Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4/3 vs 1.x crop vs full frame lens

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:23:52 PM

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

I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.

Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.

Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off and
entire lens product line and start from scratch?

Canon did in the 80's when they moved from FD to EOS. Recently Olympus
has done with their 4/3 line of cameras & lenses.

Or is this just a temporary fad while they wait for cheaper full size chips?

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

More about : crop full frame lens

Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:23:53 PM

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

UrbanVoyeur wrote:

> I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.
>
> Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
> have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
manufacture.

[OTOH, you get the same image as a 600 f/4, faster and at lower price
which seems to be Oly' strategy. For less than the price of a 600 f/4
you can buy the E-1, the 300 f/2.8 and a couple other lenses...]

>
> At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
> could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
> *ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.

Wouldn't they like everyone to want to replace all that glass? It is a
strategic risk that Nikon has avoided while making lens compatibility a
less sure thing as time marches on. Minolta and Canon started whole new
lens systems when going to AF. Canon have benefited hugely from this
.... could they do it again and not have a user rebellion? There is so
much choice today, that rebellion *is* a very big risk. IAC, Canon have
cropped and full sized sensors, though the later are very pricey.

>
> Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
> crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off and
> entire lens product line and start from scratch?

Oly did it, and from all appearances it has not taken over the market.
Further, their professional lenses in this line are quite expensive vs.
the promise of cheaper glass due to 4/3. I believe the 'full frame body
with cropped sensors' will be around for quite a long time.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:23:53 PM

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

UrbanVoyeur wrote:
> I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.
>
> Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far
they
> have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.
>
> At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
> could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a

> *ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.
>
> Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
> crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off
and
> entire lens product line and start from scratch?
>
> Canon did in the 80's when they moved from FD to EOS. Recently
Olympus
> has done with their 4/3 line of cameras & lenses.
>
> Or is this just a temporary fad while they wait for cheaper full size
chips?
>

Well this is just a WAG (wild ass guess) but I think in the long run
the 4/3 system might win out. It seems like a good compromise between
a small P&S camera and a large DSLR. The photos I have seen from the
4/3 look great as 8 x 10 prints, not many people are going to care much
beyond this and their smaller size will be very attractive to many
people.

Having said this I own a 20D, for this price this camera can't be
beat.

Scott
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 3:56:06 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>UrbanVoyeur wrote:
>
>> I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.
>>
>> Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
>> have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.
>
>The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
>(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
>bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
>Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
>smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
>manufacture.

Infinitely maleable reasoning on the marketer's part. They used to
tell you that medium and large format lenses were slower AND more
expensive because they had to be larger and more complex to cover the
film they did. Now, Olympus is trying to convince you that a lens
that covers a sensor much smaller than a 35mm film plane are "costly"
to make??? Maybe if they offered some key visual advantage over the
re-circulated SLR lenses Canon and Nikon and nearly everyone else
uses, I might believe them.
-Rich
April 17, 2005 6:11:38 AM

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

RichA wrote:

> Maybe if they offered some key visual advantage over the
> re-circulated SLR lenses Canon and Nikon and nearly everyone else
> uses, I might believe them.
>

They do. I've compared the new 50mm F2 macro ZD lens to some of the best
35mm macro glass (The OM 90mm F2 macro and the bellow only 80mm F4) and on
a 4/3 camera, the new ZD 50mm beats them.

Yes the 300 F2.8 is stupid expencive (people like to use it as an example of
ZD lenses being overpriced..) , mainly because they aren't going to sell
many lenses with that FOV. Even if you don't buy it's like having a 600mm
lens, that's the FOV and very few people would use that FOV regularly
enough to buy that lens. It does come down to economy of scale.

The other 4/3 lenses are reasonable IMHO for their FOV, speed and
performance.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:35:57 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
> (giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
> bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
> Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
> smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
> manufacture.

I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).

That might partially explain the higher cost.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:11:18 AM

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

Lourens Smak wrote:
> In article <ISb8e.33864$qO6.16691@trnddc05>,
> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

>>At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
>>could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
>>*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.
>
>
> When chip prices go down, smaller-chip prices will go down even more. So
> when chip-prices go down, the price difference between DX and 24x36 will
> actually GROW.

Yes, though to a point. Looking at the Canon line (cause its the only
one I know) The digital 20D ($1400) appears to be based on the film Elan
7N camera which sells for about $300. The other $1100 is digital stuff.

If the digital stuff gets to be no more expensive than a good film
transport, and the future 20D's will be about $300, not less. Great for
people looking to by a cheap camera, but...

At the same time the digital 1Ds Mark II ($8000) is based on film 1v HS
($2000). If the digital premium disappears then the future 1Ds full
frame will be $2000-$3000.

At that point, people who used to by the 20D ($1400) will look to buy
the full frame camera, not the cropped less expensive one.


>
> Also, the "ton of 35mm lenses" in the hands of photographers worldwide
> is nice for them, but not for Nikon, Canon, or Olympus. Their business
> is to SELL lenses, not to provide a cheap way so that you can still use
> your old stuff.
>

True. And while owning existing lenses will mean that some people will
want to stay with the same brand, I imagine that most people do not have
enough lenses that they will mind switching to a new body/lens system.
Especially if the quality is high. Dumping 2 or 3 old lens isn't really
a big deal.



> You are making the common mistake of looking at product development from
> a consumer point of view. That is not how it works (for the most part,
> at least). Nikon and Canon etc. will develop products that will make
> them the most money. In the forums, people want a Nikon D200...
> semi-pro... Nikon gives them the D50. Those relatively few amateurs that
> want something less toy-like than a D70 and who can't afford a D2x,
> aren't a "market" to design for. The D50 will sell to *everyone*
> including your granny.
>

Or maybe the digital market is too young for niche cameras. Later, when
things sort out a bit, the manufacturers will cater to sub groups. Right
now the technology is moving too fast to have more than a few price points.


> Waiting is useless; there will always be something better over the
> horizon. I have broken the 20.000-shots barrier with my E1, while you
> waited;

I haven't waited. :-) I have 15,000 images on a 10D and about 5000 on a
20 D. My lens investment was too great to change brands at this point.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 12:46:14 PM

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

In article <slrnd63isd.8in.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
>> (giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
>> bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
>> Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
>> smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
>> manufacture.
>
>I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
>of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
>is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).

I wonder how the high speed mode of the D2X (2X crop) with a 300 f/2.8 Nikkor
compares to a 4/3 system with a 300 f/2.8.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 1:54:31 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
> of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
> is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).
>
> That might partially explain the higher cost.

