3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

[Paul]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

The sensor size issue is a red herring as the vertical dimension of a Four Thirds sensor is very close to the APS-C sensors in other DSLRs. The area ratio is magnified by the fact that the other sensors have a wider aspect ratio. But in any case, it's the photosite size that counts and the sizes of these on Four Thirds sensors are in the same ball bark as rival DSLR sensors of similar resolution.

Yes, you're right Ian.. but so we get equal 'noise' from both formats, the potosites should be the same size, right?

Whch would mean the 4/3rds camera will always be 1 or 2 MP behind that of a 3:2 sensor.. simply bcos the 3:2 camera has more pixels in the longer sides of that format.

So 4/3 will always have:
a, worse 'noise' given the same pixel count as 3:2
b, Fewer pixels but with the same noise.

Such is life!

The sensitivity of Four Thirds sensors is way ahead of any compact or bridge-type digital camera.

Yes, but that comparison also applies to the bigger formats to 4/3rds! What goes around comes around! LOL

That said, until the E-330 and the E-400, Four Thirds DSLRs did suffer from disproportionately noisy images. I believe this was because less noise reduction was applied and the image processing sub-system in earlier cameras was not as advanced as some of the rivals. The E-330 and, especially, the E-400, have gone some way to putting that right.
Ian

I disagree.. (a bit)... I think 4/3rds has a rep as being as 'noisy' as they used the same or more pixels than APS (3:2).

My humble opinion is Oly should accept this MP quantity disdvantage it has with APS (3:2) and just produce camera that always have the same pixel size as competition. [I'm all for image quality and I'd hoped the company that produced the 'only 5MP' E1, but with great IQ, would be of a similar POV.]

Instead, they appear to have taken the lack of sales from the E1 as caused by it's MP count and then set this as their main criteria in a camera. Ever since the E1 we've mainly had equal or bigger MP counts than the competition (the exception being E330).

Oly seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't 'educate' the punters to expect the same IQ but with less MP as that would tip them off to the inherrent disadvantage of 4/3rds.

Instead, they match MP counts with the 3:2 formats and that leads to smaller, noisier sensors. There's all pain with little gain in 4/3-land.

As I said earlier, they need to make this disadvatage into an advantage. The only area I can see them doing this is in a telephoto/sports/wildlife camera with excellent IQ, fast frame rates, a decent MP count and noise performace at the higher ISOs.

hereth endeth the sermon.

[Ian]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

The sensor size issue is a red herring as the vertical dimension of a Four Thirds sensor is very close to the APS-C sensors in other DSLRs. The area ratio is magnified by the fact that the other sensors have a wider aspect ratio. But in any case, it's the photosite size that counts and the sizes of these on Four Thirds sensors are in the same ball bark as rival DSLR sensors of similar resolution.

Yes, you're right Ian.. but so we get equal 'noise' from both formats, the potosites should be the same size, right?

Whch would mean the 4/3rds camera will always be 1 or 2 MP behind that of a 3:2 sensor.. simply bcos the 3:2 camera has more pixels in the longer sides of that format.

So 4/3 will always have:
a, worse 'noise' given the same pixel count as 3:2
b, Fewer pixels but with the same noise.

Such is life!

Hmmm, you can't rate noise precisely. Although it can be measured, its subjective effect is much less precise. Noise can be traded against resolution, too. There is also the manner in which the photosites are built - Kodak's sensor is supposed to have extra large photosites because of the full frame transfer feature (burying the electronic circuitry under the photosites to enable them to have larger areas to capture photons). CMOS sensors have relativel small photosites because the surface tracks surrounding them are so space-consuming. But that hasn't stopped Canon from delivering very noise-efficient CMOS sensors.

The sensitivity of Four Thirds sensors is way ahead of any compact or bridge-type digital camera.

Yes, but that comparison also applies to the bigger formats to 4/3rds! What goes around comes around! LOL

I think that relates to the bit above - so, I don't really agree

That said, until the E-330 and the E-400, Four Thirds DSLRs did suffer from disproportionately noisy images. I believe this was because less noise reduction was applied and the image processing sub-system in earlier cameras was not as advanced as some of the rivals. The E-330 and, especially, the E-400, have gone some way to putting that right.
Ian

I disagree.. (a bit)... I think 4/3rds has a rep as being as 'noisy' as they used the same or more pixels than APS (3:2).

Again, I think it's too simplistic to make the pixel density relate precisely to the noise characteristics. There are too many factors and pixel density is not = to photosite size.

