I have added a photo to the blog of the E3 with the stock 12-60mm SWD lens beside the tiny E-410 with the stock 14-42mm lens. The E-3 is about the size of the Canon D40 or Nikon D300, so you can see how tiny the E-410/510 are by comparison. The E-510 is the same size as the E-410 but adds a deep handgrip and in-body image stabilization.
It seemed a picture did the best job of showing how small the mainstream 4/3 cameras really are in this generation. The E-3 is built like a tank and weather-sealed. It certainly shows in the size and weight compared to the more mainstream cameras.
The E-410 is the smallest and thinnest production DSLR, and the 14-42mm and 40-150mm (35mm equivalent 28-300mm total) kit lenses are absolutely tiny. The E-510 is the same camera with a larger hand grip and built-in image stabilization. Early 4/3 cameras were not smaller, but the recent models are finally delivering on the 4/3 promise.
It is true the E-3 is a large camera - about as large as the D300 or 40D, but it is a full magnesium-alloy frame body with full dust and splash sealing of the body and the larger Pro series lenses. However, it is much smaller than the Nikon or Canon Pro models like the D3, which have the same shutter life specifications and truly comparable wether sealing. The 70-300mm (140-600mm equivalent) lens is very small compared to any other lens capable of the same equivalent focal length on any other brand. The 35mm f3.5 is the smallest and lightest full macro lens (1:1 native and 2:1 35mm equivalent) lens you can buy.
The promise of smaller with 4/3 is certainly real with the current cameras and lenses.
>>It did/does not deliver what it promised: lighter lens/body with lower price.<<
In a way, it does. I think the E-410 is the smallest dSLR available right now. The E-510 2 lens kit offered me more features that I need at a price that's $200 less than the XTi 2 lens kit, and I think the E-510 set is lighter too.
Other than the sensor argument here, we must be careful when discussing the question of what is a "pro" body.
Basically, it is a body that pro's use. That pretty much defines the category.
I have a Canon 5D. This camera is pretty rugged, but has little weather sealing. Have I used it in poor weather? Yes. Has it gotten damaged because of it? No.
Quite a few pro's use this body, not just for backup, but as a prime body. The same thing will occur to the successor of this, possibly in March.
The Nikon D200 has also been a favorite with pro's as will the D300.
I'm not so sure about the Olympus.
With Canon and Nikon dominating the D-SLR field by 90%, there isn't much room for all of the other manufacturers together. I doubt if any of those others has more than 2% of the pro market.
I read the discussion and the article with a slight amusement. I'd have a few points to note:
1. The claimed lens selection. Most of the Sigmas are DG lenses - FULL frame. Some are DC lenses - APS-C frame. The the rest are native 4/3. This makes a HUGE MESS in focal length calculations. Also the depth of field calculations are vastly different. Same goes for sharpness.
2. Sensor size. IIRC Olympus came with 4/3 as a computer presentation format. Most of the screens at that time were 4/3. Widscreen formats and some of the odd resolutions (1280x1024) make that difficult.
3. Lens quality. This goes hand in hand with sensor size. The smalles the sensor, the smaller the photosites and the better the lens resolutions HAS to be. There is no other option. So arguing about lens quality is not a big point in this case. If you put a 35mm lens on a 4/3 sensor, it may not even match the resolution of the sensor, so you loose sharpness and detail. In that case your dedicated 4/3 lens has to keep up with the sensor resolution and this vastly increases the price for design/construction. You'll see that when 12+MP 4/3 sensors start to appear (some comments already noted the prices).
4. Accessory availability. 30 lenses is not much. Go look on ebay for used equipment. Canon/Nikon/Pentax rule there. You can get used but great equipment very cheap. Try that with 4/3.
The Olympus bodies may have nice features, but the 4/3 system is new and unproven (yet). I guess Olympus did not want to create yet anothe APS-C mount and camera line, they would drown in the market. So they are heavily screaming 4/3 and trying their best to make a difference. They will just drown a bit later.
[quote]Most of the Sigmas are DG lenses - FULL frame. Some are DC lenses - APS-C frame. The the rest are native 4/3. This makes a HUGE MESS in focal length calculations. Also the depth of field calculations are vastly different. [/quote]
50mm is 50mm, regardless of lens format. any 50mm lens on 4/3 will frame like a 100mm lens on 35mm, regardless of whether it is a native 4/3 lens or covers a 35mm frame (though even the equivalent thing is odd since the aspect ratio of the frame is different).
Depth of field depends on lots of variables, which is why I have not even mentioned it. The 4/3 sensors have more depth of field for a given aperture and "equivalent" focal length than APS-C or FF. If you like shallow DOF, this is bad, if you like lots of DOF it is good.
50mm field of view on 35mm camera
75mm on APS-C DSLR
100mm on 4/3
50mm APS-C has:
Nice vignet on full frame
50mm on APS-C
75,, (?) on 4/3
50mm 4/3 has:
BIG vignet on full frame
vignet on APS-C
50mm on 4/3
Not that you can mount a 4/3 lens on full frame, but you get the idea. If you are buying the famous 30mm DC Sigma, you get 45-50mm fov on 4/3. However if you buy a 30mm DG Sigma, you get a 60mm 4/3 fov.
The lenses are branded with thir true focal lenght, regardless of the image circle they produce. So when you are deciding on a lens, you have to be very carefull what format the lens is for originaly and what fov you want.
example:
you are looking for a 50mm fov prime on 4/3, you options are:
1. 25mm 4/3 native
2. 30mm APS-C
3. 50mm full frame (afaik does not exist in 4/3 mount)
The most logical answer (3.) is the worst choice actualy. This is the confusion I wanted to point out.
As I was reading this article I was initially comparing the E-3 to the D200 (5fps/11 focus points/sealed body). I was shocked to find out that the E-3 was priced in D300 territory! That is a tough sell for me. Pricing the E-3 closer to the D200 makes more sense. For me the D300 has a number of advantages over the E-3 (8fps with MB-D10/51 focus points/TIFF/HDMI/lenses).
The biggest shortcoming with the E3 is the Four Thirds System itself.
I am very happy with my 85mm f/1.4 AF-D on my D80. As this lens was released in 1996 it was not designed for a digital body yet it functions perfectly on one. While the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D works well on my D80 it really shines on a full frame body such as the D3. This highlights the biggest flaw with the E3 and the Four Thirds System - there is no upgrade path to full frame. The investment I have made in non-DX format lenses will carry over to a future full frame camera purchase. If I were to invest in the Four Thirds System I would be stuck with the Four Thirds System and that is not a good investment at all.
Oskar Barnack's genius idea of creating the small format 35mm camera created a revolution in photography in 1925, paving the way for the birth of the Leica ..
I find it incredibly hidebound that when, 75 years later Olympus --whose revered camera design visionary Maitani drew much of his inspiration and optical standards from Leitz-- dares to push ahead with a truly made-for-digital format, standard and optics it is met by the same simplistic arguments that Speed Graphic toting traditionalists of the 1950's,\ used to deride 35mm.
Please judge, instead, by the actual image quality. Look at the Lauri Sippu website among many others, to see what even the 2002 E-1, with half the resolution of the E-3 could produce.
There are certainly applications for which 4:3rds sensors are too small. For these, large heavy and much more expensive 35mm "Full Frame"format sensors are now occupying the place that medium format equipment once did.
For most of us, progress toward smaller, lighter and more convenient formats, in which APC and 4:3rds are simply current milestones, will continue.