That may be, but the more likely reason is as I stated: give 'em
something that gives 600 f/4 images at a much lower price than a 600 f/4
lens while ignoring that a 300 f/2.8 [35mm] that is larger (more gla$$)
is priced lower. Get more cash in. It takes a lot to develop such a
lens, and Oly's bottom line corporation wants that cash back with a
healthy return.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:09:53 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Yes the 300 F2.8 is stupid expencive (people like to use it as an example of
> ZD lenses being overpriced..) , mainly because they aren't going to sell
> many lenses with that FOV. Even if you don't buy it's like having a 600mm
> lens, that's the FOV and very few people would use that FOV regularly
> enough to buy that lens. It does come down to economy of scale.

You really missed the point of Oly's marketing claim when going to 4/3:
it was to make, among other things, a more affordable system from end to
end. And it is, for Oly, but not for the customers. They can make the
4/3 300 f/2.8 more cheaply than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 (and they most
certainly can as there is much less glass), it should sell at least as
cheaply as a 35mm 300 f/2.8, not at $7,000 where a 35mm 300 f/2.8 sells
at $4,000 (Canon, with IS/USM) - $4700 (Nikon, VR) $ 4700 (Minolta).

Fact is, Oly are just ropin them in and then holding the price high.

As to economy of scale, a lot of people buy a 300 f/2.8 and add a 2X TC
because they can't afford a 600 f/4.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:25:58 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:

> In article <slrnd63isd.8in.br@panix5.panix.com>,
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
>><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
>>>(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
>>>bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
>>>Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
>>>smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
>>>manufacture.
>>
>>I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
>>of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
>>is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).
>
>
> I wonder how the high speed mode of the D2X (2X crop) with a 300 f/2.8 Nikkor
> compares to a 4/3 system with a 300 f/2.8.

D2X: $5000 6.8 Mpix (cropped)
300 f/2.8 $5700
Total $10,700

E-1: $1172 5 Mpix
300 f/2.8 $7000
$8172

The D2X cropped comes to 3216/4288ths of the already cropped sensor, or:
3216 /(36/23.7 * 4288) = 0.49 or effective 2X.

So with more pixels packed in there, it should be a bit better (and for
$2500 more it should). But if Oly do an 8 Mpix E-1 (the E-300 is
there), them it would be a little bit better.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:39:21 PM

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

UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> writes:

> Lourens Smak wrote:
>> In article <ISb8e.33864$qO6.16691@trnddc05>,
>> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>>> At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame
>>> sensors could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all
>>> sitting on a *ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.
>> When chip prices go down, smaller-chip prices will go down even
>> more. So when chip-prices go down, the price difference between DX
>> and 24x36 will actually GROW.
>
> Yes, though to a point. Looking at the Canon line (cause its the only
> one I know) The digital 20D ($1400) appears to be based on the film
> Elan 7N camera which sells for about $300. The other $1100 is digital
> stuff.
>
> If the digital stuff gets to be no more expensive than a good film
> transport, and the future 20D's will be about $300, not less. Great
> for people looking to by a cheap camera, but...
>
> At the same time the digital 1Ds Mark II ($8000) is based on film 1v
> HS ($2000). If the digital premium disappears then the future 1Ds full
> frame will be $2000-$3000.
>
> At that point, people who used to by the 20D ($1400) will look to buy
> the full frame camera, not the cropped less expensive one.

The digital premium, of course, will not disappear. The amount of
high-end custom chips in a digital camera, plus the amount of memory
(not custom) and the LCD, will always cost a significant amount of
money. Of course the actual film transport is saved, so perhaps at
some point the value of the electronics will actually become less than
the cost of the film transport mechanism. I don't think it's going to
happen in my lifetime, though.

And people who shoot a lot make out pretty well on digital because of
what they save in lab fees.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
April 17, 2005 6:50:33 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Yes the 300 F2.8 is stupid expencive (people like to use it as an example
>> of ZD lenses being overpriced..) , mainly because they aren't going to
>> sell many lenses with that FOV. Even if you don't buy it's like having a
>> 600mm lens, that's the FOV and very few people would use that FOV
>> regularly enough to buy that lens. It does come down to economy of scale.
>
> You really missed the point of Oly's marketing claim when going to 4/3:
> it was to make, among other things, a more affordable system from end to
> end.

It is, how much are the same FOV lenses at F2.8 in a canon mount? You are
the one missing the point, you use lenses at 1/2 the focal length to get
the same FOV. It's not rocket science as to how the 4/3 system is smaller
and lighter than a 35mm based one.

> And it is, for Oly, but not for the customers. They can make the
> 4/3 300 f/2.8 more cheaply than a 35mm 300 f/2.8

Wrong. You assume they can resolve the same lpmm and have equal performance
in print, they can't. As I said the really fantastic OM macro lenses for
35mm aren't as good as the new 50mmF2 ZD macro made for 4/3. The 4/3 lenses
have to be higher quality to get equal results and the APS lenses for other
systems -should- higher quality than the film lenses as well .

> (and they most
> certainly can as there is much less glass), it should sell at least as
> cheaply as a 35mm 300 f/2.8,

Why? Is the size of the lens elements the only factor in the cost? How about
using ED glass, manufacturing for more resolution precision etc? And yes
economy of scale does factor into the price of things or the 1D would be
much cheaper.


> not at $7,000 where a 35mm 300 f/2.8 sells
> at $4,000 (Canon, with IS/USM) - $4700 (Nikon, VR) $ 4700 (Minolta).
>
> Fact is, Oly are just ropin them in and then holding the price high.

The FACT is if someone needs the FOV of a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera, they
should buy the 150mm F2 lens. It's much cheaper than buying a 300mm f2.8
for a 35mm camera, is a stop faster and is smaller/lighter to boot. The
whole 4/3 is based on the end results in print, not trying to argue the
'same focal length isn't cheaper' game. This is like trying to compare
medium format lenses to 35mm ones. The upper end high resolving 35mm glass
aren't any cheaper than medium format lenses are.

>
> As to economy of scale, a lot of people buy a 300 f/2.8 and add a 2X TC
> because they can't afford a 600 f/4.
>

And how many people would need a 1200mm F4?

I know you don't BUY the FOV thing for arguements sake. So if this is the
case, where is canon's 7-14 zoom? Or does this only apply on the tele end
but on the wide end you use the FOV arguement?

I'm using the 50-200 which covers the FOV on 35mm from 100-400mm and at the
300mm FOV it's only 1/2 stop slower than a $4000 canon 300mm f2.8 and this
zoom was only $1000. That sure seems cheaper to me!