My humble opinion is Oly should accept this MP quantity disdvantage it has with APS (3:2) and just produce camera that always have the same pixel size as competition. [I'm all for image quality and I'd hoped the company that produced the 'only 5MP' E1, but with great IQ, would be of a similar POV.]

Instead, they appear to have taken the lack of sales from the E1 as caused by it's MP count and then set this as their main criteria in a camera. Ever since the E1 we've mainly had equal or bigger MP counts than the competition (the exception being E330).

Oly seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't 'educate' the punters to expect the same IQ but with less MP as that would tip them off to the inherrent disadvantage of 4/3rds.

Instead, they match MP counts with the 3:2 formats and that leads to smaller, noisier sensors. There's all pain with little gain in 4/3-land.

As I said earlier, they need to make this disadvatage into an advantage. The only area I can see them doing this is in a telephoto/sports/wildlife camera with excellent IQ, fast frame rates, a decent MP count and noise performace at the higher ISOs.

hereth endeth the sermon.

I was not looking forward to trying the E-400 becuase, like you, I thought that an extra 2MP over the already noisy E-500 was going to result in even more noise, but the E-400 is perceptively less noisy than the E-500 in normal use. Olympus has improved the signal processing in the E-400 for a start. It's catching up where it wasn't so well developed.

Look at the pixel density of the Nikon D2X - it's really quite close to the E-400. The D2X does not have a reputation for poor noise, does it? What it does have is a very sophisticated image processing sub-system.

Many people think that the Four Thirds sensor dimension is too small, but I say, no it isn't and, at last, I feel I'm beginning to be proved right.

Ian

[yoshi]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

yeah, you pointed it out properly, I think. The steep growth of DSLR market
is made possible simply because more people enter into this market segment in the past year or two. Of course, it cannot be denied that some existing dSLR users just add some backup ones lately but it does not look like the most relevant reason, though. The success of Nikon D40 is a good evidence of it.

When new entrants support the growth of dSLR's , then it is quite natural that many of them are more price conscious. It's a very rational decision making factor. Choosing a completely new system means a long-lasting total investment so inevitably many people including myself become more price conscious.

Another aspect MUST BE that going with the big two is 'the safe bet'!

exactly. In a relatively small city where i live, it's not that easy to have a look of Oly dSLR's at electronics shops. I have almost no difficulties in having a look of new products from Canon or Nikon, though with a little bit time lag - say a month or two, compared to a large city. It's not necessarily easy to find Oly's dSLR, however. When i have a chance of going to a bigger city such as Tokyo, I try to go to a big camera shop or sometimes a maker's service center where I can touch and actually handle those cameras.
The ease of availability seems to be quite important for being a significant player in the market. Oly is far & far behind the Big 2 and also in the recent days behind Pentax. Sony is also well represented here. But no Oly, no Panasonic dSLRs, though lots of compact digicams for sure.

'Size of sensor' must come into it somewheres... probably it only influences 'those in the know photographically'?

Do you remember the never ending arguments during film days as to which film size was the best - large format such as 8x10, 4x5 inches, or medium format 6x 9/8/7/4.5 cm or 35mm cameras? In that argument framework, 35mm cameras had always disadavantages as far as the film size matters. Especially so, as during the film days, the sensor size more directly related to a sort of IQ. For example if you use a same film, you can always say MF is better than 35mm and LF is better than MF. I understand this argument framework also applies to digital equipment as well. So when this issue is talked about from this viewpoint, I find myself less interested in the argument framework. More important thing is how you want to use a camera for what kind of photos you want to take - and from that view points, what cameras best suit my needs? - that seems to be more relevant & useful discussion framework. By the same token if you find different needs in future, then it's also logical to review your gears as well.

In the landscape pictures, it was often said/recommended by some professionals until few decades ago that if you really want to take landscape pictures, then go to either LF or MF eventually.
In the real world, however, it was 35mm cameras that gained most popularity even in landscape photos.
Improvements of film quality, better body and lenses designs and much wider choice possiblity of bodies/lenses/all sorts of accessories as well as portability, all supported 35mm cameras. The film size was not the most relevant element - so it looks to me at least.

In a sense, it seems true that the larger the better BUT how important it is for my photo taking is completely another story, IMHO.
It's true when you say "sensor size" matters somewhere.
How and to which extent it matters - there seem to be many kinds of answers.
Hopefully you do not take me wrong. I have no intension at all to say, the smaller, the better as far as the sensor size is concerned. I just love more choice possibility.

What do you think Yoshi? Are you in Japan?

