where the film used to go. This is one of the other points in favour of 4/3.
Ed
|
|
|
|
06/25/2003 01:01:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by e301:
Lest we forget, there's also a ditribution of light issue with using lenses developed for 35mm in digital photography: it isn't just as straight-forward as slapping a sensor into the bit where the film used to go. This is one of the other points in favour of 4/3.
Ed |
I agree. Olympus appears to have produced one heck of a camera that should, in theory at least, be much better than the "stick a chip where the film used to go" DSLRs currently on the market. And if it's half as good as it sounds I'm sure a number of Pros will adopt it. But I also fear that the benifits of this new system, regardless of how good it looks and sounds on paper, may be too slight to make much of a difference for the market as a whole. It won't be too many years before full frame DSLRs become affordable, and I feel that is where consumer demand is driving the market. Too many people want digital, but they want to keep their old lenses.
Ok, so 4/3rds is a little smaller and a little lighter. (mcmurma waves a tiny flag) There is just not enough of a difference to turn me away from the 35mm DSLR. (And really, I'm a digicam guy... I don't want a DSLR!) The photos it creates will have to be pretty darn awesome to make me change my mind, and I don't think they are gonna be all that. Besides I'm still clinging to some Nikon glass, which I'd have to ditch in order to afford the new Oly.
The 35mm DSLR may not be the best marriage between old and new, but Canon and Nikon are making it work. (And so are Fuji and Sigma and Kodak, for that matter.) But DSLRs work well enough, it seems, and the new 4/3rds "standard" will probably fizzle a while before it pops. Which is a shame, because it is a great idea.
But what do I care. I'm a digicam dude. There is no denying the portability and ease of use that the digicam provides. And I won't go back to lugging 35mm gear again... I'm too old and too lazy. Give me a solid little digicam with a Foveon chip! That's what I want to see... Why hasn't someone done this yet?
|
|
|
|
06/25/2003 02:45:30 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Gordon, if you are looking for small check out the powershot s400.
Our German exchange student purchased one of these before she left. Wow, what an outstanding little camera! Exactly the same physical dimensions as a pack of cigs. And it's very much capable of being placed in your pocket or saddle bag for "around town" travel. |
Thanks - I quite like the look of the s400/ elph/ixus or whatever it gets called in various places, but the Optio S is a whole lot smaller. |
|
