Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 13, 2009, 8:19 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:

I'm rather disappointed to hear you say that the E-3 would not havegiven as good a result as the E-620. Quite honestly, when the new E-620 starts shipping, i'm hoping that there will be a market correction on pricing for the E-3 as that is the body that I would most like to upgrade to.
Zig, you should be pleased then with Watanabe's comments. I chuckle reading at other forums how this means Oly is "admitting defeat". I really wish every manufacturer would take this stance with anything smaller than full size sensors where more MP makes a lot of sense. Sadly though, too many people have been brainwashed by marketing and have convinced themselves that MP is the end-all-be-all of photography. I think this is a great stance for Oly to take and such a wonderfully novel concept: Image quality is more important than image size.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10...orsPicksArea.0
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 8:46 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Hi John,

Actually, I am happy that a camera manufacturer has finally released a company philosophy that's based on some sense of reality. In this case, it just happens to be the head of Olympus.

I remember buying my first5MP digicam, the Olympus C-5060WZ and marveling at how great the image quality was at that time. Granted, it couldn't do a lot of things such as shoot sports or action pics. But the IQ was there. And what it did do, it did quite well. All with 5 MP.

Digital technology hasobviously come along a long way in the last 5 years and we all benefit from it. I'm hoping the Watanabe's statement isn't just hype and that Olympus continues to improve it's sensor technology as well as concentrate on IQ.

Zig

And yes, Full Frame cameras along with medium format cameras i.e. Phase One 645 are two examples where continuing to develop sensors with greater MP count more makes sense.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 10:21 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
And yes, Full Frame cameras along with medium format cameras i.e. Phase One 645 are two examples where continuing to develop sensors with greater MP count more makes sense.
Not to deraill this from the E-620...but I expect that, one day, my digital photography kit will mirror my old film photography kit.

I had several 35mm SLRs (mostly Nikon F3) and A Bronica ETR for medium format work.

I'm very happy with my E-system equipment as a highly portable, high quality system that I can caryy to car shows and various events where I can wander around for several hours at a time without 10 pounds of gear around my neck. I hope to EVENTUALLY add medium format (which, in the digital world, would be LARGE format) equipment.

For me, full-frame DSLRs don't really have a place. Just yesterday, I was looking at some Canons and Nikons and thinking, "Geez, these are even bigger than I thought". The ability to fit my old 35mm legacy lenses (I probably have a dozen) doesn't appeal to me. I like the modern glass and modern technology. I don't really need to spend a few thousand bucks on a full frame DSLR so that I can manually focus a lens I bought in 1981... all WITHOUT any kind of image stabilization. For my style of photography, full frame DSLRs are interim cameras: too big to be comfortably portable, not big enough to offer the stunning studio quality of medium format. When medium format digitals become affordable, I don't want my money tied up in a half-way system that's a bigger than 4/3's but much smaller than medium format.

Back to the 620...the temptation is killing me. I'll try to resist. My general rule about purchases is : ONE Olympus component per year. But in the last year, I bought a 510 with kit lens, FL-36R and 70-300mm (in addition to the E-500 and 4 lenses I already owned). I got a DSLR so that I wouldn't have to buy a new camera every year...figured I could buy one body for three or four years and just invest in lenses. If I buy a 620, that will be one body per year for three years in a row !
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 11:51 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Brent Gair wrote:
Quote:
The ability to fit my old 35mm legacy lenses (I probably have a dozen) doesn't appeal to me. I like the modern glass and modern technology. I don't really need to spend a few thousand bucks on a full frame DSLR so that I can manually focus a lens I bought in 1981... all WITHOUT any kind of image stabilization.
Brent,

Oly is really the only manufacturer that has abandoned designing lenses for full size sensor. Canon, Sony, Nikon, all continue to design lenses for full size sensors (not sure about Pentax). So, people in those systems aren't limited to circa 1981, manual focus, no IS lenses. Plenty of new lenses designed with newer technology. Now, the one lens area in those systems that is still old is the primes. But every one of Canon and Nikon's full frame lenses autofocus on today's cameras. And a couple of the shorter primes have been upgraded but more are needed. I think most wedding and portrait photographers will still stay full frame vs. medium format just as it was back in film days. And for those that want in-body IS, Sony's A900 has it. The IQ from the camera at high ISOs is unfortunate so that is something they will have to improve upon but it's their first generation full frame.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 2:05 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
. So, people in those systems aren't limited to circa 1981, manual focus, no IS lenses. Plenty of new lenses designed with newer technology.

Ah, yes, I know that.

Obviously, those systems aren't limited to old glass. I didn't think I had to say that.

My point is, I'm not interested in fitting legacy lenses to any newer camera because I prefer the characteristics of the newer glass. Therefore, the ability to mount my old glass is not a selling point for me.

