> More pixels on the 4/3 sensor? At 12 Mp it's already almost
> twice the pixel density of the Sony Alpha 900 or Nikon DX3,
> both of which are very close to 25 Mp. You're going to have
> to go to a full-frame camera.
When I bought an E-500, I never thought I'd own a 5D, then a 5D2. (At least,
not as soon as it happened.)
The head of Olympus has said the company has no intention of going beyond
12Mp, as this is all that's needed for even fairly big enlargements. He's
right. I've taken "low-resolution" pictures on the E-500 that, when enlarged
to 12x16, have to be viewed with your nose poked against them to see that
they aren't "perfectly" sharp. It's amazing what you can get from a 1.4MB
file.
The real advantage of a large sensor is that it allows high resolution and
low noise at the same time. (I've taken full-resolution shots on the 5D2 at
ISO 6400 with no visible noise. I still don't believe it.) Barring a
technology breakthrough that permits a major reduction in noise, Olympus
isn't going to push the 4/3 sensor much past 12Mp. It just isn't needed for
most photography.
What we really need is good user documentation. I'm working on it for the
5D2, to be posted on my blog or site. I intend to rip Canon a new one.
> I didn't and wouldn't say I am 100% happy with the situation.
> Sure, I wish we had an OM-size DSLR with a 35mm-size
> sensor, but let's be realistic, it's not going to happen anytime
> soon.
It's not going to happen at all, ever. (At least, not within the next
decade.) The OM body is too small to support the volume of electronics,
battery, and LCD needed.
As for bulky lenses... I still don't understand the difference between a
regular lens and a "digital" lens, which is supposed to provide more-even
edge illumination. I assume this is done by moving the exit pupil farther
forward, which makes the lens bigger, but I don't know. (I can't find a good
explanation of the optical "meaning" of "exit pupil", or much about how its
position affects the lens's performance -- other than that, the farther it
is from the film plane, the greater the reduction in cos^4 effects.)
I still have my champagne OM-4T (still for sale). A comparison with the 5D2
or even the E-500 is pathetic. The OM cameras were truly "Leica SLRs", and
are among the most-elegant cameras ever designed. It will be a long time, if
ever, before we see a full-frame DSLR that matches them.
Or the lenses. By the way, I believe one of the reasons the f/2 wide angles
were so compact was that Olympus lied about their speed -- some were at
least a half-stop slower. I intended to test this with slide film, but kept
putting it off.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|