Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Olympus EVOLT E-300

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 11, 2004 5:02:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.

More about : olympus evolt 300

Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:02:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I had it in my hands today...


"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:Iysud.7814$0r.4504@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
> newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
>
>
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:02:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:Iysud.7814$0r.4504@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
> newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.

The 4/3 sensor doesn't appear to be going anywhere. The E1 has a little too
much noise and a little too little sharpness. Olympus has already abandoned
one format - 35mm SLR - orphaning a lot of Olympus OM / Zuiko users. Maybe
they'll do it again?

HMc
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 7:41:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
> newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.

It would be nice to like it, but for a few little things like-

*Apparently lacks useful high-ISO capability. It seems to be more similar to
a non-DSLR in this regard.

*Limited lens choices (partly due to new format, partly due to small
installed user base).

*Lack of sales momentum. Its predecessor, the E1, wasn't exactly an
overwhelming success.

In a way, the E-300 looks like a DSLR version of a decent standard (non-SLR)
camera, while what I think would set the market on fire would be a non-SLR
camera with features usually found only in DSLRs (longer battery life,
higher ISO with low noise, faster shot-to-shot times, better autofocus etc).

Dang I'd love to add an E-300 to my Olympus collection; I've had great
success with a D220, D340, D450Z, 3000, D40 and 5050. But I just don't see
it happening; I need something that will do a better job in shooting sports
(specifically bicycle racing) and there's no way to get around useful higher
ISO and IS lenses. The Canon D20 still looks like the one to beat.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 8:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some still doubt the market viability of the 4/3 system, and are waiting to
see if the system get marketplace "traction." Right now, there's only one
manufacturer of cameras, and two manufacturers (Oly and Sigma) for lenses.
Also, the Oly cameras are always compared to the sub-frame (APS size sensor)
offerings from Nikon, Canon, etc, and may not compare well.

Personally, I hope the system succeeds. It is the only system designed for
digital from the ground up, and has none of the shortcomings of the
sub-frame cameras, like limited wide angle choices, etc. It may take some
time to succeed, but my fingers are crossed.

I was at Hunts (Melrose, MA, USA) today and got a look at the E-Volt, and it
looked a little bigger than I expected. I'll be back there on Monday to try
some test shots.

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:Iysud.7814$0r.4504@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
> newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
>
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:26:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
>newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
>

From our point of view, it's image stabilization. Now that the Monolta
digital SLR has been released, the Olympus SLRs are the only big name
cameras without it. Since we primarily do sports type shooting, we really
have to go with the competition's image stabilized offerings, as much as
we'd like to consider the E-1 and E-300. With the added cost of the Canon
and Nikon stabilized lenses, we'll probably go Minolta, with its built-in
image stabilization.

Steve . . .
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:57:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve King <wheelgat@c-zone.net> writes:

> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
> >newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
> >
>
> From our point of view, it's image stabilization. Now that the Monolta
> digital SLR has been released, the Olympus SLRs are the only big name
> cameras without it. Since we primarily do sports type shooting, we really
> have to go with the competition's image stabilized offerings, as much as
> we'd like to consider the E-1 and E-300. With the added cost of the Canon
> and Nikon stabilized lenses, we'll probably go Minolta, with its built-in
> image stabilization.

Well I don't know how big of a name they have in the digital world, but Pentex
is another DSLR vendor without image stabalization.

Just to be sure we are the same page, image stabalization doesn't help in a lot
of sports shooting at all, since it only deals with camera shake. You still
need a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action, and until you get to the
large focal lengths, such a speed will mean camera shake won't be as much of an
issue.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:57:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Meissner" <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in message
news:m3k6rokeu7.fsf@glinda.the-meissners.org...
> Steve King <wheelgat@c-zone.net> writes:
>
>> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> >This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
>> >newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
>> >
>>
>> From our point of view, it's image stabilization. Now that the Monolta
>> digital SLR has been released, the Olympus SLRs are the only big name
>> cameras without it. Since we primarily do sports type shooting, we
>> really
>> have to go with the competition's image stabilized offerings, as much as
>> we'd like to consider the E-1 and E-300. With the added cost of the
>> Canon
>> and Nikon stabilized lenses, we'll probably go Minolta, with its built-in
>> image stabilization.
>
> Well I don't know how big of a name they have in the digital world, but
> Pentex
> is another DSLR vendor without image stabalization.
>
> Just to be sure we are the same page, image stabalization doesn't help in
> a lot
> of sports shooting at all, since it only deals with camera shake. You
> still
> need a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action, and until you get to
> the
> large focal lengths, such a speed will mean camera shake won't be as much
> of an
> issue.
>


Yes. If you're using a shutter speed typical for an action sports shot, then
image stabilization does nothing for you.

