E3 or E5? in coming PMA
- Thread starter Fire Kirin
- Start date
- Status
nightpiper
Senior Member
i dun think resolution is the biggest push factor for ex-oly users. there r many reasons combined for that exit decision. to name a few... slower AF, less AF pts, overall speed of the E1 is slow, high ISO needs, need for F1.8 or faster lenses... the list goes on. resolution is juz another part of it, not a major deciding factor.
i think a Foveon sensor with 5MP wud be really fun for the next E-pro. :bsmilie:
A little bird told me Foveon is in financial trouble now...been cold calling some rich uncles and aunties (even the most powderful one based in SG)... maybe Oly and Sigma could snap it up and have a sensor they could call their own
Well, grass is always greener on the other side...
If the E-400 you are missing then I think you'll change to the wrong camp. The E-400 is so far the smallest dSLR on the market, definitely smaller than anything Nikon has. Besides, you can alway order it through internet if you need one, there are no sales limitations as far as I know. It is worse for the pro model. I would not call E-1 a "pro model" today with it's very limited and low MP. It is pro based on build quality but time went on since it came out and Oly doesn't even bother to update the firmware any more. So if there is no E-X at PMA, that would be too bad because I believe all or many pro photogs will switch camp to C & N and I would understand them.
Personally, the term 'pro' is not relevant anymore today.
What criteria or feature defines 'Pro' ?
Robustness? Speed? Flexibility? High pixel? Size? Price?
Talking about flexibility and robustness, non of the DSLR is as good as the Olympus mju-770, which is:
10m water proof,
100Kg crush proof,
1.5m shock proof,
cold resistant
out of the box... quality and focal length aside. It's not able to achieve everything a DSLR or 'Pro' DSLR can, but neither the other way round.
Megapixel? Nope, even the Sony W200 can deliver 12MP, and ISO3200!
Personally, I guess we need to sit back and think, what is a really 'Pro' camera...:dunno:
What criteria or feature defines 'Pro' ?
Robustness? Speed? Flexibility? High pixel? Size? Price?
Talking about flexibility and robustness, non of the DSLR is as good as the Olympus mju-770, which is:
10m water proof,
100Kg crush proof,
1.5m shock proof,
cold resistant
out of the box... quality and focal length aside. It's not able to achieve everything a DSLR or 'Pro' DSLR can, but neither the other way round.
Megapixel? Nope, even the Sony W200 can deliver 12MP, and ISO3200!
Personally, I guess we need to sit back and think, what is a really 'Pro' camera...:dunno:
To me, a pro camera is any camera that gets the job done well.
The term "pro", is probably more of a marketing ploy than anything else; if a so-and-so camera is good enough for the professionals, it's good enough for you and all that blah blah.
Just like diamonds, the only people who really needs them are those in the mining industry! :bsmilie:
I only want weatherproofing and live-view with an articulating LCD screen... :angel:
The term "pro", is probably more of a marketing ploy than anything else; if a so-and-so camera is good enough for the professionals, it's good enough for you and all that blah blah.
Just like diamonds, the only people who really needs them are those in the mining industry! :bsmilie:
I only want weatherproofing and live-view with an articulating LCD screen... :angel:
You should tell that to SPH and Mediacorp. Their reporters and camera crew would be most happy to make do with lighter PnS digicams or lagi best...camera phone! and sub-1kg video cams with dinky little spotlights for Mediacorp crew...
Will save a couple million dollars too!
I think there is no way that the Olympus mju-770 or any other P&S can be better than any dSLR is with the cheapest kit lens. No chance that it can take better images, the optics are too bad, the sensor is too small, handling is very very limited and so on. Other than those "minor" issues it may be a very good camera for an every day family shooter. I do hoewer agree that a pro camera is a camera that feeds the photographer and the photographers family.
A wildlife photographer may not be able to use a camera that is less roboust than the E-1 but a wedding shooter may use an E-500 or even an E-400. Even if the shutter is weared out quicker, the price of a new camera motivates the use of it. I would say a pro camera must be a reliable one for a given situation for a pro, and any of the present Oly E-system cameras can be used to earn money if the body/lens is selected for the proper environment and type of use.
Guys, don't get me wrong. I am not saying all those Pro should replace all their cams with PnS or PnS is replacing them.