[/quote]

yes, I'm a Japanese and a hobby photographer living in Japan. I once had a long profile until DPNow was renewed half a year ago or so. Will try to make a new one, though I'm not that much excited about it.

yoshi

P.S. I'm afraid this posting becomes sooo long.

[Paul]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

Hi Yoshi,
I'd mostly agree what you said. When reading it, an old thought struck me. You mentioned not being able to actually 'try' an Oly in your small town. So there'll be many little reasons why someone would buy non-Oly rather than actually choose olympus. In fact, there's statictically more chance of soeone NOT buying an oly than buying one, right?

So here's a little company like Olympus. What strategy would you take?

If it were me, I'd offer unique, strong selling point cameras and I'd leave the mas 'box shifting' to those who want it. It'd be a more 'bespoke' line with fewer caneras sold in quantity. That would mean each would cost more in order to maintain a profit.

[i.e. a company could sell a mikkion 'x's and make 1p profit on each wich would get them a million pennys.

Or they could make a 100,000 'x's and hope for 10p profit on eac to get the same million... there's 2 ways to do it!]

I believe Oly has gone with the latter strategy... they KNOW they won't be one the shelves of small town cameras shops, there's comparitivly fewer owners who would 'recomend by word of mouth'... That would leave 'advertising' and would ential guys actually seaching for an Olympus bcos that model had exactly what he eeded.

In short, Olympus doesn't attract the casual buyer!

Seen like that, the unique selling point camera with the high price bodies make a level of sense. IMHO. :-)

Another thing that struck me was your tale of film formats.. tat bigger LF & MF was always acknowledged to be better but yet the film world still settled on the smallest format bcos of ease of use, practicality, etc.

While I think there could/should be paralells with 4/3rds and the bigger APS/35mm formats, I don't think that'll happen. I don't see enough 'daylight' between them so as someone would go smaller over the bigger formats. There's just not enough 'draw' in 4/3rds over APS, etc. All 3 are just too similar, imho.

I could be wrong... 'soccer mum' may get up one morning and find an excrutiating need to have images with sharp corners and no vignetting! ;-)

Take care!

[Hokuto]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

In the landscape pictures, it was often said/recommended by some professionals until few decades ago that if you really want to take landscape pictures, then go to either LF or MF eventually.
In the real world, however, it was 35mm cameras that gained most popularity even in landscape photos.

My favorite "camera quote" is the one by Brett Weston, "Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic."

Yes, size and weight are important factors, Yoshi, which is one reason I went with 4/3 as well (although the real size/weight benefits haven't been as forthcoming as I initially thought, at least not until the appearance of the E-400).

ところで、どこに住んでいるんですか？私は神奈川県の北端で東京まで通勤している。
よろしく。
北人

[Hokuto]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

May I just add that the estimate is made by Nikkei and not specifically mentioned by the CEO, Mr. Kikuchi,in the interview. So I take it as an important but not the final information.

Thanks, unfortunately, I don't get the Nikkei, so I didn't see the original interview, only the report on it that I linked to. But I did translate an interview with Watanabe Akira several months ago that pointed out the same general trends. I'm really hoping that PMA indeed is a pleasing experience for Oly fans, since I've got a good deal of Yen saved I'd like to spend on a new pro body--if the noise issue is decently improved.

When I think of the Four Thirds System, I often have to wonder why a theoretically superb sytem like this cannot be more widely accepted by the global markets.

I think much of it has to do with the superior marketing skills of Canon. Olympus seems content to be be a niche player right now, even though they've shown their intent to double their dSLR output next year. I agree that there's lots of hope yet for the 4/3 format. The NYT had an article just yesterday about Intel's recent advances in reducing noise (electron leakage) in silicon chips, and I would imagine (or hope) that has implications for sensor technology as well.

[Paul]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

Ian said: Kodak's sensor is supposed to have extra large photosites because of the full frame transfer feature (burying the electronic circuitry under the photosites to enable them to have larger areas to capture photons). CMOS sensors have relativel small photosites because the surface tracks surrounding them are so space-consuming. But that hasn't stopped Canon from delivering very noise-efficient CMOS sensors.

I don't know how to tackle you on this one... expet to pose a question. Do you think if all the other brands out there now in dSLR-land made a 4/3 camera, that these new cameras would have better high ISOs than the current Olys?

I may agree with you that the canons had 'better noise'.. but the rest? I don't think so..

