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!
Whatbs going up with contax
- Thread starter roberto1
- Start date
@DJG
I could imagine, that the photodiodes of the E-system are in general bigger than the ones in APS size sensors because of this technology.
But since APS size chips and fulsize chips are bigger, there is also more space. Meaning wit the ssame amount of MP (i.e.8MP), I would conclude that the size of the photodiodes of an APS size sensor and fullsize sensor are either equal in size or even bigger than the the photodiodes on the "Oly-sensor", because of the bigger space on the sensor.
But this is just theoretical thinking. Maybe there are technical requirements that the "transfer channels" of non-oly-sensors are the bigger, the bigger the photodiodes are. In this case, the Oly-sensor would have even then an advantage...
The video explanations on the Oly side (see link above) is making the impression that this is really beneficial. This would be in line with test results I read in German tests, that the 8MP Oly models start to show the quality of the new Zuiko lenses, which could not be seen with the E-1 and its 5MP sensor.
The 5MP sensor of the E-1 was by the way not planned. Kodak promised to deliver for the E-1 an 8MP sensor, but failed. Pricing, marketing etc. could not be stopped in the last minute, so they choose the 5MP sensor. Funny to see how all this turns out...
I could imagine, that the photodiodes of the E-system are in general bigger than the ones in APS size sensors because of this technology.
But since APS size chips and fulsize chips are bigger, there is also more space. Meaning wit the ssame amount of MP (i.e.8MP), I would conclude that the size of the photodiodes of an APS size sensor and fullsize sensor are either equal in size or even bigger than the the photodiodes on the "Oly-sensor", because of the bigger space on the sensor.
But this is just theoretical thinking. Maybe there are technical requirements that the "transfer channels" of non-oly-sensors are the bigger, the bigger the photodiodes are. In this case, the Oly-sensor would have even then an advantage...
The video explanations on the Oly side (see link above) is making the impression that this is really beneficial. This would be in line with test results I read in German tests, that the 8MP Oly models start to show the quality of the new Zuiko lenses, which could not be seen with the E-1 and its 5MP sensor.
The 5MP sensor of the E-1 was by the way not planned. Kodak promised to deliver for the E-1 an 8MP sensor, but failed. Pricing, marketing etc. could not be stopped in the last minute, so they choose the 5MP sensor. Funny to see how all this turns out...
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
That's very interesting about the reason for the 5MP sensor. Maybe they rather shot themselves in the foot with that since although it's quality is defended by users, the low resolution must have been a sales drawback. Perhaps they should have found a way of delaying the launch as Mamiya keepes putting back its launch of the ZD and Leica delayed its modules, even though it may have been a big delay it might have done them more good in the crucial intiial market aceptance phase.
Wow! I just looked at the lens line up for the Olympus E cameras and that is one SERIOUS price list!
Some of the most interesting lenses spec's I've ever seen. 150/2 !!! ... are you kidding me? That is a faaaaast 300/2 equivalent! Some of those zooms are more than serious prices ... and are unequaled in specs by anyone, anywhere. Olympus desperately needs a 12 meg. or so high performance sensor with good high ISO ability. That would make them a really interesting alternative.
Some of the most interesting lenses spec's I've ever seen. 150/2 !!! ... are you kidding me? That is a faaaaast 300/2 equivalent! Some of those zooms are more than serious prices ... and are unequaled in specs by anyone, anywhere. Olympus desperately needs a 12 meg. or so high performance sensor with good high ISO ability. That would make them a really interesting alternative.
sorry that I dragged this more and more off-topic. I even do not know now, where to move this therad later on, since it deals with everything
Regarding Olympus:
What impresses me, is that they made big investments in new lenses and new bodies, although their market share shrinked dramatically and losses have been reportet (AFAI remember) in the past. They had a couple of weeks ago around 3% market share in the DSLR market. Similar to Konica Minolta, Pentax et alii. This is really low, compared to their start in digital photography with P&S and their dominance in this market years ago.
They failed to market the brandname "Olympus". They always only marketed the specific product. If product is gone, recognition is gone. Canon does it correctly, they market the brand. "Canon you can".