I know canonites like picking the 300mm f2.8 for this arguement and then
ignore the FOV but again how many people need the FOV and speed of this
lens? Like you said in 35mm systems, most people buy the 300mm and a 2x
because the 600mm FOV lenses are too expencive.
--

Stacey
April 17, 2005 6:52:48 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> So with more pixels packed in there, it should be a bit better

Wow so when someone besides olympus "packs more pixels in" it will do better
but if olympus does this on one of their cameras it's going to be lower
quality? :-/

I love how the arguement changes to fit the model people want to be
"better"...

--

Stacey
April 17, 2005 7:00:49 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
>> of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
>> is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).
>>
>> That might partially explain the higher cost.
>
> That may be, but the more likely reason is as I stated: give 'em
> something that gives 600 f/4 images at a much lower price than a 600 f/4
> lens while ignoring that a 300 f/2.8 [35mm] that is larger (more gla$$)
> is priced lower.

Yea high resolving lenses with 3 ED glass elements and a almost flat MTF
graph is cheaper to make than a tokina f2.8 lens just because the lens
elements are smaller..

So Alan from from all these anti-4/3 posts you make, we can assume you have
used this system a bunch yourself? You have tested these other 300mm f2.8
lenses to know they will perform as well as the ZD 300mm? If the 300mmZD
resolves better and has higher contrast, why should it be as cheap as a
lower performing lens?

From your arguement, canon has no right to charge more than sigma does for
their lenses since they have the same amount of glass and the same focal
length!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:15:30 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
>
> > because the 600mm FOV lenses are too expencive.
>
> Thou dost protest too much. But I guess you're invested.
>

Not only does he protest, but he is also right.

When comparing lenses you need to compare lenses that have the same
FOV.
That is one of the big advantages of a 4/3 camera, it can use shorter
FL lenses and still get a small FOV. There are of course tradeoffs,
the 4/3 cameras don't go as high in ISO, but in many cases the higher
ISO is simply not needed.

And I have no invested interest in the 4/3 system, I don't own one I
own a 20D. The 20D has a lot going for it or I would not have bought
it but give the other systems their due, as there are some substantial
advantages to them.

Scott
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:27:43 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>So with more pixels packed in there, it should be a bit better
>
>
> Wow so when someone besides olympus "packs more pixels in" it will do better
> but if olympus does this on one of their cameras it's going to be lower
> quality? :-/

Please tell me where I said that in the posting (that you snipped deeply
for your reply).

I also, stated (and you snipped): "But if Oly do an 8 Mpix E-1 (the
E-300 is there), then it would be a little bit better."

>
> I love how the arguement changes to fit the model people want to be
> "better"...

Tsk tsk. I was answering a question in a straightforward manner (which
you clipped for the convenience of your reply). The same reply that
showed that the Nikon solution would have been more costly, which should
give you a big warm fuzzy feeling. Take a balanced view of things.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:32:30 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Ben Rosengart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
>>>of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
>>>is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).
>>>
>>>That might partially explain the higher cost.
>>
>>That may be, but the more likely reason is as I stated: give 'em
>>something that gives 600 f/4 images at a much lower price than a 600 f/4
>>lens while ignoring that a 300 f/2.8 [35mm] that is larger (more gla$$)
>>is priced lower.
>
>
> From your arguement, canon has no right to charge more than sigma does for
> their lenses since they have the same amount of glass and the same focal
> length!

The Canon 300 f/2.8 uses: "Flourite & UD elements eliminate secondary
spectrum chromatic aberration" according to their spec. This is not
cheap glass as you would like to imply and to boot is equipped with IS
for stab (sharpness) and USM and quick/quiet focus.

Face it, at the level of the 300 f/2.8, Oly are trying hard to gouge the
sports and nature shooters, the ones with the budget behind them to
support it.... and they're already having to offer a $700 rebate to get
things moving.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:17:58 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cfpfqF6hobetU1@individual.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>> Yes the 300 F2.8 is stupid expencive (people like to use it as an
>>> example
>>> of ZD lenses being overpriced..) , mainly because they aren't going to
>>> sell many lenses with that FOV. Even if you don't buy it's like having a
>>> 600mm lens, that's the FOV and very few people would use that FOV
>>> regularly enough to buy that lens. It does come down to economy of
>>> scale.
>>
>> You really missed the point of Oly's marketing claim when going to 4/3:
>> it was to make, among other things, a more affordable system from end to
>> end.
>
> It is, how much are the same FOV lenses at F2.8 in a canon mount? You are
> the one missing the point, you use lenses at 1/2 the focal length to get
> the same FOV. It's not rocket science as to how the 4/3 system is smaller
> and lighter than a 35mm based one.
>
>> And it is, for Oly, but not for the customers. They can make the
>> 4/3 300 f/2.8 more cheaply than a 35mm 300 f/2.8
>
> Wrong. You assume they can resolve the same lpmm and have equal
> performance
> in print, they can't. As I said the really fantastic OM macro lenses for
> 35mm aren't as good as the new 50mmF2 ZD macro made for 4/3. The 4/3
> lenses
> have to be higher quality to get equal results and the APS lenses for
> other
> systems -should- higher quality than the film lenses as well .
>
>> (and they most
>> certainly can as there is much less glass), it should sell at least as
>> cheaply as a 35mm 300 f/2.8,
>
> Why? Is the size of the lens elements the only factor in the cost? How
> about
> using ED glass, manufacturing for more resolution precision etc? And yes
> economy of scale does factor into the price of things or the 1D would be
> much cheaper.
>
>
>> not at $7,000 where a 35mm 300 f/2.8 sells
>> at $4,000 (Canon, with IS/USM) - $4700 (Nikon, VR) $ 4700 (Minolta).
>>
>> Fact is, Oly are just ropin them in and then holding the price high.
>
> The FACT is if someone needs the FOV of a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera,
> they
> should buy the 150mm F2 lens. It's much cheaper than buying a 300mm f2.8
> for a 35mm camera, is a stop faster and is smaller/lighter to boot. The
> whole 4/3 is based on the end results in print, not trying to argue the
> 'same focal length isn't cheaper' game. This is like trying to compare
> medium format lenses to 35mm ones. The upper end high resolving 35mm glass
> aren't any cheaper than medium format lenses are.
>
>>
>> As to economy of scale, a lot of people buy a 300 f/2.8 and add a 2X TC
>> because they can't afford a 600 f/4.
>>
>
> And how many people would need a 1200mm F4?
>
> I know you don't BUY the FOV thing for arguements sake. So if this is the
> case, where is canon's 7-14 zoom? Or does this only apply on the tele end
> but on the wide end you use the FOV arguement?
>
> I'm using the 50-200 which covers the FOV on 35mm from 100-400mm and at
> the
> 300mm FOV it's only 1/2 stop slower than a $4000 canon 300mm f2.8 and this
> zoom was only $1000. That sure seems cheaper to me!
>
>
> I know canonites like picking the 300mm f2.8 for this arguement and then
> ignore the FOV but again how many people need the FOV and speed of this
> lens? Like you said in 35mm systems, most people buy the 300mm and a 2x
> because the 600mm FOV lenses are too expencive.
> --
>
> Stacey