You mentioned ''pixel density is not = to photosite size''. Well that's the big unknown isn't it as no sensor maker has ever published sizes of their wells or scale drawings thereof. We're left with the size of the 'pixels' in the CFA.

Bcos of that, we can't compare the CMOS to the NMOS accuately, all we have subjective human judgment. What is great NR for some guy is a plasticky canon-look to the other.

I just know a basic truism: The smaller the pixel, the worse IQ, DR, noise, etc, it'll have.

I was not looking forward to trying the E-400 becuase, like you, I thought that an extra 2MP over the already noisy E-500 was going to result in even more noise, but the E-400 is perceptively less noisy than the E-500 in normal use. Olympus has improved the signal processing in the E-400 for a start. It's catching up where it wasn't so well developed.
I just want them to use the NR improvments to keep the MPs at last years level and lets progress up the IQ tree with cameras that have, gasp, ISO 800 that isn't 'boosted' thru a menu entry!

When will they stop with the ISO100-400 (with 800 to 1600 thru boosting)?

Even now with the unreleased cameras, unless I miss my guess we're gonna see the high ISO's but that'll be with less MPs (I think they'll 'bin' pixels to get high ISOs like te new P&Ss they've released)

Look at the pixel density of the Nikon D2X - it's really quite close to the E-400. The D2X does not have a reputation for poor noise, does it? What it does have is a very sophisticated image processing sub-system.

I thought it did! LOL (which only proves my point further that small pixels are bad! ;-))

Many people think that the Four Thirds sensor dimension is too small, but I say, no it isn't and, at last, I feel I'm beginning to be proved right.
Jeez.. just what the world needs.. a demented camera reviewer! LOL

I think you can claim those plaudits and proudly wear that crown when the world has taken up 4/3rds camera and canikon are slashing their workforce and holding 'firesales' in current dSLRs! Until then, I'd keep any rightous 'feelings' in a safe place! :-)

Oh come on Ian, don't let the debut of the L1/D3 sway you! I admire a devout E1 owner like the next man but at best, that's wishful thinking taken to extreme!

Whatever they do to 4/3rds can alo be done to APS and 35mil!

No seriously, (I was joshing you there! :-))

Ok, so lets go 4 yrs hence to a world where they've made great leaps in NR. What will the world be like?

Yes, the 4/3rds system will be able to fulfill a 2 page magazine spread @ ISO3200 with the IQ of 100! But APS will be able to do the same at ISO6400 while 35mil is at ISO12800! The first two will have better IQ from the lens than the latter.

What else?

Yes, 4/3rds will be 'enough' but APS/35mil will be 'enougher'!

Anything else I missed? I'm sorry, I can't see any 'systematic advantage' 4/3rds has got over APS/35mil! I can see things Olympus has over the others brands... but not 4/3rds!

[a demented camera reviewer.. what an idea! ;-)]

[yoshi]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

So here's a little company like Olympus.

Hi Paul, nice to hear from you again.

Well, let me allow to say Oly is not a small company. It's true that the dSLR market share is much smaller than the Big 2 but Oly does is big enough to be
more aggressive in camera businesses. Actually Oly is a much much bigger company than Nikon when talking about the whole company size. I though it was twice as large as Nikon, tho necessary to check it.

In short, Olympus doesn't attract the casual buyer!

that's right. You already mentioned the conclusion so nothing more to add. Oly has failed to attract those buyers so camera/electronics shops do not want to exhibit Oly dSLRs. They want to use the shelf space for others. Quite simple, isn't it?
Many potential buyers are observing what steps Oly is going to take in order to make the Four Thirds viable again.

yoshi

[yoshi]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

Hi Hokuto san,
I learned Brett Weston is a son of Edward Weston who loved 8x10. I tried to understand his words but difficult. I think mountains much over 500 yards in a early morning is very nice/photogenic as a background. Maybe he wanted to imply something else.

As to your question I will send a e-mail to you later.
so you live in Japan but not Hokuto city in Yamanashi prefecture...
yoshi

[yoshi]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

Hi Hokuto san, again. I also go to dcwatch site very often but failed to read that article of Watanabe san. I'm sure I was away home for long period around this time of the year. After reading the japanese site I'm a bit disappointed that he seems to be satisfied that E-400 is about the same size as the OM series. There should be no such a satisfaction IMHO.
yoshi

[Ian]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

Hi Yoshi - do you think the E-400 is too small?

