Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 118887] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/%5Brecovered-thread-118887%5D-116088/)

HarjTT Mar 5, 2007 9:02 AM

With the two new cams and the E1 replacment it looks as if OLy have dropped Kodak for their sensors or could it be that Kodak and Pana designed the new Live MOS sensors together ? Personally, I don;t mind but it would be seriously cool if Kodak and Pana had got together for these sensors and that some of the tech Kodak has developed for the 1.3x M8 sensor was used for the new Oly cameras.

Cheers

HarjTT

:O :?



Rriley Mar 5, 2007 10:20 AM

well it must be for some reason
lower noise ?
theres a new image processing engine too

Riley

Norm in Fujino Mar 5, 2007 10:40 AM

My guess is it's mostly due to the needs of liveview. The Kodak CCDs produce too much heat. And liveview is going to be on all E-system cameras from now, so it presents a certain dilemma. The E-330 seems to have been a kind of a test case to see if the Pany nMOS sensor would pass the test for color and noise.



fldspringer Mar 5, 2007 10:35 PM

CCDs don't do live view.

I am not ordering a replacement for my E500 yet. Thereare still things I'd like to know. I'd love to hear something about sensor noise vs the Kodak sensor and the only thing in the releases deals with limiting noise and retaining highlights via the new image processor. How's noise on RAW? I'm concerned due to higher pixel density usually is in proportion to noise.

I love the color and image quality of the Kodak and I'm hoping those qualities are retained. Time will tell.

One of the things I did like is file size of RAW image is actually smaller thanthe 8 mp E500.

I may upgrade, but I won't be the first kid on the block. I'll make the new system prove itself first, and street prices fall about when that happens. Maybe a year from now....Maybe.

All in all Oly anounced a bunch. They answered a bunch of wishes with the new releases. One of the biggest things in my estimation is the E510 MAY actually have a pentaprism setup vs the E500 pentamirror. That would be NICE! Maybe I can't wait a year:-)

Greg

Greg Chappell Mar 5, 2007 11:31 PM

Time has already told. The E330 passed the test with flying colors. That's why these new models don't have a Kodak sensor.

All I can say is "good bye Kodak".

They won't be missed. The Panasonic sensor is JUST as good color-wise, and better, noise wise. Here are some tests I've been doing with my new E330. It betters both my E300 and E1 at any setting above ISO 400 you want to pick. If the E410 and E510 are improvements, and you know they will be, this is just one more field where Kodakcan just stay gone as far as I am concerned...

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/2479722#130098856

The E510 is a penta-mirror, andI've already pre-ordered at Arlington Camera. The next time my E300 sees the light of day will be on eBay.



Rriley Mar 5, 2007 11:43 PM

1 Attachment(s)
on noise
see how close L1 is to some others

Riley

fldspringer Mar 6, 2007 12:10 AM

The L1, the Leica, and the E330 all usethe panasonic 7.5 MP sensor while the new Olympus' use a 10+ MP panasonic. Noise typically increases as pixel count increases unless there is new technology in the manufacturing that helps to lessen it. I'll accept the same amount of noise, but I'd rather have 8 MP if the 10 MP is dirtier at ISO 400 and up.

Sure I'll accept a couple of extra MP if there is no noise penalty, but I don't get the megapixel race. Must be a while lot of folks printing poster size stuff.

fldspringer Mar 6, 2007 7:43 AM

Sorry about the pentaprism info. Got it from the DPReview preliminary specs and it is WRONG!

Great source of info at:

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/new...70305e510e.cfm

kenbalbari Mar 6, 2007 5:04 PM

Quote:

I'll accept the same amount of noise, but I'd rather have 8 MP if the 10 MP is dirtier at ISO 400 and up.
I agree on that. And I'm not entirely convinced yet on the Panasonic delivering low enough noise at 10MP. We'll see. But Olympus seems to be putting a strong emphasis on that, and they do usually seem to deliver as promised.

Quote:

In the development of this camera, particular emphasis was placed on boosting performance and further reducing image noise
Quote:

As one of the world's most compact D-SLRs. The E-410 boasts two very convincing arguments. Matched with a high-performance image sensor and a fast new image engine featuring outstanding noise characteristics, ambitious photographers can look forward to superior picture quality and excellent handling that exceeds their expectations – while retaining amazing mobility.
So their two big marketing points on this seem to be low noise and compact size. If there weren't some improvement on noise, I expect they'd have chosen to emphasize something else.

