| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2008 03:18:40 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 04:31:32 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:49:32 AM · #3 |
| Shortly to go the same way as HD-DVD. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:53:45 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Shortly to go the same way as HD-DVD. |
... and Betamax. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 07:53:23 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Shortly to go the same way as HD-DVD. |
Don't think so. Mirrorless slr's will be the new thing really soon. This may be the catalyst that will start that movement with other camera manufacturers. Coming soon to a camera store near you.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 08:47:02 AM · #6 |
| Could be the thing to bump up the resolution of EVF's to near optical. Something like that would be great for taking bike riding. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 09:04:43 AM · #7 |
if canon makes a mirrorless slr that can still fit canon lenses (adapter for current lenses, new thin lenses being made)... i'll buy one, no doubt about it
think of a 1" wide body, 0.5" long lens with the same quality and funtions as a 40D with 50/1.4
sign me up |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 09:17:14 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Simms:
Shortly to go the same way as HD-DVD. |
... and Betamax. |
I still love my FD lenses. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 12:15:18 PM · #9 |
This looks interesting, it is a point and shoot SLR hybrid and includes the best and worst of both.
This will not replace SLRs, nor point and shoots, however it will fill in a gap for those who value a compact size yet which to not become tied down to a built in lens.
Speaking of that, my G2's first problem was the lens wearing out, if it was easily replaceable... wait, lenses shouldn't wear out........ anyway, then it might have been more usable in its later years.
I think the biggest two disadvantages to this new design will be sensor noise, and sensor dust.
Obviously since the lenses swap out, dust is going to get inside there and set up a shop, maybe invite some friends, a few dust bunnies for a good time, and before you know it you have a 3am block party which you were not invited to.
As for the noise since it doesn't use a mirror it means it will continuously sample the image from the sensor.
As sensors are used they get warmer, even hot. The warmer a sensor gets the more noise it produces. SLRs have an advantage of keeping the sensor off or in low-power mode until the time of the shot and then quickly powering down again. This is part of the reason for increased noise in long exposures, since the sensor is warm by the end of the shot. Some medium format digital cameras use heat-sinks or Peltier devices to cool the sensor.
So the noise will probably be between SLR and point and shoot.
EVF viewfinders have enough pros to counter their cons so that is a moot point I think...
If Nikon comes out with one, or Panasonic/Olympus with a Nikon adapter I might think about adding one to my wish list. I'm still looking for a robust ultra compact.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 01:03:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by togtog:
This looks interesting, it is a point and shoot SLR hybrid and includes the best and worst of both.
This will not replace SLRs, nor point and shoots, however it will fill in a gap for those who value a compact size yet which to not become tied down to a built in lens.
Speaking of that, my G2's first problem was the lens wearing out, if it was easily replaceable... wait, lenses shouldn't wear out........ anyway, then it might have been more usable in its later years.
I think the biggest two disadvantages to this new design will be sensor noise, and sensor dust.
Obviously since the lenses swap out, dust is going to get inside there and set up a shop, maybe invite some friends, a few dust bunnies for a good time, and before you know it you have a 3am block party which you were not invited to............. |
Unlike my dustbag Rebel and Pentax K100d.... My E-300 never showed dust. You might ask any Olympus owner about dust. If Olympus would continue their leadership in dust removal the new mini version may undoubtedly take that account. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 01:23:57 PM · #11 |
With that flange to sensor distance it looks like it could truly be a universal mount camera, and could mount via adapter just about any lens ever made for 35mm. I know I shot more with my Nikon glass when I had my E300/500/E1 than I did with Olympus glass. It would be great to have as a secondary body, that is if the ELF or preview screen is up to the task.
FYI the Olympus dust removable system is much more sophisticated than Nikon's. My old E300 I would never hesitate to use on a dust pumping bellows, but the first time I mounted my D60 on a bellows I had to physically clean the sensor.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 13:24:36. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 01:26:27 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Unlike my dustbag Rebel and Pentax K100d.... My E-300 never showed dust. You might ask any Olympus owner about dust. If Olympus would continue their leadership in dust removal the new mini version may undoubtedly take that account. |
I will give Olympus their credit, their dust removal system was pretty good. I rarely had to clean my E-1 or E300 sensor. And I used it in conditions most people would want to kill me if I changed lens on their camera there.
However the drawback to the Olympus systems are the 2x crop factor and their crazy prices on 4/3 lenses to get to the wide side or their long telephotos. Noise was a bit of a factor but near as bad as P&S cameras. I could shoot ISO 1600 with either of them and they were fine for most uses. But large prints would suffer. One of the main reasons I dont shoot Olympus gear anymore is I needed(wanted) a 300 F2.8 and at the time it was north of $6000 for the lens.