HMc
December 11, 2004 7:55:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Because the sensor is too small, the camera uses a completely new and
therefore pointless lens mount so no one migrating to digital has any reason
to even look at it, and it doesn't yet exist. Nobody cares about vapourware.
They really don't care about vapourware that needs all new lenses. The yawn
factor of a smaller than normal sensor is right up there even with interest
in VCRs.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gUuud.41198$6q2.7112@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
> > newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
>
> It would be nice to like it, but for a few little things like-
>
> *Apparently lacks useful high-ISO capability. It seems to be more similar
to
> a non-DSLR in this regard.
>
> *Limited lens choices (partly due to new format, partly due to small
> installed user base).
>
> *Lack of sales momentum. Its predecessor, the E1, wasn't exactly an
> overwhelming success.
>
> In a way, the E-300 looks like a DSLR version of a decent standard
(non-SLR)
> camera, while what I think would set the market on fire would be a non-SLR
> camera with features usually found only in DSLRs (longer battery life,
> higher ISO with low noise, faster shot-to-shot times, better autofocus
etc).
>
> Dang I'd love to add an E-300 to my Olympus collection; I've had great
> success with a D220, D340, D450Z, 3000, D40 and 5050. But I just don't see
> it happening; I need something that will do a better job in shooting
sports
> (specifically bicycle racing) and there's no way to get around useful
higher
> ISO and IS lenses. The Canon D20 still looks like the one to beat.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:45:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wEFud.2202$hc7.95131@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Because the sensor is too small, the camera uses a completely new and
> therefore pointless lens mount so no one migrating to digital has any
> reason
> to even look at it, and it doesn't yet exist. Nobody cares about
> vapourware.
> They really don't care about vapourware that needs all new lenses. The
> yawn
> factor of a smaller than normal sensor is right up there even with
> interest
> in VCRs.

Uh, it's on the market at Hunt's in Melrose Massachusetts. It may or may not
be a good camera, but it does exist.

>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:gUuud.41198$6q2.7112@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> > This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in
>> > this
>> > newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
>>
>> It would be nice to like it, but for a few little things like-
>>
>> *Apparently lacks useful high-ISO capability. It seems to be more similar
> to
>> a non-DSLR in this regard.
>>
>> *Limited lens choices (partly due to new format, partly due to small
>> installed user base).
>>
>> *Lack of sales momentum. Its predecessor, the E1, wasn't exactly an
>> overwhelming success.
>>
>> In a way, the E-300 looks like a DSLR version of a decent standard
> (non-SLR)
>> camera, while what I think would set the market on fire would be a
>> non-SLR
>> camera with features usually found only in DSLRs (longer battery life,
>> higher ISO with low noise, faster shot-to-shot times, better autofocus
> etc).
>>
>> Dang I'd love to add an E-300 to my Olympus collection; I've had great
>> success with a D220, D340, D450Z, 3000, D40 and 5050. But I just don't
>> see
>> it happening; I need something that will do a better job in shooting
> sports
>> (specifically bicycle racing) and there's no way to get around useful
> higher
>> ISO and IS lenses. The Canon D20 still looks like the one to beat.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 4:37:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Because the sensor is too small, the camera uses a completely new and
> therefore pointless lens mount so no one migrating to digital has any
> reason
> to even look at it, and it doesn't yet exist. Nobody cares about
> vapourware.
> They really don't care about vapourware that needs all new lenses. The
> yawn
> factor of a smaller than normal sensor is right up there even with
> interest
> in VCRs.

If you could make a smaller high-quality sensor (with similar performance to
a full-size version), there ought to be advantages from downsizing the glass
as well. Seems to me that would make for smaller, lighter lenses with
similar equivalent focal lengths. But that could just show my ignorance of
optics.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
December 12, 2004 10:37:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ther is no way you are going to improve upon the quality of the lenses
enough to make up for the fact that as you approach a pinhole sharpness
suffers, and the smaller the sensor (be it film or digital) the more
enlargement necessary to have a viewable picture. There are systems on the
market with more res AND larger sensors. Why pick something delibretly
crippled.
Olympus and Kodak are really into small - this is corporate idiocy (See
the Disk camera and other Kodak disasters and the fabulous Pen F Olympus
that did everything a full size 35mm did --- except produce a big enough
negative. There have been other similar failures.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote
in message news:BhNud.41461$6q2.18203@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > Because the sensor is too small, the camera uses a completely new and
> > therefore pointless lens mount so no one migrating to digital has any
> > reason
> > to even look at it, and it doesn't yet exist. Nobody cares about
> > vapourware.
> > They really don't care about vapourware that needs all new lenses. The
> > yawn
> > factor of a smaller than normal sensor is right up there even with
> > interest
> > in VCRs.
>
> If you could make a smaller high-quality sensor (with similar performance
to
> a full-size version), there ought to be advantages from downsizing the
glass
> as well. Seems to me that would make for smaller, lighter lenses with
> similar equivalent focal lengths. But that could just show my ignorance of
> optics.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
>
>
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 11:08:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
[]
> If you could make a smaller high-quality sensor (with similar
> performance to a full-size version), there ought to be advantages
> from downsizing the glass as well. Seems to me that would make for
> smaller, lighter lenses with similar equivalent focal lengths. But
> that could just show my ignorance of optics.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky

Yes, something sized between the top-end P&S sensors and the expensive
"35mm" legacy-sized sensors would be welcome. However, the comments I've
seen so far about the 4/3 system suggest that the sort of size, weight and
bulk savings we both hope to see haven't yet been achieved.

