Olympus EVOLT - 8 MP Consumer DSLR (four thirds)

Brian C. Baird wrote:
[]
Sure, but 35mm is a good enough starting point - it has tons of legacy
support

35mm is /a/ starting point, but I would like to see evolution /beyond/
"legacy", and applaud the move to a half-size "4/3" sensor (18 x 13.5mm)
with potential size and weight reductions of associated kit.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
Brian C. Baird wrote:
[]
Sure, but 35mm is a good enough starting point - it has tons of legacy
support

35mm is /a/ starting point, but I would like to see evolution /beyond/
"legacy", and applaud the move to a half-size "4/3" sensor (18 x 13.5mm)
with potential size and weight reductions of associated kit.

But there isn't any weight reduction. The higher noise in the E-1 means that
you have to shoot one f stop wider for the same shutter speed and same image
quality.

From the standpoint of the 10D/20D, you can use a lens that's one stop
slower and 1.25x longer on a 10D vs. E1 or on a 20D vs. EVOLT for exactly
the same image. (4/3 is a 1.25x crop from APS-C.)

This means that the E1/EVOLT simply doesn't provide _any_ advantage in
weight. The extra stop of speed needed by the E1/EVOLT adds more weight to a
lens than the extra 1.25x length required by the 10D/20D.

And there aren't any fast lenses for the 4/3 system, so there are simply a
lot of shots that you can't take.

And since 16.7MP is twice the resolution of the EVOLT, they're simply not
comparable systems. More resolution always costs in weight.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
35mm is /a/ starting point, but I would like to see evolution
/beyond/ "legacy", and applaud the move to a half-size "4/3" sensor
(18 x 13.5mm) with potential size and weight reductions of
associated kit.

But there isn't any weight reduction. The higher noise in the E-1
means that you have to shoot one f stop wider for the same shutter
speed and same image quality.

If there's a one stop difference, then you could be comparing a 150mm
f/2.8 with a 300mm f/4 and a full frame SLR. I would expect the smaller
focal-length lens to be considerably lighter and smaller.

It's your choice where you draw the line on image "quality", and I welcome
efforts to provide an alternative to last century's 35mm format, just as
35mm provides an alternative to MF.

Cheers,
David

David J. Littleboy wrote:
snip

If all you shoot is landscapes, the 4/3 system's inability to provide higher
pixel counts is a show-stopper.


snip

If all you shoot is landscapes, why don't you stick with sheet film like
you should? It is absolutely the only possible solution! You shouldn't
even think of anything else. If you do, you are absolutely, totally
wrong and an idiot for even thinking otherwise.

[See, I too can be absolutist, uncompromising, intolerant, and a royal
pain-in-the-ass.]

Clyde

"Clyde" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
snip

If all you shoot is landscapes, the 4/3 system's inability to provide
higher
pixel counts is a show-stopper.

That was careless writing. Something along the lines of "If landscape work
is an important part of your mix, the 4/3 system's inability to provide
higher pixel counts is a show-stopper." would have been better.

If all you shoot is landscapes, why don't you stick with sheet film like
you should? It is absolutely the only possible solution! You shouldn't
even think of anything else.

Really. Except for the minor problem that it's hard for amateurs to get the
information off sheet film. High res drum scans are expensive, and flatbeds
only get about half the information off. That makes medium format a good
choice. (For me, for now. Until Canon releases an affordable/liftable camera
with the 1DsM2 sensor, that is.)

If you do, you are absolutely, totally
wrong and an idiot for even thinking otherwise.

[See, I too can be absolutist, uncompromising, intolerant, and a royal
pain-in-the-ass.]

Yes, but I actually had a point (that some people would like an upgrade
path).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , david-
says...
Brian C. Baird wrote:
[]
Sure, but 35mm is a good enough starting point - it has tons of legacy
support

35mm is /a/ starting point, but I would like to see evolution /beyond/
"legacy", and applaud the move to a half-size "4/3" sensor (18 x 13.5mm)
with potential size and weight reductions of associated kit.

Cheers,
David

And when you can actually get decent resolution and noise performance
out of a half size sensor and a lighter kit, I'd be all for it to.
However, 4/3rds hasn't managed any of those things yet. It's a standard
as arbitrary as 35mm and certainly less flexible.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , says...
Really. Except for the minor problem that it's hard for amateurs to get the
information off sheet film. High res drum scans are expensive, and flatbeds
only get about half the information off. That makes medium format a good
choice. (For me, for now. Until Canon releases an affordable/liftable camera
with the 1DsM2 sensor, that is.)

