Olympus: Are they F----- CRAZY?
Rich
Part of what makes the Panasonic G1 a good choice is its terrific 1.3 meg.
EVF, which is better than the cheaper Olympus optical viewfinders, by a
long shot! Now, it seems the upcoming Olympus camera will only have an
LCD!!! No optical and no EVF viewfinder at all. The only choice will be
cobbling on a rangefinder-type viewfinder on the hotshoe.
I hope the report I read was wrong about this.
Ron Hunter
Although I am no fan of EVFs, I agree that a camera at this level with
no real viewfinder is a bad thing.
Get lost
Most people are no fan of EVFs, I wasn't except for the "light up dark
scenes" attribute. But you have to try the G1's and if you've come
from using one of the cheaper Olympus, it's a revelation, much like
Nikon's high rez LCD was when it came out.
Bruce
Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR even
though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't. Buyers' expectations of the
G1's EVF are therefore high. Unfortunately, the G1's EVF falls far
short of all but the worst reflex viewing systems, so users expecting a
small DSLR are likely to be disappointed.
So why not be honest and make a point and shoot digicam with a much
better than average (for P&S) sensor and interchangeable lenses? By
doing this, buyers' expectations are kept reasonable - they don't expect
it to be an SLR. I think there is a very good chance that the Olympus
Micro Four Thirds camera will exceed all of those expectations while
remaining an easy-to-use P&S with interchangeable lenses.
bowzer
"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gg3ks4p75791cbp4i...@4ax.com...
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I just found out their u4/3rds model will have NO EVF!!! Are they insane?
>>Part of what makes the Panasonic G1 a good choice is its terrific 1.3 meg.
>>EVF, which is better than the cheaper Olympus optical viewfinders, by a
>>long shot! Now, it seems the upcoming Olympus camera will only have an
>>LCD!!! No optical and no EVF viewfinder at all. The only choice will be
>>cobbling on a rangefinder-type viewfinder on the hotshoe.
>>I hope the report I read was wrong about this.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
>
> The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR even
> though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't. Buyers' expectations of the
> G1's EVF are therefore high. Unfortunately, the G1's EVF falls far
> short of all but the worst reflex viewing systems, so users expecting a
> small DSLR are likely to be disappointed.
My impression of the G1's EVF is much better than yours, it seems. While it
is not an equal of an SLR viewfinder, it is very, very good and more than
adequate for it's intended use. I see all cameras going this way in the
future, really. Definitely not "far short."
Bruce
>"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
>>
>> The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR even
>> though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't. Buyers' expectations of the
>> G1's EVF are therefore high. Unfortunately, the G1's EVF falls far
>> short of all but the worst reflex viewing systems, so users expecting a
>> small DSLR are likely to be disappointed.
>
>My impression of the G1's EVF is much better than yours, it seems. While it
>is not an equal of an SLR viewfinder, it is very, very good and more than
>adequate for it's intended use. I see all cameras going this way in the
>future, really. Definitely not "far short."
On the one hand you say it is "not an equal of an SLR viewfinder" but on
the other hand you say it is "Definitely not "far short.""
Make up your mind!
My mind is made up. It is good for an EVF but it still falls far short
of anything except the worst DSLR reflex viewfinders.
Of course, it is no coincidence that the worst DSLR reflex viewfinders
are to be found in Four Thirds DSLRs from Panasonic and Olympus. If
your standards are that low, it makes it slightly easier to persuade
your DSLR customers that an EVF is a viable alternative.
Alfred Molon
> I just found out their u4/3rds model will have NO EVF!!!
Where did you read this?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alan Hoyle
> In article <xfudnQmJK_7qS1TU...@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>> I just found out their u4/3rds model will have NO EVF!!!
> Where did you read this?
The mockups of the Olympus u4/3 camera have no EVF aside from the rear
screen:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208olympus_micro_four_thirds.asp
I don't see what the problem is. If u4/3 is successful, I would
imagine they will come out with additional models, likely with EVF
eyepiece. Besides, Panasonic already has a couple models with an
"SLR-like" design with an eyepiece EVF and there is little reason
for Oly to start competing with them in the first iteration of their
"EVIL" cameras.