I do hope it succeeds, though, and brings about the financial benefits of
a common lens mount.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 12:41:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in
news:322cjpF36loi5U1@individual.net:
> Yes, something sized between the top-end P&S sensors and the expensive
> "35mm" legacy-sized sensors would be welcome. However, the comments
> I've seen so far about the 4/3 system suggest that the sort of size,
> weight and bulk savings we both hope to see haven't yet been achieved.

Where do you need the comments? Just compare yourself the total bulk of the
Olympus with the 200 mm lens and full size system with a lens giving the
same view angle, that is, a 400 mm lens. Doesn't require a genius to figure
out the difference.

--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm&gt;
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 1:12:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matti Vuori wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in
> news:322cjpF36loi5U1@individual.net:
>> Yes, something sized between the top-end P&S sensors and the
>> expensive "35mm" legacy-sized sensors would be welcome. However,
>> the comments I've seen so far about the 4/3 system suggest that the
>> sort of size, weight and bulk savings we both hope to see haven't
>> yet been achieved.
>
> Where do you need the comments? Just compare yourself the total bulk
> of the Olympus with the 200 mm lens and full size system with a lens
> giving the same view angle, that is, a 400 mm lens. Doesn't require a
> genius to figure out the difference.

I must confess to two things:

- I haven't sat down and done the comparison myself, I am relying on the
comments I have seen here.

- I am including cost in my comparison, but I forgot to mention that.

How does the 4/3 system compare in cost and weight with a DSLR using
something like the following criteria:

- 24 - 400mm (35mm equivalent) lens coverage (one or more lenses)
- f/3.5 or better aperture throughout the range
- image stabilisation (or VR) over the range 100 - 400mm
- 6+ MP

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 1:02:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matti Vuori" <mvuori@koti.soon.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns95BD76E2F770Fmvuorikotisoonfi@193.229.0.31...
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in
> news:322cjpF36loi5U1@individual.net:
> > Yes, something sized between the top-end P&S sensors and the expensive
> > "35mm" legacy-sized sensors would be welcome. However, the comments
> > I've seen so far about the 4/3 system suggest that the sort of size,
> > weight and bulk savings we both hope to see haven't yet been achieved.
>
> Where do you need the comments? Just compare yourself the total bulk of
the
> Olympus with the 200 mm lens and full size system with a lens giving the
> same view angle, that is, a 400 mm lens. Doesn't require a genius to
figure
> out the difference.

That's the wrong comparison. The 4/3 isn't competing with full-frame
cameras, it's competing with APS-C sensor cameras. Anyone who wants a
full-frame camera wants it for the image quality, and wouldn't bother
thinking twice about a 4/3 camera.

The 4/3 sensor is 18.0 x 13.5 mm as opposed to the 20D's 22.5 x 15 mm
sensor. That's somewhere between a 1.111x and a 1.25x crop factor. Call it
1.2x.

So the 200 on the 4/3 camera is equivalent to a 240 on the 20D.

That's not enough of an advantage to get all hot and bothered about.
Basically, Olympus and their fans are lying about the crop factor.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 1:02:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
> Basically, Olympus and their fans are lying about the crop factor.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Eh? There is /no/ crop factor on the 4/3 system. The 18 x 13.5mm is the
full frame, and lenses are designed for that from scratch. It should
/not/ be a case of using existing 35mm lenses at all.

Unless I'm missing something?

David
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:12:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> []
> > Basically, Olympus and their fans are lying about the crop factor.
>
> Eh? There is /no/ crop factor on the 4/3 system. The 18 x 13.5mm is the
> full frame, and lenses are designed for that from scratch. It should
> /not/ be a case of using existing 35mm lenses at all.
>
> Unless I'm missing something?

I used the term "crop factor" instead of "focal length multiplier" (which I
prefer) to avoid getting flamed by folks who object to the latter.

Bad decision, I guess<g>.

Whichever you prefer, the difference between the 1.6x and the 4/3 cameras is
a lot smaller than the 4/3 fans claim.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:12:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
> I used the term "crop factor" instead of "focal length multiplier"
> (which I prefer) to avoid getting flamed by folks who object to the
> latter.
>
> Bad decision, I guess<g>.
>
> Whichever you prefer, the difference between the 1.6x and the 4/3
> cameras is a lot smaller than the 4/3 fans claim.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

David, there is /no/ crop factor. There is /no/ focal length multiplier.

Unless I'm understanding it wrongly, lens for the 4/3 system are designed
from scratch, and are not simply last century's 35mm lenses with a
different mount. If they are, then they will not be taking advantages of
the opportunities for size and weight savings offered by the 4/3 system.

Yes, of course people do talk in terms of 35mm equivalent focal length
because they are familiar with 50mm etc. However any terms which imply
that the lenses were originally designed for a different format is, I
think, misleading.