Ok, so let's compare the Canon 400mm f2.8 on a 20D to an Olympus 300mm f2.8
on an E-1. They're roughly the same FOV.
Canon 400 f2.8 at B&H: $6499.95
Oly 300mm f2.8 at B&H: $6999.99
Hmmm, not much difference, and what there is, is in the favor of the
Canon...
The Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is a bit cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8, $600
cheaper than the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but the latter two are fixed aperture, and
the last mentioned has IS, an option that Oly doesn't offer, on any lens.
No, Canon doesn't make a 7-14 (14-28 equiv.) but they do make a 10-22 (16-35
equiv). Big whoop difference, there.
C'mon, Stacey, give it up. Oly makes good stuff for their sensor size,
Canon makes good stuff for theirs. I just prefer Canon to Oly. You prefer
Oly to Canon. Live with it, I can.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 18, 2005 2:21:19 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3cfpfqF6hobetU1@individual.net:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>> Yes the 300 F2.8 is stupid expencive (people like to use it as an
>>> example of ZD lenses being overpriced..) , mainly because they
>>> aren't going to sell many lenses with that FOV. Even if you don't
>>> buy it's like having a 600mm lens, that's the FOV and very few
>>> people would use that FOV regularly enough to buy that lens. It does
>>> come down to economy of scale.
>>
>> You really missed the point of Oly's marketing claim when going to
>> 4/3: it was to make, among other things, a more affordable system
>> from end to end.
>
> It is, how much are the same FOV lenses at F2.8 in a canon mount? You
> are the one missing the point, you use lenses at 1/2 the focal length
> to get the same FOV. It's not rocket science as to how the 4/3 system
> is smaller and lighter than a 35mm based one.

You can easily get this FoV on a Canon 350D, just crop a little. With
Canon's 8MPix 1.6x sensors you can crop a bit and still have enough res
to match the Oly.

>> And it is, for Oly, but not for the customers. They can make the
>> 4/3 300 f/2.8 more cheaply than a 35mm 300 f/2.8
>
> Wrong. You assume they can resolve the same lpmm and have equal
> performance in print, they can't. As I said the really fantastic OM
> macro lenses for 35mm aren't as good as the new 50mmF2 ZD macro made
> for 4/3. The 4/3 lenses have to be higher quality to get equal results
> and the APS lenses for other systems -should- higher quality than the
> film lenses as well .

What have the macro lenses got to do with the 300? When people suggest
that the Canon 300 f2.8L IS lens may be the sharpest lens that Canon
makes it suggests to me that the lpmm performance might be pretty good.
Do you have anything to say that the Oly 300mm lens would beat the Canon
300mm lens for resolution?

>> not at $7,000 where a 35mm 300 f/2.8 sells
>> at $4,000 (Canon, with IS/USM) - $4700 (Nikon, VR) $ 4700 (Minolta).
>>
>> Fact is, Oly are just ropin them in and then holding the price high.
>
> The FACT is if someone needs the FOV of a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera,
> they should buy the 150mm F2 lens. It's much cheaper than buying a
> 300mm f2.8 for a 35mm camera, is a stop faster and is smaller/lighter
> to boot. The whole 4/3 is based on the end results in print, not
> trying to argue the 'same focal length isn't cheaper' game. This is
> like trying to compare medium format lenses to 35mm ones. The upper
> end high resolving 35mm glass aren't any cheaper than medium format
> lenses are.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Canon D-SLR users get a narrower
FoV with a 300mm than the Oly will get with a 150mm, in fact with a
5MPix crop from a Canon 20D or 350D they produce close to the same image
as the Oly, with the same FoV.

>> As to economy of scale, a lot of people buy a 300 f/2.8 and add a 2X
>> TC because they can't afford a 600 f/4.
>>
>
> And how many people would need a 1200mm F4?

I think that you mean 1200mm f5.6. I am not sure as to why the numbers
here are relevant to anything.

> I know you don't BUY the FOV thing for arguements sake. So if this is
> the case, where is canon's 7-14 zoom? Or does this only apply on the
> tele end but on the wide end you use the FOV arguement?

Why does Canon need a 7-14 zoom? I will admit that the 7-14 does offer
a very wide angle of view and that beating it with a Canon system would
require buying a 1Ds or 1DsMKII. So OK, the Oly provides a cheaper
ultra wide angle solution if you need wider than the 35mm equivalent of
16mm. So we will agree? If you need wider than 16mm (and 14mm is wide
enough) the Oly is a good solution. If you don't need wider than 16mm
then this doesn't matter.

> I'm using the 50-200 which covers the FOV on 35mm from 100-400mm and
> at the
> 300mm FOV it's only 1/2 stop slower than a $4000 canon 300mm f2.8 and
> this zoom was only $1000. That sure seems cheaper to me!

It seems that you believe that Canon has a 5MPix full frame camera and
that this is the camera that everyone is comparing the Oly to. I don't
believe that this is the case.

If we compare the Canon 350D and 20D cameras then we will find that both
can provide the 2x crop image, with a little more resolution than the
Oly. The Canon cameras have more lenses available and can provide the
equivalent of 16mm to 2400mm in 35mm terms. I believe that the Canon
cameras beat the Oly for noise, so that may ruin some of the argument
about the Oly system offering higher quality images.

Still, I think that the Oly is quite a capable camera and most likely
its users are perfectly happy with their choice.

For me, I would prefer the Canon 20D with its 5 fps for sports shooting,
and the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX (providing the equivalent of 192mm (8MPix)
to 600mm (5MPix crop) at f2.8) is a kick ass lens for the price. There
are times when I do need the 600mm equivalent. Canon also offer some
nice IS lenses and there are some real bargain lenses that we currently
don't have an equivalent of from Oly.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
April 18, 2005 3:32:19 AM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1113776130.805976.4800
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> > because the 600mm FOV lenses are too expencive.
>>
>> Thou dost protest too much. But I guess you're invested.
>>
>
> Not only does he protest, but he is also right.
>
> When comparing lenses you need to compare lenses that have the same
> FOV.
> That is one of the big advantages of a 4/3 camera, it can use shorter
> FL lenses and still get a small FOV. There are of course tradeoffs,
> the 4/3 cameras don't go as high in ISO, but in many cases the higher
> ISO is simply not needed.
>
> And I have no invested interest in the 4/3 system, I don't own one I
> own a 20D. The 20D has a lot going for it or I would not have bought
> it but give the other systems their due, as there are some substantial
> advantages to them.

