Good results with Oly 4/3rds compared to Canon EF lenses?

"Don B" wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:09 pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote:

Do all canon bodies that can accept those film lenses contain CCD's
that
are the same size and in the same position?No. Canon dSLRs use
Canon-manufactured _CMOS_ sensors in one of three sizes:
24 x 36 mm ("FF" or "full frame"), 19.1 x 28.7 mm ("1.3x"), and 15.1 x
22.7
mm ("1.6x").

People who have worked with film in a variety of formats (sizes) realize
that larger formats offer a tradeoff: it's harder to create good images
with
a larger format camera, but when you do get a good image, you get a much
better image than a smaller format camera would have acquired.

IMHO, the same is true in digital. Maybe it's easier to shoot with a
50/2.0
lens on a 4/3 camera, but the 5D with a 100/2.0 (a larger more expensive
lens) will produce better images when you put in the extra effort.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
You have examples to support your 'theory', like the original poster?

You could look at the samples from both cameras at dpreview and decide for
yourself.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I've been looking at some of the work some buds have been doing
with their cameras. One has a Canon and uses the same lenses on
his digicam that he used on his 35mm fim cam. Another has an
Olympus setup with the dedicated 4/3rds digital-only lens setup.

In visually comparing them side by side, it seems like the
Olympus setup is more "precise" and consistent edge to edge vs
the Canon.

I'm wondering if others are seeing this too, and if so, is it
because the Oly lenses are specifically tailored for their CCD
while the Canon was not designed to optimize the lens to their
CCD.

I'd appreciate any helpful discussion or input. I'm not sure
which way to commit when it comes to getting a DSLR, and I'd like
to have as much good info and opinion as possible.

Thanks

When the sensor and lens are designed as a pair, you can get better
results.

Many of the other DSLRs are simply 35mm camera designs recycled with
modifications using lenses which were not optimised for the job. Olympus
(and the 4/3 system in general) were designed from scratch with the
special needs of silicon sensors in mind.

Having said that, image quality may not be the only factor in choosing an
SLR - camera handling and the breadth of the system components may matter,
not to mention cost.

David

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

In visually comparing them side by side, it seems like the
Olympus setup is more "precise" and consistent edge to edge vs
the Canon.

Edge to edge...what?

The finished digital image.

I should have asked, "consistently" what?
Focussed?
Colored?
Toned?
Noisy?

Obviously focused - he is talking about lenses. Lenses have no impact on
noise or colours.
--

Alfred Molon

Agree with noise, but lenses certainly have an effect on color. But I'd
guess that Mark's point is to know what the problems were with the images to
ascertain whether the camera, lens or operator were at the root of the
problem.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote in message
news:%tcuh.9606$dk1.8766@trndny03...
In visually comparing them side by side, it seems like the
Olympus setup is more "precise" and consistent edge to edge vs
the Canon.

Edge to edge...what?

The finished digital image.

If you are talking about cropped, finished images, I'd have to say, in this
case, and without seeing examples, that the fault lies with the operator.
Oly has a stellar reputation for glass, Canon's best lenses are among the
best in the world. Since you don't say what lenses were being used, or even
what cameras, only brands, it is impossible to answer your question with any
accuracy.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Edge to edge...what?

The finished digital image.

If you are talking about cropped, finished images, I'd have to
say, in this case, and without seeing examples, that the fault
lies with the operator. Oly has a stellar reputation for
glass, Canon's best lenses are among the best in the world.
Since you don't say what lenses were being used, or even what
cameras, only brands, it is impossible to answer your question
with any accuracy.

I'm talking about UNCROPPED digital images initially produced by
the cameras without ANY editing being done.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , says...

In visually comparing them side by side, it seems like the
Olympus setup is more "precise" and consistent edge to edge vs
the Canon.

Edge to edge...what?

The finished digital image.

I should have asked, "consistently" what?
Focussed?
Colored?
Toned?
Noisy?

Obviously focused - he is talking about lenses. Lenses have no impact
on noise or colours.

Maybe that would seem obvious to you or me, but his description is so vague
that I wonder what he's really seeing that gives him this impression of
"better."

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Jan 26, 5:26 am, "David J Taylor"
wrote:
When the sensor and lens are designed as a pair, you can get better
results.

Many of the other DSLRs are simply 35mm camera designs recycled with
modifications using lenses which were not optimised for the job. Olympus
(and the 4/3 system in general) were designed from scratch with the
special needs of silicon sensors in mind.

Since we're talking generalities, I've read that the older 35mm lenses
(in general) work very well on the smaller/newer sensors. Since you're
"cropping" down the image circle, you're getting the sharpest part of
the image. Most (all?) lenses are sharpest in the centre, and suffer
various degrees/types of distortion at the edges. So (in general),
lenses designed for 35mm film are going to be sharper than lenses
designed for smaller sensor, and suffer from less distortion at the
edge. I certainly see this when comparing my Nikon 18-70DX (an
excellent "digital" lens) vs a nearly 20-year-old 50mm 1.8.

Is this impression wrong? In what ways would a "digital" lens be "more
suited" to a sensor than a lens designed for 35mm?

Drew

wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:26 am, "David J Taylor"
wrote:
When the sensor and lens are designed as a pair, you can get better
results.

Many of the other DSLRs are simply 35mm camera designs recycled with
modifications using lenses which were not optimised for the job.
Olympus (and the 4/3 system in general) were designed from scratch
with the special needs of silicon sensors in mind.

Since we're talking generalities, I've read that the older 35mm lenses
(in general) work very well on the smaller/newer sensors. Since
you're "cropping" down the image circle, you're getting the sharpest
part of the image. Most (all?) lenses are sharpest in the centre,
and suffer various degrees/types of distortion at the edges. So (in
general), lenses designed for 35mm film are going to be sharper than
lenses designed for smaller sensor, and suffer from less distortion
at the edge. I certainly see this when comparing my Nikon 18-70DX (an
excellent "digital" lens) vs a nearly 20-year-old 50mm 1.8.

Is this impression wrong? In what ways would a "digital" lens be
"more suited" to a sensor than a lens designed for 35mm?

Drew

When talking about 35mm lenses used on sub-35mm sensors you are generally
correct, although there is a greater magnification from sensor to print
size if the sensor is sub-35mm, so lens defects /could/ be more visible.

DX lenses are simply lenses optimised to work over the smaller image
circle that a cropped 35mm sensor requires. Reduces price and perhaps
size and weight. More cost-effective.

On the other hand, the 4/3-system lenses are designed to make the light
incident at an angle nearer to 90 degrees than is possible with revamped
35mm SLR designs, and typical silicon sensors react worse to off-axis
light than does 35mm film. So it is entirely possible that the
performance is better, particularly near the edges of the image.

David

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:04:17 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
wrote:

Edge to edge...what?

The finished digital image.

If you are talking about cropped, finished images, I'd have to
say, in this case, and without seeing examples, that the fault
lies with the operator. Oly has a stellar reputation for
glass, Canon's best lenses are among the best in the world.
Since you don't say what lenses were being used, or even what
cameras, only brands, it is impossible to answer your question
with any accuracy.

I'm talking about UNCROPPED digital images initially produced by
the cameras without ANY editing being done.

Again, what camera models, what lenses, and what, exactly, are you
comparing in the images?

--
California's Assembly prepared
Monday to move the state's
primary up to February. An early
California primary has unique
advantages. It gives each candidate
the chance to spend all their money
to finish third behind Gary Coleman
and a porn star.

Joan wrote:
What about CA?


What about posting as adults with some consideration for others do?

--
lsmft