Cheers,
David
December 13, 2004 4:12:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

However it gives you an exact equivalent if you are coming from 35mm.
The Olympus 24mm lens is equivalent to a 50mm normal etc. The math is simple
and effective for anyone who started with 35mm. Although I doubt many 35mm
users save for OM addicts are even interested in the 4/3rds system. It is
literally too little too late.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:323c39F3gv47jU1@individual.net...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> []
> > I used the term "crop factor" instead of "focal length multiplier"
> > (which I prefer) to avoid getting flamed by folks who object to the
> > latter.
> >
> > Bad decision, I guess<g>.
> >
> > Whichever you prefer, the difference between the 1.6x and the 4/3
> > cameras is a lot smaller than the 4/3 fans claim.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
>
> David, there is /no/ crop factor. There is /no/ focal length multiplier.
>
> Unless I'm understanding it wrongly, lens for the 4/3 system are designed
> from scratch, and are not simply last century's 35mm lenses with a
> different mount. If they are, then they will not be taking advantages of
> the opportunities for size and weight savings offered by the 4/3 system.
>
> Yes, of course people do talk in terms of 35mm equivalent focal length
> because they are familiar with 50mm etc. However any terms which imply
> that the lenses were originally designed for a different format is, I
> think, misleading.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:12:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> However it gives you an exact equivalent if you are coming from
> 35mm. The Olympus 24mm lens is equivalent to a 50mm normal etc. The
> math is simple and effective for anyone who started with 35mm.
[]

Well, as the aspect ratio is 4:3 rather than 3:2, do you define equivalent
as the diagonal, horizontal or vertical measurement?
Yes, there's a simple equivalence, quite agreed, which will probably help
people.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:12:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well I've never been an Olympus user, but I am interested in their digital
system. There are several aspects I like:

- Terrific image quality.
- Freedom from dust accumulating on the sensor.
- Superb quality optics in compact and lightweight lenses.
- Excellent ergonomics.
- Competitive system costs.

Much gets made of the 4/3rds sensor size. In reality, it's quite similar to
a CMOS sensor with a millimeter trimmed from each side. Hardly worth all the
crowing one hears from Olympus critics. The results speak for themselves,
and images from an E-1 can nicely hold their own against those from a 20D or
a D70. I'm sure we'll soon see great results from the E-300, as well.

Rob

----------------------------------

"Tony" wrote ...
> However it gives you an exact equivalent if you are coming from 35mm.
> The Olympus 24mm lens is equivalent to a 50mm normal etc. The math is
> simple
> and effective for anyone who started with 35mm. Although I doubt many 35mm
> users save for OM addicts are even interested in the 4/3rds system. It is
> literally too little too late.
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:12:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Well I've never been an Olympus user, but I am interested in their digital
> system. There are several aspects I like:
>
> - Terrific image quality.
> - Freedom from dust accumulating on the sensor.
> - Superb quality optics in compact and lightweight lenses.
> - Excellent ergonomics.
> - Competitive system costs.
>
> Much gets made of the 4/3rds sensor size. In reality, it's quite similar
> to a CMOS sensor with a millimeter trimmed from each side. Hardly worth
> all the crowing one hears from Olympus critics. The results speak for
> themselves, and images from an E-1 can nicely hold their own against those
> from a 20D or a D70. I'm sure we'll soon see great results from the E-300,
> as well.

That's true provided you're using the E-1 in an optimal situation, but if
you need a higher effective ISO, the D20 is going to blow it away. I've seen
what people can do with a D20 at ISO 1600... the images are amazing! Compare
those images to an E-1 at ISO 400, and the D20 still comes out the winner.
What am I missing?

I *really* want to like the Olympus. I own a boatload of their P&S digital
cameras, and have been very pleased with them. But in the DSLR arena, I
don't yet see them getting my excessively-loyal dollars.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:13:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Just to be sure we are the same page, image stabalization doesn't help in
> a lot
> of sports shooting at all, since it only deals with camera shake. You
> still
> need a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action, and until you get to
> the
> large focal lengths, such a speed will mean camera shake won't be as much
> of an
> issue.

Unless you're shooting head-on, which is fairly common with a long lens at a
track & field event. Or, for that matter, if I'm shooting the Tour de France
on a mountain stage... some of the most dramatic shots will be shot from the
front on a big climb. You need a long lens because you'll get run over by
them otherwise (which has happened), and it may not be bright enough for a
high speed. Conditions in the Alps & Pyrenees are not always ideal...

Of course, I can only dream of having such problems, with my Oly 5050
rendering such discussions irrelevant with a 100mm lens... (but one day,
someday, there just might be a 20D in my future)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:44:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote ...

> That's true provided you're using the E-1 in an optimal situation, but if
> you need a higher effective ISO, the D20 is going to blow it away. I've
> seen what people can do with a D20 at ISO 1600... the images are amazing!
> Compare those images to an E-1 at ISO 400, and the D20 still comes out the
> winner. What am I missing?

It's fitting that you mentioned the Canon 20D Mike. That's the other camera
I'm considering.

What are you missing? I don't know that you're missing anything at all. I
don't know what your requirements are. I do know I have no need to shoot at
ISO 1600, and I also know I place a very high premium on the results I get
at low ISO settings. When shooting under low light, I'll take fast glass
over a high ISO setting every time.

> I *really* want to like the Olympus. I own a boatload of their P&S digital
> cameras, and have been very pleased with them. But in the DSLR arena, I
> don't yet see them getting my excessively-loyal dollars.

I'm the opposite. I never had any intention of wanting to like the Olympus
system. I've been using Canon FD gear for decades. My appreciation for
Olympus catches me by surprise. I think that may be the salient point here -
many of the people who speak out against Olympus probably haven't really
even given it a fair look (all the nonsense about the 4/3rds sensor size
proves that).