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - al...@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
Doug Jewell
in camera retail. The number 1 ask that customers had when
shopping for their 2nd camera was for a viewfinder. The
usual gripe was that they'd bought their first digital with
no viewfinder and found that the rear LCD was useless in the
aussie sun.
As a result of this requirement, for quite a while Canon A
series, ixus and Sony W series were our best sellers, until
they too dropped the VF from most of their range. Quite a
lot of customers would actually purchase a big zoom with
it's EVF, or an SLR with it's optical finder, even if they
originally wanted a compact, just so they could get a
viewfinder.
IMO even a bad EVF is preferable to only having a rear
screen. Rear screens are handy in some situations, but I'd
hate to have it as my only choice.
--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?
dj_nme
> In rec.photo.digital Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <xfudnQmJK_7qS1TU...@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>>> I just found out their u4/3rds model will have NO EVF!!!
>
>> Where did you read this?
>
> The mockups of the Olympus u4/3 camera have no EVF aside from the rear
> screen:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208olympus_micro_four_thirds.asp
>
> I don't see what the problem is. If u4/3 is successful, I would
> imagine they will come out with additional models, likely with EVF
> eyepiece.
It would be wise of Olympus to follow Ricoh and have an optional EVF
(like the GX100 & GX200) that fits into the flash shoe, if they've set
their mind to a body with no eye-level viewfinder.
> Besides, Panasonic already has a couple models with an
> "SLR-like" design with an eyepiece EVF and there is little reason
> for Oly to start competing with them in the first iteration of their
> "EVIL" cameras.
There is also the possibility that Olympus went down the other road
because they could not develop (nor purchase) a high enough resolution
screen to make a suitably good quality EVF.
Perhaps the mock-up shown at the photo fairs isn't a true indication
that they will actually make a Mu4/3 camera?
Who knows?
Apart for the management and development team at Olympus, of course.
SMS
> I don't see what the problem is. If u4/3 is successful, I would
> imagine they will come out with additional models, likely with EVF
> eyepiece. Besides, Panasonic already has a couple models with an
> "SLR-like" design with an eyepiece EVF and there is little reason
> for Oly to start competing with them in the first iteration of their
> "EVIL" cameras.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Just because Panasonic has an EVF,
Olympus has to _not_ have one so they won't be seen as competing. An EVF
or optical viewfinder should be a no-compromise requirement when
selecting a camera.
Rich
news:gg3ks4p75791cbp4i...@4ax.com:
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I just found out their u4/3rds model will have NO EVF!!! Are they
>>insane? Part of what makes the Panasonic G1 a good choice is its
>>terrific 1.3 meg. EVF, which is better than the cheaper Olympus
>>optical viewfinders, by a long shot! Now, it seems the upcoming
>>Olympus camera will only have an LCD!!! No optical and no EVF
>>viewfinder at all. The only choice will be cobbling on a
>>rangefinder-type viewfinder on the hotshoe. I hope the report I read
>>was wrong about this.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
>
> The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR
> even though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't.
LCD + sunlight = bad
Rich
news:p78ks45llt4bk62gl...@4ax.com:
> "bowzer" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
>>>
>>> The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR
>>> even though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't. Buyers'
>>> expectations of the G1's EVF are therefore high. Unfortunately, the
>>> G1's EVF falls far short of all but the worst reflex viewing
>>> systems, so users expecting a small DSLR are likely to be
>>> disappointed.
>>
>>My impression of the G1's EVF is much better than yours, it seems.
>>While it is not an equal of an SLR viewfinder, it is very, very good
>>and more than adequate for it's intended use. I see all cameras going
>>this way in the future, really. Definitely not "far short."
>
>
> On the one hand you say it is "not an equal of an SLR viewfinder" but
> on the other hand you say it is "Definitely not "far short.""
>
> Make up your mind!
>
It's better than Olympus entry camera optical viewfinders but not as good
as Nikon-Pentax-Canon 1.5 crop viewfinders. But it is completely
serviceable.
Bruce
>
>It's better than Olympus entry camera optical viewfinders but not as good
>as Nikon-Pentax-Canon 1.5 crop viewfinders.
It suffers from the same fundamental inadequacies that all EVFs have.
>But it is completely serviceable.