What I meant was, yesteryears, we really see huge difference in terms of performance, durability, quality etc in Pro DSLR vs DSLR vs PnS.
But now, they are very narrow and some PnS can really do what Pro models can't or at a fraction of the cost.
Must a Pro camera be Huge? Heavy? Yes, I do agree that the preception for business... huge camera makes better money.
What I meant was, yesteryears, we really see huge difference in terms of performance, durability, quality etc in Pro DSLR vs DSLR vs PnS.
But now, they are very narrow and some PnS can really do what Pro models can't or at a fraction of the cost.
Must a Pro camera be Huge? Heavy? Yes, I do agree that the preception for business... huge camera makes better money.
Unfortunately P&S has also much smaller CCD. The size of the CCD and the lens, the distance between the lens and the CCD, the mirror, the mirror chamber, the optical viewfinder, battery and a few other small things limit the minimization of the dSLRs. Do we need all that to call it a pro camera? Yes. Definitely.
With today's technology (and for a forseeable future) there is no way possible to make a P&S with a tiny CCD, a small plastic lens that is not exchangable, a built in flash that is barely enough for a full face portrait (forget about indirect flash) weight less than 0.2kg with batteries and call that a pro.
Do we need all the weight? No. I really believe that in today's space age cameras can be made lighter than todays dSLRs without compromising on roboustness and image quality. And that is where it is going, lighter but not much smaller. The size is limited by the facts mentioned above but the material does not have to be metal to make it roboust. Do we need glass for optics? Yes and no. Plastic lenses that are high quality and durable may be possible to make but are very expensive, as far as I know the technology is in experimental stage. I don't think weight can be reduced much more than the weight of E-500 or E-400 because of all the size and optical requirements, but I definitely believe full metal bodies are just a tradition that is going to die soon. However, in my opinion the weight is important for another reason, that is stability. Usually it is easier to hold a camera stable if there is a weight that feels in the arms. Even a camera on tripod must have a weight to be firm on ground, especially with some large lens on the camera. To solve that, one can always load some extra weight on some tripods to make them stable. In fact some manufacturers, for example Velbon deliver an extra pouch with their Sherpa pro tripods to hang on the tripod to fill that with stone or something else to stabilize the tripod more. Size matters for another reason, that is handling. A P&S has fewer manual settings and buttons but the ones I have seen are too tiny for my requirements.
When I received my dSLR a year ago, I was surprised by how heavy it was, the E-500 with the 14-45mm plastic zoom. But if I have the same configuration with my OM2n, I have to weight that with a winder incl. 4 batteries and a 100mm lens on it. The weight of all that is considerably more than the E-500 with the ED50mm f2.0 which is a metal lens. So, yes digital cameras are much lighter than older fim cameras, but the comparision must be done properly.
With today's technology (and for a forseeable future) there is no way possible to make a P&S with a tiny CCD, a small plastic lens that is not exchangable, a built in flash that is barely enough for a full face portrait (forget about indirect flash) weight less than 0.2kg with batteries and call that a pro.
Do we need all the weight? No. I really believe that in today's space age cameras can be made lighter than todays dSLRs without compromising on roboustness and image quality. And that is where it is going, lighter but not much smaller. The size is limited by the facts mentioned above but the material does not have to be metal to make it roboust. Do we need glass for optics? Yes and no. Plastic lenses that are high quality and durable may be possible to make but are very expensive, as far as I know the technology is in experimental stage. I don't think weight can be reduced much more than the weight of E-500 or E-400 because of all the size and optical requirements, but I definitely believe full metal bodies are just a tradition that is going to die soon. However, in my opinion the weight is important for another reason, that is stability. Usually it is easier to hold a camera stable if there is a weight that feels in the arms. Even a camera on tripod must have a weight to be firm on ground, especially with some large lens on the camera. To solve that, one can always load some extra weight on some tripods to make them stable. In fact some manufacturers, for example Velbon deliver an extra pouch with their Sherpa pro tripods to hang on the tripod to fill that with stone or something else to stabilize the tripod more. Size matters for another reason, that is handling. A P&S has fewer manual settings and buttons but the ones I have seen are too tiny for my requirements.