Rob
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 11:51:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:323c39F3gv47jU1@individual.net...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> []
> > I used the term "crop factor" instead of "focal length multiplier"
> > (which I prefer) to avoid getting flamed by folks who object to the
> > latter.
> >
> > Bad decision, I guess<g>.
> >
> > Whichever you prefer, the difference between the 1.6x and the 4/3
> > cameras is a lot smaller than the 4/3 fans claim.
> >
> David, there is /no/ crop factor. There is /no/ focal length multiplier.

Of course there is. The 4/3 is a different format, a smaller format. That's
what "focal length multiplier" means: the same focal length _functions_ as a
different lens on a different format.

> Unless I'm understanding it wrongly, lens for the 4/3 system are designed
> from scratch, and are not simply last century's 35mm lenses with a
> different mount.

Lens design isn't rocket science. The Zeiss Planar (one of the best lenses
around) was designed in the 19th century. Since they hadn't figured out lens
coatings, it didn't fly and the Tessar (a later design) was used instead
until after WWII.

> If they are, then they will not be taking advantages of
> the opportunities for size and weight savings offered by the 4/3 system.

The claimed size and weight saving largely comes from the different format,
where different focal lengths function differently. And that difference is
given by the ratio of the sizes of the format.

(The only new designs you need for a smaller sensor is for the superwide end
of things, and those are now (finally) available for the APS-C cameras, both
from the manufacturer and from third parties as well.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 12:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
>> David, there is /no/ crop factor. There is /no/ focal length
>> multiplier.
>
> Of course there is. The 4/3 is a different format, a smaller format.
> That's what "focal length multiplier" means: the same focal length
> _functions_ as a different lens on a different format.

No, there is /no/ crop! There may be a 35mm equivalent focal length, of
course, but using words like crop implies that you are using lenses
desgined for another format, and it is this I feel is misleading.

>> Unless I'm understanding it wrongly, lens for the 4/3 system are
>> designed from scratch, and are not simply last century's 35mm lenses
>> with a different mount.
>
> Lens design isn't rocket science. The Zeiss Planar (one of the best
> lenses around) was designed in the 19th century. Since they hadn't
> figured out lens coatings, it didn't fly and the Tessar (a later
> design) was used instead until after WWII.

Fortunately, computers have allowed lens design to progress somewhat since
the 19th century!

> The claimed size and weight saving largely comes from the different
> format, where different focal lengths function differently. And that
> difference is given by the ratio of the sizes of the format.
[]
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Agreed. With half the sensor diagonal compared to the 35mm format you
could expect, in the limiting case, to have lenses of half the focal
length, half the diameter and an eighth of the weight and bulk.
Alternatively, more innovative or higher performance designs in the same
space. Less cost because of materials, perhaps more cost because of
tighter tolerances.

I don't know if the 4/3 system yet lives up to my expectations.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 3:35:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in
news:3256veF3jgvt3U1@individual.net:

> I don't know if the 4/3 system yet lives up to my expectations.

Cameras heavier and bigger than the Pentax DSLRs, lenses heavier, bigger
and more expensive as well as not having any fast lenses (f1.4). I'd wanted
Olympus to really take advantage of the smaller format, they haven't. And
they suffer all the noise disadvantages of the smaller format. And they've
nowhere to go since the lenses can't handle a bigger imager when
semiconductor technology makes that possible (and they aren't making
cheaper cameras now: the imager is substantially cheaper than the APS sized
imagers in 300D, *ist DS, but the camera isn't).

Yes, it lives up to *my* expectations.

--Sophie (a Pentax user who had wanted a smaller system)
December 13, 2004 9:23:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive compared to
other systems. It also is not significantly smaller than other dSLRS in the
'competetive' price range and is larger than at least one -- the *ist - a
camera I would recommend over the Olympus any day of the week.
Then there is the Olympus game. They got tired of keeping up with the
market in SLRS when AF came in and started making AF point and soot stuff.
Essentially they abandoned the SLR market for 12 -15 years but left their
dead system out there like a fallen tree trunk. Now they are trying to hop
back into the market with zero credability. They are out on a limb with an
unrelated system and if it doesn't sell well they could very well abandone
it, and their customers, just like they did with the OM.
Since the camera doesn't apparently exist I question your "terriffic
image quality" statement too. I've seen images from the older (more
expensive) model and they don't strike me as anything you can't get with a
much cheaper DRebel or *ist.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:6w1vd.497140$%k.359431@pd7tw2no...
> Well I've never been an Olympus user, but I am interested in their digital
> system. There are several aspects I like:
>
> - Terrific image quality.
> - Freedom from dust accumulating on the sensor.
> - Superb quality optics in compact and lightweight lenses.
> - Excellent ergonomics.
> - Competitive system costs.
>
> Much gets made of the 4/3rds sensor size. In reality, it's quite similar
to
> a CMOS sensor with a millimeter trimmed from each side. Hardly worth all
the
> crowing one hears from Olympus critics. The results speak for themselves,
> and images from an E-1 can nicely hold their own against those from a 20D
or
> a D70. I'm sure we'll soon see great results from the E-300, as well.
>
> Rob
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> "Tony" wrote ...
> > However it gives you an exact equivalent if you are coming from 35mm.
> > The Olympus 24mm lens is equivalent to a 50mm normal etc. The math is
> > simple
> > and effective for anyone who started with 35mm. Although I doubt many
35mm
> > users save for OM addicts are even interested in the 4/3rds system. It
is
> > literally too little too late.
>
>
December 13, 2004 11:12:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oh no, a logical argument!!!