Why don't you crop to the centre 5MPix on your images from your 20D? That
will give you the 2x crop factor, just like the 4/3 system camera. If you
buy the Sigma 50-500 lens then you can have a 1000mm equiv, or the Canon
100-400 for a 800mm equiv + IS.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the 4/3 system, but there
is less choice on that system than with Canon or Nikon systems.

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:36:09 AM

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

In article <d3tqnh$4b3$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> You really missed the point of Oly's marketing claim when going to 4/3:
> it was to make, among other things, a more affordable system from end to
> end. And it is, for Oly, but not for the customers.

>They can make the
> 4/3 300 f/2.8 more cheaply than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 (and they most
> certainly can as there is much less glass),

It has a lot *more* glass actually.

> it should sell at least as
> cheaply as a 35mm 300 f/2.8, not at $7,000 where a 35mm 300 f/2.8 sells
> at $4,000 (Canon, with IS/USM) - $4700 (Nikon, VR) $ 4700 (Minolta).

Don't forget to look at 14mm's, if you decide to stick to your
simplistic views.

Also, there are many adapters for the E1 so you could easily use a
"cheap" 300 f/2.8 Nikkor if you have one lying around. It will even work
in A-mode. http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm

Back to reality: simply look at what most people would use a lot, a
reasonably fast f/2.8 versatile standard zoom for example like the Zuiko
14-54mm, and the story becomes very different, as far as value for money
is concerned.

Lourens
April 18, 2005 4:25:57 AM

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

Lourens Smak wrote:


>
> Back to reality: simply look at what most people would use a lot, a
> reasonably fast f/2.8 versatile standard zoom for example like the Zuiko
> 14-54mm, and the story becomes very different, as far as value for money
> is concerned.
>


They aren't interested in reality, just trying to pick the arguement that
fits their needs. On the tele end FOV doesn't matter but on the wide end it
does. Like I said, where is canons 7-14 zoom?

Bottom line, on this forum you MUST use canon cameras and epson printers
because that what the online reviews say to buy.. God forbid someone
actually might try thinking for themselves rather than following the herd?
--

Stacey
April 18, 2005 4:29:24 AM

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

MarkH wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in

>
>> I know you don't BUY the FOV thing for arguements sake. So if this is
>> the case, where is canon's 7-14 zoom? Or does this only apply on the
>> tele end but on the wide end you use the FOV arguement?
>
> Why does Canon need a 7-14 zoom?



LOL :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:33:02 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:50:33 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It is, how much are the same FOV lenses at F2.8 in a canon mount? You are
> the one missing the point, you use lenses at 1/2 the focal length to get
> the same FOV. It's not rocket science as to how the 4/3 system is smaller
> and lighter than a 35mm based one.

You should compare it to other digital systems, not to film.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
April 18, 2005 4:33:03 AM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:50:33 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is, how much are the same FOV lenses at F2.8 in a canon mount? You are
>> the one missing the point, you use lenses at 1/2 the focal length to get
>> the same FOV. It's not rocket science as to how the 4/3 system is smaller
>> and lighter than a 35mm based one.
>
> You should compare it to other digital systems, not to film.
>

Does canon have a lens for APS digital in this speed/FOV? Just wondering..
--

Stacey
April 18, 2005 4:43:41 AM

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

MarkH wrote:


>
> Why don't you crop to the centre 5MPix on your images from your 20D?

Because it wouldn't have the resolution that the 4/3 lens system does?

> That
> will give you the 2x crop factor, just like the 4/3 system camera.

Except the E300 is 8MP at that size?

IMHO the whole crop ratio for 4/3 isn't calculated right and doesn't compare
the sensors very well. I have always made 8x10 prints no matter what the
format and since (for me anyway) I'm used to shooting with 6X4.5 medium
format and 4X5 large format, the focal length multiplier is more like 1.77
for the 4/3 system in my use (compare vertical rather than horizonal
ratio). I suppose if you want to crop the 4/3 shots to 35mm film
proportions it is 2X which is how they rate it. If I was used to making 3:2
ratio prints, the 4/3 system probably wouldn't have made as much sense to
me as it did..

--

Stacey
April 18, 2005 4:53:12 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> From your arguement, canon has no right to charge more than sigma does
>> for their lenses since they have the same amount of glass and the same
>> focal length!
>
> The Canon 300 f/2.8 uses: "Flourite & UD elements eliminate secondary
> spectrum chromatic aberration" according to their spec.


Check the MTF graphs for both of these before you get too excited about the
ZD being a "rip off"..

--

Stacey
April 18, 2005 5:18:50 AM

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

Skip M wrote:

>
> Ok, so let's compare the Canon 400mm f2.8 on a 20D to an Olympus 300mm
> f2.8
> on an E-1. They're roughly the same FOV.
> Canon 400 f2.8 at B&H: $6499.95
> Oly 300mm f2.8 at B&H: $6999.99
> Hmmm, not much difference, and what there is, is in the favor of the
> Canon...

Not if you look at the MTF graphs.. I don't think I've seen an MTF graph
this flat for any lens..

http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/products/lens/300_28/mtf....


But like you said the cost for the FOV is about the same.

> The Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is a bit cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8, $600
> cheaper than the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but the latter two are fixed aperture,
> and the last mentioned has IS, an option that Oly doesn't offer, on any
> lens.

Again look at the MTF graphs. IS is nice but I guess I'll have to live
without it?

But you did miss the pricing, the canon IS lens is about 2X what the 50-200
is after the rebate and the non IS is $300 more, why are those canon lenses
so expensive? :-) Also the canon lens has a narrower range and less on the
long end so the ZD is cheaper, sharper and has more range...

> No, Canon doesn't make a 7-14 (14-28 equiv.) but they do make a
> 10-22 (16-35
> equiv). Big whoop difference, there.

Yes going from 14mm FOV to 16mm FOV IS a big difference and again, look at
the MTF on the 10-22 canon.

http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/Product.aspx?product...

On the wide end compare to the ZD.

http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/products/lens/7-14_40/mtf...

Before you get excited, the "good" set of lines on the canon are at F8...

> C'mon, Stacey, give it up. Oly makes good stuff for their sensor size,
> Canon makes good stuff for theirs. I just prefer Canon to Oly. You
> prefer
> Oly to Canon. Live with it, I can.
>

I can, do you see me posting in canon threads about a camera I don't own
every time the subject comes up? And I actually have used a 10D for a
while, have you or Alan ever used an olympus? I see using the expense of
the 300mm f2.8 as a red hering as again how many people need the speed/FOV
that lens has? And like you showed, if you compare equal FOV the lens is in
the ballpark and is optically at least as good if not better.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:37:26 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:00:49 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From your arguement, canon has no right to charge more than sigma does for
> their lenses since they have the same amount of glass and the same focal
> length!

