New Esystem SLRbs

[gjames52]

<I HATE lots of buttons, menus etc. There is no reason you can't build a digital OM-1, OM-4, etc, keeping it smaller, fewer controls, and especially bigger, better viewfinder.>

I could not agree more! I read the manual on one of the E's in addition to the buttons, the menus seem to be endless.


<the next item on the wish-list is a full-frame 6x6 MF sensor to fit my Hasselblad...>

Nice wish, the new Hasselblad 39 MB back is priced $30K and $38K for a 36.7 x 40.0 mm sensor.

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[weedram]

Neil: If you could post images from the OM lenses (as large as possible) on a web site somewhere it would be appreciated.

As for the Canon zoom with "some corner softness", that wouldn't be acceptable to me, especially if I had other choices and/or primes. (I'm not a zoom guy.) Here's the reason: Lenses are my "money"; with film cameras, the "sensor" was upgraded for cheap. When a new, better film came out, my sensor was upgraded. With digital, you cannot upgrade just the sensor. They want you to upgrade the whole freakin' camera, and of course the interface, all the things you learned before, will change.

A camera is just a box to which a lens (as good a lens as I can afford) is attached; that is the premise of photographic imaging for me. Digital has a new paradigm, and I'm not enamored of it.

 

[zuikoholic]

"Nice wish, the new Hasselblad 39 MB back is priced $30K and $38K for a 36.7 x 40.0 mm sensor."

Yes, of course - at present they are more ridiculous than sublime, but like the 35mm FF sensor before it, I am a true believer with loads of patience!

Besides, there is a 16Mp FF Hasselblad sensor already made - the company went out of business, but maybe I can find a cheap 2nd hand unit. I mean, who wants a miniscule 16Mp these days?? (I'd be happy enough with it...)

 

[zuikoholic]

"Neil: If you could post images from the OM lenses (as large as possible) on a web site somewhere it would be appreciated."

I'll put a few up in the next few days and let you know the URL. Be aware though that I do not apply any in-camera sharpening, preferring to do it as the last step in post-production. As a result, the large images from the camera may appear quite soft to those expecting "super quality" as it were.

Also, I cannot comment on print quality as I'm still in the market for a printer. I will get one sooner or later, but other expenses are of higher priority just now.

I bought my zoom for 2 reasons only: first, it did not produce much light fall-off, even at 16mm and wide open; and second, because the DOF is so large, I've been finding it difficult to focus accurately (even though DOF is so large, you can still easily see when the focus was off when looking at the jpeg!) - the zoom gives AF which is spot-on (no forward or backward focus effects with my lens). The image quality actually goes down at the tele-end which is a surprise to me, but as the wide-end is more useful to me I don't mind so much (although the lens was not cheap - I would have been happier had it not had such problems).

 

[weedram]

Neil: Thanks so much. Applying sharpening in post processing as opposed to in camera is the "correct" process, from what I understand.

Better image quality at wide? Wow! I tend to wide angle more than tele myself. I used to consider 35mm as normal for film, now I tend use 28mm as normal on the OMs... except for the 42mm on the Olympus 35-SPs. Those are magic cameras!

 

[zuikoholic]

Earl, back when I shot film on my OM-1 etc, I got 'hooked' on the 21mm (such a beautiful lens) and from then on found it difficult to use my 28mm, which was my first ever wide-angle lens. I also became found of fisheye shots. Well, on an APS crop sensor camera, the fisheyes are hobbled and the 21mm is like a 32mm - very depressing, it was!

For my ex&les, I'll stick to the wide-angles as the telephotos exhibit no problems whatsoever. IMO, those who claim that the old lenses cannot do as well as the new lenses are mistaken - but I'm no expert: maybe I'm just plain wrong, but you can judge for yourself later, when I post them.

 

[weedram]

Neil: I agree regarding the 21mm. I have the 21/f2 and it is one sweet lens. I have heard that it doesn't perform too well on the E-1, but I have never seen ex&les posted. So I will be very interested in seeing your s&les from the Canon.

 

[iberger]

> I suspect the loyalty problem was a factor in Olympus's making the 4/3 system an open one and getting others to sign off on it from the get-go. But I think many of us would be more confident if others actually started making bodies (I seem to recall hearing of a third-party lens or two, but don't know if any are for sale yet.) There is a reason for having more buttons and menu entries on a digital: more variables you can control. You can now change ISO mid-roll and change white balance without juggling filters. You can now also select image quality. And modern cameras, even film ones, offer a lot of options not available in the OM days. (On the other hand, the one auto feature I wish my OMs had was automatic ISO sensing, as I used to juggle several films and sometimes forgot to reset the meter.)

The ideal digicam would have all controls you're likely to use immediately accessible as knobs or buttons, and the ones you use less often accessible by menus; they would also have the menu commands you use most up near the tops of the menus. Alas, the controls you'd pick are probably not the ones I would, and a third photographer would pick a different set. So camera designers can make basic choices readily (For a small point and shoot, bury the confusing stuff in menus; for a serious cam, put more stuff on the outside) but have trouble with the detailed choices of which controls belong where. What I love about my digicam (a Minolta A1) is that I almost never have to dig into a menu and that everything can be done manually, including focus and zoom. But that results in a camera with about a dozen external controls, which others find intimidating. The E- cameras seem less daunting.

And I know what you mean about fast primes: my all-time favorite lenses are the 24mm/2 Zuiko and the 35mm/1.5 Canon I used to use on my prewar Leica. (Lost the lens in England, dammit!) It should be easier to make such lenses for the smaller 4/3 format -- for one thing, it would take only about a quarter as much glass (or is that an eighth as much?)



>

 

[zuikoholic]

Earl, I've put up 2 photos at http://www.pbase.com/lightsculpter/lens_tests - Ignore the first two items there, the photos I'm talking about are the 3rd and 4th images of the chair and bin. These are "straight from the camera" full-size images with no in-camera sharpening or "improvements" added by me - so they seem to be a bit blurry.

The first of the photos was taken using the Zuiko 18mm f/3.5, the second with the Zuiko 21mm f/2 (both lenses were wide-open for the test as this gives the worst light fall-off: if the corner darkening doesn't bother you on these photos then you've no problems as it only gets less as you stop down. Also, I took the filters off the lenses for this so there's no extra contribution from them.

Even from these 2 images, one can see that the 18mm has the better resolving power wide open, in general* agreement with at least on on-line test I've seen - perhaps this is not surprising as f/2 is a very bright aperture compared to f/3.5!

* Not sure on the f-stop they used.

 

[weedram]

Neil: Thanks for posting those. I think the performance is interesting. As super-wides, I don't really expect these lenses to be a perfect fit for a full-frame digital sensor. The edge performance really isn't acceptable for me straight out of the camera. BUT there is good sharpness and correcting for the vignetting in post-processing might deal with the fall off.

Early on I was quite interested in the E-1 partly because I have the 21/2. On the E-1 it would be a 42/2, which I consider a perfect "normal" lens for me. It would match up with the 42/1.7 on my SPs. When some on the OM list OR elsewhere said it didn't perform well, I was disappointed, but I never saw an ex&les. The Olympus OM Four Thirds Adapter instructions say the 21/2 performs best at f2.8 - 8.

Your tests show me that there is real potential for the 21/2. So when it comes time for me to consider a DSLR (not now, I just bought a 32" LCD televsion!), I will simply have to test with my s&le of the 21/2.

Thanks again for doing this, Neil.