I think you meant that it is good enough for you. It is not good enough
for me, and I doubt that an EVF ever will be.
Bruce
>Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
>>
>> The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR
>> even though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't.
>
>LCD + sunlight = bad
LCD + sunlight + you = bad
Alan Hoyle
Your assertion is rediculous in the face of the scores of commercially
successful cameras with no viewfinder aside from the rear screen.
While an EVF or OVF might be a requirement for you and me, there are
apparently a large number of consumers for whom it is not a "no
compromise requirement."
I fully expect Olympus to come out with a m4/3 camera that has an EVF
at some point, they've spent too much money on developing the m4/3
standard to only release one camera. Maybe they'll have a Ricoh-like
snap-on EVF or come out with a body with a Leica-esque rangefinder VF.
My point is that they have to release /something/ as their first entry.
Why should Olympus come out with a clone of an existing product from a
semi-competitor? (Olympus and Panasonic have a history of sharing
tech and designs at least as far as the 4/3 standard.) Why not target
a slightly different audience? A camera doesn't have to be all things
to all people.
J. Clarke
> In rec.photo.digital SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Alan Hoyle wrote:
>
>>> I don't see what the problem is. If u4/3 is successful, I would
>>> imagine they will come out with additional models, likely with EVF
>>> eyepiece. Besides, Panasonic already has a couple models with an
>>> "SLR-like" design with an eyepiece EVF and there is little reason
>>> for Oly to start competing with them in the first iteration of their
>>> "EVIL" cameras.
>
>> That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Just because Panasonic has an
>> EVF, Olympus has to _not_ have one so they won't be seen as
>> competing. An EVF or optical viewfinder should be a no-compromise
>> requirement when selecting a camera.
>
> Your assertion is rediculous in the face of the scores of commercially
> successful cameras with no viewfinder aside from the rear screen.
> While an EVF or OVF might be a requirement for you and me, there are
> apparently a large number of consumers for whom it is not a "no
> compromise requirement."
While this is true, I do wonder how many of those consumers would be in the
market for an interchangeable lens camera whose lenses carry Olympus prices.
Bruce
>
>Why should Olympus come out with a clone of an existing product from a
>semi-competitor? (Olympus and Panasonic have a history of sharing
>tech and designs at least as far as the 4/3 standard.) Why not target
>a slightly different audience? A camera doesn't have to be all things
>to all people.
Precisely.
Alan Hoyle
>> Your assertion is rediculous in the face of the scores of commercially
>> successful cameras with no viewfinder aside from the rear screen.
>> While an EVF or OVF might be a requirement for you and me, there are
>> apparently a large number of consumers for whom it is not a "no
>> compromise requirement."
> While this is true, I do wonder how many of those consumers would be in the
> market for an interchangeable lens camera whose lenses carry Olympus prices.
Olympus lenses (at least in the regular 4/3 variety, as they have yet
to release any m4/3 lenses) don't seem to be any more expensive than
their Canon or Nikon equivalents for equivalent quality in my
experience. I recently considered making a switch and here's what I
found:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/msg/40bc960eeff8e5c1
Granted, C&N have a more rich ecosystem of lenses overall, but for the
kit lens basics and first-upgrade level, Olympus seems competitive, if
not less expensive overall, and they have a good reputation for high
quality glass, even in the kit lenses.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly recognize the drawbacks of the 4/3
system: worse noise and dynamic range performance, less shallow DoF,
limited upgrade options, lack of third-party support, etc.
I don't know that I would have picked Olympus if I was starting from
scratch. However, unless I'm missing something in my evaluation,
switching systems to either Canon or Nikon, getting equivalent quality
glass would end up costing me a significant chunk of money MORE than
what Olympus would cost.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "Doug Jewell" <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> ?????? ??? ??????
news:49cab21a$0$5618$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
SMS
> I don't know that I would have picked Olympus if I was starting from
> scratch. However, unless I'm missing something in my evaluation,
> switching systems to either Canon or Nikon, getting equivalent quality
> glass would end up costing me a significant chunk of money MORE than
> what Olympus would cost.
Compare very wide-angle zoom lenses. Olympus is far more expensive, at
least 2x.