Matt
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 01:39:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Simms:
Shortly to go the same way as HD-DVD. |
... and Betamax. |
What???? What happened to Betamax??? Gotta get outta the basement more often.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 06:14:32 PM · #14 |
| Looks like logical continuation to Sony R1, with its APC sensor, fixed 24-120 equivalent lens and live view. Although Sony killed it off in favour of the more traditional design bought from Minolta, the crowds who graduate from LCD-framed P&S cameras will not easily be taken to peeking down the VF, electronic or not. That's the logic behind the market. As a result, everybody is falling over for live view these days and its only a matter of time before all will have their mirrorless cameras out, inviting the crowds to 'upgrade' their glass yet again again. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 06:21:17 PM · #15 |
I don't like the EVF idea...one of the big things for me when I was deciding between P&S and DSLR was the optical viewfinder...
If it's actually that size relative to a hand though...wow. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 07:21:06 PM · #16 |
| Interesting idea, but I like the size and feel of a full size dSLR. With the smaller body where do they put all your setting and shooting options..."In Menus"...and that would DRIVE ME NUTS. I like all my options at my finger tips thx. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 08:04:52 PM · #17 |
| I think it's an awesome idea for those who are on the fence about going DSLR--they could even buy full-size lenses in preparation to making the final leap. As long as it's cheaper, that is... |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 09:51:04 PM · #18 |
| Seeing as it is intended to have a cropped or full-frame sensor, which is the most expensive part of a DSLR I would assume the price for one will be on par with an entry level DSLR, probably $500 with a basic kit lens. Yeah, if they can make this Nikon friendly I will definitely need to get one, hehe...... provided the compact size is not ruined by the size of the lens. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 11:50:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Unlike my dustbag Rebel and Pentax K100d.... My E-300 never showed dust. You might ask any Olympus owner about dust. If Olympus would continue their leadership in dust removal the new mini version may undoubtedly take that account. |
I will give Olympus their credit, their dust removal system was pretty good. I rarely had to clean my E-1 or E300 sensor. And I used it in conditions most people would want to kill me if I changed lens on their camera there.
However the drawback to the Olympus systems are the 2x crop factor and their crazy prices on 4/3 lenses to get to the wide side or their long telephotos. Noise was a bit of a factor but near as bad as P&S cameras. I could shoot ISO 1600 with either of them and they were fine for most uses. But large prints would suffer. One of the main reasons I dont shoot Olympus gear anymore is I needed(wanted) a 300 F2.8 and at the time it was north of $6000 for the lens.
Matt |
Maybe for you the 2x crop factor (its not really a crop factor at all, btw, 4/3rds is full frame) was a drawback, but to many, especially sports photographers, I would think it would be a boon. Did you eventually find your 300mm f2.8? At what price, if I may ask? The only one I could find on the B&H web site was $4,000 in a Canon mount, not exactly chump change either.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 23:52:12. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 12:12:19 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Unlike my dustbag Rebel and Pentax K100d.... My E-300 never showed dust. You might ask any Olympus owner about dust. If Olympus would continue their leadership in dust removal the new mini version may undoubtedly take that account. |
I will give Olympus their credit, their dust removal system was pretty good. I rarely had to clean my E-1 or E300 sensor. And I used it in conditions most people would want to kill me if I changed lens on their camera there.
However the drawback to the Olympus systems are the 2x crop factor and their crazy prices on 4/3 lenses to get to the wide side or their long telephotos. Noise was a bit of a factor but near as bad as P&S cameras. I could shoot ISO 1600 with either of them and they were fine for most uses. But large prints would suffer. One of the main reasons I dont shoot Olympus gear anymore is I needed(wanted) a 300 F2.8 and at the time it was north of $6000 for the lens.
Matt |
Maybe for you the 2x crop factor (its not really a crop factor at all, btw, 4/3rds is full frame) was a drawback, but to many, especially sports photographers, I would think it would be a boon. Did you eventually find your 300mm f2.8? At what price, if I may ask? The only one I could find on the B&H web site was $4,000 in a Canon mount, not exactly chump change either. |
4/3 is certainly not full frame. otherwise it wouldnt be a 2x crop factor right? with my lens I had with Oly the 14-54 was a 28-108 35mm equiv, the 7-14 was 14-28 equiv, the 50-200 was 100-400, I could go on but you get the idea. To me thats a crop factor. 2X crop factor isnt a boon for sports shooters, there is a difference between crop reach and real reach. And yes I did find my 300F2.8 and for $2900 I have a non IS version of the lens in my bag. Not chump change, but half the Oly price and considered one of the sharpest lens ever made. The camera and the lens are a tool used to make images, which in turn make money. SO the money you spend on the front end needs to be justifiable with what comes in on the back end. So spending twice as much just doesnt make sense.
