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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 19, 2010, 10:48 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default More from Terada on Oly 4/3 development

http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/03/l...t_planning.php

Note that when he was asked if the E3 body is the right size, he said ""Yes I do feel it's the right size after consulting with many professional photographers. A much smaller DSLR body, like an E-420, is not as comfortable to use with large lenses."

Personally I would add, "and if you have large hands". I also suspect that what's unsaid here is that for a pro tog trying to get an Oly accepted by customers in the world of FF Nikons and Canons, from an appearance standpoint a smaller body is the very last thing they need.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 11:14 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

I could very well see Olympus dropping smaller bodied-DSLR's in the not-too-distant future and sticking with the E30's and E3's for the mirrored system and putting everyone else in micro four-thirds bodies.

The tricky part of that is the lens system. I just don't see lenses like a 14-35 f2 or 35-100 f2 ever making it to a line like micro four-thirds where so many of the end-users are cost conscious, but there does need to be something better than the lens designs Olympus has started with unless they just want to cater to the point & shoot step-up crowd who would never want to pay above $300-$400 for any one lens. That may be where most of the money is anyway at this level.

Many people who have dumped DSLR's to buy into the micro four-thirds system probably had no business buying a DSLR in the first place, but had nowhere else to go to get better image quality at the time. Like-wise, you are now starting to see a few who made the move now talking about, or already have dumped the micro four-thirds system and gone back to the DSLR because of the high prices of the lenses and lack of many choices.

There's still alot of waffling going on, and the longer it takes to see what the final version of micro four thirds is going to look, the more it's going to put the more advanced users off and cost Olympus and Panasonic customers when the inevitable happens of Canon and Nikon introducing mirrorless camera systems with the bigger aps-c sensors, and probably a much more extensive lineup of lenses overnight compared to the speed at which Olympus moves..
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 12:05 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
... I also suspect that what's unsaid here is that for a pro tog trying to get an Oly accepted by customers in the world of FF Nikons and Canons, from an appearance standpoint a smaller body is the very last thing they need.
Hum, why would they have to be accepted based on the looks of their photographic equipment? The quality of the equipment is what matters, not the size, shape, form or color. I don't have time for some of those Nikonian/Canonians who think you're no good unless you have a Nikon or a Canon 10lb camera hanging around your neck. They should get a life, IMO.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 12:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
This may be true but in terms of accuracy, I much prefer contrast detect. No back/front focusing issues!!! My EP1 and G1 hardly ever miss focus and when they do, I can tell (and fix it) before shooting (thanks to the mirror-less technology).
As long as you're shooting subjects where you've got the time to do all that, it's a great system. Many of my favorite subjects don't give you the time to put up with contrast detection. When you need fast focusing and framing together, none of that matters and I wind up with more shots in focus than not.

The images are not always perfect in terms of composition because the subject was shot while in an often irregular motion, but being able to shoot rapid single shots or a single burst of a moving subject and not having the finder delay and/or blackout out on you, completely losing all framing, allows a much greater chance of getting the peak of action over a series of images vs. praying one shot using contrast detection does it because a second, third or fourth shot is impossible because the subject was not standing still for you.

Back and front focus "issues" probably have as much to do with the user as the system in most reported cases. I've not experienced it yet using my current Olympus or past Canon systems. I know there have been known problems with certain bodies and lenses, but it is far from being a common issue everyone has to worry about.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Mar 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 12:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Hum, why would they have to be accepted based on the looks of their photographic equipment? The quality of the equipment is what matters, not the size, shape, form or color. I don't have time for some of those Nikonian/Canonians who think you're no good unless you have a Nikon or a Canon 10lb camera hanging around your neck. They should get a life, IMO.
I'm not talking about the photographers, I'm talking about their customers - advertising agencies, magazines, etc. That group has a real bias towards CaNikon. Enough so that some Oly pro togs are thinking about editing their EXIFs to replace the camera brand.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 6:46 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/03/l...t_planning.php

Note that when he was asked if the E3 body is the right size, he said ""Yes I do feel it's the right size after consulting with many professional photographers. A much smaller DSLR body, like an E-420, is not as comfortable to use with large lenses."

Personally I would add, "and if you have large hands". I also suspect that what's unsaid here is that for a pro tog trying to get an Oly accepted by customers in the world of FF Nikons and Canons, from an appearance standpoint a smaller body is the very last thing they need.

Ted
Half of my pinky finger hang off the bottom of the E-3. It would be better it it stood half an inch higher and that would be for all the lenses I use.

I could also see that something like the E620 would be handy with smaller lenses.