Here is a comparison:



Ian

[yoshi]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

Hi Ian, I have to admire how beatutiful OM4 is! - though my preference is OM4TiB, a later model - OM4 consumes battery quite a lot, don't you think?

well, about the size of E-400, it looks to me so so OK. But there are many voices here saying that since the Four Thirds system uses a smaller sensor, the cameras should be also smaller than APS-C counterparts. This voice is mainly among existing users of E series cameras. The 4/3rds system uses a smaller sensor than APS-C but the mount diameter is not that small at all to make the IQ better, so not that easy to make it even smaller, I guess.

Yeah, OM4 is very beautiful indeed.
yoshi

[Ian]

Re: 3 dSLR's from Oly this spring?

I think to have a built in flash makes the pentaprism bulge bigger than it could be. The modern style is for rounded features and for plenty to grip. At least on the grip, the E-400 is not following the trend.

A Four Thirds camera could be even smaller, I'm sure - but would it sell? Olympus might be 'testing the water' with the E-400

Ian

[Paul]

The news hardens with tentative confirmation...

Hi Yoshi/Ian
Some rumours have appeared on th DPR oly forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=21868708

and a 4/3rds forum:

http://www.4-3system.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=125&forum=7

Quote:
"Hi Olympians,

I was at an Olympus dealer event today and spoke an Olympus
representative who was at the internal briefing for the thing to come
this year. This is an excerpt from what to expect as far as he could
remember all that was said. He also reminded us that he had received an
E-400 training just a month before it's introduction and in that
training the E-400 was supposed to have live preview, so Olympus Japan
is know to change any possible detail up to the last minute.

3 new bodies:
E-410. I think this will be what the E-400 was supposed to be. Grossly
the same as the E-400 but with Live preview (don't know about A and/or
B)
E-510. Follow up of the E-500 Live preview and in-body image
stabilisation
E-x. Finally. Unknow if this will be at PMA to view or even handle.
Available from july/august. Faster AF, More AF points (maybe 12-14), 5-6
fps and larger buffer. Live preview with more robust screen. in-body
Image stabilisation. at least 10mpix. Different sensor than that of the
E-400 however. Nothing known about noise or body size. Would be nice if
the size stays the same. E-1 handling will be continued in this body.
>will allways have 3 types of DSLR's available:
S series for Small
G? series for enthousiasts
P series for professionals.

6 new lenses:
180?-500mm (f= xx-6.3)
12-60mm abouf f=3.5
14-35mm
3 other lenses, most likely zooms, not fixed focal lengths

New flashes with wireless possibilities

That's about all I can remember."

So theer's your 3 cameras (and as I thought) with their new naming convention:
E-410S, E-510G and E-1P.

I thought the porro cameras would go as soon as they could do LV with a prism... there was just no compelling need beyond LV and once that could be done a different, traditional way...

Although I didn't 'see' them doing this, I can now and it makes so much sense. 10MP bodies same as the competition... the unique selling point that is LV... in-body IS in them all, more & faster focus points, etc. We all knew we'd see those improvments if you'd thought about it.

I'd expect pixel binning to get high ISOs!

The wireless flash capability is interesting as well. The excisting FL50/ owners will be pixxed! LOL Expect a glut of FL50's to be on Ebay! LOL! [I wonder if you could enable wireless via firmware update? They'd probably need the hardware pre-installed, riht? What chance of Oly being that foresightful?]

The most interesting, and I don't know why I didn't see this either, is the 180-500/Fx-6.3 zoom! I wonder if this will be a 'mid' grade lens to take over from where the 50-200 leaves off? I know it's no f2.8-3.5 lens but you couldn't lift a 180-500/2.8-3.5 lens and add to eight, public transport costs from selling your car to get it.

So 11-22, 14-54, 50-200 and 180-500! 22-1000mm! Yep, don't know why I didn't consider Oly taking the mid range onwards as well as competing with the bigmas of the standard.

Yes, that lens has me excited as I'd probably get one of them before the bigma/135-400, et al.

That 510G, will it be 'sealed & dustproof' to go with the mid tier of lenses? Pentax made a plastic body that was sealed! I'd prefer metal but...

I'd need the E-1p for my 'sports' but that's gonna 'cost' so I expect it'll be the 510 for me. I'd accept that though if it had more than 3FPS and a way of controlling the focus points speedily. [I'm sorry for the repetition on that but the way I see it, the VFer and the focus & shutter button is HOW you control the camera. The VFer and s/button speak for themselves! Controlling the focus point controls 'the image' and if you can't control 'auto point choice', you get the image what the camera gives you!]

But, hopefully, good news for 4/3rds! It sounds like the E-1P ison the right lines!