Still, It's no big achievment that the E-330 from last year was an improvement over the Kodack sensors from models intoduced in 2003 and 2004. The recent 10 MP Kodack sensor in the E-400 , however, looked to me like it was producing better overall results than the E-330, with similar noise levels despite more pixels. Still even that was about stop worse in noise than the Canon 400D. But they really only need to match that performance to have a winner in my opinion, with in body IS and the other advantages of Olympus. I normally expect there to still be some trade offs with the smaller sensor.

One thing I liked about the E-400 though was the low key approach to noise reduction. And while I can only guess at how the sensor will perform on the new models, what looks really good in the specs for the new models is the level of control they seem to be offering over the in camera noise reduction:
  • Noise filter (Off, low, standard, high) - amount of noise reduction applied to images[/*]
  • Noise reduction (on/off) - for long exposures only; increases shot-to-shot speeds[/*]
The D80 does have a similar level of control, but the E-330 and D40 only allowed an on/off for the noise filter, and I believe the XTi only has the option for long exposures.


kenbalbari Mar 6, 2007 5:12 PM

RRiley:
When you're right you're right. I hadn't really looked that closely at the L1 before. But that sample is right there in this E-400 review:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ol...0/page4c.shtml

Clearly even slightly beating the 400D in that shot. Though obviously doing so with less MP. I should have signed in so I could have seen your image before writing my previous post!



Rriley Mar 6, 2007 5:42 PM

If they have brought noise to a little better than L1 they are knocking on the door of APS C, which is a good rate of travel from where we began. An effective iso1600 is pretty much going to make us very happy.

Both E-410, and particularly E-510 seem to be very well received. Even the usual trolls at a certain other forum seem to have backed off in recognition of an amount of success. Most popular feature appears to be IS.

Odd that many moons ago, it was taken as a given that in lens IS was more effective albeit more expensive than in body IS. But perhaps in 4/3 with smaller sensor size that issue is shifted with the ability to better effect the system on a smaller sensor. Now it seems to be unsaid but recognised, that the greatest advantage is all the old lenses can be used with the new IS. I have noticed some individuals elsewhere taking a long hmmm at the advantages.

So if we just got to iso1600, what else is there to conquer ?
I'm a pretty happy chappy

Riley

HarjTT Mar 6, 2007 6:03 PM

The IS debate - from what I've read IS in the lens was better than in body, esp with long telephoto/zoom lenses. I think its a trade-off that companies have to decide upon and also patents, etc. Oly must know that a lot of owners have spent some big $$$ on buying into the system and if they then decided upon an in lens solution (similar to Pana's Mega OIS) they would have a lot of unhappy people on their hands. The other thing is Oly had developed their own IS and putting it into the body means their on a win-win situation.

here's a pretty good explanation over the two types of technology:

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/c...ization2.shtml

Sensorwise - Pana has produced a very good senor and I bet that with the last year or so they have been working on improving its DR and noise characteristics. However, Kodak has done a pretty special job lately with their sensor tech - Leica's M8 and even Oly's E400 are case in point, esp the M8 sensor. I'm hoping that Kodak/Pana worked on the new senors together - that way we would get the best of both worlds.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O



Greg Chappell Mar 6, 2007 7:34 PM

The only part of the in-camera stabilization I don't like is, when IS isin the lens you can see the effects in the viewfinder. With the sensor shift, the optical viewfinder will still be moving around pretty good at 283mm (50-200 with the 1.4TC at 200mm) even for someone with steady hands. Strictly an emotional thing I know. Then I think about how I'm not paying anywhere from $250 to $500 per lens to get it and I can learn to live with in-camera stabilization, especially since it'll work whether you're using a 50-200, 7-14 or $40 manual focus lens with an adapter.