Get lost
> >> Alan Hoyle wrote:
>
> >>> I don't see what the problem is. If u4/3 is successful, I would
> >>> imagine they will come out with additional models, likely with EVF
> >>> eyepiece. Besides, Panasonic already has a couple models with an
> >>> "SLR-like" design with an eyepiece EVF and there is little reason
> >>> for Oly to start competing with them in the first iteration of their
> >>> "EVIL" cameras.
>
> >> That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Just because Panasonic has an
> >> EVF, Olympus has to _not_ have one so they won't be seen as
> >> competing. An EVF or optical viewfinder should be a no-compromise
> >> requirement when selecting a camera.
>
> > Your assertion is rediculous in the face of the scores of commercially
> > successful cameras with no viewfinder aside from the rear screen.
> > While an EVF or OVF might be a requirement for you and me, there are
> > apparently a large number of consumers for whom it is not a "no
> > compromise requirement."
>
> While this is true, I do wonder how many of those consumers would be in the
> market for an interchangeable lens camera whose lenses carry Olympus prices.
Which is why I hope(hoped) the first one would be aimed at a higher
market position and be built as such. Model the thing after the best
built P&S's or better.
Get lost
A 7-14mm is about $2000. Nikon's (aimed a D3/700 users) 14-24mm is
$1900. Both have similar optical quality. The Olympus is f4.0 and
the Nikon is f2.8 but given the vastly different focal lengths, we
should ignore the f-ratio difference, it is what it is and it's not
going to change.
SMS
> A 7-14mm is about $2000. Nikon's (aimed a D3/700 users) 14-24mm is
> $1900. Both have similar optical quality. The Olympus is f4.0 and
> the Nikon is f2.8 but given the vastly different focal lengths, we
> should ignore the f-ratio difference, it is what it is and it's not
> going to change.
You're not comparing the right lenses.
Compare the Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 [14-28mm] ($1750) to the Nikon
Nikon 12-24mm [18-36mm] f/4G ED ($900) or Canon EF-S 10-22mm [16-35mm]
f/3.5-4.5 ($710). Actually in this case the least expensive lens is the
best one.
Actually Olympus should make something like an 9-16mm if it would mean
having a competitively priced lens in that segment.
nospam
<bcc4c28d-6c0e-4833...@e12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Get lost <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Compare very wide-angle zoom lenses. Olympus is far more expensive, at
> > least 2x.
>
> A 7-14mm is about $2000. Nikon's (aimed a D3/700 users) 14-24mm is
> $1900. Both have similar optical quality. The Olympus is f4.0 and
> the Nikon is f2.8 but given the vastly different focal lengths, we
> should ignore the f-ratio difference, it is what it is and it's not
> going to change.
you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
bowzer
> "bowzer" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps Olympus actually has a good idea here.
>>>
>>> The #1 problem with the Panasonic G1 is that it tries to be an SLR even
>>> though, without a reflex mirror, it isn't. Buyers' expectations of the
>>> G1's EVF are therefore high. Unfortunately, the G1's EVF falls far
>>> short of all but the worst reflex viewing systems, so users expecting a
>>> small DSLR are likely to be disappointed.
>>
>>My impression of the G1's EVF is much better than yours, it seems. While
>>it
>>is not an equal of an SLR viewfinder, it is very, very good and more than
>>adequate for it's intended use. I see all cameras going this way in the
>>future, really. Definitely not "far short."
>
>
> On the one hand you say it is "not an equal of an SLR viewfinder" but on
> the other hand you say it is "Definitely not "far short.""
>
> Make up your mind!
I have, and it disagrees with yours. Let me attempt to simplify it for you.
The EVF, while not quite the equal of a traditional viewfinder used in SLRs,
is plenty good enough for it's intended use, and approaches the quality of
traditional viewfinders. The term "far short" implies, to me, that the EVF
used in the G1 cannot provide the user with a usable viewfinder, or one that
of borderline quality. For me, there is a huge difference between "not the
equal of" and "far short."
>
> My mind is made up. It is good for an EVF but it still falls far short
> of anything except the worst DSLR reflex viewfinders.
>
> Of course, it is no coincidence that the worst DSLR reflex viewfinders
> are to be found in Four Thirds DSLRs from Panasonic and Olympus. If
> your standards are that low, it makes it slightly easier to persuade
> your DSLR customers that an EVF is a viable alternative.