Eric, what is so "digital" about 4:3? I can't think of a single thing.
One of the thoughts about 4:3 when it was first announced, was that the cameras would be smaller, something like the old Olympus OM-1, and others. But, these cameras aren't really smaller. The lens backfocus isn't shorter, and the lens mount isn't smaller.
The E-410 is the smallest and thinnest production DSLR, and the 14-42mm and 40-150mm (35mm equivalent 28-300mm total) kit lenses are absolutely tiny. The E-510 is the same camera with a larger hand grip and built-in image stabilization. Early 4/3 cameras were not smaller, but the recent models are finally delivering on the 4/3 promise.
It is true the E-3 is a large camera - about as large as the D300 or 40D, but it is a full magnesium-alloy frame body with full dust and splash sealing of the body and the larger Pro series lenses. The 70-300mm (140-600mm equivalent) lens is very small compared to any other lens capable of the same equivalent focal length on any other brand. The 35mm f3.5 is the smallest and lightest full macro lens (1:1 native and 2:1 35mm equivalent) lens you can buy.
The promise of smaller with 4/3 is certainly real with the current cameras and lenses.
Sorry to burst your bubble but neither the E-3 nor the D300 are pro cameras.
According to the E-3 spec sheet it is "splash proof". The D300 "features an enhanced sealing system that helps protect against moisture and dust." I would say they have the same level of environmental protection. As far as chassis strength is concerned I have no doubt that the D300 is very stout in that category as well.
Having thought about it even more I now compare the E3 it to the 40D. While comparable on features the 40D is $400 cheaper.
As far as the 4:3rds system leading the charge "toward smaller, lighter and more convenient formats" I say balderdash. Both the XTI and the D40 are small/light cameras that don't use the 4:3rds system.
When you use your D300 in pouring rain or drop it in wet snow you will see what sealing is about. The E1 was famous for handling wet since the body AND lenses are sealed. The E-3 is supposedly even better.
The Europe Press launch for E-3 was in pouring rain in Istanbul. Most of the Europe reviews made a big deal of this since not a single failure occured with all the E-3's shooting in pouring rain. Try that with a D300.
You are certainly entitled to choose what you wish but don't confuse examination of sensor specs with the term Pro. The E-3 is rated at 150,000 shutter actuations where the D300 is rated at 100,000 and the D80 at 50,000. 150,000 is a common Pro value for this specification.
"don't confuse examination of sensor specs with the term Pro"
Don't confuse "splash proof" and "150,000 shutter actuations" with the term Pro. (The E-3's sensor is consumer grade BTW)
"The E-3 is the Pro level DSLR which had been announced as a replacement for the four year old and seriously out-of-date E-1, and no there was never an E-2."
It took them 4 years to revise their "Pro" camera?!? That does not sound like a company that has their act together.
You are very keen on touting this as a pro camera. The camera is competing spec/price wise with consumer Canons/Nikons (and it's overpriced to boot). What does that tell you? It's not even close when you compare the E3 to the Canon/Nikon Pro line (spec/sensor/lenses).
Agreed as true photography is based more on skill and experience than the gear.
What really defines a "pro" camera? I know of many "pro's" that use a D200 for their backup. Put a Coolpix 950 in the hands of someone with talent and their pictures will be better than Joe Average with a D3.
Granted, this is a technology site where we are all supposed to get excited about the latest and greatest. But photography is a completely different animal. The closest comparison I can think of is putting Fatal1ty using a 6800GT and AMD 3800 x2 vs. Joe Blow using quad cord with triple SLI 8800's. Wendall would win regardless.
You are very wrong here. While the D300 may have a few "Gee Whiz" features that the E-3 doesn't, like 8fps and a larger higher res LCD,
it is not a "pro-body": environmentally-sealed, ruggedized, very high strength (they posted a video of the engineer *standing* on top of it). Nikon did give the D300 a pro-level100% pentaprism viewfinder, whose large bright image the Olympus E-3, through some pretty amazing optical technology, almost matches.
I purchased an E510 2 lens kit based partially on the DSLR review on AnandTech. My 1st DSLR. I upgraded from a Canon S3is. I have only owned it a few days, but I LUV it! I especially like the wide angle of the 14-40 lense. I need long loses for some of the things I do, but the wide angle is great for interior shots and special effects. So far, I am very impressed with the quality of the shots, and the compact size of the lenses. Most of my Christmas family shots were indoor with available light. They look great, with available light, the stabilization worked well, and the lights on the Christmas tree are visible in the shots. I don't like the look of on-camera flash for people shots. My next purchase will be an Olympus flash for the hot shoe. My favor rite camera was a Cannon S2is with a hotshoe flash. Most of my flash shots were shot with bounce and a diffuser. Then the S2is was stolen from checked baggage on a flight, so I got an S3is. The newer S3is didn't have a hot shoe. So far - best things - image stabilization, wide angle lens, image quality - but, need to start using RAW or figure out white balance, indoors the combo of incandescent and compact fluorescents made me have to correct colors in Photoshop.
E510 - highly recommended.
BTW - I miss being able to shoot video - the Cannon S3 was a great camcorder
Sorry, but this sensor is too small. Only the lenses made for it by Olympus, or it's stablemate, will fit it's image circle properly.
Olympus could have taken the APS C image circle for a larger sensor than the competition, and shown some real quality potential, but they went the cheap route.
Maybe I have to remind you of the statement Olympus made when first coming out with this product category.
To paraphrase:
"This will offer the best compromise of price, size and quality."
Even they knew that it was a compromise when quality was the only criterion. Now they're trying to make up for it, and compete in bigger leagues. But the higher magnification required will always put them at a disadvantage.
Too bad. Olympus has always had some very good glass.
Just for the argument I compared 3 equivalent lenses (in term of price and purpose):
1. Olympus 50mm f2.0
2. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
3. Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor
According SLRGear.com detailed review, the Olympus is far better than both. The Olympus is sharper at f/2.0 than both Nikon and Canon at their best. It is sharper in every aperture value. The chromatic aberrations are lower than both Nikon and Canon in every aperture value.
Claiming that Olympus lenses can't match Nikon and Canon is nonsense.
Please look at the sensor diagram in the blog, as there is no practical size difference between 4/3 and APS C - it has more to do with shape. Since you don't believe me I quote from the photography bible of dpreview in their just published review of the Sony A700:
"The E-3 may have 'only' ten megapixels to the A700's twelve but because of it's four to three aspect ratio the lost pixels are on the left and right of our scene (as it's framed vertically) and so it has almost exactly the same vertical pixel count. Compared to the A700 the E-3 delivers very nice detailed images with good low contrast detail and a noticeable 'crispness' (again, per pixel sharpness)."
Sometimes it is better to educate yourself than to just repeat uneducated rumors such as "4/3 is too small". The Sony sensor is also the 12.2 megapixel sensor used in the new Holy Grail Nikon D300.
The 4/3 system has more lenses covering useful focal lengths for the 4/3 system than either Nikon or Canon have that are made for their APS C sensor digital SLRs. A quick check at http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html">http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html shows 32 current 4/3 system lenses plus teleconverters and 3 discontinued 4/3 lenses. Compare this to the nuber of Canon or Nikon lenses DESIGNED FOR THEIR DIGITAL SLRS or APS C.
I also own, use and love Nikon and Canon, but that does not make me blind to facts.
Wesley, I understand what they're saying. I'm not exactly new at this game.