Nervertheless Oly still pushes big money into new products. And Panasonic will offer soon 4/3ds cameras too. I wonder whether Leica would be interested to design lenses for the 4/3rd system for Panasonic
Oly offers currently 15 lenses, 1 converter, 1 OM-adapter to attach old Oly OM-System lenses to the E-system etc. This all in only 2.5 years. Impressive. Unfortunately almost all zooms:
7-14mm 1:4.0
8mm 1:3.5 Fisheye
11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5
14-45mm 1:3.5-5.6
14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5
17.5-45mm 1:3.5-5.6
18-180mm 1:3.5-6.3
35-100mm 1:2.0
40-150mm 1:3.5-4.5
50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5
90-250mm 1:2.8
50mm 1:2.0 Macro
35mm 1:3.5 Macro
150mm 1:2.0
300mm 1:2.8
If we would just ignore the current high iso weakness, a smaller chip gives the oppporunity to make smaller cameras and lighter lenses. Look at the bigger zooms and how light and small they are. And compared to traditional DSLRs, the Oly tele lenses offer big advantages because of price, minimum aperture and weight for that focal length.
Additional the dust-removal solution (which I do not know whether it really works so much).
I mean, in theory it sounds good. Wideangle might be a problem. I am sure, a 7-14mm can not be as good in terms of vignetting and light fall off as a i.e. 17-35 zoom for full frame. But maybe this is all corrected easily in Photoshop? or already within the camera with in built software, before it is recorde as RAW file? Does anybody know?
...interesting to watch
I guess Photokina 2006 (end of Septmeber) will be very interesting for all brandnames.
We have of course an Olympus community forum, by the way
Regarding Olympus:
What impresses me, is that they made big investments in new lenses and new bodies, although their market share shrinked dramatically and losses have been reportet (AFAI remember) in the past. They had a couple of weeks ago around 3% market share in the DSLR market. Similar to Konica Minolta, Pentax et alii. This is really low, compared to their start in digital photography with P&S and their dominance in this market years ago.
They failed to market the brandname "Olympus". They always only marketed the specific product. If product is gone, recognition is gone. Canon does it correctly, they market the brand. "Canon you can".
Nervertheless Oly still pushes big money into new products. And Panasonic will offer soon 4/3ds cameras too. I wonder whether Leica would be interested to design lenses for the 4/3rd system for Panasonic
Oly offers currently 15 lenses, 1 converter, 1 OM-adapter to attach old Oly OM-System lenses to the E-system etc. This all in only 2.5 years. Impressive. Unfortunately almost all zooms:
7-14mm 1:4.0
8mm 1:3.5 Fisheye
11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5
14-45mm 1:3.5-5.6
14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5
17.5-45mm 1:3.5-5.6
18-180mm 1:3.5-6.3
35-100mm 1:2.0
40-150mm 1:3.5-4.5
50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5
90-250mm 1:2.8
50mm 1:2.0 Macro
35mm 1:3.5 Macro
150mm 1:2.0
300mm 1:2.8
If we would just ignore the current high iso weakness, a smaller chip gives the oppporunity to make smaller cameras and lighter lenses. Look at the bigger zooms and how light and small they are. And compared to traditional DSLRs, the Oly tele lenses offer big advantages because of price, minimum aperture and weight for that focal length.
Additional the dust-removal solution (which I do not know whether it really works so much).
I mean, in theory it sounds good. Wideangle might be a problem. I am sure, a 7-14mm can not be as good in terms of vignetting and light fall off as a i.e. 17-35 zoom for full frame. But maybe this is all corrected easily in Photoshop? or already within the camera with in built software, before it is recorde as RAW file? Does anybody know?
...interesting to watch
I guess Photokina 2006 (end of Septmeber) will be very interesting for all brandnames.
We have of course an Olympus community forum, by the way
D
djg
My previous camera when I got my first RTS way back when in the mid-70's was an OM-1 system, light and compact. But when I did a slide show with the shots taken with the new RTS / Zeiss system, I kid you not a couple of people who had seen similar shots with the Oly system literally said "Wow!". The improvement in color & contrast was so noticeable you didn't need a side-by-side.
But that was many moons ago. Perhaps things are different today ...
I should point out that it's possible some Oly (and other make) lenses are as sharp, even sharper, than equivalent Zeiss, but the other aspects of the image may not be anywhere near as good, e.g. saturation, contrast etc. Some people feel this is easily overcome in PS post-processing, but unfortunately the best you can do is sort of cover it up.
I always see in forums comparisons and ratings are usually only made based on sharpness, which to me is missing more than half the story.
But that was many moons ago. Perhaps things are different today ...
I should point out that it's possible some Oly (and other make) lenses are as sharp, even sharper, than equivalent Zeiss, but the other aspects of the image may not be anywhere near as good, e.g. saturation, contrast etc. Some people feel this is easily overcome in PS post-processing, but unfortunately the best you can do is sort of cover it up.
I always see in forums comparisons and ratings are usually only made based on sharpness, which to me is missing more than half the story.