New Esystem SLRbs

ditto1958

Well-Known Member
I saw a good-news/bad-news press release today.

The bad: Olympus is losing money and is cutting production costs, including many jobs due to poor sales.

The good(?): the release also seems to refer to sales projections based on the release of two new digital slr's. Anyone know anything about this?
 

zuikoholic

Active Member
I'm sorry to hear about Olympus losing money, but I think we've had enough of being offered what the camera companies say we want, and would instead prefer to have on offer what we *do* want!! I don't know about the rest of you, but what *I* want is a full-frame sensor dSLR (as a bonus, it would also fit my OM lenses via an adapter). At present, Canon is my only hope, and when I can afford it I will buy the 1Ds mk II (or its equivalent at that time). I appreciate the idea Olympus had to make a dedicated system where everything is designed for each other, but I am fond of the 35mm format - including the DOF it gives (a smaller sensor makes obtaining shallow DOF that much harder). Canon are moving ahead not because they are better but because they are giving consumers what they want.

I love my old OM lenses, and use them on my 10D via an adapter. I don't say that an ideal camera *must* fit the OM lenses, but I can justify the expense more if it does (I know the E-1 has an OM-adapter, and I think that this is a spark of brilliance from Olympus; we don't need to use Om gear 100%, but having a choice is good). Now, let's see a 35mm full-frame body with an option to fit OM lenses as well as dedicated 'digital' lenses if they like, and then I'm interested!!
 

daan

Member
> > I am sorry, but that is not going to happen. Olympus has has invested in the current format and the next bodies will never have full frame 35 mm sensors. For that matter, even Canon is going the APS way. That is mostly because lenses that are fully optimised for the digital sensor would be huge compared to the current full frame lenses. And current (top) Canon L lenses are already quite large.

I am a big fan of OM lenses but I have no regret for going the E-system way. The Digital Zuiko lenses are great, compact and the pictures you get with the E-1 and its lenses are just wonderfull.

D.
 

ditto1958

Well-Known Member
You're right. They're not going to change their format any time soon. They've got too much invested in the 4/3 system. Smaller sensors do make sense. I imagine technology will find a way to fit more pixels in a smaller space. Lenses optimized for a full frame sensor would have to be ridiculously large. Rumor has it that Kodak has a new sensor for the next generation of E-system cameras.
 

gjames52

Well-Known Member
next generation of E-system cameras>

The way I understood the press release was that they would produce another E body.

BTW some of the articles I have read indicate that they like the E system.

I looked at the Olympus website and I think that they offer far too many different models, of each business segment, especially compact cameras and voice recorders.

If Carl Zeiss can bring back Zeiss Ikon and a film rangfinder camera. Perhaps, there would be some money for Olympus to produce an OM5 and OM6 and sell them to all of us with Zuiko glass.

Best Regards:

Gilbert
 

zuikoholic

Active Member
> Smaller sensors do > make sense.

In what way? We get larger DOF this way... unless they will supply us with f/0.5 lenses?? (I doubt it!!)

> I imagine technology will find a way to > fit more pixels in > a smaller space.

This is already possible, but the noise problem goes up with smaller pixels, making higher ISOs almost unusable.

> Lenses optimized for a full frame > sensor would have > to be ridiculously large.

Are you sure about this? Perhaps for wide angle, but for telephoto the light already hits the sensor perpendicularly, more or less, so they need no further design changes as far as I'm aware.
 

zuikoholic

Active Member
> Perhaps, there would be some money for Olympus to > produce an OM5 and > OM6 and sell them to all of us with Zuiko glass.