Matt
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 12:40:45 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Unlike my dustbag Rebel and Pentax K100d.... My E-300 never showed dust. You might ask any Olympus owner about dust. If Olympus would continue their leadership in dust removal the new mini version may undoubtedly take that account. |
I will give Olympus their credit, their dust removal system was pretty good. I rarely had to clean my E-1 or E300 sensor. And I used it in conditions most people would want to kill me if I changed lens on their camera there.
However the drawback to the Olympus systems are the 2x crop factor and their crazy prices on 4/3 lenses to get to the wide side or their long telephotos. Noise was a bit of a factor but near as bad as P&S cameras. I could shoot ISO 1600 with either of them and they were fine for most uses. But large prints would suffer. One of the main reasons I dont shoot Olympus gear anymore is I needed(wanted) a 300 F2.8 and at the time it was north of $6000 for the lens.
Matt |
Maybe for you the 2x crop factor (its not really a crop factor at all, btw, 4/3rds is full frame) was a drawback, but to many, especially sports photographers, I would think it would be a boon. Did you eventually find your 300mm f2.8? At what price, if I may ask? The only one I could find on the B&H web site was $4,000 in a Canon mount, not exactly chump change either. |
4/3 is certainly not full frame. otherwise it wouldnt be a 2x crop factor right? with my lens I had with Oly the 14-54 was a 28-108 35mm equiv, the 7-14 was 14-28 equiv, the 50-200 was 100-400, I could go on but you get the idea. To me thats a crop factor. 2X crop factor isnt a boon for sports shooters, there is a difference between crop reach and real reach. And yes I did find my 300F2.8 and for $2900 I have a non IS version of the lens in my bag. Not chump change, but half the Oly price and considered one of the sharpest lens ever made. The camera and the lens are a tool used to make images, which in turn make money. SO the money you spend on the front end needs to be justifiable with what comes in on the back end. So spending twice as much just doesnt make sense.
Matt |
This may be splitting hairs, but what you're calling a crop factor, I'd prefer calling a focal length multiplier to get the 35mm equivalent. 4/3rds is full frame in that it uses the entire lens image circle, there is no cropping like in APS format. Not exactly sure of the point you're making between "crop reach and real reach." There is no image degradation from the 2x factor, it not a digital zoom.
I'm sure the $6,000 oly lens is money well spent for those that need superior image quality and a lens that is weather sealed (probably very important for pro sports and wildlife shooters). If you are referring to the Sigma 300mm I'm sure it's a great lens for your needs, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that it doesn't have the build or optics quality of the Oly. (Sigma is known for its quality control issues too). What I'm saying is that you get what you pay for. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:30:36 AM · #22 |
A mirrorless "SLR" does sound like a good thing... if they can get the bugs out of it. It was only a few years ago conventional wisdom was that live view was not possible on a SLR... now everyone makes one. The noise issue is still a problem - but cooling, heatsinks or better technology may fix that yet.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 03:44:40 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Unlike my dustbag Rebel and Pentax K100d.... My E-300 never showed dust. You might ask any Olympus owner about dust. If Olympus would continue their leadership in dust removal the new mini version may undoubtedly take that account. |
I have had am Olympus E-500 and now the E-400 and I have never had problems with dust. They are the market leader there. Only problem with the camera is the selection of 4/3 lenses you can get. This is nowhere near the range that Nikon/Canon owners have. The situation is getting better as they win more market share. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 08:58:42 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This may be splitting hairs, but what you're calling a crop factor, I'd prefer calling a focal length multiplier to get the 35mm equivalent. 4/3rds is full frame in that it uses the entire lens image circle, there is no cropping like in APS format. Not exactly sure of the point you're making between "crop reach and real reach." There is no image degradation from the 2x factor, it not a digital zoom.
I'm sure the $6,000 oly lens is money well spent for those that need superior image quality and a lens that is weather sealed (probably very important for pro sports and wildlife shooters). If you are referring to the Sigma 300mm I'm sure it's a great lens for your needs, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that it doesn't have the build or optics quality of the Oly. (Sigma is known for its quality control issues too). What I'm saying is that you get what you pay for. |
The 300MM lens that I own is the Canon 300MM F2.8 Non IS version. I've had Sigma lens in the past, including the 120-300 F2.8 lens that this canon replaced. And since I am a professional sports photographer, quality is important to me.
Most people wouldnt dare put their gear in these conditions  but as a pro I have to. As far as build quality, I can assure you I have shot with Olympus, starting with Olympus OM film cameras, all the way up to the E-1 and I've even played with an E-3. Its good stuff, but certainly doesnt meet my needs.
Matt
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 12:47:30 PM · #25 |
"No optical viewfinder; if anything, there will be an EVF"
If anything?! I guess the first model will be called "The Hail Mary"... :P
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:08:21 PM EDT.