Rriley Mar 6, 2007 10:52 PM

if someone said to you that for $100 I can make all your lenses
and your future lenses IS, would you go for it ?
even if it was somewhere behind in lens IS
perhaps not working for manual focus lenses
(no focal length info)

i lke the combined effort approach from consortium members
theres a much more healthy lens list now than some time ago

http://www.4-3system.com/modules/lenses/

Riley



HarjTT Mar 8, 2007 6:45 PM

Here's a comparison of the M8 50mm f1.4 and a D200 50mm f1.4 (orginially posted on the Leica form: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...tml#post194906)

http://www.alexandertufte.com/D200VSM8web/

I think both are straight of the cam and with default LR settings to the RAW file. The kodak sensor combined with the Leica glass is just in another league. I'm sure you could sharpen up the D200 image but the Leica pic is just tack sharp and shows a lot of small details that the Nikon missed. Hopefully, the new LiveMOS sensors have similar traits.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O




Rriley Mar 8, 2007 7:23 PM

hi Harj
M8 really is another world. MF is more its competition
even 5D doesnt really cut it for resolution, but does have smother high iso
D200 or any of the xti / 350D probably 30D would just be blown away by it
theres a certain edgy ~ ness to the files that show superior resolution
Nikon use a lot of sharpening in their files to begin with
its an almost imperceptable quality, yet visible, that M8 holds
some of it is surely the lack of AA filter
the risk is getting moire in an image, said to be less than 5%


Riley



HarjTT Mar 8, 2007 8:06 PM

Hi Rob

I think lack of AA and potential moire are more than worth it when you get images that I've seen from the M8 to date. I wonder if any of the other camera manufacturers will ever try the same thing ?

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O



kenbalbari Mar 8, 2007 11:56 PM

I think Leica pretty much had to eliminate the AA and IR filters due to a space issue with the narrow distance from the back of the lens to the film plane (maybe that's a simplification-the off center microleses also might have something to do with it).

But they did have alot of problems from the absence of the IR filter, you pretty much need to use one on the front of the lens instead.

On the other hand, with the smaller pixel pitch on the recent models, about 4.5 microns on the E-410/E-510, Olympus really should at least need less of an AA filter. Maybe they could even correct some aliasing and moire with in camera processing nowdays. I'm not sure they should eliminate the filters yet though, maybe just lessen it some.



Rriley Mar 9, 2007 12:58 AM

Althought the register of M lenses is the shortest of any, space wasnt the issue
the problem is that the lenses are quite wide in aspect to the register so light becomes more divergent, less telecentric. Digital film doesnt handle divergent light anything like 35mm film does. This will cause a vignetting (dark corners) or fall off.

To increase the sensibility (speed) of the sensor, the pixels have to have microlenses to collect more light. Again, if the light rays will fall on the film in a non-rectangular way, less or no light will fall on the pixels at the corners of the image.

Microlenses over each photosite to compensate for the fact that all image producing rays do not come in parallel to each other, but there are angular limits on this form of compensation.

Another feature of the short register is that reflections off the surface of the sensor are more prominant. So light may well travel through the IRcut filter bounce off the sensor and reflect back off the IRcut surface. This creates considerable shifts in edge contrast of an image, greatly affecting sharpness. This it seems is also true to the AA filter.

The filter combination will also break entry light rays up like a prismatic effect which also disipates sharpness. This limitation meant the coverglass could not be thicker than 0.5mm, which isnt enough to hold off IR effects. Hence an IRcut is caried externally infront of the lens. You dont require this if you shoot B&W though. The AA is simply not included.

What has become clear since M8, is that strong AA filters subtract from sharpness. The E-300 is known to have strong AA filtering, I dont see any sign that this has changed. In the cross section photograph of the E-510 elsewhere the AA filter is clearly visible and appears to be around 4mm thick.

Compare this with the 0.5 of the M8. So simply removing the AA filter will almost guarantee that infinity focus would be lost, so conventionaly if you removed the AA you would replace it with the same thickness of optical glass, such as that found in quality filters. I suspect this would make the arrangement a lot sharper, but would introduce moire in some circumstances. Measurably this is beleived to be less that 5%.

Riley

kenbalbari Mar 9, 2007 1:39 PM

Riley:

I'm not sure I understand why removing the AA filter would affect infinity focus. Couldn't you remove/reduce it and leave the sensor in the same place?

Also check out this cutaway comparison:
http://fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=11073

The AA filter is in what looks like a chunk of blue green glass right in front of the sensor, right? It looks like it's at least 10% smaller in the E-510. These images aren't at the same scale, but looking at the full sized image, when I measure the size of parts that shouldn't have changed, like the smart lens chip, or the tripod socket, I get the E-510 image as about 92% of the E-400. That chunck of glass in front of the sensor seems to be about 80% smaller. So maybe they reduced it a bit.