I'm accustomed to the viewfinder of a 5D/5D II. My standards for cameras are
high, and maybe it's time to raise my standards for usenet posters with whom
I converse.
Bruce
>
>I have, and it disagrees with yours. Let me attempt to simplify it for you.
>The EVF, while not quite the equal of a traditional viewfinder used in SLRs,
>is plenty good enough for it's intended use, and approaches the quality of
>traditional viewfinders.
I strongly disagree. I reiterate that it falls *far short* of any
traditional (D)SLR viewfinder I have ever used in the last thirty five
years, with the exception of the worst of the Olympus and Panasonic Four
Thirds DSLRs, which have truly appalling reflex viewfinders. It isn't
far short of those, but they are virtually useless in any case, and
should be easy to improve on.
I agree that the G1's EVF is probably plenty good enough for most
people. But that is only because most people buying digital cameras
have extremely low standards, and will accept almost anything as long as
they recognise the brand name (and some don't even bother with that).
The G1's target market is surely people who expect better quality than
is obtainable from the average digicam and are willing to pay more for a
two-lens hybrid or DSLR outfit to get that quality. If so, they won't
be tempted by the G1's viewfinder when so many DSLRs have much better
reflex viewfinders.
Let's hope that the Samsung NX, which will compete with the G1 and any
Olympus Micro Four Thirds products, has a rather better EVF than the G1.
Otherwise, these "hybrid" cameras are not going to persuade too many
people to take the step up from the bridge cameras and fully-featured
P+S digicams they currently own.
And they aren't going to appeal to DSLR users who want a second,
smaller, lighter camera that gives high image quality.
> I'm accustomed to the viewfinder of a 5D/5D II.
I'm also accustomed to the 5D but have replaced one of my two 5D bodies
with a Nikon D700, which has an outstanding viewfinder. I will replace
the second 5D when Nikon announces (or decides not to!) a 24 MP version
of the D700. I'm not holding my breath ...
Alan Hoyle
>> A 7-14mm is about $2000. Nikon's (aimed a D3/700 users) 14-24mm is
>> $1900. Both have similar optical quality. The Olympus is f4.0 and
>> the Nikon is f2.8 but given the vastly different focal lengths, we
>> should ignore the f-ratio difference, it is what it is and it's not
>> going to change.
> You're not comparing the right lenses.
I'm comparing the lenses I actually own and use. That seems like a
fair comparison to me.
> Compare the Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 [14-28mm] ($1750) to the
> Nikon Nikon 12-24mm [18-36mm] f/4G ED ($900) or Canon EF-S 10-22mm
> [16-35mm] f/3.5-4.5 ($710). Actually in this case the least
> expensive lens is the best one.
That is also not an apples to apples comparison.
Neither the 12-24 nor the 10-22 go nearly as wide as the Olympus
according to the manufacturer's specs:
7mm Oly (14mm equiv.) = 116??
10mm Canon (16mm equiv.) = 107?? 30'
12mm Nikon (18mm equiv.) = 99??
Small mm differences on the wide end make pretty differences in terms
of the FoV.
> Actually Olympus should make something like an 9-16mm if it would
> mean having a competitively priced lens in that segment.
Well, what do you know: Olympus makes a 9-18mm f4-5.6. It was
released in the last 6 months or so, so it's understandable that you
weren't aware of it. It is competitively priced at around $550: less
expensive than either of your alternatives and is reportedly of good
quality.
My point is that if I'm starting from scratch (or looking to switch
systems) and want to cover the 28-400mm FF equivalent range with
lenses that aren't just the kit lenses (slightly wider aperture, and
weatherproofing), Canon or Nikon will cost me slightly to
significantly more than equivalent quality glass from Olympus.
Note: to reiterate, I am NOT saying that small sensors are superior in
any way to APS or FX size sensors. I know they lose out on DR and
noise.
Alfred Molon
> you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
> the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
> that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
> olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
> quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
It is pointless to compare the SNR of a small sensor with that of a big
sensor. The full-frame camera has the better SNR, but is also much
larger and heavier.