The Spaz can't stand (or respond to) those.
Just wait - Tony's gonna have to killfile you as a troll.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:36:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sophie Wilson" wrote ...
> And they've
> nowhere to go since the lenses can't handle a bigger imager when
> semiconductor technology makes that possible (and they aren't making
> cheaper cameras now: the imager is substantially cheaper than the APS
> sized
> imagers in 300D, *ist DS, but the camera isn't).

I'm having trouble following you here. You seem to believe Olympus' sensors
are "substantially" smaller than APS sized sensors. I believe they are, in
fact, only slightly smaller, not so much smaller as to justify the use of
the term "substantially".

You also seem to believe that actual sensor size will increase in the
future. I'm not aware of any electronic component (save, possibly, for
monitors) that actually increased in size as the technology matured. The
trend has always been toward miniaturization - that will not likely change
in the foreseeable future. Other camera manufacturers seem to see it that
way too, and are introducing lines of lenses incapable of being used with
larger than APS sized sensors.

BTW, congratulations on the purchase of your new Pentax.

Rob
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:36:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm not sure if 22.5x15mm (Canon) vs. 18.0x13.5mm (Oly) is a significant
difference or not.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lIpvd.504462$%k.69038@pd7tw2no...
> "Sophie Wilson" wrote ...
>> And they've
>> nowhere to go since the lenses can't handle a bigger imager when
>> semiconductor technology makes that possible (and they aren't making
>> cheaper cameras now: the imager is substantially cheaper than the APS
>> sized
>> imagers in 300D, *ist DS, but the camera isn't).
>
> I'm having trouble following you here. You seem to believe Olympus'
> sensors are "substantially" smaller than APS sized sensors. I believe they
> are, in fact, only slightly smaller, not so much smaller as to justify the
> use of the term "substantially".
>
> You also seem to believe that actual sensor size will increase in the
> future. I'm not aware of any electronic component (save, possibly, for
> monitors) that actually increased in size as the technology matured. The
> trend has always been toward miniaturization - that will not likely change
> in the foreseeable future. Other camera manufacturers seem to see it that
> way too, and are introducing lines of lenses incapable of being used with
> larger than APS sized sensors.
>
> BTW, congratulations on the purchase of your new Pentax.
>
> Rob
>
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:36:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lIpvd.504462$%k.69038@pd7tw2no...
> "Sophie Wilson" wrote ...
> > And they've
> > nowhere to go since the lenses can't handle a bigger imager when
> > semiconductor technology makes that possible (and they aren't making
> > cheaper cameras now: the imager is substantially cheaper than the APS
> > sized
> > imagers in 300D, *ist DS, but the camera isn't).
>
> I'm having trouble following you here. You seem to believe Olympus'
sensors
> are "substantially" smaller than APS sized sensors. I believe they are, in
> fact, only slightly smaller, not so much smaller as to justify the use of
> the term "substantially".
>
The 4/3

35mm film SLR
24 x 36 mm

Nikon D70
23.7 x 15.6 mm

Pentax *ist DS
23.5 x 15.7 mm

Canon 20D
22.5 x 15.0 mm

Canon 300D (Digital Rebel)
22.7 x 15.1 mm

Minolta 7D
23.5 x 15.7 mm

Olympus E-300
17.3 x 13.0 mm active area

Point & Shoot

Canon Pro1
8.80 x 6.60 mm

Canon A85
5.27 x 3.96 mm

Do the math. 4/3 is 224.9 sq.mm, versus 369.72 sq.mm or 40% smaller. That is
more than a little bit smaller
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 3:08:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" wrote ...
> Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive compared
> to
> other systems.

When I calculated a total system cost (to suite my needs) I found the Nikon
D70 system to be most affordable. The Olympus E-300 was next, followed by
the E-1. A Canon 20D system came in $400 higher than an E-1 based system,
and there was a signifigant gap in Canon's lens coverage. Interestingly, the
Minolta 7D system was, by far, the most expensive, and their lens coverage
gap is even greater than Canon's. I think it's sensless to pick a system
based on the camera body alone. Regardless of which camera I choose, I don't
expect it to still be providing front-line service after even just a few
years.

> It also is not significantly smaller than other dSLRS in the
> 'competetive' price range and is larger than at least one -- the *ist

Why would you have expected it to be?

> Then there is the Olympus game. They got tired of keeping up with the
> market in SLRS when AF came in and started making AF point and soot stuff.
> Essentially they abandoned the SLR market for 12 -15 years but left their
> dead system out there like a fallen tree trunk. Now they are trying to hop
> back into the market with zero credability. They are out on a limb with an
> unrelated system and if it doesn't sell well they could very well abandone
> it, and their customers, just like they did with the OM.

Yes our local trauma wards are also full of suffering Olympus OM survivors.
It seems to be a global pandemic.

