> It didn't translate in here.
That's OK. I don't understand myself most of the time.
> I have wondered if some of Brian's trouble with highlights might lay at the
> door of limited DR on his E-3. I looked at some E-3 samples, against others
> (5D?), and they just didn't measure up.
The E-3's sensor behaves rather badly in the DR department. You are
battling pattern noise in the shadows and brick-wall clipping on the
high side. It's like balancing on a tight-rope without the benefit of
a pole. Size of sensor is not the issue, it's that specific model of
sensor. Every camera that sensor was placed into had the same issues
to one degree or another. Other than a few little niggles, the E-3 is
a brilliant camera that outshines any contemporary N/C canon
feature-for-feature. And the image-stabilization, while not as
flawless as the latest/greatest, was certainly the equal of anything
anybody else had at the time, and it worked with ALL lenses. AF
speed, with that 12-60 zoom was certainly "there" too. It was a
fantastic kit, with outstanding viewfinder and so forth that was just
held back by one thing--the sensor.
Ergonomically speaking, the E-3 sucks pond water compared to the E-1,
but is miles ahead of the contemporary N/C bodies of the time. And
while primitive today, the live-view was the only game in town.
> Was the world ready to believe that the smaller sensor size was up to their
> (imagined) needs? There's a gap out in the marketplace and blogosphere
> between legend, imagined truths and the nuts and bolts of making photos.
The 4/3 sensor was always the odd-man out, but really the thing that
hurt EVERYBODY in the industry was Canon's CMOS sensor that set
standards for image cleanliness that defined the requirements for
everybody else. Had there not been a Canon CMOS sensor, I think
Olympus would have had a fighting chance. But you can't blame Canon
for Olympus failing to put the E-300's sensor in the E-1 body. That
was a mind-numbing omission that is still head-shaking.
And let us not forget that there is more than ample evidence that
Olympus was infiltrated by Canon at the time and the marketing
department either was completely incompetent or on-staff for Canon. I
would have fired the ENTIRE operation.
From an engineering and forward-thinking and out-of-box-thinking
perspective, Olympus hit a home-run with 4/3. Let's not forget that us
mortals were moving up from 2/3 sensors. It was a good fit. But the
competition went with the APS-C format, because they were able to use
what they had already developed for the failed APS film format a
couple years earlier. Something Olympus largely skipped and had
nothing to work with.
> Is this true? I don't think the OM-(T(i)) was substandard, when it came out.
> At a modest price in time, it finally cured the aperture vibration yips.
No. Most of the aperture vibration yips were still there (well, at
least everything was better than the OM-1 in that department), but at
least you could use the timer. But the OM system was always best,
either handheld or with flash.
> Remember, it had the only really capable TTL-OTF flash. OTOH, looking back,
> I think the lenses, overall, were generally not best in class, being
> slightly compromised in favor of the compact model. Some are certainly up
> there.
That really depends on which lenses you are talking about. Generally
speaking, there were three grades of Zuikos, and the middle and top
grades were quite competitive. Olympus really hit the ball out of the
park with macro lenses, though. Except, of course, the one 90/2 that
you had, which was a dog.
Where Olympus absolutely flunked the test, with TTL-OTF flash, was
being able to control the flash-ambient ratio for fill-flash. Perfect
system, otherwise. But, fill-flash was a design omission that was
fatal.
> As above, as much perception as hard fact reality. Those who looked only at
> actual performance would find them fully pro for many uses. Ctein was a
> super early convert who makes his living from photography and sold lots of
> prints from his E-P1. I have two of his 17x22" (image area 15x20) prints
> from the E-P1. The first is a spectacularly sharp and detailed shot of the
> SF Bay Bridge and moon, several years old. The second is a brand new IR
> image, taken with the E-P1 after conversion to dedicated IR camera.
Image quality wasn't the issue. I've really liked the images from just
about every m43 body. But stupid things like no ability to use an
eye-level finder AND flash at the same time. As a nice, portable
camera? Sure, rock and roll. But as a tool for the professional? Not a
chance.
>> It pains me to say this, but there really isn't a m4/3 camera
>> that has more than a passing interest for me.
> Wait until they are obsolete, then you will love them. ;-)
It shouldn't be too much longer.
> I am curious why. Not about Sony, I have an A7 for FFFun.
Sensor size. While I like the 4/3 cameras MOST OF THE TIME, my eyes
see in full-frame 35mm. And for me, it's all about the OM Zuikos.
> I don't get the Fuji thing. When folks were posting all over the place about
> the superiority of the Fujis with 16 MP sensors, I looked closely, and I
> couldn't find it. Compared to the 16 MP µ4/3 sensors at the time, there
> didn't seem to my, possibly inferior, eye, any superior non-measurable
> rendering superiority. No DR or noise advantage.
As far as the resolution and the other measurable aspects, I agree.
The Fuji X-Tran sensors are highly overrated. But those colors and
tonalities. It's E-1 all over again.
> They have allowed me to do thing that I've wanted, but couldn't do since I
> was a kid in a B&W darkroom.
I'm still a kid in a B&W darkroom. :)
> The point is that they have joined the top tier, and are now faster than all
> but the mega size/$ cameras.
Agreed. I'm quite satisfied that m43 has finally "arrived". But the
biggest problem I see is that the sensor is STILL a hold-up when it
comes to high-ISO performance. Full-frame whammies the snot out of
m4/3 and not by a small amount, either. And then there is the cost. I
can either buy the latest/greatest Olympus, or I can get a Sony A7
Something for the same price with largely the same features AND sensor
IS.
But, if I was a "normal" person with zero interest in legacy lens
systems, I'd be all over whatever the flavor-of-the-month-club has to
offer.
AG (loving legacy) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|