When I received my dSLR a year ago, I was surprised by how heavy it was, the E-500 with the 14-45mm plastic zoom. But if I have the same configuration with my OM2n, I have to weight that with a winder incl. 4 batteries and a 100mm lens on it. The weight of all that is considerably more than the E-500 with the ED50mm f2.0 which is a metal lens. So, yes digital cameras are much lighter than older fim cameras, but the comparision must be done properly.
Personally, have we ever wonder why do we need SLR and the mirror?
Years ago, without liveview and advanced technology, I think that was the only way to give us 100% coverage, see thru the lens - 100% what the lens sees.
But, small PnS and even the Liveview, is giving us, through the lens! Some even give us 100% coverage better than most cheaper DSLR!
Yes, in terms of quality, they are not there yet. Whatever we see through the conventional viewfinder optically is still better, but that's about it, I think. 100% coverage, 100% wysiwyg in terms of angle of view is no longer an advantage for SLR.
I am not denying that the DSLRs are better, just that the recent advancement in camera technology, makes me wonder... hmm...
Years ago, without liveview and advanced technology, I think that was the only way to give us 100% coverage, see thru the lens - 100% what the lens sees.
But, small PnS and even the Liveview, is giving us, through the lens! Some even give us 100% coverage better than most cheaper DSLR!
Yes, in terms of quality, they are not there yet. Whatever we see through the conventional viewfinder optically is still better, but that's about it, I think. 100% coverage, 100% wysiwyg in terms of angle of view is no longer an advantage for SLR.
I am not denying that the DSLRs are better, just that the recent advancement in camera technology, makes me wonder... hmm...
If you ask me, I never want to have live view. Why? Because it is just a much more complicated technology than a simple swinging mirror and as such it is bound to be less reliable. Also, 100% coveradge is not all. Through an optical VF I see more details than you can ever dream of in an electronic VF. The fact that I actually only see about 95% through the VF is not as disturbing as it would be to have to look at a pathetic LCD display with a bad resolution and a long delay when the camera is moved. Not to mention the problems it causes in bright light. Even the superb LCD of the E-500 is just a pathetic one compared to the "bad" viewfinder the E-500 has.
There are some things on the plus side of a live view also, but I think for most dSLR people an optical VF is a must. I will never buy a camera with only electronic view finder, and even less with a live view only LCD display, like most of P&Ss are. So, I think for a forseeable future, live view may be part of some dSLRs but optical view finder will be part of ALL decent dSLRs.
Just my 5c... I may be wrong. :dunno:
There are some things on the plus side of a live view also, but I think for most dSLR people an optical VF is a must. I will never buy a camera with only electronic view finder, and even less with a live view only LCD display, like most of P&Ss are. So, I think for a forseeable future, live view may be part of some dSLRs but optical view finder will be part of ALL decent dSLRs.
Just my 5c... I may be wrong. :dunno:
nightpiper
Senior Member
my interpretation for pro camera is more of reliability & speed. i think the photographer that feeds himself with his skills is known as pro photographer, not the camera that determines this status.
for one thing, a person who uses a camera to make a living can't afford to have his gears giving strange symtoms out of the blue, like inconsistent exposure, slow in AF (that cud cost him his life in a genocide area), fail due to forces of nature (antartica to document penguins)... etc. in the film days, u can't possibly do digital touch up easily, so a SLR need to be rated pro to give them a peace of mind, & yes, they carry 2 of those bricks around for backup.
isn't technology advancement fun? :bsmilie:
i wudn't say P&S can'tmatch up to DSLR quality juz yet. i'll leave that verdict after sigma comes out with their APS-C size sensor P&S, shud be out around the time of SD14. :lovegrin: this cud very well be my backup.
That is about what I say too, You just quoted a very small part of it
Technology is definitely fun, I work and live with that fun, my whole life was so far very technological.OlyFlyer said:
Hmm...you guys have got a point. Quality wise, DSLR is top notch no match.
But I ask myself again, even if I have an E-1 (or another DSLR), I don't think it can withstand a drop from 1.5m. So, imagine I am shooting with E-1 and accidently drop it. But, the mju 7xx series can.
So, am I still considered having a Pro camera? Is it as robust ?
When we consider a DSLR or Pro models, we are not just looking at the quality only I suppose, but in many areas. But recently, those PnS are simply so good in almost everything, making them so close to a DSLR (worse thing is, sometimes they can shoot in certain situation that a DSLR can't).