That would be nice!! But I read somewhere that they destroyed all the OM manufacturing equipment, so to go back now would be way too expensive!!
 

avantgear

Member
> >

Posted by Mark M. Ditter (Ditto1958) on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:20 pm:

>>Lenses optimized for a full frame sensor would have >>to be ridiculously large. > What is "ridiculously large"? The Contax N lenses (for the N1 and N Digital) were designed explicitly for full frame sensors (as used in the N Digital). The zooms often have a larger than normal front element (like the outstanding 24-85) but the lenses are not ridiculously large. The fixed focal length N lenses, such as the 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 100/2.8 Macro are a little bigger than their equivalents in the earlier Contax lens line (C/Y) because of the autofocus motors, not because of the optical design. Compared to the Olympus OM manual focus lenses they maybe large, but so it just about every autofocus lens. It's a shame Contax/Kyocera tripped up with the N Digital and threw in the towel because the lenses were simply magnificent and the body had great potential and the typically great Contax ergonomic interface and handling. If the lenses need to be a little bigger to perform like these Contax N lenses do and cover a full frame sensor, I'm all for it.
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
As a non technical person I would have thought that it stands to reason that it must be better to have a larger sensor for holding more pixels/photosites than a smaller one, hence "medium format" digital cameras apparently give better results. A larger sensor can hold more and larger pixels without them being so j&acked together as to create noise.
This is one aspect that makes me query the 4/3rd system principle in that it is a small sensor and I wonder how far it can be developed. Although tecnology does seem to improve to solve problems as they arise, more or less by trial (on the buying public) and error it often seems
John
 

biofos

Active Member
>The 4/3 system is a balance between affordability all round. The 4/3 ccd is relatively cheap to make compared with full frame and I read somewhere its current size can be developed to hold up to 16M Photosites (?) before the laws of physics kick in. Of course noise reduction techniques will have to be employed. Mind you that's with CCD as opposed to CMOS. As the cost of either type of sensors come down so will the choice available to the camera makers. And a lot depends on how many 'point and press' digicams the makers can sell as there is a lot of cross subsidisation going on. As far as the lenses go again it is compromise between sensor size and lens resolving power. No lens maker needs to make a lens capable of resolving much more than is actually required by the days technology. John F. >

>
 

ditto1958

Well-Known Member
From what I can see, everyone is assuming the new pro camera will be called the E-3 and the new evolt one the E-500. The other rumor is that they will both have built-in image stabilization. If they can do that without making the bodies larger or substantially heavier...
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
I wonder what the optimum number of megapixels is to equal or outperform film. 16 certainly seems a lot at present and up to the latest Canon standard but if Canon goes up to 30 or some other extremely high figure, will that leave Olympus behind? Or would all those extra megapixels make any actual difference to the quality of the pictures rather than to the massive size it could be printed at? Just thinking out loud.
John
 

dirk

CI-Founder
Hi John,

I do not think that the absolute number will be important. Sooner or later the users get out of this MP hype and focus on what is really important.

In film-times, it was never important how many lp/mm a film can resolve (above a certain range). Peopel bought a film, because it gave great results for the print size they needed in terms of resolution, sharpness, colour, contrast etc.

So a 10MP camera can be more than enough, if you do not print bigger then 1 meter x 1 meter. In that case, what really important is the qualtity of all other factors, which are decided mainly by the lens. A chip can not make a picture better, if the lens is not giving him the detail-information he needs for it.

I do not think that Canon will go far higher than 20MP. The current top model 1DsMark II has 16MP and is almost the same quality like the Nikon D2x with 12MP. So Canon will not increase production costs with higher MPs, if you can only see it in prints above a certain "human beeing print size". This would be a waste of efforts. Noone prints that big.

Canon has its joker with its fullframe sensor. Time will tell, whether this will be really needed in the future.
 

ditto1958

Well-Known Member
If Olympus is smart, they'll realize that they will never be the Ford or Chevy of the camera business. They will leave that to Canon and Nikon and work on carving out the most solid niche they can. They probably should stop fighting the megapixel war and should continue instead with their tradition of surprising the photography world with unexpected innovations. Just as with personal computers, the race for faster processors eventually petered out when customers noticed that no one but serious gamers needed more gigabytes, with digital cameras, I think we will soon reach the point where such things as the quality of lenses, monitors and printers are bottlenecks in the process and not megapixels.

I was looking at some galleries last night where people were showing off shots they took of flowers with their Olympus E-1's and E-300's. Many of their shots were simply stunning (even though the reviewers consistently pan the E-1's supposed pixel shortcomings).

