DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

New Esystem SLRbs

ditto1958

Well-Known Member
I saw a good-news/bad-news press release today.

The bad: Olympus is losing money and is cutting production costs, including many jobs due to poor sales.

The good(?): the release also seems to refer to sales projections based on the release of two new digital slr's. Anyone know anything about this?
 
I'm sorry to hear about Olympus losing money, but I think we've had enough of being offered what the camera companies say we want, and would instead prefer to have on offer what we *do* want!! I don't know about the rest of you, but what *I* want is a full-frame sensor dSLR (as a bonus, it would also fit my OM lenses via an adapter). At present, Canon is my only hope, and when I can afford it I will buy the 1Ds mk II (or its equivalent at that time). I appreciate the idea Olympus had to make a dedicated system where everything is designed for each other, but I am fond of the 35mm format - including the DOF it gives (a smaller sensor makes obtaining shallow DOF that much harder). Canon are moving ahead not because they are better but because they are giving consumers what they want.

I love my old OM lenses, and use them on my 10D via an adapter. I don't say that an ideal camera *must* fit the OM lenses, but I can justify the expense more if it does (I know the E-1 has an OM-adapter, and I think that this is a spark of brilliance from Olympus; we don't need to use Om gear 100%, but having a choice is good). Now, let's see a 35mm full-frame body with an option to fit OM lenses as well as dedicated 'digital' lenses if they like, and then I'm interested!!
 
> > I am sorry, but that is not going to happen. Olympus has has invested in the current format and the next bodies will never have full frame 35 mm sensors. For that matter, even Canon is going the APS way. That is mostly because lenses that are fully optimised for the digital sensor would be huge compared to the current full frame lenses. And current (top) Canon L lenses are already quite large.

I am a big fan of OM lenses but I have no regret for going the E-system way. The Digital Zuiko lenses are great, compact and the pictures you get with the E-1 and its lenses are just wonderfull.

D.
 
You're right. They're not going to change their format any time soon. They've got too much invested in the 4/3 system. Smaller sensors do make sense. I imagine technology will find a way to fit more pixels in a smaller space. Lenses optimized for a full frame sensor would have to be ridiculously large. Rumor has it that Kodak has a new sensor for the next generation of E-system cameras.
 
next generation of E-system cameras>

The way I understood the press release was that they would produce another E body.

BTW some of the articles I have read indicate that they like the E system.

I looked at the Olympus website and I think that they offer far too many different models, of each business segment, especially compact cameras and voice recorders.

If Carl Zeiss can bring back Zeiss Ikon and a film rangfinder camera. Perhaps, there would be some money for Olympus to produce an OM5 and OM6 and sell them to all of us with Zuiko glass.

Best Regards:

Gilbert
 
> Smaller sensors do > make sense.

In what way? We get larger DOF this way... unless they will supply us with f/0.5 lenses?? (I doubt it!!)

> I imagine technology will find a way to > fit more pixels in > a smaller space.

This is already possible, but the noise problem goes up with smaller pixels, making higher ISOs almost unusable.

> Lenses optimized for a full frame > sensor would have > to be ridiculously large.

Are you sure about this? Perhaps for wide angle, but for telephoto the light already hits the sensor perpendicularly, more or less, so they need no further design changes as far as I'm aware.
 
> Perhaps, there would be some money for Olympus to > produce an OM5 and > OM6 and sell them to all of us with Zuiko glass.

That would be nice!! But I read somewhere that they destroyed all the OM manufacturing equipment, so to go back now would be way too expensive!!
 
> >

Posted by Mark M. Ditter (Ditto1958) on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:20 pm:

>>Lenses optimized for a full frame sensor would have >>to be ridiculously large. > What is "ridiculously large"? The Contax N lenses (for the N1 and N Digital) were designed explicitly for full frame sensors (as used in the N Digital). The zooms often have a larger than normal front element (like the outstanding 24-85) but the lenses are not ridiculously large. The fixed focal length N lenses, such as the 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 100/2.8 Macro are a little bigger than their equivalents in the earlier Contax lens line (C/Y) because of the autofocus motors, not because of the optical design. Compared to the Olympus OM manual focus lenses they maybe large, but so it just about every autofocus lens. It's a shame Contax/Kyocera tripped up with the N Digital and threw in the towel because the lenses were simply magnificent and the body had great potential and the typically great Contax ergonomic interface and handling. If the lenses need to be a little bigger to perform like these Contax N lenses do and cover a full frame sensor, I'm all for it.
 
As a non technical person I would have thought that it stands to reason that it must be better to have a larger sensor for holding more pixels/photosites than a smaller one, hence "medium format" digital cameras apparently give better results. A larger sensor can hold more and larger pixels without them being so j&acked together as to create noise.
This is one aspect that makes me query the 4/3rd system principle in that it is a small sensor and I wonder how far it can be developed. Although tecnology does seem to improve to solve problems as they arise, more or less by trial (on the buying public) and error it often seems
John
 
>The 4/3 system is a balance between affordability all round. The 4/3 ccd is relatively cheap to make compared with full frame and I read somewhere its current size can be developed to hold up to 16M Photosites (?) before the laws of physics kick in. Of course noise reduction techniques will have to be employed. Mind you that's with CCD as opposed to CMOS. As the cost of either type of sensors come down so will the choice available to the camera makers. And a lot depends on how many 'point and press' digicams the makers can sell as there is a lot of cross subsidisation going on. As far as the lenses go again it is compromise between sensor size and lens resolving power. No lens maker needs to make a lens capable of resolving much more than is actually required by the days technology. John F. >

>
 
Back
Top