Sounds good to me ...

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:43:21 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:21:19 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
> Still, I think that the Oly is quite a capable camera and most likely
> its users are perfectly happy with their choice.

I read something recently that would support that conclusion ...
where is it ... here you go:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.sh...

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:45:28 AM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> writes:
>
>
>>Lourens Smak wrote:

>>>When chip prices go down, smaller-chip prices will go down even
>>>more. So when chip-prices go down, the price difference between DX
>>>and 24x36 will actually GROW.
>>
>>Yes, though to a point. Looking at the Canon line (cause its the only
>>one I know) The digital 20D ($1400) appears to be based on the film
>>Elan 7N camera which sells for about $300. The other $1100 is digital
>>stuff.
>>
>>If the digital stuff gets to be no more expensive than a good film
>>transport, and the future 20D's will be about $300, not less. Great
>>for people looking to by a cheap camera, but...
>>
>>At the same time the digital 1Ds Mark II ($8000) is based on film 1v
>>HS ($2000). If the digital premium disappears then the future 1Ds full
>>frame will be $2000-$3000.
>>
>>At that point, people who used to by the 20D ($1400) will look to buy
>>the full frame camera, not the cropped less expensive one.
>
>
> The digital premium, of course, will not disappear. The amount of
> high-end custom chips in a digital camera, plus the amount of memory
> (not custom) and the LCD, will always cost a significant amount of
> money. Of course the actual film transport is saved, so perhaps at
> some point the value of the electronics will actually become less than
> the cost of the film transport mechanism. I don't think it's going to
> happen in my lifetime, though.


I don't know about that. The prices of LCD's and RAM are plummeting
(almost 1/10 the cost of 5 years ago), to the point where I think they
will soon be insignificant in cameras $300 and up. What's left is a
bunch of electronics and the sensor chip. The electronics I can easily
see becoming far less expensive.

I think the sensor chip is where most of the digital premium comes from.
5 or 6 years ago, a 16 MP tethered back with a 35 mm sized sensor was
$25k and up. Now its in a an $8000 camera, less than 1/3 the cost. Like
wise a 3 MP D30 was nearly $3000. Now 8 MP 20D is less than $1400, less
than half for more than 2x the pixel count.

At this rate, I think the sensor & electronics of today's top cameras
will cost equal to or less expensive than film transports in a very
short time, easily less than 10 years. Maybe 5.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
April 18, 2005 7:25:57 AM

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

MarkH wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in

>
> You said it, but it doesn't make sense! Why does Canon need a 7-14 zoom?

So what do you use to get the 14mm FOV on a APS sensor camera?

> Canon has a different cropping factor and can get the same FoV with a
> different length lens.

Which is?

>Canon offer a 17-85 lens for the 1.6x crop cameras with IS.  Where is the 
> 4/3 lens that has 14-68 and image stabilisation?

Where did you come up with those numbers? The crop factor doesn't make them
wider!


>
>> Bottom line, on this forum you MUST use canon cameras and epson
>> printers because that what the online reviews say to buy.. God forbid
>> someone actually might try thinking for themselves rather than
>> following the herd?
>
> That seems to be a very ignorant comment.

Look through the olympus/4-3 threads and see how many canon only users
cruise in to bash these cameras and the 4/3 format. Anyone who says this
group isn't anti 4/3 has their head in the sand. Your post is an example of
yet another "pro canon" post which is no surprise here and you are trying
to claim this doesn't happen? LOL! All anyone has to do is mention 4/3 and
the rants and complaints from people who have never held one in their hands
come rolling out.

--

Stacey
April 18, 2005 8:36:15 AM

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in
news:slrnd6645q.mc4.br@panix5.panix.com:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:21:19 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>>
>> Still, I think that the Oly is quite a capable camera and most likely
>> its users are perfectly happy with their choice.
>
> I read something recently that would support that conclusion ...
> where is it ... here you go:
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.sh...

Interesting read, I really like certain features offered by Oly and would
love to see them in the replacement for the 20D (weather seals, sensor self
cleaning). But I prefer the high ISO performance and resolution of the
Canon D-SLRs.

I guess the camera you prefer depends on your needs and preferences. For
me, I prefer the size and weight of the 20D to the 350D and on my 10D I
have added the battery grip to make it larger and heavier. I also like the
speed of the 1DMkII, but am not so keen on its price.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:28:49 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cgu9qF6m3bkvU1@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, so let's compare the Canon 400mm f2.8 on a 20D to an Olympus 300mm
>> f2.8
>> on an E-1. They're roughly the same FOV.
>> Canon 400 f2.8 at B&H: $6499.95
>> Oly 300mm f2.8 at B&H: $6999.99
>> Hmmm, not much difference, and what there is, is in the favor of the
>> Canon...
>
> Not if you look at the MTF graphs.. I don't think I've seen an MTF graph
> this flat for any lens..
>
> http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/products/lens/300_28/mtf....
>
>
> But like you said the cost for the FOV is about the same.
>
>> The Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is a bit cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8, $600
>> cheaper than the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but the latter two are fixed aperture,
>> and the last mentioned has IS, an option that Oly doesn't offer, on any
>> lens.
>
> Again look at the MTF graphs. IS is nice but I guess I'll have to live
> without it?

With Canon, I don't have to...
>
> But you did miss the pricing, the canon IS lens is about 2X what the
> 50-200
> is after the rebate and the non IS is $300 more, why are those canon
> lenses
> so expensive? :-) Also the canon lens has a narrower range and less on
> the
> long end so the ZD is cheaper, sharper and has more range...

And the Canons have a fixed aperture. And I question the idea that the ZD
is sharper than one of the best AF lenses ever built, zoom or otherwise,
according to reviews. As sharp as, maybe. MTF isn't the end all and be
all.

>
>> No, Canon doesn't make a 7-14 (14-28 equiv.) but they do make a
>> 10-22 (16-35
>> equiv). Big whoop difference, there.
>
> Yes going from 14mm FOV to 16mm FOV IS a big difference and again, look at
> the MTF on the 10-22 canon.
>
> http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/Product.aspx?product...
>
> On the wide end compare to the ZD.
>
> http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/products/lens/7-14_40/mtf...
>
> Before you get excited, the "good" set of lines on the canon are at F8...