One magazine review I saw said that Canon's current pro dslr (16.6 mp?) either matches or slightly outresolves 100 iso film. If the new E cameras have about 12-16 mp, that should make many people happy. I think we're close to the point of plateau in the megapixel area and camera makers should concentrate more on improving other parts of their products.
 

zuikoholic

Active Member
Dirk, I disagree that a full-frame sensor is irrelavent. I feel it is very important, not because of megapixel counts, but because of DOF issues. The smaller sensors will always give larger DOF, that's physics and can not change. I happen to prefer the DOF characteristics of the 35mm film frame size. As for megapixels, I'm not so worried. Canon's 1Ds mk II, the full-frame 16 Mp camera, has the same *sized* pixels as the Canon 10D (which I have and am very happy with). So, for my own purposes, the 16 Mp 1Ds mk II is my dream camera because its pixel density is fine (related to noise issues) and the sensor size is full-frame (DOF issues).
 

Hilo

Member
> > Posted by John Strain (Jsmisc) on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:37 am: > > I wonder what the optimum number of megapixels is to equal or > outperform film. 16 certainly seems a lot at present and up to the > latest Canon standard but if Canon goes up to 30 or some other > extremely high figure, will that leave Olympus behind? Or would all > those extra megapixels make any actual difference to the quality of > the pictures rather than to the massive size it could be printed at? > Just thinking out loud. > John

John,

Put a good piece of glass in front of the E-1 or E-300 and the results are comparable to film.

Herb
 

avantgear

Member
> >>Posted by Neil Donoghue (Zuikoholic) on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:45 pm: >> >>the 16 Mp 1Ds mk II is my dream camera because its >>pixel density is fine (related to noise issues) and the sensor size is >>full-frame (DOF issues). >

My dream would be a revised Contax N Digital -- sort out the bugs, full frame sensor, and move it's pixel count to about 12mp. That would be great. Great handling camera, great lenses, and once you sorted it out and figured it out, gave truly outstanding image quality). I'm waiting to see what happens with Contax. If it truly goes nowhere and is allowed to die, then I guess I'll have to upgrade my E-20 with the E-3 (or whatever it will be called).
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Thanks Dirk for the helpful comments,
I may yet go for Olympus and have the added option of using my Zeiss lenses via an adapter. One of the things I like about the Olympus is the comparatively small size coupled with the dust filter. Apart from the cost, the Canon is just too big for me to be comfortable with. The Nikon is also very expensive and quite large. No doubt both are excellent.
I will probably wait for the next generation of the E1.
I remember reading that a moon lander used a digital camera which was only 1 megapixel and it sent back superb pictures.

Herb,
Thanks for the comment obviously based on experience. Real world use is always more useful than just relying on test reports.

John
 

iberger

Well-Known Member
> I suspect that Olympus's thinking on the 4/3 system was that consumers and pros accept small sensors (there were no full-frame sensors when the E-1 appeared, let alone when it was designed) and that, considering how little had been happening with the OM series lately, it made sense to produce a camera built around a small sensor rather than put a small sensor in a body designed for full frame. Making it smaller than most allowed for potentially smaller lighter bodies (I'm still waiting); it also simplified the equivalent focal length calculations -- most people find it easier to multiply by two than by 1.6 or so.
 

iberger

Well-Known Member
>I disagree that "no lens maker needs to make a lens capable of resolving much more than is actually required by the day's technology." That might be true for film, which is pretty mature technology (and likely to progress more slowly now that digital is so popular) but is surely not so for digital, which is new enough that rapid, major progress is acceptable. For interchangeable-lens cameras, making a lens just for today's technology might lower its cost, but could be ruinous for the maker's reputation once imaging technology improves enough to make the corner-cutting obvious. A smart lens maker should take an educated guess about what would be needed at least 30 years down the pike. For cameras without interechangeable lenses, though, this would not apply -- when you move to a newer body you'll perforce move also to a newer lens.
 
Top