But, I don't particularly care what they're saying. 13 mm is not 14.8 mm, and never will be. Instead, why don't you read the numerous articles published in Pop Photo over the years about this? They think the difference is meaningful, as I do. It's 11.4%. Is that huge? No, of course not. But, it still results in smaller sensor sites compared to APS C. When we're talking about sensors that are already on the smaller side, every bit of difference does matter.
In addition, Who says that 4:3 is the best way to go? The idea that it's equal to 12+ MP is nonsense!
If you're talking about consumer cameras, the difference is fine. Possibly, for some purposes, even better. But not for pro cameras. Not at all.
I owned a commercial Photo lab for a long time. We also had an Agfa mini lab. Prints went from 3.5 x 5, and 4 x 5, to 4 x 6 and 6 x 8, in the most popular snapshot sizes. That's 3:2.
For larger sizes we often did 8 x 10, but fairly often, 8 x 12 as well.
Where is the automatic advantage of 4:3? I don't see it.
If you're talking about pro cameras, you're also talking about the often needed 11 x17 double page spread. Is that 4:3?
No.
I could give more examples as to why 4:3 isn't such a hot idea, but it shouldn't be required. It's obvious.
But, as I said, if Olympus went for the APS C image circle when making this sensor, they could have had a 4:3 sensor that was significantly bigger than the APS C sensor, and could have had an advantage in quality, using the full coverage of APS C lenses, neither of which is true now.
EDIT: This post has been delayed by a day, or so, because of a problem with the site, which returned an error every time I attempted to send it, until now.
Remember, those Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not "Designed for Digital", they are mount adaptations of existing lens designs. Do you really think they would completely redesign the Sigmonster for the few people that actually need a lens that gives a framing equivalent to a 35mm 600-1600?
The area of the E3 sensor is 243mm^2, the Canon XTi is 328.56mm^2 (1.35x larger), and the Nikon D40x is 369.72mm^2 (1.52x larger). Not the difference between a P&S 1/2.5" sensor and APS-C, but still not tiny.
If your output size matches the shape of the 4/3 sensor well then it is an advantage - some wedding photographers like them because less is lost in an 8x10 print. OTOH, if you crop to a 3:2 ratio to match most other dSLRs, you lose pixels where they don't; not noticeable at 4x6, might be at 20x30.
Olympus is also doing something shady with their Macro magnification specs. Sensor size is irrelevant - 1:1 magnification is when the size of the object being photographed is identical to the size of the image on the sensor. If your subject is 3mm long, at 1:1 it does not matter whether the sensor is 5mm or 50mm wide, that image should cover 3mm of it.
Also, while the mainstream lenses are reasonably priced, some of the others are just insane. the 7-14 f/4 is $1595 with a 175 rebate at B&H right now. Sure, a 7mm lens is a tough design, but the approximate equivalents are the Canon 10-22 at $675 and the Sigma 10-20 at around $500. B&H doesn't currently show it, but I'm oretty sure at one point they had an 11-18 which was overpriced at around $1000, but still cheaper than that Oly. On the other end, there is the 300 2.8 at $5895; Nikon is $4499 and Canon is $3899 and both of those include in-lens IS.
You compare the prices of Olympus 300mm f/2.8 to Canon 300mm f/2.8 - but those lenses are different - the Olympus is equivalent to 600mm. Canon don't have 600mm f/2.8,but f/4.0 and it costs more than 7000$. On the other hand, Olympus 150mm f/2.0 is "only" 2200$ and is one aperture stop faster than the 3500$ 300mm f/2.8 Canon. Canon 400m f/2.8 which is equivalent to 600mm on APS-C is more than 6000$.
P.S. In-lens IS is not relevant to Olympus since the IS is in-camera.
Right, but the fact is that the IS costs money, otherwise the Canikon lenses would be even cheaper. a 300 2.8 is a 300 2.8 regardless of the sensor behind it - the majority of the expense is in the glass in front of the aperture diaphragm. The front element has to be at least a ~107mm piece of optic. So what it is compared to in use is irellevant - it's still a 300 2.8. The Canon 135 f/2L is also a bunch cheaper than that Oly 150 2.0.
Four of the 9 Sigmas available for 4/3 ARE designed for digital, but they were designed to accomodate the largest APS C digital sensor at 1.5x and 1.6x, which is wider than the 4/3 sensor. However, that is not all bad, since the 30mm f1.4 EX Sigma is a fantastic performer on the E-3, but only good and not great on the Nikon and Canon APS C versions. It is outperformed by similar Canon and Nikon lenses on those cameras.
An f1.4 lens is tough to design without significant edge falloff no matter the brand. In this case the design for a 1.5X multiplier means the image circle on the Olympus 4/3 is smaller since the diagonal for the 4/3 shape uses a 2X factor. This makes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 a pretty amazing performer on 4/3.
I recently had the chance to borrow a Leica 25mm f1.4 (designed for 4/3) from a friend and shoot some comparison shots against the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Frankly we were both hard-pressed to see an advantage to the Leica 25mm f1.4 on the E-3 even though the Leica was alsmost three times the price of the Sigma 30mm f1.4. At near the same price I would definitely choose Leica but that is hard to do considering the same speed, simlar performance and a Sigma price that is 60%+ less than the Leica. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 even uses the HSM lens motor which is very quiet and quite fast on the E-3.
As for macro Olympus states the real, by your correct definition, Macro ratios in their specifications. They also state the "35mm equivalent" Macro rating. The 35mm f3.5 is 1:1 macro, but twice life size in 35mm equivalent. The 50mm f2.0 is .52x Macro or life-size as a 35mm equivalent.
If we exclude the 5 Sigmas designed for full-frame that leaves 27 lenses designed for digital 4/3. Nikon lists 10 lenses designed for DX digital format, and Canon lists 5 lenses for EF-S digital format. With Canon and Nikon both moving toward full-frame digital format for their Pro level cameras how many APS C lenses do you think they might introduce for their consumer APS C DSLR lines in the future?
Obviously something like the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS was designed for APS-C then just as much as the Sigma 18-50 2.8 is for 4/3. It's a high-resolution zoom designed to give coverage of a larger sensor than the current mount supports. Also, with focal lengths longer than the registration distance of the mount there is little reason other than marketing to design a lens for the smaller sensor, as the size becomes dominated by the front element and changes at the back are a small percentage of the total size.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Canon EF-S 60mm Macro does true 1:1 and not a "35mm equivalent" of such. Not sure if Nikon makes any DX Macro lenses to compare.
My "holy grail" D300 is going in for a Nikon check-up after the holidays. Something odd with the auto-focus and viewfinder seems to be out of alignment for lack of better words. When using viewfinder to compose pic and autofocus, the areas that were tagged are not what was focused on. Tried to bring down the areas from 51 to 11, but no luck. Due to the importance of Christmas to my family, did a lot of manual focus past 2 days
Correct me if I'm wrong but lens selection available for Olympus is not comparable with offerings for Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony/Minolta. The price is quite high too. 50mm f:2 sells for more than $400, compare it to $70 Canon 50mm f:1.7 or $200 50mm f:1.4 from Pentax.
That is not a fair comparison. Olympus 50mm f/2 is a macro lens, equivalent to 100mm on 35mm film.
The Nikon/Canon/Pentax 50mm are non-macro lense.
Equivalent lens:
Nikon 60mm f/2.8D Micor-Nikkor 550$
Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM 360$
The Olympus is faster lens (f/2.0) and according to SLRGear test it is significantly better in terms of optical performance (sharpness at large aperture, no CA).
I own the 50mm f/2.0 and I am very pleased with it.