The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
By your logic one would have to calculate an "equivalent F-number" to
match noise levels. Can you imagine how this would look like if you
compared a compact camera with a 1/2.33" sensor with a full frame
camera? You'd be claiming that the compact camera needs an f/0.4 lens.
Deep Reset
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.243765b0a...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <260320092059076075%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
>> the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
>> that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
>> olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
>> quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
>
> It is pointless to compare the SNR of a small sensor with that of a big
> sensor. The full-frame camera has the better SNR, but is also much
> larger and heavier.
>
> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
It is?
You mean, all these years I've been...?
Bugger.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <260320092059076075%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
> > the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
> > that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
> > olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
> > quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
>
> It is pointless to compare the SNR of a small sensor with that of a big
> sensor.
why is it pointless?
> The full-frame camera has the better SNR, but is also much
> larger and heavier.
true. that's a tradeoff one makes for better image quality and has
been true for ages.
> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
> By your logic one would have to calculate an "equivalent F-number" to
> match noise levels.
yes, that's correct.
> Can you imagine how this would look like if you
> compared a compact camera with a 1/2.33" sensor with a full frame
> camera? You'd be claiming that the compact camera needs an f/0.4 lens.
true. for the same image quality in terms of noise, depth of field,
etc., a compact would need a lens that fast and that's impossible.
however, the larger sensor camera can crank the iso to match the noise
levels and an equivalent f/stop can then be used, providing the same
depth of field.
Alan Browne
>
> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
the f/number is the ratio of focal length over the aperture diameter and
has nothing to do with the sensor size.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Jürgen Exner
[Sorry, OP no longer available on my server, therefore replying to your
quote]
>"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
What utter nonsense.
Or please tell me, if I mount a f/1.4 lens on a DX camera, what 35mm
equivalent f-stop do I get?
jue
PS: Correct definition of f-stop is focal length of the lens (that's
where the f comes from) divided by the 'effective' diameter of the
aperture.
And of course it is a property of the lens and totally independent of
any sensor size.
Rich
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Get lost wrote:
>
>> A 7-14mm is about $2000. Nikon's (aimed a D3/700 users) 14-24mm is
>> $1900. Both have similar optical quality. The Olympus is f4.0 and
>> the Nikon is f2.8 but given the vastly different focal lengths, we
>> should ignore the f-ratio difference, it is what it is and it's not
>> going to change.
>
> You're not comparing the right lenses.
>
> Compare the Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 [14-28mm] ($1750) to the Nikon
> Nikon 12-24mm [18-36mm] f/4G ED ($900) or Canon EF-S 10-22mm [16-35mm]
> f/3.5-4.5 ($710). Actually in this case the least expensive lens is the
> best one.
Optically, they all suck compared to the Olympus. They are mid-level zooms
the Olympus is top of the optical heap, like the 12-24mm f2.8.
Rich
nos...@nospam.invalid:
What I meant was that a 7-14mm f2.8 is NOT going to happen. One made to
the optical spec of the current f4.0 would cost $10k.
Alfred Molon
says...
> PS: Correct definition of f-stop is focal length of the lens (that's
> where the f comes from) divided by the 'effective' diameter of the
> aperture.
You are right about the definition of f-number. But what I simply meant
is that when comparing lenses on different systems, you must use lenses
with the same f-number, not with some "equivalent" f-number.
That systems with larger pixels have less noise is a matter of fact, and
smaller cameras are not in there to compete with larger cameras in terms
of noise.
When using a larger camera you gain in SNR, but the portability suffers.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > PS: Correct definition of f-stop is focal length of the lens (that's
> > where the f comes from) divided by the 'effective' diameter of the
> > aperture.
>
> You are right about the definition of f-number. But what I simply meant
> is that when comparing lenses on different systems, you must use lenses
> with the same f-number, not with some "equivalent" f-number.
why? that will produce different images.
> That systems with larger pixels have less noise is a matter of fact, and
> smaller cameras are not in there to compete with larger cameras in terms
> of noise.
>
> When using a larger camera you gain in SNR, but the portability suffers.
and the image quality is better. that's the tradeoff.
Alfred Molon
> > When using a larger camera you gain in SNR, but the portability suffers.
