On 3/27/2017 8:38 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
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.
I believe "Sux" is the short term.
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. <snip more praise of a dead dog> It was a
fantastic kit, with outstanding viewfinder and so forth that was just
held back by one thing--the sensor.
That's like extolling your BMW if it had a Yugo engine. I isn't still about the
images that come out of the camera?
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.
All moot here. I found LV in the 60D, one of the reasons I bought it, to be a marginally useful PIA. I can't imagine
ever going back from mirrorless to DSLR.
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.
I suppose there was/is head space and taste as factors. 3:2 is different to shoot with than 4:3. Doesn't' make any
difference to me, but I imagine a lot of FF 35 mm folks found APS-C friendlier.
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.
That's what I was referring to, the self-timer aperture pre-fire. Also on the
OMPC and OM2000.
But the OM system was always best, either handheld or with flash.
Yup, and once on a tripod, using the self-timer wasn't that big a deal.
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.
Yup, I still have 2x 50/3.5, a great flat field copy.macro lens, and more
recently, a 38/2.8, which is also wonderful.
Except, of course, the one 90/2 that you had, which was a dog.
It was fine - if I had covered up the "MACRO" label and stayed at magnifications lower than 1:4. I couldn't see the
point, as I already had a fine 85/2. (Now I have an 85/1.8 eq. for µ4/3.)
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.
Meant nothing to me. But I never was a pro., and have morphed in to DR. No
Flash since. :-)
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.
Ah, you have 3:2 eyes.
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.
Looking at much of Tina's recent work, if that were crucial to me, I'd dump everything else and get an SL. I just don't
see that big a difference between Fuji X and µ4/3, but in many lights, SL tones are gourmet.
My addiction to such a wide range of FLs and mag. ratios make the SL moot for
reasons other than size and cost.
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. :)
For now. I should have said that limited ability to get greater DoF drove me crazy with slide film, too. I adapted to
the possible for decades, Now I don't have to any more for many subjects.
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.
I'm still not convinced about the FF sensor IS. Assuming generally similar construction of sensor stack, a FF sensor
stack will weigh four times as much, and require movements twice as great. Much more mass to accelerate and decelerate
faster. That's a huge engineering disadvantage to overcome.
I'm sure it works, but isn't magic like the latest Oly implementations.
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.
And some IBIS is better than none, no? ;-)
Woof Woof Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|