>I've heard it said that 35mm full-frame is equivalent to 20~30 megapixels. And advances in 35mm film technology now seem aimed less at increasing max resolution than at making high resolution and fine grain available at higher and higher ISO ratings. > > My guess is that making digital match film will be less and less a matter of resolution, more and more an optimization of other parameters. Increased dynamic range (exposure latitude) would seem to be one possibility.
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are 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. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
New Esystem SLRbs
- Thread starter ditto1958
- Start date
@Neil
"...I disagree that a full-frame sensor is irrelavent. I feel it is very important, not because of megapixel counts, but because of DOF issues..."
i also prefer the DOF with fullframe SLRs. What I was referring too, was the limitation in designing excellent wideangles if the sensor is smaller than fullframe - In the past, it was aid that due to physics, wideangles i.e. 18mm can not be as good as i.e.35mm by default.
I iam surprised that I see now so many 17mm wideabnle (zoom!) for APS Dslrs and nobody is really complaining baout the image quality on the short end. Either most users are blind, or something changed in optical design (or with photoshop?), so that distortion etc. is not visible anymore.
This is why I was so surprised, when Olympus came out with a 2x crop factor for the E system. And now a 7mm-11mm lens. Who would have tried to design this 15 years ago. And can thi szoom ever come close to a 14-22m zoom of film days? I even can not remember one
@Ivan
"...A smart lens maker should take an educated guess about what would be needed at least 30 years down the pike..."
I agree, that a lens maker has to take into consieration, what kind of resoltion will be available ion the future for designing the lenses now. But I disagree on the time frame. 30 years is just too long. I would consider 10 years as a maximum. Lens'manufacturers need a minimum amount of time for selling enough lenses to make it profitable. I guess this is something like 2-3 years, depends on the sales per year and the calculated margin. But noone can design now lenses, that will meet DSLRs in a satisfying way in 20 years, not even considering, that noone ca ise the resolving power, since we all shoot handheld in most cases
If you look at the camera broschures, every 8-10 years, a new lens with the same focal lenghth came out in the "old film days" (sounds like history...). I do not expect longer replacement cycles. In fact, if you read reviews i.e. of the Nikon 2.8/17-55 DX zoom (designed specifically for the Nikon DSLRs), you will see that it performs worse on the D70 than on the D2x. And the lens was available even befor thze D2x existed.
So the engineers have obviously future progresses in mind. But I assume after a certain resolution, it does not matter anymore, since you will not see the differences anymore with your eyes. IMO noone (except some specialists) needs mor image quality than the best film nowadays available. IMO this is already achieved with the top Pro DSLRs of the different mnaufacturers.
IMO the focus in lens design should now go to areas, which are never really mentioned in the tests, but very important in real life shootings:
Lens flare, ghosting, as a consequence contrast reduction, colour accuracy etc.
Except for Zeiss Contax lenses, I have not seen really impressing results from any other manufacturere regarding these issues (although never tried the E-system). If weather is nice and not difficult for images, every cheap lens can make great pictures. But if it is getting difficult, which happens mybe in 5% of the cases for most of us, then you will see dramatic differences. And then it is great to have a lens, which can deliver still contrast and colours, although there was little available because of the weather conditions/ light conditions.
Back to the bodies:
"... My guess is that making digital match film will be less and less a matter of resolution, more and more an optimization of other parameters. Increased dynamic range (exposure latitude) would seem to be one possibility..."
I agree
@John
The only disadvantage of the E system for you, if you want to use it with your Zeiss lenses, is the crop factor. Zeiss is famous for its wideangles, which will be "boring" normal lenses with a multiplier of 2. So you gave up the main advantage of the Zeiss lenses. Currently only Canon can offer fullframe, and they will offer (according to rumours) soon a cheaper FF DSLR. Acoording to ther rumours, Nikon will offer near FF DSLR within the next 2 years.
But if the Olympus lenses are very good, there might be no need for adapting Zeiss lenses. Olympus has excellent know-how in producing microscopes. So why should they not be able to produce great lenses. Try them out. Every manufacturere can make excellent lenses, if they just invenst enough money in Research and design. But these lenses are then not cheap
But IMO, how many 50mm, or wideangles someone buys in a lifetime, if he is satisfied with the results? So in the long run it might be cheaper to buy the best...
Sorry for the long posting...
"...I disagree that a full-frame sensor is irrelavent. I feel it is very important, not because of megapixel counts, but because of DOF issues..."
i also prefer the DOF with fullframe SLRs. What I was referring too, was the limitation in designing excellent wideangles if the sensor is smaller than fullframe - In the past, it was aid that due to physics, wideangles i.e. 18mm can not be as good as i.e.35mm by default.