I also think 5% would be way too high a rate for moire/aliasing in these cameras. There'd be too many complaints. It would be less for people shooting things like landscapes, but more for anyone shooting portraits, or anything with detailed fabrics. I would think they would want to aim for something like 0.5%.


kenbalbari Mar 9, 2007 1:55 PM

This one has alot of interesting details on the new cameras, and future plans:

http://fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=11068

Quote:

How different is the auto focus system?
It is very advanced. From my own experiences, It is able to track very nicely, unlike my E-1. Still 3 points. But the focus lock indicator has been moved to the screen. Which is a HUGE!!!!! improvement in my opinion.

What is the HIGH ISO like?
Ok, Oly had no comment except its better. however, images leaked to me, which I will not post, and I must say that the jpeg's are wonderful. I only saw up to ISO 1250, but that looks a little better than ISO 800 off my E-1.
They claim because of the new technology, that the noise out of the 10 MP camera, is 1 stop cleaner than out of the 5 MP E-1. (In addition there is a higher Dynamic Range)
With the in camera noise reduction the jpeg's are better than 1 stop improvement in noise in my opinion. I would say that the biggest disapointment with high noise images in the E-400 was the blacks. These blacks look great at 1250, as well as the other colors in the images.
Quote:

What about primes?
I asked this question, and was told, they have spent there time developing a full 3 tier zoom range. Now that is complete, and they will bring out many primes. I ask about a pancake lens, and he said yes they are working on it. I asked about when, and suggested 08, and they seemed to said probably.
Quote:

Olympus has 3 classifications of lenses, consumer, mid range and pro, what about bodies?
They see this as Pro bodies are single digit(E-9), consumer as 3 digit (E-600), and at some point they will release a mid level body 2 digit (E-30)
(the E-9, 600, and 30 do not refer to any real camera, they are just examples)
When will we see a mid level body? Who knows.

What about live view?
the new cameras, have live view A & B all in 1. The mirror picks up and all the auto focus comes from the sensor. you can also zoom in and manually focus just like on the E-330. It is both modes in 1. (And btw, it works great!! I really liked the setup)

Rriley Mar 9, 2007 2:05 PM

ok Ken, item by item
you take something away from a focusing machine and the focus shifts
you can be more certain of this fi you look for those sites that remove IR filtering
they replace whatever they take out with quality glass, to prevent focus shift

if you look at the photo of E-410/510 in the PMA news thread, the AA filter is that banded/laminated blue green glass infront of the sensor. A very rough calculation comparing the lens register, and the filter size 58mm, I determined it to be around 4mm. It does look a tiny bit thinner on 410, but its a long ways from zero.

5% is is just the number of images affected by moire, its not like its the whole image, but it is a number i picked up at LUF from the learned fellows there. NOT to say that the number is right. It is a phenomena we are not in control of, depends on what you shoot. I guess could be fixed with a soften brush, which is pretty well what AA does.

Riley



Rriley Mar 9, 2007 2:15 PM

on the blog ~
its clear they are talking about E-410/510
the AF stuff FWIW is 3 point for those
the E-P1 is still 12-14 , having not heard anything to the contrary

which also means
Greg listen up
the noise has improved 1 stop
that pretty well parallels the L1 experience i think
with the new image engine, maybe a tad better
in Gregs hands, certainly iso1600 useable

the SWD AF using Canon type motors is good news
4/3 having less focal range will AF faster given that
that puts SWD in #1 spot for AF speed

Riley



Newsphotog80 Mar 9, 2007 3:09 PM

Hay guys,
First I need to apologies for my stupid remarks Sunday. I just flew back on a Trans Atlantic flight and just had two beers when I saw the premature release of the photos and press reports on the Evolt E510 and Evolt E410.
I am not drinking today so I am a little saner.
HarjTT, Riley:
The latest photos of the E1-P may be what will be released as the Flag Ship Pro Camera. The word I am hearing right now is that it will most likely be called the E2.
Olympus has officially stated that there will be a fourth DSLR, a Semi Pro Camera at around December Time and the word on that camera is that it mite be called the E30.
The naming monikers on Olympus DSRL's will most likely be E-XXX for Amateur and Advanced Amateur DSLR's. E-XX for DSLR's for Pro and Semi Pro Cameras. And E-X for the Pro and Flag Ship Cameras.
Everything I have said have been from very reliable sources.
Take care
Tom


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:34 PM.