All-in-all Olympus lenses are not cheap but they priced fairly compare to Nikon/Canon. There are enough 4/3 lenses for almost any photographic needs (Nikon/Canon offers more options - they have to support APS and full frame).
Sorry that my comment is not directly related to the article. But I just got done reading a lot on DSLR here at anandtech, and Wesley. Your awesome. I thank you. Yet I still am stuck with choosing a camera. Maybe you or someone else could answer me?
Here is my problem...
I want to get into photography, and I want to take my future DSLR with me many places like my trusty benchmade pocket knife. I set the limit at $700. A friend of mine was already into photography and could only really suggest Nikon. And still does. Beyond that we both agree that the Canon Xti is lame only because of the body. It was really bad to hold compared to other cameras.
Store clerks also say I should go for the Nikon camp. They don't really seem to help me choose. Asking opinions on the Sony A100 also did not get me anywhere. After a lot of time on the internet and in some stores playing around with the Nikon D40, D40x, Canon Xti, Pentax K100D Super, Pentax K10D, Nikon D80, Sony A-100. NO ONE, EVER, EVER, EVER! Handed me an Olympus to look at. Same with Pentax. Only through your last article do I know even know to look at Olympus.
Why is this is? After sharing your buyers guide article to my friend and showing interest in the Olympus brand anywhere gets me aghast looks and what not. Telling me right off that "image quality suffers and what about compatibility?" Much worse than the Sony....
Choosing my first DSLR is about near driving me crazy! I don't want to get to frustrated here and "settle" if you know what I mean. I understand they all take great pictures and what not, and that between Nikon vs. Pentax there is no clear specification that someone can point at and then say "this why you clearly should choose this brand over that brand".
But when Olympus is mentioned. Everyone can clearly point to Nikon or Pentax and tell me just that!
I also would not want to purchase another body in I would assume two years? Plus when I do, I will have lenses that time around pretty much deciding what body I do go with. That whole "investment" factor of sticking with what lenses you have is whats so daunting as a first time buyer to me. Staying under the goal of $700 would be a miracle. Photography classes are something I will take now too. The K10D I only really look at because of the weather seal. I do live on the west coast in Washington State.
OK you got me. The 12-60mm SWD is f2.8-4.0. The older premium zoom is a 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 and the Leica is 14-50 f2.8-3.5. With all the f2.8-3.5 specs on similar range 4/3 zooms my brain didn't catch the slight upper end difference in the 12-60mm. I have made the correction.
Are you going to expand on this review? I really want an E-3 but until the price drops a little I'm stuck reading reviews and dreaming for now :P I was hoping that you would be able to tell me about night shots/noise at high ISO. Also, with the IS does it have the option to only stabilize vertically so you can still pan? I take a lot of night shots, right now I use an E-330 and the noise at ISO1600 is insane, it's an inexpensive camera but still . . . Also the AF pisses me off but I already know about that one :D
Yes, there are three options for IS on both the E-510 and E-3 - off, mode 1 and mode 2. Mode 1 is the standard IS which stabilises the sensor when shot is being taken, mode 2 is for panning which only stabilises vertically. Additionally if you hold the IS button in liveview mode it activates the stabilisation so you can see the effect of IS in the preview image.
High ISO is improved on the E-3 but if that's a priority then Canon/Nikon may be a better choice but it does depend on what you're looking for in the complete camera. It's great having the articulated screen back on the E-3 (which I've missed from the E-330) although the E-330 still has the best liveview mode of any of the interchangeable lens SLRs.
Still getting to grips with the E-3, it's great to have a modern weather sealed 4/3 camera (still had to take the E-1 out when it was raining). Need to look into picking up an FL-36R/FL-50R as I'm interested in trying out the E-3's wireless flash support.
Cool, thanks guys. I've looked at the imaging-resource review and have been waiting patiently for the dpreview to come up :D. I'm kind of partial to Olympus, I'm not really a pro or anything but I love taking pictures and I have no real specific aim as to one thing that's important to me but I do know that I need better night shooting than I have now. I actually bought my E-330 to shoot cars but just take pictures of anything. The articulating screen on the E-3 seems really useful, I've made large use of the E-330's folding screen and could imagine the types of shots you can get with the E-3. Anyways thanks guys and Happy Holidays!
The Image Stabilization has the option of off, full IS or vertical only IS for panning. As for long eposure noise and High ISO noise I have not yet done a true noise test as you will see at dpreview or dcresource. Subjectively noise at ISO 1600 is better than the E-410 (also a 10 megapixel sensor) is at ISO 800. The E-410 is better than the E-330 at high ISO noise, so you get the message that the E-3 is a big leap forward in reduction of high ISO noise from your E-330.
Even ISO 3200 on the E-3 is useful for smaller prints, but the noise at ISO 3200 is definitely visible. I have my ISO Auto range set to 100-1600 because I trust the image quality in that range on the E-3. I will manually select 3200 when I need it.
BTW imaging-resource has done a full E-3 review, and it sounds like dpreview will have a full E-3 review shortly, since they used the E-3 in their noise comparison shots in the Sony A700 review just posted. You may find the comparisons in that review will give some insight to your noise questions since dpreview compares the Nikon D300, Canon 40D, Olympus E3, and the Sony A700.
You acknowledge that Anandtech is a computer website and not a photography website. I would suggest that if you are going to make posts outside the main scope of the website, you shouldn't assume people know what you're talking about. A brief mention of what 4/3 actually is and how it's different from what other camera makers do would be helpful.
I have made similar suggestions for DailyTech, but it seems like you actually know what you're talking about, whereas DT just seems to repeat keywords and buzzwords from the source articles and probably couldn't provide brief explanations anyway.
Thanks for the suggestion. I added the sensor discussion and diagram hoping it would help readers to understand what 4/3 and APS C represent.
I have also done several articles on AnandTech that lay the basic digital photography background to better understand blogs like this one. My suggestion for readers who want more background is to read "Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet" under the Digital Cameras tab at the top of this page.
Corrected. Imaging-resource was also in my list of sites and the first draft correctly stated the affiliation. Somewhere in edit it was changed. Thanks for pointing out the correct affiliation.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
Back to Article
Roy2001 - Monday, December 31, 2007 - link
It did/does not deliver what it promised: lighter lens/body with lower price.Wesley Fink - Friday, January 4, 2008 - link
I have added a photo to the blog of the E3 with the stock 12-60mm SWD lens beside the tiny E-410 with the stock 14-42mm lens. The E-3 is about the size of the Canon D40 or Nikon D300, so you can see how tiny the E-410/510 are by comparison. The E-510 is the same size as the E-410 but adds a deep handgrip and in-body image stabilization.It seemed a picture did the best job of showing how small the mainstream 4/3 cameras really are in this generation. The E-3 is built like a tank and weather-sealed. It certainly shows in the size and weight compared to the more mainstream cameras.
Wesley Fink - Friday, January 4, 2008 - link
The E-410 is the smallest and thinnest production DSLR, and the 14-42mm and 40-150mm (35mm equivalent 28-300mm total) kit lenses are absolutely tiny. The E-510 is the same camera with a larger hand grip and built-in image stabilization. Early 4/3 cameras were not smaller, but the recent models are finally delivering on the 4/3 promise.It is true the E-3 is a large camera - about as large as the D300 or 40D, but it is a full magnesium-alloy frame body with full dust and splash sealing of the body and the larger Pro series lenses. However, it is much smaller than the Nikon or Canon Pro models like the D3, which have the same shutter life specifications and truly comparable wether sealing. The 70-300mm (140-600mm equivalent) lens is very small compared to any other lens capable of the same equivalent focal length on any other brand. The 35mm f3.5 is the smallest and lightest full macro lens (1:1 native and 2:1 35mm equivalent) lens you can buy.