I iam surprised that I see now so many 17mm wideabnle (zoom!) for APS Dslrs and nobody is really complaining baout the image quality on the short end. Either most users are blind, or something changed in optical design (or with photoshop?), so that distortion etc. is not visible anymore.
This is why I was so surprised, when Olympus came out with a 2x crop factor for the E system. And now a 7mm-11mm lens. Who would have tried to design this 15 years ago. And can thi szoom ever come close to a 14-22m zoom of film days? I even can not remember one
@Ivan
"...A smart lens maker should take an educated guess about what would be needed at least 30 years down the pike..."
I agree, that a lens maker has to take into consieration, what kind of resoltion will be available ion the future for designing the lenses now. But I disagree on the time frame. 30 years is just too long. I would consider 10 years as a maximum. Lens'manufacturers need a minimum amount of time for selling enough lenses to make it profitable. I guess this is something like 2-3 years, depends on the sales per year and the calculated margin. But noone can design now lenses, that will meet DSLRs in a satisfying way in 20 years, not even considering, that noone ca ise the resolving power, since we all shoot handheld in most cases
If you look at the camera broschures, every 8-10 years, a new lens with the same focal lenghth came out in the "old film days" (sounds like history...). I do not expect longer replacement cycles. In fact, if you read reviews i.e. of the Nikon 2.8/17-55 DX zoom (designed specifically for the Nikon DSLRs), you will see that it performs worse on the D70 than on the D2x. And the lens was available even befor thze D2x existed.
So the engineers have obviously future progresses in mind. But I assume after a certain resolution, it does not matter anymore, since you will not see the differences anymore with your eyes. IMO noone (except some specialists) needs mor image quality than the best film nowadays available. IMO this is already achieved with the top Pro DSLRs of the different mnaufacturers.
IMO the focus in lens design should now go to areas, which are never really mentioned in the tests, but very important in real life shootings:
Lens flare, ghosting, as a consequence contrast reduction, colour accuracy etc.
Except for Zeiss Contax lenses, I have not seen really impressing results from any other manufacturere regarding these issues (although never tried the E-system). If weather is nice and not difficult for images, every cheap lens can make great pictures. But if it is getting difficult, which happens mybe in 5% of the cases for most of us, then you will see dramatic differences. And then it is great to have a lens, which can deliver still contrast and colours, although there was little available because of the weather conditions/ light conditions.
Back to the bodies:
"... My guess is that making digital match film will be less and less a matter of resolution, more and more an optimization of other parameters. Increased dynamic range (exposure latitude) would seem to be one possibility..."
I agree
@John
The only disadvantage of the E system for you, if you want to use it with your Zeiss lenses, is the crop factor. Zeiss is famous for its wideangles, which will be "boring" normal lenses with a multiplier of 2. So you gave up the main advantage of the Zeiss lenses. Currently only Canon can offer fullframe, and they will offer (according to rumours) soon a cheaper FF DSLR. Acoording to ther rumours, Nikon will offer near FF DSLR within the next 2 years.
But if the Olympus lenses are very good, there might be no need for adapting Zeiss lenses. Olympus has excellent know-how in producing microscopes. So why should they not be able to produce great lenses. Try them out. Every manufacturere can make excellent lenses, if they just invenst enough money in Research and design. But these lenses are then not cheap
But IMO, how many 50mm, or wideangles someone buys in a lifetime, if he is satisfied with the results? So in the long run it might be cheaper to buy the best...
Sorry for the long posting...
Hi,
There may be another reason to go for a smaller sensor. A smaller sensor gives the opportunity to the designer to build lenses which are bigger compared to the frame size. And this has major optical advantages (look at www.imx.nl for an explanation why).
A fine ex&le is the Contax N-series which has a bigger bayonet mount then ever before and HUGE lenses. Also all new lenses made by the big lens manufacturers seems to become bigger and bigger with every new version.
Cheers,
Marc-paul
There may be another reason to go for a smaller sensor. A smaller sensor gives the opportunity to the designer to build lenses which are bigger compared to the frame size. And this has major optical advantages (look at www.imx.nl for an explanation why).
A fine ex&le is the Contax N-series which has a bigger bayonet mount then ever before and HUGE lenses. Also all new lenses made by the big lens manufacturers seems to become bigger and bigger with every new version.
Cheers,
Marc-paul
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the helpful post Dirk,
I just cannot make up my mind digitally speaking. Consequently, apart from a Casio compact, I have stuck to film through my Contax and Mamiya cameras. It is less convenient but the quality is ace. The new ff Canon sounds like it may be a possibility though. Apparently the price is going to be more reasonable. It is a big decision because I don't want (like all of us I expect) to move to a new system and then have to change again at a later date. So I want what I eventually will no doubt get, to be right for a very long time. I hope to be able to use my CZ lenses still but I would certainly want to try the new system's lenses as well.