Now, my wish for the upcoming Olympus DSLR is : Water Resistant - 10m, Shock proof - 3m, Crush Proof - 150Kg, 15 fps, Liveview with tiltable LCD, and most importantly, bright LED light to let me do manual focusing through the viewfinder in the dark (best if with infra red).
But I ask myself again, even if I have an E-1 (or another DSLR), I don't think it can withstand a drop from 1.5m. So, imagine I am shooting with E-1 and accidently drop it. But, the mju 7xx series can.
So, am I still considered having a Pro camera? Is it as robust ?
When we consider a DSLR or Pro models, we are not just looking at the quality only I suppose, but in many areas. But recently, those PnS are simply so good in almost everything, making them so close to a DSLR (worse thing is, sometimes they can shoot in certain situation that a DSLR can't).
Now, my wish for the upcoming Olympus DSLR is : Water Resistant - 10m, Shock proof - 3m, Crush Proof - 150Kg, 15 fps, Liveview with tiltable LCD, and most importantly, bright LED light to let me do manual focusing through the viewfinder in the dark (best if with infra red).
It is easy to make a whish list if you are not ready to pay for...
Personally I think there are very few pro or advanced amature who would sign your wishlist. I would definitely not sign that. Why?
1.) I am not planning to dive with my camera.
2.) I have never dropped any camera in my 35 photographing years of my 50 living years.
3.) I have never dropped anything on any of my cameras during the same time span.
4.) I have never run over any of my cameras with my car during the same time span.
5.) If I would have run over my cameras, 150kg would not be enough to meet the pressure, it would need to be at least 1000kg.
6.) I have no need for live view.
7.) I never take pictures in total darkness and expect to focus manually. AF assist in the flash and auto focus does a better job on that. If I don't want to use the flash I can use the AF assist anyway and use ambient light to take the picture.
8.) The light for manual focus that you would need is called flood light and I don't want that built in my camera, even if it is made out of LEDs. Just as well turn on the room light in that case.
9.) Infra red is invisible for human eyes and thus it can not be used for manual focus, unless it is detected electronically and a synthetic image is presented and used for focus. I need optical view finder so IR would not work. Also the quality of night vision displays are too bad for manual focus. It may be usable for auto focus but then the cameras must work differently. Normally, red, but clearly visible and not infra red light is used for auto focus. The light intensity of that is too low to use for manual focus.
10.) 15fps? In which format? No problem today i jpeg but not possible in RAW. Why not 25fps in RAW and make it a super video camera? Definitely every video enthusiast's wet dream but not mine.
What is more important is reliability and that is not part of your wishlist. Besides, if your wishlist would become true, the camera would weight quite a bit over what I am prepared to carry every day if image quality is the same as today's dSLR's. Remember, a camera is more than a body, no point in having a camera like yours and lens that can not withstand all what you wish for. Than you'd need flash for it too... Not much light 10m under water...
BTW, I have not yet found a situation where a P&S can be used but a dSLR can not. Please give some example. Anyway, the number of situations must be very very limited.
nightpiper
Senior Member
wow, u r profound man... juz 2 sentences & its more than what i say in 1 paragraph. :bsmilie:
anyway, i'm not quoting from u, thats juz how i view the term pro camera & it has to be for all situations, not juz a given particular envirmt.
so how much dough wud u be willing to part for the next E-pro? :devil:
Thanks for all your valuable opinions.
That just help me to conclude that, the E-1 is still a very capable camera. I just wonder why so many people are just so dissatisfied and unhappy when Olympus is delaying the E-1 successor.
The E-1 was a Pro level camera in yesteryears but to many, it's still one today.
I don't mind getting another E-1 and it doesn't matter there's a successor or not.
Let's be patient and wait for the next E-x announcement, and I'm sure Olympus will never disappoint us.
Cheers!
That just help me to conclude that, the E-1 is still a very capable camera. I just wonder why so many people are just so dissatisfied and unhappy when Olympus is delaying the E-1 successor.
The E-1 was a Pro level camera in yesteryears but to many, it's still one today.
I don't mind getting another E-1 and it doesn't matter there's a successor or not.
Let's be patient and wait for the next E-x announcement, and I'm sure Olympus will never disappoint us.
Cheers!
- Status
Similar threads