You must have overlooked my earlier mention that I'm free to choose any
brand of system I wish, because I have, up to now, been using Canon FD
equipment. I do take your point, but, by way of illustration, I will also
tell you I recovered about 50-60% of what I paid for my FD gear by selling
it on eBay. If anyone ever becomes disatisfied with their choice of
equipment, they always have the option of starting over.

> Since the camera doesn't apparently exist I question your "terriffic
> image quality" statement too.

The Olympus E-1 has existed for over a year, and the E-300 has been
rolling-out in various world markets for the past several weeks. There's a
good chance it is available at your local camera shop right now, you should
run down there and verify it's existence : )

Rob
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 3:08:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2aqvd.500270$nl.122988@pd7tw3no...
> "Tony" wrote ...
>> Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive compared
>> to
>> other systems.
>
> When I calculated a total system cost (to suite my needs) I found the
> Nikon D70 system to be most affordable. The Olympus E-300 was next,
> followed by the E-1. A Canon 20D system came in $400 higher than an E-1
> based system, and there was a signifigant gap in Canon's lens coverage.
> Interestingly, the Minolta 7D system was, by far, the most expensive, and
> their lens coverage gap is even greater than Canon's. I think it's
> sensless to pick a system based on the camera body alone. Regardless of
> which camera I choose, I don't expect it to still be providing front-line
> service after even just a few years.
>
>
> Rob
>

Where did you find a gap in Canon's lens coverage for the 20D? There are
overlaps from 10mm-22mm, 17-55, 18-75mm IS, 28-105, 28-135 IS, 70-200L IS,
70-300, 75-300 IS, 100-300, 100-400L IS. Not much of a gap, there, now. Or
were you talking about fixed focal length, no one goes below 14mm, as far as
I know.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 4:03:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <yzqvd.4733$2r.2880@fed1read02>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
>
> I'm not sure if 22.5x15mm (Canon) vs. 18.0x13.5mm (Oly) is a significant
> difference or not.

It is when you consider imaging area and not linear dimensions.

The APS-C sized sensors are about 340 sq mm. The 4/3rds sensors have an
area of 243 sq mm.

It's easier to shove larger, lower noise photosites into the APS-C sized
sensors. That's why I'm pretty sure the E-VOLT will turn into RE-
VOLTing at any ISO over 400.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:43:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive compared to
> other systems. It also is not significantly smaller than other dSLRS in the
> 'competetive' price range and is larger than at least one -- the *ist - a
> camera I would recommend over the Olympus any day of the week.

What lenses would you recommend with the *ist, Tony?

> Then there is the Olympus game. They got tired of keeping up with the
> market in SLRS when AF came in and started making AF point and soot stuff.
> Essentially they abandoned the SLR market for 12 -15 years but left their
> dead system out there like a fallen tree trunk.

Nice tree metaphor! Which continues with the "limb" below.

> Now they are trying to hop back into the market with zero credability.
> They are out on a limb with an unrelated system and if it doesn't sell well
> they could very well abandone it, and their customers, just like they did
> with the OM.