I'd be interested in seeing what the MTF, and resolution of the Canon are at
22mm...
Probably one reason Canon doesn't offer an 14mm equivalent zoom is that they
never offered a 14mm zoom lens for their film cameras, either. I've noticed
that their equivalency runs parrallel to what they offered for 35mm.
>
>> C'mon, Stacey, give it up. Oly makes good stuff for their sensor size,
>> Canon makes good stuff for theirs. I just prefer Canon to Oly. You
>> prefer
>> Oly to Canon. Live with it, I can.
>>
>
> I can, do you see me posting in canon threads about a camera I don't own
> every time the subject comes up? And I actually have used a 10D for a
> while, have you or Alan ever used an olympus? I see using the expense of
> the 300mm f2.8 as a red hering as again how many people need the speed/FOV
> that lens has? And like you showed, if you compare equal FOV the lens is
> in
> the ballpark and is optically at least as good if not better.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

You missed my point altogether. The lens lines are comparable, although the
Oly line at present is more limited, and for some the cameras are too.
There's not enough difference to get excited about, except for the sensor.
Bottom line, the Oly sensor is smaller. Packing more pixels in a smaller
space has its drawbacks. If those drawbacks are enough to eliminate the
camera from consideration, so be it. If not, fine. I'm not disparaging
your choice, or that of others who have chosen Olympus cameras. You don't
see me posting to Oly threads until you start hammering on Canon, and even
then, rarely.

The only Oly we ever owned was an E-10, a very good camera for its day,
better than most of the DSLR cameras of the era, with excellent optics.
I've handled an E-1 in the store, and found it too small to handle
comfortably. Same with the Rebel XT, by the way.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:56:08 AM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113776130.805976.4800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> > because the 600mm FOV lenses are too expencive.
>>
>> Thou dost protest too much. But I guess you're invested.
>>
>
> Not only does he protest, but he is also right.
>
> When comparing lenses you need to compare lenses that have the same
> FOV.
> That is one of the big advantages of a 4/3 camera, it can use shorter
> FL lenses and still get a small FOV. There are of course tradeoffs,
> the 4/3 cameras don't go as high in ISO, but in many cases the higher
> ISO is simply not needed.
>
> And I have no invested interest in the 4/3 system, I don't own one I
> own a 20D. The 20D has a lot going for it or I would not have bought
> it but give the other systems their due, as there are some substantial
> advantages to them.
>
> Scott
>

However the opposite is also true, with a smaller crop factor wide angle
lenses of the same FOV will have lower resolution even taking into account
the smaller image circle needed. This starts becoming significant at modest
wide angles. Add to this the higher resolution needed just to compensate for
the crop factor.

On the other hand apparently the microlenses seem to cause problems for some
extreme wide angle lenses on full frame.

So like all things its a trade-off.

Lester
April 18, 2005 12:11:41 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3ch5o6F6o2gubU1@individual.net:

> MarkH wrote:
>
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
>>
>> You said it, but it doesn't make sense! Why does Canon need a 7-14
>> zoom?
>
> So what do you use to get the 14mm FOV on a APS sensor camera?

Well that would be about 9mm, but Canon only offer 10mm. Didn't you
realise that I have already conceded the point that 4/3 does indeed
offer a wider FoV than is available on the APS sized sensors? I have
pointed out that to equal or better the wide angle performance with
Canon, you would need to spend a fortune and buy a full frame camera
(1Ds or 1DsMkII). Clearly you can achieve wide angle cheaper on a 4/3
system.

>> Canon has a different cropping factor and can get the same FoV with a
>> different length lens.
>
> Which is?

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Canon offer 3 different
cropping factors - 1, 1.3 and 1.6. On the Cameras with the 1x factor -
the 14mm lens would give the same FoV as Oly's 7mm. The Sigma 12-24
would give a wider FoV.

>>Canon offer a 17-85 lens for the 1.6x crop cameras with
>>IS.  Where is the 
>> 4/3 lens that has 14-68 and image stabilisation?
>
> Where did you come up with those numbers? The crop factor doesn't make
> them wider!

Maths genius huh? The Crop factor DOES make the numbers wider to give
the same FoV! i.e. To get the same FoV as the 12-24 lens on a 1Ds, you
would need to put a 6-12mm zoom on a 4/3 camera. I can't believe that
you could fail to understand this point, you have made that same point
already on this thread!

OK, here's how I came up with those numbers:
17-85 on a 1.6x crop camera would give a FoV equal to 28-136 (in 35mm
terms)
14-68 on an Oly 4/3 camera would give a FoV equal to 28-136 (in 35mm
terms)


>>> Bottom line, on this forum you MUST use canon cameras and epson
>>> printers because that what the online reviews say to buy.. God
>>> forbid someone actually might try thinking for themselves rather
>>> than following the herd?
>>
>> That seems to be a very ignorant comment.
>
> Look through the olympus/4-3 threads and see how many canon only users
> cruise in to bash these cameras and the 4/3 format. Anyone who says
> this group isn't anti 4/3 has their head in the sand. Your post is an
> example of yet another "pro canon" post which is no surprise here and
> you are trying to claim this doesn't happen? LOL! All anyone has to
> do is mention 4/3 and the rants and complaints from people who have
> never held one in their hands come rolling out.

Are you sure that my post is "pro Canon"? Is that because I have
pointed out that Canon's 'better' camera is bigger/heavier/more
expensive? Just because I personally prefer the features and size of the
Canon D-SLRs does not mean that I can't see the advantages of the
smaller/lighter 4/3 system. However, the fact that you cannot accept
the limitations of the 4/3 system suggests that you have some bias
against Canon.

Just remember that whatever the technological limit is on achieving the
low noise at high resolution is - Canon can use the same pixel pitch to
give 4x the resolution on a full frame camera. This is simply because
they use a sensor with 4x the area. That gives Canon 2x the linear
resolution than the 4/3 system. Of course this comes at a cost because
the sensor is twice as wide, therefore the image circle needs to be
twice as wide. Of course the counter argument is that many can spend
much less and buy a smaller system like the 4/3 from Oly or the 1.6x APS
sized sensor camera from Canon - and though not as good, the results
could be more than adequate for the users needs. Why does it upset you
so much that there is a better camera out there, I happily use my 10D
without caring that a better camera exists.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:38:44 PM

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

Lourens Smak wrote:

> In article <d3tqnh$4b3$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>You really missed the point of Oly's marketing claim when going to 4/3:
>>it was to make, among other things, a more affordable system from end to
>>end. And it is, for Oly, but not for the customers.
>
>
>>They can make the
>>4/3 300 f/2.8 more cheaply than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 (and they most
>>certainly can as there is much less glass),
>
>
> It has a lot *more* glass actually.

Really? And why is that?