When I'm out photographing airplanes, I'm not interested in putting my old, unstabilized 200mm Nikkor onto an unstabilized Nikon DSLR. By the same token, I don't need the expense of one of ther big stabilized telephotos.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 2:10 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Brent,

Sorry - guess I misunderstood your other post. I read it as if you were suggesting full frame DSLR had no place in the market. But it seems like you're saying it has no place in your specific upgrade path. Sorry 'bout that.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 2:36 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Brent Gair wrote:
Quote:
For me, full-frame DSLRs don't really have a place.
All things being equal they ought tohave a place, for those of us who shoot in low light, action sports, or (worse) both simultaneously. The reason being that FF sensors will always have better high-ISO performance than smaller sensors. This would allow those of us shooting in the above situations to have better depth of field at a given shutter speed.

The problem is that the high-end FF camera systems still have slower lenses than the best ones sold by Oly or Panaleica. So the 4/3 format camera systems are way more attractivein terms of weight, size, and price and that's why I use an Oly system. But in a perfect world, those of us shooting in the above situations ought to be better off with a FF camera/lens system.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 2:47 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Ted,

That's why the Nikon D700 has become such a popular sports camera. Extremely good ISO 6400 performance, great bokeh. Not many situations where you can't use f2.8 at 6400 for action photography. I've seen less work with the D3. Nikon did a nice job of keeping the FPS up AND bringing some of the attributes of a pro focusing system down as well. Hats off to them. They've vaulted ahead of Canon in sports shooting IMO. The focus performance should not go un-looked at - doesn't matter how clean the images are if they're not in focus. The Canon 1dmkIII I use is great but the D700 has better ISO performance and a lower price point. THe D3 has better ISO performance and better focus performance.

But for the semi-pro sports shooter the D700 is THE camera on the market right now.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 8:56 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
I'll admit that it would be hard to find a tougher test than those night shots, and the camera did fine. It did better than my E-3 would do. The E-3 would have pattern noise (banding) with those shots at anything much over ISO1000.

Greg
I'm rather disappointed to hear you say that the E-3 would not havegiven as good a result as the E-620. Quite honestly, when the new E-620 starts shipping, i'm hoping that there will be a market correction on pricing for the E-3 as that is the body that I would most like to upgrade to. The larger OPV is something that I think is worth upgrading to. As is the weatherproof feature. As for the E-30, even though it has a similar sized OPV, I don't think it realistic to think the price on that body will come down anytime soon.

Well, I'm off to babysit the grandkids today for the weekend. On Monday we fly to Florida for 2 weeks. So, I'll try to post some boring photos when I get back.:-)

Zig

The banding on the E-3 is situational. Below ISO 1000, it seems to do just fine. Noise, but still random, not in a pattern.

When the ISO climbs above ISO 1000, it becomes important not to under expose. Dark areas is where the problem will show. If you use flash to keep areas from becomming too dark, you can get away with fairly high ISOs without banding.

The Las Vegas pics would have driven the E-3 nuts. You would not be able to get rid of a dark background, and the bright lights would have triggered the banding. That is just a situation where high ISO's wouldn't have been the way I would have shot that. I'd have shot at a lower ISO (800 or below) and used a tripod.

The E-3 is a great camera. I cannot really see myself upgrading for the next E-x because I'm that pleased with the current generation. Banding is a bug-a-boo, but I don't shoot much in that situation. From what I've seen, the E30/E620 handle that better. I'm not convinced that overall they beat the E-3, though.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 8:57 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
I'll admit that it would be hard to find a tougher test than those night shots, and the camera did fine. It did better than my E-3 would do. The E-3 would have pattern noise (banding) with those shots at anything much over ISO1000.

Greg
I'm rather disappointed to hear you say that the E-3 would not havegiven as good a result as the E-620. Quite honestly, when the new E-620 starts shipping, i'm hoping that there will be a market correction on pricing for the E-3 as that is the body that I would most like to upgrade to. The larger OPV is something that I think is worth upgrading to. As is the weatherproof feature. As for the E-30, even though it has a similar sized OPV, I don't think it realistic to think the price on that body will come down anytime soon.

Well, I'm off to babysit the grandkids today for the weekend. On Monday we fly to Florida for 2 weeks. So, I'll try to post some boring photos when I get back.:-)

Zig

The banding on the E-3 is situational. Below ISO 1000, it seems to do just fine. Noise, but still random, not in a pattern.

When the ISO climbs above ISO 1000, it becomes important not to under expose. Dark areas is where the problem will show. If you use flash to keep areas from becomming too dark, you can get away with fairly high ISOs without banding.

The Las Vegas pics would have driven the E-3 nuts. You would not be able to get rid of a dark background, and the bright lights would have triggered the banding. That is just a situation where high ISO's wouldn't have been the way I would have shot that. I'd have shot at a lower ISO (800 or below) and used a tripod.

The E-3 is a great camera. I cannot really see myself upgrading for the next E-x because I'm that pleased with the current generation. Banding is a bug-a-boo, but I don't shoot much in that situation. From what I've seen, the E30/E620 handle that better. I'm not convinced that overall they beat the E-3, though.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:31 PM.