This is rather likely to happen. But unlike OM owners, 4/3 owners will be
stuck with proprietary batteries, proprietary charger, proprietary lenses,
proprietary flash equipment, and high repair cost, if repair is even possible.
Fortunately the memory cards are standard!!!
December 15, 2004 1:38:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are very few lenses for the Olympus - none of them have IS and the
only 300mm is $8,000 dollars. This is as ompared to say a Canon for $3,000
with IS!
Of course nothing in the world is more expensive than a dead end camera
system, which I strongly think the Olympus will be in a year or two.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2aqvd.500270$nl.122988@pd7tw3no...
> "Tony" wrote ...
> > Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive
compared
> > to
> > other systems.
>
> When I calculated a total system cost (to suite my needs) I found the
Nikon
> D70 system to be most affordable. The Olympus E-300 was next, followed by
> the E-1. A Canon 20D system came in $400 higher than an E-1 based system,
> and there was a signifigant gap in Canon's lens coverage. Interestingly,
the
> Minolta 7D system was, by far, the most expensive, and their lens coverage
> gap is even greater than Canon's. I think it's sensless to pick a system
> based on the camera body alone. Regardless of which camera I choose, I
don't
> expect it to still be providing front-line service after even just a few
> years.
>
> > It also is not significantly smaller than other dSLRS in the
> > 'competetive' price range and is larger than at least one -- the *ist
>
> Why would you have expected it to be?
>
> > Then there is the Olympus game. They got tired of keeping up with the
> > market in SLRS when AF came in and started making AF point and soot
stuff.
> > Essentially they abandoned the SLR market for 12 -15 years but left
their
> > dead system out there like a fallen tree trunk. Now they are trying to
hop
> > back into the market with zero credability. They are out on a limb with
an
> > unrelated system and if it doesn't sell well they could very well
abandone
> > it, and their customers, just like they did with the OM.
>
> Yes our local trauma wards are also full of suffering Olympus OM
survivors.
> It seems to be a global pandemic.
>
> You must have overlooked my earlier mention that I'm free to choose any
> brand of system I wish, because I have, up to now, been using Canon FD
> equipment. I do take your point, but, by way of illustration, I will also
> tell you I recovered about 50-60% of what I paid for my FD gear by selling
> it on eBay. If anyone ever becomes disatisfied with their choice of
> equipment, they always have the option of starting over.
>
> > Since the camera doesn't apparently exist I question your "terriffic
> > image quality" statement too.
>
> The Olympus E-1 has existed for over a year, and the E-300 has been
> rolling-out in various world markets for the past several weeks. There's a
> good chance it is available at your local camera shop right now, you
should
> run down there and verify it's existence : )
>
> Rob
>
>
December 15, 2004 1:39:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like to leaf them thinking.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:41bf3466@news.meer.net...
> Tony <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive
compared to
> > other systems. It also is not significantly smaller than other dSLRS in
the
> > 'competetive' price range and is larger than at least one -- the *ist -
a
> > camera I would recommend over the Olympus any day of the week.
>
> What lenses would you recommend with the *ist, Tony?
>
> > Then there is the Olympus game. They got tired of keeping up with the
> > market in SLRS when AF came in and started making AF point and soot
stuff.
> > Essentially they abandoned the SLR market for 12 -15 years but left
their
> > dead system out there like a fallen tree trunk.
>
> Nice tree metaphor! Which continues with the "limb" below.
>
> > Now they are trying to hop back into the market with zero credability.
> > They are out on a limb with an unrelated system and if it doesn't sell
well
> > they could very well abandone it, and their customers, just like they
did
> > with the OM.
>
> This is rather likely to happen. But unlike OM owners, 4/3 owners will be
> stuck with proprietary batteries, proprietary charger, proprietary lenses,
> proprietary flash equipment, and high repair cost, if repair is even
possible.
> Fortunately the memory cards are standard!!!
>
December 15, 2004 1:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The sensor is very much like a monitor and they have been getting larger -
which is why no one but Olympus is stubborn enough to run a sensor as small
as that in ANY SLR.
Olympus multiplication factor from 35mm = 2.0
Canon's smallest sensor = 1.6
Nikon's only sensor = 1.5
Canon's largest sensor = 1.0
Kodak also has a full 35mm frame sensor
I'm not too sure of Minolta or Pentax multiplication factors but they
are in the same neighbourhood as Canon and Nikon.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lIpvd.504462$%k.69038@pd7tw2no...
> "Sophie Wilson" wrote ...
> > And they've
> > nowhere to go since the lenses can't handle a bigger imager when
> > semiconductor technology makes that possible (and they aren't making
> > cheaper cameras now: the imager is substantially cheaper than the APS
> > sized
> > imagers in 300D, *ist DS, but the camera isn't).
>
> I'm having trouble following you here. You seem to believe Olympus'
sensors
> are "substantially" smaller than APS sized sensors. I believe they are, in
> fact, only slightly smaller, not so much smaller as to justify the use of
> the term "substantially".
>
> You also seem to believe that actual sensor size will increase in the
> future. I'm not aware of any electronic component (save, possibly, for
> monitors) that actually increased in size as the technology matured. The
> trend has always been toward miniaturization - that will not likely change
> in the foreseeable future. Other camera manufacturers seem to see it that
> way too, and are introducing lines of lenses incapable of being used with
> larger than APS sized sensors.
>
> BTW, congratulations on the purchase of your new Pentax.
>
> Rob
>
>
December 15, 2004 1:47:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have no idea, but I would probably start with a real Pentax Takumar
lens. The sharpest lens I ever owned was a 50 f1.4 Super Takumar. I got that
in 1966 and have never found a sharper lens or evven on that comes close,
including the much ballyhooed and considerably softer Nikkor 50 f1.4 of the
same ear (of which I've owned two, and wish I had never owned any.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:41bf3466@news.meer.net...
> Tony <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Actually the Olympus - even the new one is pretty damn expensive
compared to
> > other systems. It also is not significantly smaller than other dSLRS in
the
> > 'competetive' price range and is larger than at least one -- the *ist -
a
> > camera I would recommend over the Olympus any day of the week.
>
> What lenses would you recommend with the *ist, Tony?
>
> > Then there is the Olympus game. They got tired of keeping up with the
> > market in SLRS when AF came in and started making AF point and soot
stuff.
> > Essentially they abandoned the SLR market for 12 -15 years but left
their
> > dead system out there like a fallen tree trunk.
>
> Nice tree metaphor! Which continues with the "limb" below.
>
> > Now they are trying to hop back into the market with zero credability.
> > They are out on a limb with an unrelated system and if it doesn't sell
well
> > they could very well abandone it, and their customers, just like they
did
> > with the OM.
>
> This is rather likely to happen. But unlike OM owners, 4/3 owners will be
> stuck with proprietary batteries, proprietary charger, proprietary lenses,
> proprietary flash equipment, and high repair cost, if repair is even
possible.
> Fortunately the memory cards are standard!!!
>
December 15, 2004 8:47:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ohmygod! A halfway civil response from the Spaz!

New meds?
December 17, 2004 9:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Not my fault you *still* can't figure out how a killfile works,
Spadaro.

As to your other problems, until they get personality transplants
perfected, maybe you need to start upping the dose a little? Just a
friendly suggestion ;) 

Love,

Dave
December 17, 2004 9:56:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

OMYGOD the idiot Dave has slipped the killfile again. Back into the toilet,
turd.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Dave" <davidamundi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103118458.357326.63580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Ohmygod! A halfway civil response from the Spaz!
>
> New meds?
>
!