>
> and the image quality is better. that's the tradeoff.
Let's be precise: the SNR is better at high ISOs. "Image quality" means
nothing and all.
Kennedy McEwen
<alfred...@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <280320090317161477%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> > When using a larger camera you gain in SNR, but the portability suffers.
>>
>> and the image quality is better. that's the tradeoff.
>
>Let's be precise: the SNR is better at high ISOs. "Image quality" means
>nothing and all.
>
better for the larger sensor at all ISOs. It is not just high ISOs that
show this benefit if larger sensors.
If, as Olympus now claim, we have reached a megapixel count on 4/3"
which is "good enough" for almost everyone then comparative assessments
of SNR should be in that "good enough for everyone" spatial bandwidth,
not on a per pixel basis. It is deceptive and misleading to claim that
extra resolution is irrelevant and then compare SNR at the limiting
resolution of the sensor, which is what your "only at higher ISOs"
implies.
You get the benefit only at high ISO as you claim, only if the small
sensor has the same pixel count as the larger, since the ADC limits them
both to a common level at low ISO. However, if the sensors have the
same size pixels, rather than the same pixel count, then the larger
sensor will obviously have more of them. In the case of 4/3" versus FF,
the larger sensor will have 3.85 times as many pixels. That, of course,
gives the FF sensor more resolution across the picture, however it also
means that there are 3.85x as many sensor pixels as image pixels at the
resolution (spatial bandwidth) that Olympus claim is good enough. This
is at all ISOs, not just high ISOs.
Consequently for sensors with the same pixel size and ADC resolution,
the FF camera will have 1.96 times the SNR of the 4/3 sensor in a common
spatial bandwidth at ALL ISOs.
Clearly, where the pixel size and count of the sensors are somewhere
between these two extremes, as is currently the case in all models, the
benefit of the larger sensor over the smaller sensor is also between the
two. As a result, the SNR of the FF sensor is always going to be higher
that the small 4/3" sensor, irrespective of the ISO. And, of course,
the FF camera can deliver higher spatial bandwidth images for those
users that Olympus exclude from "almost everyone".
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Mar 25, 3:47 am, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
: > Rich wrote:
: > > I just found out their u4/3rds model will have NO EVF!!! Are they insane?
: > > Part of what makes the Panasonic G1 a good choice is its terrific 1.3 meg.
: > > EVF, which is better than the cheaper Olympus optical viewfinders, by a
: > > long shot! Now, it seems the upcoming Olympus camera will only have an
: > > LCD!!! No optical and no EVF viewfinder at all. The only choice will be
: > > cobbling on a rangefinder-type viewfinder on the hotshoe.
: > > I hope the report I read was wrong about this.
: > Although I am no fan of EVFs, I agree that a camera at this level with
: > no real viewfinder is a bad thing.
:
: Most people are no fan of EVFs, I wasn't except for the "light up dark
: scenes" attribute. But you have to try the G1's and if you've come
: from using one of the cheaper Olympus, it's a revelation, much like
: Nikon's high rez LCD was when it came out.
But what do you do in bright sunlight if you have to rely on an LCD?
Bob
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's be precise: the SNR is better at high ISOs. "Image quality" means
> nothing and all.
the s/n ratio is better at all isos, however, it may not be noticeable
or matter that much at the lower isos. in ideal conditions, just about
any camera does fairly well.
Alfred Molon
says...
> But what do you do in bright sunlight if you have to rely on an LCD?
Believe it or not, some LCDs are very usable in bright sunlight. I
always used the LCDs of the Olympus CX0X cameras, even in the tropics at
noon with the sun perpendicular in the sky.
My first digital camera was an Olympus C1400, which had a viewfinder but
no live preview on the LCD. Then I upgraded to an Olympus C2000, which
finally had live preview on the LCD. It was such a huge improvement
compared to the C1400, whose viewfinder was sort of misaligned with the
CCD and caused all shots to come out tilted. With the C2000 I never used
the viewfinder, always the LCD for framing. Framing with the C2000 was
so much more accurate.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> But what do you do in bright sunlight if you have to rely on an LCD?
You pray you have a screen where the incoming light in effect just
adds to the "backlight". Such screens exist, but are not common.
-Wolfgang