What's new
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

I'm sold on the E-system approach - I ditched my Canon DSLR and L-lenses and moved to the EVOLT and I'm much happier now. I've always been an OM user and I feel like I am back at home now.

The Hybrid DSLR makers have created their own new-legacy (if there is such a thing). I wonder how long Canon and Nikon (and Minolta/Konica and Pentax) will take to phase-out film bodies, then slowly migrate over to digital-only lenses. Eventually they will probably have a new mount, especially if the 35mm sensor proves to be less compelling in a non-hybrid world. I think they are slowing their future down by supporting the hybrid approach, though the market seems to indicate that the hybrid approach is a good one in the short-term (e.g. it has been more profitable than Oly's approach).
One interesting note about the digital-only approach: ironically, I get excellent performance on my EVOLT using 25 year old OM lenses - how did that happen?!? In fact, my 100mm f2 on the EVOLT is the best 200mm lense I have ;-)

Cheers!
- marc
 
>Another reason why there are no film E-system bodies: the lenses are designed to cover an area 1/4 that of a 35mm frame. So what film could they use? The nearest possibility is APS, with a 34.5mm diagonal. The 4/3 frame has a diagonal of about 22 mm, so the E-system lenses probably would not cover even APS -- and APS is pretty much a dead issue, these days--digital killed it.
 
"Take it easy. Nikon has made digital lenses and Cannon has a full frame sensor and they dominate the market."

Sorry, Gilbert. I did perhaps go over the top. Just sticking up for Olympus who always seem to get a bashing (undeserved in my view) from the Canon and Nikon c&s. My argument (and Olympus's) that only purpose-made digital lenses should be used on digital bodies for best results seems to be wrong judging by marc's post above.
 
Quote: Phillip Corcoran wrote: Sorry, Gilbert. I did perhaps go over the top. Just sticking up for Olympus who always seem to get a bashing (undeserved in my view) from the Canon and Nikon c&s. My argument (and Olympus's) that only purpose-made digital lenses should be used on digital bodies for best results seems to be wrong judging by marc's post above. Unquote

Phillip, It seems that it is scientificly proven you are right. Please find two articles from Erwin Puts. This is a Dutch photojournalist with a scientific approach on test comparisons between film and sensors. His website www.imx.nl is very interesting. Please review this: Why Olympus claims seem to be right (please read part 1 and 2): http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/epsonrd1/epsonrd1.html

On film lenses for digital sensors and the Megapixel race: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html

Hope this helps in the discussion

Kind regards,

Marc-paul
 
Mr. Puts did write at one time that he had some reservations about the degree to which Olympus ascribed to (if you will) the straightness of light through the lens. He offers several aspects and opinions on the subject. He has written many publications and articles. I do not recall precisely where I read the above.


http://http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c011.html

Also, like many new venues and products time alters ones opinion and writings. If you read forums from just a few years ago, you will find surprisingly firm opinions and prognostications about digital computerography.

Carl Zeiss produces "digital" lenses for cameras, video, and movie cameras.

<As to missing your point, I recommended lenses designed for digital cameras after Olympus announced them a few years ago>

FYI-Two days ago I did see a photographer using a E-volt during the United States Senate Judicial hearings.
<
Just sticking up for Olympus who always seem to get a bashing (undeserved in my view) from the Canon and Nikon c&s.>

You won't find any bashing on this forum or on the others at Camera-info. Just those that like to share information.


Regards:

Gilbert
 
Several OM system lenses perform very well on E-system cameras. The 50mm/f3.5 macro, the 90mm/f2 macro, some of the teles etc.

Olympus made a marketing blunder by denying that the OM adapter existed, even when we knew it did. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to supply the adapter as a stepping stone for loyal OM shooters.

Combine that with the fact that many OM users felt totally abandonded when Olympus dropped the OM system, and you can see why there was hesitance for those loyal to Olympus to commit to E System. Would they be abandonded again? After all, this is a smaller sensor size that APS, lower pixel count than the competition at the price, etc. And they do not look, feel and handle like an OM. As far as digital goes, I HATE lots of buttons, menues etc. There is no reason you can't build a digital OM-1, OM-4, etc, keeping it smaller, fewer controls, and especially bigger, better viewfinder.

As a result thousands of OM users hesitated to make the jump. I personally know of many who are still on the fence, as I am, waiting to see if Olympus makes an E-3 that gets better response/share and assures that Olympus will stay in the game. And their initial release of lenses included no fast primes. Those used to wonderful OM Zuiko primes were not impressed.

If they REALLY wanted to hook me, they'd come out with a decent OM-5D, clean up interface/controls AND come out with a digital rangefinder that would replicate the Olympus 35SP but with ZD mount for nterchangeable lenses. Give me a 11mm, 18mm, 22mm and 40mm fast primes, and I'll be happy.
 
Larger sensor size does not necessarily translate to better performance, especially for wide angle lenses.
 
Comment with new information:

Since I last posted, I acquired for myself a Canon 5D (which is FF on a budget if you like - well, I'm not so rich as to buy a 1Ds mk II!). From my experience with this camera, I can tell you the following:

1) Light fall-off.
Yes, it exists with wide-angle lenses, but some lenses are better than others. My Zuiko 21mm f/2 did give me what I assumed was severe light fall-off, but later I realised I was seeing the filter in the photo (yes, it is an Olympus slim filter and I never saw a problem with film... but it seems that I forgot that both slides and commercial prints are very slightly cropped so this was probably why I never saw it - the 5D merely covers 100% of the negative's area). In the meantime, I bought a Canon zoom, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L - which has some corner softness but is otherwise quite OK. (All my other lenses are Olympus Zuiko OM lenses.)

2) Other lenses are 100% fine.
Normal to telephoto lenses are perfect on the 5D, and even the fisheyes (I have both 8mm and 16mm) are fine, which means no more light fall-off than I saw with film.

8890.jpg


3) DOF back to "normal"
This is a small point for some, but for me it was important. Megapixels don't matter to me as much as nice DOF! OTOH, I now have 12.8Mp and it really does make a difference (I never would have believed it, but the histogram gets better as you shrink the image - by better, I mean less posterisation - and so the more Mps you have, the more you can shrink an image, and the bigger you can print at top quality).

So, fears that a FF sensor will degrade your images are unfounded.

I'm not putting Olympus down: they have made a self-contained system with every component designed for all the other components, like they did with the OM system. But, for me, FF is important and if Canon are going to be the only ones to follow this through then I will reward them with purchases. It is the sensor size, not the Mp count, which will keep me away from the 4/3 system. That doesn't mean that I think you guys are silly for buying into it. If you like the deeper DOF then you're onto a winner. Sometimes it is nice to have deeper DOF; even I can admit this fact. If I was rolling in cash, I'd buy into 4/3 as well as my other formats.

Now that I have FF, the next item on the wish-list is a full-frame 6x6 MF sensor to fit my Hasselblad...
 
Oh, by the way, the viewfinder of the 5D is bigger than that of the APS Canon digitals, but it still seems to be smaller and dimmer than that of the OM-1 etc. Can't have everything, apparently...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top