David, have you looking into getting a pano head and a copy of
Panotools? You can make some really, really outstanding landscapes
using multiple digital images. Doesn't work in every situation, but
when it does - boy howdy!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article , says...
Really. Except for the minor problem that it's hard for amateurs to get
the
information off sheet film. High res drum scans are expensive, and
flatbeds
only get about half the information off. That makes medium format a good
choice. (For me, for now. Until Canon releases an affordable/liftable
camera
with the 1DsM2 sensor, that is.)

David, have you looking into getting a pano head and a copy of
Panotools? You can make some really, really outstanding landscapes
using multiple digital images. Doesn't work in every situation, but
when it does - boy howdy!

Agreed, but it works fine with film images, too.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/33533884/large

That's something like 3300 x 6600 clean pixels. (It would be more like 5000
x 10,000 pixels if I liked raw scan pixels as much as Roger Clark does, but
I prefer my images without the noise and with higher contrast in the higher
frequencies so I noise-reduce and downsample to 2400 or so dpi.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Clyde" wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
snip

If all you shoot is landscapes, the 4/3 system's inability to provide

higher

pixel counts is a show-stopper.


That was careless writing. Something along the lines of "If landscape work
is an important part of your mix, the 4/3 system's inability to provide
higher pixel counts is a show-stopper." would have been better.


If all you shoot is landscapes, why don't you stick with sheet film like
you should? It is absolutely the only possible solution! You shouldn't
even think of anything else.


Really. Except for the minor problem that it's hard for amateurs to get the
information off sheet film. High res drum scans are expensive, and flatbeds
only get about half the information off. That makes medium format a good
choice. (For me, for now. Until Canon releases an affordable/liftable camera
with the 1DsM2 sensor, that is.)


If you do, you are absolutely, totally
wrong and an idiot for even thinking otherwise.

[See, I too can be absolutist, uncompromising, intolerant, and a royal
pain-in-the-ass.]


Yes, but I actually had a point (that some people would like an upgrade
path).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




Ah, I had a point too. That being...

There are many types of photography, many types of photographers, and
many tools that can be used to get there. Your closed-minded, intolerant
rantings that the E-1 is NOT the tool for ANY type of photography or
photographer is stupid and a PITA.

So, get off of it! You don't have absolute Truth. Allow some other
opinions to exist in the world - if not your own mind. You might learn
something instead of ****ing off the world.

Clyde


PS - View cameras have much better upgrade paths than any digital camera.

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
Michael Meissner wrote:

Well they just announced two new consumer lenses 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
and 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 along with the EVOLT, though I don't recall
the pricing information. I would imagine the third lens announced,
7-14mm (14-28mm) f/4.0 is more of a professional lens.

Let's see... the 40-150/3.5-4.5 is equivalent to an 80-300 lens for
a 35mm camera. Not bad, f/4.5 at the long end, for a consumer lens.

Has anybody figured out the pop-up flash on the Evolt/E300? Specs
say it's a "slide pop-up" but I have no idea what that means.

My first impression was "that's an ugly camera" but I think that's
because it doesn't have a raised viewfinder/prism box and high flash.
Maybe I could get used to the new look, but I fear the flash doesn't
pop up high enough to avoid redeye.


My first impression was "that looks like a solidly built camera".

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/olympus/e300back.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/olympus/e300press.jpg

Its design actually appeals to my taste. It looks rugged, high build
quality, and very usable in the hand. I guess there's something retro
and no-nonsense about its looks. It would be there with a VW, a Vespa,
a Stabilo Boss, a Bic 4-color pen... you know, that mid-20th-Century
European-influenced Design.

Actually the more I look at it the more I like its looks. It looks
more like a rangefinder than an SLR. I feel this would be a great
travel camera.

I really like Olympus cameras. If the image quality is good I would
highly consider it in a year from now. But I would totally understand
why someone with an existing investment in 35mm lenses or someone who
feels a need to buy many lenses in the future would not be
enthausiastic about the 4/3rds system.

Here's a prediction if history proves faithful to its trends :
considering that 8mp is generally good enough resolution for most
uses, I predict that in 5 or 10 years time this same quircky-looking
camera is likely to still have a passionate community/cult of
collectors long after the current crop of canon/nikon (... etc) dSLRs
made their way to the trash heaps.