The promise of smaller with 4/3 is certainly real with the current cameras and lenses.
Roy2001 - Monday, December 31, 2007 - link
It did/does not deliver what it promised: lighter lens/body with lower price.JeffDM - Thursday, January 3, 2008 - link
>>It did/does not deliver what it promised: lighter lens/body with lower price.<<In a way, it does. I think the E-410 is the smallest dSLR available right now. The E-510 2 lens kit offered me more features that I need at a price that's $200 less than the XTi 2 lens kit, and I think the E-510 set is lighter too.
melgross - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
Other than the sensor argument here, we must be careful when discussing the question of what is a "pro" body.Basically, it is a body that pro's use. That pretty much defines the category.
I have a Canon 5D. This camera is pretty rugged, but has little weather sealing. Have I used it in poor weather? Yes. Has it gotten damaged because of it? No.
Quite a few pro's use this body, not just for backup, but as a prime body. The same thing will occur to the successor of this, possibly in March.
The Nikon D200 has also been a favorite with pro's as will the D300.
I'm not so sure about the Olympus.
With Canon and Nikon dominating the D-SLR field by 90%, there isn't much room for all of the other manufacturers together. I doubt if any of those others has more than 2% of the pro market.
haplo602 - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
I read the discussion and the article with a slight amusement. I'd have a few points to note:1. The claimed lens selection. Most of the Sigmas are DG lenses - FULL frame. Some are DC lenses - APS-C frame. The the rest are native 4/3. This makes a HUGE MESS in focal length calculations. Also the depth of field calculations are vastly different. Same goes for sharpness.
2. Sensor size. IIRC Olympus came with 4/3 as a computer presentation format. Most of the screens at that time were 4/3. Widscreen formats and some of the odd resolutions (1280x1024) make that difficult.
3. Lens quality. This goes hand in hand with sensor size. The smalles the sensor, the smaller the photosites and the better the lens resolutions HAS to be. There is no other option. So arguing about lens quality is not a big point in this case. If you put a 35mm lens on a 4/3 sensor, it may not even match the resolution of the sensor, so you loose sharpness and detail. In that case your dedicated 4/3 lens has to keep up with the sensor resolution and this vastly increases the price for design/construction. You'll see that when 12+MP 4/3 sensors start to appear (some comments already noted the prices).
4. Accessory availability. 30 lenses is not much. Go look on ebay for used equipment. Canon/Nikon/Pentax rule there. You can get used but great equipment very cheap. Try that with 4/3.
The Olympus bodies may have nice features, but the 4/3 system is new and unproven (yet). I guess Olympus did not want to create yet anothe APS-C mount and camera line, they would drown in the market. So they are heavily screaming 4/3 and trying their best to make a difference. They will just drown a bit later.
strikeback03 - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
[quote]Most of the Sigmas are DG lenses - FULL frame. Some are DC lenses - APS-C frame. The the rest are native 4/3. This makes a HUGE MESS in focal length calculations. Also the depth of field calculations are vastly different. [/quote]50mm is 50mm, regardless of lens format. any 50mm lens on 4/3 will frame like a 100mm lens on 35mm, regardless of whether it is a native 4/3 lens or covers a 35mm frame (though even the equivalent thing is odd since the aspect ratio of the frame is different).
Depth of field depends on lots of variables, which is why I have not even mentioned it. The 4/3 sensors have more depth of field for a given aperture and "equivalent" focal length than APS-C or FF. If you like shallow DOF, this is bad, if you like lots of DOF it is good.
haplo602 - Thursday, January 3, 2008 - link
Not quite.50mm lens full frame has:
50mm field of view on 35mm camera
75mm on APS-C DSLR
100mm on 4/3
50mm APS-C has:
Nice vignet on full frame
50mm on APS-C
75,, (?) on 4/3
50mm 4/3 has:
BIG vignet on full frame
vignet on APS-C
50mm on 4/3
Not that you can mount a 4/3 lens on full frame, but you get the idea. If you are buying the famous 30mm DC Sigma, you get 45-50mm fov on 4/3. However if you buy a 30mm DG Sigma, you get a 60mm 4/3 fov.
The lenses are branded with thir true focal lenght, regardless of the image circle they produce. So when you are deciding on a lens, you have to be very carefull what format the lens is for originaly and what fov you want.
example:
you are looking for a 50mm fov prime on 4/3, you options are:
1. 25mm 4/3 native
2. 30mm APS-C
3. 50mm full frame (afaik does not exist in 4/3 mount)
The most logical answer (3.) is the worst choice actualy. This is the confusion I wanted to point out.
JeffDM - Thursday, January 3, 2008 - link
>>50mm lens full frame has:>>50mm field of view on 35mm camera
>>75mm on APS-C DSLR
>>100mm on 4/3
Crunching through the numbers, It looks like it should be 81mm FOV.
haplo602 - Thursday, January 3, 2008 - link
ah sorry, I got the comparison the wrong way around :-) You see it's confusing :-))End User - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
As I was reading this article I was initially comparing the E-3 to the D200 (5fps/11 focus points/sealed body). I was shocked to find out that the E-3 was priced in D300 territory! That is a tough sell for me. Pricing the E-3 closer to the D200 makes more sense. For me the D300 has a number of advantages over the E-3 (8fps with MB-D10/51 focus points/TIFF/HDMI/lenses).The biggest shortcoming with the E3 is the Four Thirds System itself.
I am very happy with my 85mm f/1.4 AF-D on my D80. As this lens was released in 1996 it was not designed for a digital body yet it functions perfectly on one. While the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D works well on my D80 it really shines on a full frame body such as the D3. This highlights the biggest flaw with the E3 and the Four Thirds System - there is no upgrade path to full frame. The investment I have made in non-DX format lenses will carry over to a future full frame camera purchase. If I were to invest in the Four Thirds System I would be stuck with the Four Thirds System and that is not a good investment at all.
erichK - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
To quote the Leitz website:Oskar Barnack's genius idea of creating the small format 35mm camera created a revolution in photography in 1925, paving the way for the birth of the Leica ..
I find it incredibly hidebound that when, 75 years later Olympus --whose revered camera design visionary Maitani drew much of his inspiration and optical standards from Leitz-- dares to push ahead with a truly made-for-digital format, standard and optics it is met by the same simplistic arguments that Speed Graphic toting traditionalists of the 1950's,\ used to deride 35mm.
Please judge, instead, by the actual image quality. Look at the Lauri Sippu website among many others, to see what even the 2002 E-1, with half the resolution of the E-3 could produce.
There are certainly applications for which 4:3rds sensors are too small. For these, large heavy and much more expensive 35mm "Full Frame"format sensors are now occupying the place that medium format equipment once did.
For most of us, progress toward smaller, lighter and more convenient formats, in which APC and 4:3rds are simply current milestones, will continue.
melgross - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
Eric, what is so "digital" about 4:3? I can't think of a single thing.One of the thoughts about 4:3 when it was first announced, was that the cameras would be smaller, something like the old Olympus OM-1, and others. But, these cameras aren't really smaller. The lens backfocus isn't shorter, and the lens mount isn't smaller.
There is nothing special about 4:3 either.