>
>
>>it should sell at least as
>>cheaply as a 35mm 300 f/2.8, not at $7,000 where a 35mm 300 f/2.8 sells
>>at $4,000 (Canon, with IS/USM) - $4700 (Nikon, VR) $ 4700 (Minolta).
>
>
> Don't forget to look at 14mm's, if you decide to stick to your
> simplistic views.
>
> Also, there are many adapters for the E1 so you could easily use a
> "cheap" 300 f/2.8 Nikkor if you have one lying around. It will even work
> in A-mode. http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm
>
> Back to reality: simply look at what most people would use a lot, a
> reasonably fast f/2.8 versatile standard zoom for example like the Zuiko
> 14-54mm, and the story becomes very different, as far as value for money
> is concerned.

I'd rather look at Oly's broken promisses.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:44:22 PM

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

Scott W wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>because the 600mm FOV lenses are too expencive.
>>
>>Thou dost protest too much. But I guess you're invested.
>>
>
>
> Not only does he protest, but he is also right.
>
> When comparing lenses you need to compare lenses that have the same
> FOV.

Not at all. Regardless of FOV (too bad you leapt for that red herring)
Oly have offered a system that locks in its "subscribers" to a lens set
for which they can charge what they want.

Since the systm is locked into a smaller area sensor, they will run out
of S/N ratio before the others as time goes on.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:08:16 PM

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

Stacey wrote:


> Not if you look at the MTF graphs.. I don't think I've seen an MTF graph
> this flat for any lens..
>
> http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/products/lens/300_28/mtf....

Never, ever, trust an mtf graph from the OEM.

Graph does not say at what aperture it was shot.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:15:20 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Lourens Smak wrote:
>
>
>
>>Back to reality: simply look at what most people would use a lot, a
>>reasonably fast f/2.8 versatile standard zoom for example like the Zuiko
>>14-54mm, and the story becomes very different, as far as value for money
>>is concerned.
>>
>
>
>
> They aren't interested in reality, just trying to pick the arguement that
> fits their needs. On the tele end FOV doesn't matter but on the wide end it
> does. Like I said, where is canons 7-14 zoom?
>
> Bottom line, on this forum you MUST use canon cameras and epson printers
> because that what the online reviews say to buy.. God forbid someone
> actually might try thinking for themselves rather than following the herd?

Well people do think for themselves, or get advice elsewhere. And
people are understandably cautious where the Oly system is concerned.
And more people are simply sticking to their lens collections and adding
the body that works. DSLR's did not magically create a blank market
space and Oly has long been in 5th place in SLR's.

People are influenced by marketing and by what they see. They see Canon
and Nikon ads everywhere. They see people with Canon and Nikon cameras
everywhere. They ask a friend "what should I get", he's not going to
say Oly when he has a Canon around his neck.

FWIW, a friend asked about the E-300 the other day and I said for his
use that would be just as good a choice as any other ... however, he
will probably buy a single lens for it, ever.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:16:54 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

>
> Check the MTF graphs for both of these before you get too excited about the
> ZD being a "rip off"..
>
Show me independant lab tests of the ZD.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:41:08 PM

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

In article <d3trll$7ma$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> I wonder how the high speed mode of the D2X (2X crop) with a 300 f/2.8 Nikkor
>> compares to a 4/3 system with a 300 f/2.8.
>
>D2X: $5000 6.8 Mpix (cropped)
>300 f/2.8 $5700
>Total $10,700
>
>E-1: $1172 5 Mpix
>300 f/2.8 $7000
> $8172
>
>The D2X cropped comes to 3216/4288ths of the already cropped sensor, or:
> 3216 /(36/23.7 * 4288) = 0.49 or effective 2X.
>
>So with more pixels packed in there, it should be a bit better (and for
>$2500 more it should). But if Oly do an 8 Mpix E-1 (the E-300 is
>there), them it would be a little bit better.

I was more interested in the performance of the lens. But the price
difference between those two lenses isn't all that high.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:48:47 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Look through the olympus/4-3 threads and see how many canon only users
> cruise in to bash these cameras and the 4/3 format. Anyone who says this
> group isn't anti 4/3 has their head in the sand. Your post is an example of
> yet another "pro canon" post which is no surprise here and you are trying
> to claim this doesn't happen? LOL! All anyone has to do is mention 4/3 and
> the rants and complaints from people who have never held one in their hands
> come rolling out.

Well, I just bought an E-300 with 2 lenses. Based on my past track
record, we can reasonably state that 4/3 is doomed now. The last camera
I bought was a Minolta Vectis S-1 (just before APS SLR got squashed by
digital). Before that was a Minolta X-700 (just before the explosion of
cheap auto-focus SLRs).
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:25:25 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> Not at all. Regardless of FOV (too bad you leapt for that red
> herring) Oly have offered a system that locks in its "subscribers" to
> a lens set for which they can charge what they want.
[]
> Cheers,
> Alan

I thought that one of the ideas of the 4/3 mount was that it would be
individual manufacturer independant, unlike Canon, Nikon, Minolta etc. and
that multiple suppliers could compete for the 4/3 lens market?

David
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:25:26 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> I thought that one of the ideas of the 4/3 mount was that it would be
> individual manufacturer independant, unlike Canon, Nikon, Minolta etc. and
> that multiple suppliers could compete for the 4/3 lens market?

Not sure actually. IAC, I don't hear the competition. When there is
some, maybe Oly's prices will realign. Until then Oly shooters have put
themsleves into a monopoly little different than the others where lenses
are concerned.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:26:34 PM

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:43:41 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose if you want to crop the 4/3 shots to 35mm film
> proportions it is 2X which is how they rate it. If I was used to making 3:2
> ratio prints, the 4/3 system probably wouldn't have made as much sense to
> me as it did..

I hear you. This is one thing I miss from when I used to use the
8080. The 4/3 aspect ratio feels more natural to me than 3/2, and
it's easier to print and frame, too. Sure, one can always crop, but
feh.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
April 19, 2005 4:42:25 AM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> The 4/3 aspect ratio feels more natural to me than 3/2, and
> it's easier to print and frame, too. Sure, one can always crop, but
> feh.
>


Might be why I gravitated to the E300, the viewfinder proportions looked
more like what I'm used to? I also like the look of 8X10 prints better than
8X12. I suppose it's good to have different choices..

--

Stacey
April 19, 2005 4:45:03 AM

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

MarkH wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3ch5o6F6o2gubU1@individual.net:
>
>> MarkH wrote:
>>

>>> That seems to be a very ignorant comment.
>>
>> Your post is an
>> example of yet another "pro canon" post
>
> Are you sure that my post is "pro Canon"?

Yes, it's very obvious even if you don't realise you're doing it..

> I happily use my 10D
>

Big surprise..

--

Stacey
!