John
I just cannot make up my mind digitally speaking. Consequently, apart from a Casio compact, I have stuck to film through my Contax and Mamiya cameras. It is less convenient but the quality is ace. The new ff Canon sounds like it may be a possibility though. Apparently the price is going to be more reasonable. It is a big decision because I don't want (like all of us I expect) to move to a new system and then have to change again at a later date. So I want what I eventually will no doubt get, to be right for a very long time. I hope to be able to use my CZ lenses still but I would certainly want to try the new system's lenses as well.
John
> The E-system has one disadvantag and two advantages, relative to Canon and such. >
The advantages are: (1) lenses are potentially smaller and lighter,. (2) Other companies will be making bodies as well as lenses for it, ensuring a wider choice and reinforcing the likelihood that the system will last. The disadvantage is that there are as yet few lenses, and virtually none on the used market, nor are their matching film bodies.
The advantages are: (1) lenses are potentially smaller and lighter,. (2) Other companies will be making bodies as well as lenses for it, ensuring a wider choice and reinforcing the likelihood that the system will last. The disadvantage is that there are as yet few lenses, and virtually none on the used market, nor are their matching film bodies.
It's a myth that there are few lenses for the E-system digital cameras -- Olympus has a big enough range to suit all purposes, and the range is growing. As for them having no matching film bodies, that's exactly the point Olympus is trying to make -- this is a new digital system with lenses purpose built for it. It's not a hybrid system using a lens intended for film on a digital body like other manufacturers are doing. To say there are no matching film bodies is a contradiction in itself --- you can't match a digital lens with a film body and expect the two to work in harmony. That's precisely why Olympus took the brave but correct decision to design a brand new lens-mount for their new digital bodies and lenses instead of using an existing one such as OM.
"Are they as brave as Nikon and Cannon? They still produce film bodies. I'd like an OM 6!"
You are still missing my point. You're evidently not yet committed to digital as I am. As for Nikon and Canon, there was no bravery involved there -- they didn't want to risk losing loyal customers so they convinced them all that old film lenses were fine on digital bodies. Olympus knew better and wasn't afraid to start with a clean sheet -- new mount and new lenses. Seems to me you still prefer film. That's fine but I'm totally digital now and have no further use for film equipment.
You are still missing my point. You're evidently not yet committed to digital as I am. As for Nikon and Canon, there was no bravery involved there -- they didn't want to risk losing loyal customers so they convinced them all that old film lenses were fine on digital bodies. Olympus knew better and wasn't afraid to start with a clean sheet -- new mount and new lenses. Seems to me you still prefer film. That's fine but I'm totally digital now and have no further use for film equipment.
Nikon and Canon, there was no bravery involved there -- they didn't want to risk losing loyal customers so they convinced them all that old film lenses were fine on digital bodies. Olympus knew better and wasn't afraid to start with a clean sheet -- new mount and new lenses. Seems to me you still prefer film. That's fine but I'm totally digital now and have no further use for film equipment>
Take it easy. Nikon has made digital lenses and Cannon has a full frame sensor and they dominate the market. Yes, I shoot slides. But, there is room for both. A survey on this forum was about 50/50. That won't last if those new to photography aren't offered the opportunity to pursue film, as when they enter a camera store filled only with digital cameras. The last number of professionals that I have met use digital for work, and film for pleasure. I do what I want to do, I don't follow trends and I will not try to be on the "bleeding edge" as I know that better equipment could be brought forth now, instead of being dribbled out a little at a time.
As to missing your point, I recommened lenses designed for digital cameras after Olympus announced them a few years ago. So enjoy your equipment and I still want an OM 6 after all there is an F 6
Regards:
Gilbert
Take it easy. Nikon has made digital lenses and Cannon has a full frame sensor and they dominate the market. Yes, I shoot slides. But, there is room for both. A survey on this forum was about 50/50. That won't last if those new to photography aren't offered the opportunity to pursue film, as when they enter a camera store filled only with digital cameras. The last number of professionals that I have met use digital for work, and film for pleasure. I do what I want to do, I don't follow trends and I will not try to be on the "bleeding edge" as I know that better equipment could be brought forth now, instead of being dribbled out a little at a time.
As to missing your point, I recommened lenses designed for digital cameras after Olympus announced them a few years ago. So enjoy your equipment and I still want an OM 6 after all there is an F 6
Regards:
Gilbert