I like the thought of micro-fourthirds also, but the only lenses I feel drawn to are made by Panasonic in the form of their f1.7 prime and their 7-14 f4. I'm a bit confused as to why Olympus is not developing brighter lenses as that would be a strength. If there is no great glass, their hard earned market share is up for grabs for anyone willing to make a decent series of lenses.

I'm still happy with the E-3. I hope they do continue developing the SLR style camera. I have some longer and heavier glass that would suck with a tiny camera. I can't say I'm going to run out and but the E-5 if it came out tomorrow. There is still plenty of life left in the old E-3 and it still does everything it has ever done.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 8:01 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
Half of my pinky finger hang off the bottom of the E-3. It would be better it it stood half an inch higher and that would be for all the lenses I use.

I could also see that something like the E620 would be handy with smaller lenses.

Greg
I guess this is a pet peeve of mine, more on DPR than here. DPR has folks that whine that the Oly pro camera should be smaller, and others that state that it should be the size it is now. They all miss the point that this is a simple issue of biological ergonomics - if you have large hands (like me) you need a large camera body. When I used my E500 I always found my fingers pressing buttons that I didn't mean to press, because the camera was too small.

Frankly, if I was going to carry a flag it would be for female pro togs, who probably need a weather-sealed body like the E3 but really do need a smaller body for the size of their hands. Oddly that issue never comes up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
I could also see that something like the E620 would be handy with smaller lenses.

I like the thought of micro-fourthirds also, but the only lenses I feel drawn to are made by Panasonic in the form of their f1.7 prime and their 7-14 f4. I'm a bit confused as to why Olympus is not developing brighter lenses as that would be a strength. If there is no great glass, their hard earned market share is up for grabs for anyone willing to make a decent series of lenses.

I'm still happy with the E-3. I hope they do continue developing the SLR style camera. I have some longer and heavier glass that would suck with a tiny camera. I can't say I'm going to run out and but the E-5 if it came out tomorrow. There is still plenty of life left in the old E-3 and it still does everything it has ever done.
Greg
I just don't see myself being happy with an EVIL camera, no matter how small and regardless of how well Panny develops new lenses. I really do appreciate why other folks here like them, but I am influenced by the fact that I have the Panny DMC-L1 which is to me the perfect carry-around camera, even if it doesn't fit in a pocket.

I hear you that the E3 works really well. I could see myself getting the replacement if it does a lot better in high-ISO because that's primarily where I shoot my E3, but it would have to be a huge improvement to get me to open my wallet.

Ted.
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 9:08 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
I just don't see myself being happy with an EVIL camera, no matter how small and regardless of how well Panny develops new lenses. I really do appreciate why other folks here like them, but I am influenced by the fact that I have the Panny DMC-L1 which is to me the perfect carry-around camera, even if it doesn't fit in a pocket.
I don't have the desire to shoot the Leica M only because I wouldn't feel the function would be worth the expense. I do, however, like the thought of a "poor man's rangefinder" with very small, bright primes much as the Leica uses. If I were to invest in such a system, no lenses would be longer than 100mm and most would be brighter than f2.8. A small kit with 3-5 primes in a tiny case used for more deliberate shooting style sounds like something I'd be interested in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
I hear you that the E3 works really well. I could see myself getting the replacement if it does a lot better in high-ISO because that's primarily where I shoot my E3, but it would have to be a huge improvement to get me to open my wallet.

Ted.
High ISO is always welcome, but I'd love a better autofocus for action.

Its just a difference it how we use our cameras.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2010, 9:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Going mirrroless wasn't the biggie amd Greg I agree with you on eth lower end going MFT. What really caused the uproar in that interview at IR was how little they really seemed to know about the FT range, and the complete open ended nature of the statement that Oly US made regarding a new FT camera this year. Now a lot of us find our E3's/E30s fine for what we do but for a pro/semi pro photographer .. the E3's limitations after nearly 2.5 years are going to show and they are now going to be a show stopper for some - AF and high ISO are clearly the big ones here. Now this second interview does help to clear up a lot of the mess that the first one created but it would have been even better if they had made a commitment to the E3's replacement for this year. My personal opinion is that Oly can't continue to be on a 3 year cycle with the EX model and they need to realise that as Canon's 50D/7D/Nikons 300 are not or they will loose whatever "pro" photographers that continue to use the system.

Ted, I'm with you on the E3 size, although they could reduce it just a wee bit all over - say 2mm so that it would then be the same size as the E1. The E3 definietly balances better with the 35-100f2 than the E1, so thats a plus although the ergonomics on the e1 - that in your hand feel is just that wee bit better.

Cheers

Harj

HarjTT 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 12:30 PM.