Wesley Fink - Monday, December 31, 2007 - link
The E-410 is the smallest and thinnest production DSLR, and the 14-42mm and 40-150mm (35mm equivalent 28-300mm total) kit lenses are absolutely tiny. The E-510 is the same camera with a larger hand grip and built-in image stabilization. Early 4/3 cameras were not smaller, but the recent models are finally delivering on the 4/3 promise.It is true the E-3 is a large camera - about as large as the D300 or 40D, but it is a full magnesium-alloy frame body with full dust and splash sealing of the body and the larger Pro series lenses. The 70-300mm (140-600mm equivalent) lens is very small compared to any other lens capable of the same equivalent focal length on any other brand. The 35mm f3.5 is the smallest and lightest full macro lens (1:1 native and 2:1 35mm equivalent) lens you can buy.
The promise of smaller with 4/3 is certainly real with the current cameras and lenses.
End User - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
Sorry to burst your bubble but neither the E-3 nor the D300 are pro cameras.According to the E-3 spec sheet it is "splash proof". The D300 "features an enhanced sealing system that helps protect against moisture and dust." I would say they have the same level of environmental protection. As far as chassis strength is concerned I have no doubt that the D300 is very stout in that category as well.
Having thought about it even more I now compare the E3 it to the 40D. While comparable on features the 40D is $400 cheaper.
As far as the 4:3rds system leading the charge "toward smaller, lighter and more convenient formats" I say balderdash. Both the XTI and the D40 are small/light cameras that don't use the 4:3rds system.
Lauri Sippu's photos are not good examples - lots of noise/not that sharp. Some examples from the Bears in Findland page: Row 1 - Image 3 / Row 3 - Image 2 / Row 5 - Image 1.
http://homepage.mac.com/lsippu/PhotoAlbum17.html">http://homepage.mac.com/lsippu/PhotoAlbum17.html
Wesley Fink - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
When you use your D300 in pouring rain or drop it in wet snow you will see what sealing is about. The E1 was famous for handling wet since the body AND lenses are sealed. The E-3 is supposedly even better.The Europe Press launch for E-3 was in pouring rain in Istanbul. Most of the Europe reviews made a big deal of this since not a single failure occured with all the E-3's shooting in pouring rain. Try that with a D300.
You are certainly entitled to choose what you wish but don't confuse examination of sensor specs with the term Pro. The E-3 is rated at 150,000 shutter actuations where the D300 is rated at 100,000 and the D80 at 50,000. 150,000 is a common Pro value for this specification.
End User - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
"don't confuse examination of sensor specs with the term Pro"Don't confuse "splash proof" and "150,000 shutter actuations" with the term Pro. (The E-3's sensor is consumer grade BTW)
"The E-3 is the Pro level DSLR which had been announced as a replacement for the four year old and seriously out-of-date E-1, and no there was never an E-2."
It took them 4 years to revise their "Pro" camera?!? That does not sound like a company that has their act together.
You are very keen on touting this as a pro camera. The camera is competing spec/price wise with consumer Canons/Nikons (and it's overpriced to boot). What does that tell you? It's not even close when you compare the E3 to the Canon/Nikon Pro line (spec/sensor/lenses).
Lord 666 - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
Agreed as true photography is based more on skill and experience than the gear.What really defines a "pro" camera? I know of many "pro's" that use a D200 for their backup. Put a Coolpix 950 in the hands of someone with talent and their pictures will be better than Joe Average with a D3.
Granted, this is a technology site where we are all supposed to get excited about the latest and greatest. But photography is a completely different animal. The closest comparison I can think of is putting Fatal1ty using a 6800GT and AMD 3800 x2 vs. Joe Blow using quad cord with triple SLI 8800's. Wendall would win regardless.
End User - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
"photography is based more on skill and experience than the gear"That goes without saying.
erichK - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
You are very wrong here. While the D300 may have a few "Gee Whiz" features that the E-3 doesn't, like 8fps and a larger higher res LCD,it is not a "pro-body": environmentally-sealed, ruggedized, very high strength (they posted a video of the engineer *standing* on top of it). Nikon did give the D300 a pro-level100% pentaprism viewfinder, whose large bright image the Olympus E-3, through some pretty amazing optical technology, almost matches.
erichK
saskatoon, canada
Stripe - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
I purchased an E510 2 lens kit based partially on the DSLR review on AnandTech. My 1st DSLR. I upgraded from a Canon S3is. I have only owned it a few days, but I LUV it! I especially like the wide angle of the 14-40 lense. I need long loses for some of the things I do, but the wide angle is great for interior shots and special effects. So far, I am very impressed with the quality of the shots, and the compact size of the lenses. Most of my Christmas family shots were indoor with available light. They look great, with available light, the stabilization worked well, and the lights on the Christmas tree are visible in the shots. I don't like the look of on-camera flash for people shots. My next purchase will be an Olympus flash for the hot shoe. My favor rite camera was a Cannon S2is with a hotshoe flash. Most of my flash shots were shot with bounce and a diffuser. Then the S2is was stolen from checked baggage on a flight, so I got an S3is. The newer S3is didn't have a hot shoe. So far - best things - image stabilization, wide angle lens, image quality - but, need to start using RAW or figure out white balance, indoors the combo of incandescent and compact fluorescents made me have to correct colors in Photoshop.E510 - highly recommended.
BTW - I miss being able to shoot video - the Cannon S3 was a great camcorder
melgross - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Still pushing the 4:3Sorry, but this sensor is too small. Only the lenses made for it by Olympus, or it's stablemate, will fit it's image circle properly.
Olympus could have taken the APS C image circle for a larger sensor than the competition, and shown some real quality potential, but they went the cheap route.
Maybe I have to remind you of the statement Olympus made when first coming out with this product category.
To paraphrase:
"This will offer the best compromise of price, size and quality."
Even they knew that it was a compromise when quality was the only criterion. Now they're trying to make up for it, and compete in bigger leagues. But the higher magnification required will always put them at a disadvantage.
Too bad. Olympus has always had some very good glass.
nizanh - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
Just for the argument I compared 3 equivalent lenses (in term of price and purpose):1. Olympus 50mm f2.0
2. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
3. Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor
According SLRGear.com detailed review, the Olympus is far better than both. The Olympus is sharper at f/2.0 than both Nikon and Canon at their best. It is sharper in every aperture value. The chromatic aberrations are lower than both Nikon and Canon in every aperture value.
Claiming that Olympus lenses can't match Nikon and Canon is nonsense.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Please look at the sensor diagram in the blog, as there is no practical size difference between 4/3 and APS C - it has more to do with shape. Since you don't believe me I quote from the photography bible of dpreview in their just published review of the Sony A700:"The E-3 may have 'only' ten megapixels to the A700's twelve but because of it's four to three aspect ratio the lost pixels are on the left and right of our scene (as it's framed vertically) and so it has almost exactly the same vertical pixel count. Compared to the A700 the E-3 delivers very nice detailed images with good low contrast detail and a noticeable 'crispness' (again, per pixel sharpness)."
Sometimes it is better to educate yourself than to just repeat uneducated rumors such as "4/3 is too small". The Sony sensor is also the 12.2 megapixel sensor used in the new Holy Grail Nikon D300.
The 4/3 system has more lenses covering useful focal lengths for the 4/3 system than either Nikon or Canon have that are made for their APS C sensor digital SLRs. A quick check at http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html">http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html shows 32 current 4/3 system lenses plus teleconverters and 3 discontinued 4/3 lenses. Compare this to the nuber of Canon or Nikon lenses DESIGNED FOR THEIR DIGITAL SLRS or APS C.
