Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Olympus dSLR (
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 118887] (

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


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:

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.



:? :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


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:

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.



:? :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%


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 ?



:? :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%.


kenbalbari Mar 9, 2007 1:39 PM


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:

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%.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:23 PM.