I also own, use and love Nikon and Canon, but that does not make me blind to facts.
melgross - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
Wesley, I understand what they're saying. I'm not exactly new at this game.But, I don't particularly care what they're saying. 13 mm is not 14.8 mm, and never will be. Instead, why don't you read the numerous articles published in Pop Photo over the years about this? They think the difference is meaningful, as I do. It's 11.4%. Is that huge? No, of course not. But, it still results in smaller sensor sites compared to APS C. When we're talking about sensors that are already on the smaller side, every bit of difference does matter.
In addition, Who says that 4:3 is the best way to go? The idea that it's equal to 12+ MP is nonsense!
If you're talking about consumer cameras, the difference is fine. Possibly, for some purposes, even better. But not for pro cameras. Not at all.
I owned a commercial Photo lab for a long time. We also had an Agfa mini lab. Prints went from 3.5 x 5, and 4 x 5, to 4 x 6 and 6 x 8, in the most popular snapshot sizes. That's 3:2.
For larger sizes we often did 8 x 10, but fairly often, 8 x 12 as well.
Where is the automatic advantage of 4:3? I don't see it.
If you're talking about pro cameras, you're also talking about the often needed 11 x17 double page spread. Is that 4:3?
No.
I could give more examples as to why 4:3 isn't such a hot idea, but it shouldn't be required. It's obvious.
But, as I said, if Olympus went for the APS C image circle when making this sensor, they could have had a 4:3 sensor that was significantly bigger than the APS C sensor, and could have had an advantage in quality, using the full coverage of APS C lenses, neither of which is true now.
EDIT: This post has been delayed by a day, or so, because of a problem with the site, which returned an error every time I attempted to send it, until now.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
Remember, those Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not "Designed for Digital", they are mount adaptations of existing lens designs. Do you really think they would completely redesign the Sigmonster for the few people that actually need a lens that gives a framing equivalent to a 35mm 600-1600?The area of the E3 sensor is 243mm^2, the Canon XTi is 328.56mm^2 (1.35x larger), and the Nikon D40x is 369.72mm^2 (1.52x larger). Not the difference between a P&S 1/2.5" sensor and APS-C, but still not tiny.
If your output size matches the shape of the 4/3 sensor well then it is an advantage - some wedding photographers like them because less is lost in an 8x10 print. OTOH, if you crop to a 3:2 ratio to match most other dSLRs, you lose pixels where they don't; not noticeable at 4x6, might be at 20x30.
Olympus is also doing something shady with their Macro magnification specs. Sensor size is irrelevant - 1:1 magnification is when the size of the object being photographed is identical to the size of the image on the sensor. If your subject is 3mm long, at 1:1 it does not matter whether the sensor is 5mm or 50mm wide, that image should cover 3mm of it.
Also, while the mainstream lenses are reasonably priced, some of the others are just insane. the 7-14 f/4 is $1595 with a 175 rebate at B&H right now. Sure, a 7mm lens is a tough design, but the approximate equivalents are the Canon 10-22 at $675 and the Sigma 10-20 at around $500. B&H doesn't currently show it, but I'm oretty sure at one point they had an 11-18 which was overpriced at around $1000, but still cheaper than that Oly. On the other end, there is the 300 2.8 at $5895; Nikon is $4499 and Canon is $3899 and both of those include in-lens IS.
nizanh - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
You compare the prices of Olympus 300mm f/2.8 to Canon 300mm f/2.8 - but those lenses are different - the Olympus is equivalent to 600mm. Canon don't have 600mm f/2.8,but f/4.0 and it costs more than 7000$. On the other hand, Olympus 150mm f/2.0 is "only" 2200$ and is one aperture stop faster than the 3500$ 300mm f/2.8 Canon. Canon 400m f/2.8 which is equivalent to 600mm on APS-C is more than 6000$.P.S. In-lens IS is not relevant to Olympus since the IS is in-camera.
strikeback03 - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
Right, but the fact is that the IS costs money, otherwise the Canikon lenses would be even cheaper. a 300 2.8 is a 300 2.8 regardless of the sensor behind it - the majority of the expense is in the glass in front of the aperture diaphragm. The front element has to be at least a ~107mm piece of optic. So what it is compared to in use is irellevant - it's still a 300 2.8. The Canon 135 f/2L is also a bunch cheaper than that Oly 150 2.0.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
Four of the 9 Sigmas available for 4/3 ARE designed for digital, but they were designed to accomodate the largest APS C digital sensor at 1.5x and 1.6x, which is wider than the 4/3 sensor. However, that is not all bad, since the 30mm f1.4 EX Sigma is a fantastic performer on the E-3, but only good and not great on the Nikon and Canon APS C versions. It is outperformed by similar Canon and Nikon lenses on those cameras.An f1.4 lens is tough to design without significant edge falloff no matter the brand. In this case the design for a 1.5X multiplier means the image circle on the Olympus 4/3 is smaller since the diagonal for the 4/3 shape uses a 2X factor. This makes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 a pretty amazing performer on 4/3.
I recently had the chance to borrow a Leica 25mm f1.4 (designed for 4/3) from a friend and shoot some comparison shots against the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Frankly we were both hard-pressed to see an advantage to the Leica 25mm f1.4 on the E-3 even though the Leica was alsmost three times the price of the Sigma 30mm f1.4. At near the same price I would definitely choose Leica but that is hard to do considering the same speed, simlar performance and a Sigma price that is 60%+ less than the Leica. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 even uses the HSM lens motor which is very quiet and quite fast on the E-3.
As for macro Olympus states the real, by your correct definition, Macro ratios in their specifications. They also state the "35mm equivalent" Macro rating. The 35mm f3.5 is 1:1 macro, but twice life size in 35mm equivalent. The 50mm f2.0 is .52x Macro or life-size as a 35mm equivalent.
If we exclude the 5 Sigmas designed for full-frame that leaves 27 lenses designed for digital 4/3. Nikon lists 10 lenses designed for DX digital format, and Canon lists 5 lenses for EF-S digital format. With Canon and Nikon both moving toward full-frame digital format for their Pro level cameras how many APS C lenses do you think they might introduce for their consumer APS C DSLR lines in the future?
strikeback03 - Thursday, December 27, 2007 - link
Obviously something like the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS was designed for APS-C then just as much as the Sigma 18-50 2.8 is for 4/3. It's a high-resolution zoom designed to give coverage of a larger sensor than the current mount supports. Also, with focal lengths longer than the registration distance of the mount there is little reason other than marketing to design a lens for the smaller sensor, as the size becomes dominated by the front element and changes at the back are a small percentage of the total size.Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Canon EF-S 60mm Macro does true 1:1 and not a "35mm equivalent" of such. Not sure if Nikon makes any DX Macro lenses to compare.
Lord 666 - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
My "holy grail" D300 is going in for a Nikon check-up after the holidays. Something odd with the auto-focus and viewfinder seems to be out of alignment for lack of better words. When using viewfinder to compose pic and autofocus, the areas that were tagged are not what was focused on. Tried to bring down the areas from 51 to 11, but no luck. Due to the importance of Christmas to my family, did a lot of manual focus past 2 daysMorro - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Correct me if I'm wrong but lens selection available for Olympus is not comparable with offerings for Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony/Minolta. The price is quite high too. 50mm f:2 sells for more than $400, compare it to $70 Canon 50mm f:1.7 or $200 50mm f:1.4 from Pentax.nizanh - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
That is not a fair comparison. Olympus 50mm f/2 is a macro lens, equivalent to 100mm on 35mm film.The Nikon/Canon/Pentax 50mm are non-macro lense.
Equivalent lens:
Nikon 60mm f/2.8D Micor-Nikkor 550$
Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM 360$
The Olympus is faster lens (f/2.0) and according to SLRGear test it is significantly better in terms of optical performance (sharpness at large aperture, no CA).
I own the 50mm f/2.0 and I am very pleased with it.
All-in-all Olympus lenses are not cheap but they priced fairly compare to Nikon/Canon. There are enough 4/3 lenses for almost any photographic needs (Nikon/Canon offers more options - they have to support APS and full frame).
you can look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page2...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page2...
look at the "Quality zoom price" comparison. The Olympus price match to other options while offering significantly larger max aperture, which is a big factor in lens price.
Gunlance - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Sorry that my comment is not directly related to the article. But I just got done reading a lot on DSLR here at anandtech, and Wesley. Your awesome. I thank you. Yet I still am stuck with choosing a camera. Maybe you or someone else could answer me?Here is my problem...
I want to get into photography, and I want to take my future DSLR with me many places like my trusty benchmade pocket knife. I set the limit at $700. A friend of mine was already into photography and could only really suggest Nikon. And still does. Beyond that we both agree that the Canon Xti is lame only because of the body. It was really bad to hold compared to other cameras.
Store clerks also say I should go for the Nikon camp. They don't really seem to help me choose. Asking opinions on the Sony A100 also did not get me anywhere. After a lot of time on the internet and in some stores playing around with the Nikon D40, D40x, Canon Xti, Pentax K100D Super, Pentax K10D, Nikon D80, Sony A-100. NO ONE, EVER, EVER, EVER! Handed me an Olympus to look at. Same with Pentax. Only through your last article do I know even know to look at Olympus.
Why is this is? After sharing your buyers guide article to my friend and showing interest in the Olympus brand anywhere gets me aghast looks and what not. Telling me right off that "image quality suffers and what about compatibility?" Much worse than the Sony....
Choosing my first DSLR is about near driving me crazy! I don't want to get to frustrated here and "settle" if you know what I mean. I understand they all take great pictures and what not, and that between Nikon vs. Pentax there is no clear specification that someone can point at and then say "this why you clearly should choose this brand over that brand".
But when Olympus is mentioned. Everyone can clearly point to Nikon or Pentax and tell me just that!
I also would not want to purchase another body in I would assume two years? Plus when I do, I will have lenses that time around pretty much deciding what body I do go with. That whole "investment" factor of sticking with what lenses you have is whats so daunting as a first time buyer to me. Staying under the goal of $700 would be a miracle. Photography classes are something I will take now too. The K10D I only really look at because of the weather seal. I do live on the west coast in Washington State.
troyjason - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
12-60mm f2.8-3.5 SWDThere is no such thing as this lens.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
OK you got me. The 12-60mm SWD is f2.8-4.0. The older premium zoom is a 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 and the Leica is 14-50 f2.8-3.5. With all the f2.8-3.5 specs on similar range 4/3 zooms my brain didn't catch the slight upper end difference in the 12-60mm. I have made the correction.Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Easy mistake to make, many of the Olympus zooms (not just the 'normal' ones) are F2.8 to 3.5 such as the 11-22, 50-200mm etc.John
crazedmodder - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Are you going to expand on this review? I really want an E-3 but until the price drops a little I'm stuck reading reviews and dreaming for now :P I was hoping that you would be able to tell me about night shots/noise at high ISO. Also, with the IS does it have the option to only stabilize vertically so you can still pan? I take a lot of night shots, right now I use an E-330 and the noise at ISO1600 is insane, it's an inexpensive camera but still . . . Also the AF pisses me off but I already know about that one :DThanks!
Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Yes, there are three options for IS on both the E-510 and E-3 - off, mode 1 and mode 2. Mode 1 is the standard IS which stabilises the sensor when shot is being taken, mode 2 is for panning which only stabilises vertically. Additionally if you hold the IS button in liveview mode it activates the stabilisation so you can see the effect of IS in the preview image.High ISO is improved on the E-3 but if that's a priority then Canon/Nikon may be a better choice but it does depend on what you're looking for in the complete camera. It's great having the articulated screen back on the E-3 (which I've missed from the E-330) although the E-330 still has the best liveview mode of any of the interchangeable lens SLRs.
Still getting to grips with the E-3, it's great to have a modern weather sealed 4/3 camera (still had to take the E-1 out when it was raining). Need to look into picking up an FL-36R/FL-50R as I'm interested in trying out the E-3's wireless flash support.
John
crazedmodder - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Cool, thanks guys. I've looked at the imaging-resource review and have been waiting patiently for the dpreview to come up :D. I'm kind of partial to Olympus, I'm not really a pro or anything but I love taking pictures and I have no real specific aim as to one thing that's important to me but I do know that I need better night shooting than I have now. I actually bought my E-330 to shoot cars but just take pictures of anything. The articulating screen on the E-3 seems really useful, I've made large use of the E-330's folding screen and could imagine the types of shots you can get with the E-3. Anyways thanks guys and Happy Holidays!Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
The Image Stabilization has the option of off, full IS or vertical only IS for panning. As for long eposure noise and High ISO noise I have not yet done a true noise test as you will see at dpreview or dcresource. Subjectively noise at ISO 1600 is better than the E-410 (also a 10 megapixel sensor) is at ISO 800. The E-410 is better than the E-330 at high ISO noise, so you get the message that the E-3 is a big leap forward in reduction of high ISO noise from your E-330.Even ISO 3200 on the E-3 is useful for smaller prints, but the noise at ISO 3200 is definitely visible. I have my ISO Auto range set to 100-1600 because I trust the image quality in that range on the E-3. I will manually select 3200 when I need it.
BTW imaging-resource has done a full E-3 review, and it sounds like dpreview will have a full E-3 review shortly, since they used the E-3 in their noise comparison shots in the Sony A700 review just posted. You may find the comparisons in that review will give some insight to your noise questions since dpreview compares the Nikon D300, Canon 40D, Olympus E3, and the Sony A700.
Lezmaka - Monday, December 24, 2007 - link
You acknowledge that Anandtech is a computer website and not a photography website. I would suggest that if you are going to make posts outside the main scope of the website, you shouldn't assume people know what you're talking about. A brief mention of what 4/3 actually is and how it's different from what other camera makers do would be helpful.I have made similar suggestions for DailyTech, but it seems like you actually know what you're talking about, whereas DT just seems to repeat keywords and buzzwords from the source articles and probably couldn't provide brief explanations anyway.
Wesley Fink - Monday, December 24, 2007 - link
Thanks for the suggestion. I added the sensor discussion and diagram hoping it would help readers to understand what 4/3 and APS C represent.I have also done several articles on AnandTech that lay the basic digital photography background to better understand blogs like this one. My suggestion for readers who want more background is to read "Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet" under the Digital Cameras tab at the top of this page.
flho - Monday, December 24, 2007 - link
Sorry Wesley but slrgear.com is affiliated with Imaging Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/)">http://www.imaging-resource.com/) not dcresource (www.dcresource.com)Wesley Fink - Monday, December 24, 2007 - link
Corrected. Imaging-resource was also in my list of sites and the first draft correctly stated the affiliation. Somewhere in edit it was changed. Thanks for pointing out the correct affiliation.