E3 versus E30 Kit

[dorts]

dorts isn't trying to compare the E-3 with the D-3, he's just giving his opinion on Oly's product lines and is using Nikon's product line for illustration.

Haha. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not too good with words. ;p

 

[drakon09]

Haha. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not too good with words. ;p

Heh, don't sweat it.

Only lawyers in court need to be crystal clear.

 

[drakon09]

IMHO the micro 4/3 and 4/3 lenses are differentiated from design ground up. Check the fundamental reasons why micro 4/3 came into being. As it is I doubt the 4/3 system can take ALL micro 4/3 lenses but not the other way round because of the physical limitations of the mirror box and need to keep a shorter flange as well as the need for telecentricity.

SWD is just a "motor" innovation. Doesn't exist for Panny. Or they will call it something different. E.g. USM and HSM for other manufacturers. You can certainly have SWD lenses for ANY line, 4/3, m4/3 or non-4/3.

Contrast AF is at the level of the main sensor so the lenses need to be able to "talk" and "take orders" from the main sensor. I don't think it is a deciding factor in differentiating lenses, e.g. for PannyLeicas.

For Oly there is distinct THREE lines, SHG, HG and ZD. And I think they differentiate along IQ, performance and construction differences rather than ability to contrast AF ......

just my 2 cents ......

:bsmilie:

 

[srinivasanj]

I believe the E-30 is suppose to sort of "take over" the place of the E-3, and the next E-X will be another grade higher, to compete with D3/future Dx. :dunno:

Now that makes sense...

 

[mactigasuku]

I think we're beginning to see two separate lines of lenses.

1. Contrast AF-capable lenses to support micro 4/3 and features such as face detection.
2. SWD lenses to support 4/3.

This would help keep the line between 4/3 and micro 4/3 clear and distinct. Of course this smacks of intentional crippling, but hey... ;p

This is ..... ----, absolute --------.

Micro 4/3 uses a different mount entirely. I don't think there is any 4/3 lenses designed for micro 4/3.

Information freely available on the net here and here.

The only common factor is the sensor.

 

[mactigasuku]

I think we're beginning to see two separate lines of lenses.

1. Contrast AF-capable lenses to support micro 4/3 and features such as face detection.
2. SWD lenses to support 4/3.

This would help keep the line between 4/3 and micro 4/3 clear and distinct. Of course this smacks of intentional crippling, but hey... ;p

IMHO the micro 4/3 and 4/3 lenses are differentiated from design ground up. Check the fundamental reasons why micro 4/3 came into being. As it is I doubt the 4/3 system can take ALL micro 4/3 lenses but not the other way round because of the physical limitations of the mirror box and need to keep a shorter flange as well as the need for telecentricity.

SWD is just a "motor" innovation. Doesn't exist for Panny. Or they will call it something different. E.g. USM and HSM for other manufacturers. You can certainly have SWD lenses for ANY line, 4/3, m4/3 or non-4/3.

Contrast AF is at the level of the main sensor so the lenses need to be able to "talk" and "take orders" from the main sensor. I don't think it is a deciding factor in differentiating lenses, e.g. for PannyLeicas.

For Oly there is distinct THREE lines, SHG, HG and ZD. And I think they differentiate along IQ, performance and construction differences rather than ability to contrast AF ......

just my 2 cents ......

:bsmilie:

:nono::nono::nono:

 

[mojims]

This is ..... ----, absolute --------.

Micro 4/3 uses a different mount entirely. I don't think there is any 4/3 lenses designed for micro 4/3.

Information freely available on the net here and here.

The only common factor is the sensor.

There is supposed to be an _official_ adaptor for u4/3 such that you can use 4/3 lenses with u4/3 cameras... the only thing though is that lenses will need to support Contrast AF so that they can AF on u4/3 cameras...

I guess that's where the distinction comes from...

 

[mactigasuku]

There is supposed to be an _official_ adaptor for u4/3 such that you can use 4/3 lenses with u4/3 cameras... the only thing though is that lenses will need to support Contrast AF so that they can AF on u4/3 cameras...

I guess that's where the distinction comes from...

Yes .... adapter ... the present 4/3 system can use OM lenses or most other Nikon, Pentax etc lenses, too. That doesn't mean that those lenses were designed for the 4/3 system.

Fr the official website:

" .... To make full use of the advantages of size reduction and new functions of the Micro Four Thirds System standard, it is necessary to combine a dedicated Micro Four Thirds System lens with the body. But existing lenses compliant to the Four Thirds System standard can also be used by attaching a dedicated adapter.

* When a Four Thirds lens is mounted on a Micro Four Thirds body using an adapter, all of the functions of the Micro Four Thirds System may not always be available."

 

[microcosm]

We really know how to OT... must be age catching up...

From E-3 to E-30 to Micro Four Thirds... the M43 should be discussed in another thread lah... don't make everything so confusing for non-Four Thirds users leh... remember this is still a part of ClubSNAP... there are non-FT users who are reading this... can be quite confusing if we keep jumping topics... ok guys?

Also, since the M43 adapter is not out yet, we will not really know what the missing functions will be... so let's wait for demo units to come in... I hope its only the consumer functionality that will be missing and not the essentials like AF, full metering functions, etc. All that consumer stuff like AF contrast blah blah, face detection, I don't really need (for my case). Then again, let's see how the M43 from Olympus will look like before we get into all sorts of assumption... ha ha ha...

I think other than being photographers, we should all part time as fortune tellers! :thumbsup: Good money!

 

[mojims]

I think other than being photographers, we should all part time as fortune tellers! :thumbsup: Good money!

Yeah man... I need extra $$$ Any takers? ;p

 

[bousozoku]

1. The E30's body is different from the E3's.
2. The E30's sensor is superior to the E3's.
3. The E30's engine is Truepic III+ whereas the E3's is Truepic III.
4. The E30 is capable of Contrast AF and hence FD and better LV performance.
5. The E30's AF is enhanced with the ability for individual fine adjustment.
6. Multiple Exposure.
7. The E30 has a bigger and ?better LCD.
8. The E30 has a different OVF to that in the E3.
9. The E30's IS is also superior to that of the E3.

Simply put, the E30 is a different dSLR from the E3.

Ohh ... btw, by Moore's Law the E3 is already obsolete

Ha!

These things may appear to be better but do they work better when you just need to get things done?

If I had $1.00 for every promise that was just marketing speak and really wasn't any better or even changed, I'd be rich.

The E-30 is for the person stepping up from an SLR-like point-and-shoot who has a lot of creative ideas and just doesn't have all the technical knowledge with the camera and possibly doesn't have all the fancy filters and plug-ins for Photoshop. It might not perform when it really comes down to a professional, need-to-get-the-photo situation.

 

[olymac]

Notice that I was only highlighting some differences between the E30 and E3 to make the point that these are different camera bodies.

No claim as to the final result .....

But if I was as cynical as you, I would still be using film cameras ...... :bsmilie:

 

[bousozoku]

...
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_digital_slr_specs_e-30_20269.htm says Truepic III. There is nothing about Truepic III+. Maybe you know more than they do... :dunno:
...

I guess the UK staff slipped up this time.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1430&fl=2

 

[mactigasuku]

Notice that I was only highlighting some differences between the E30 and E3 to make the point that these are different camera bodies.

No claim as to the final result .....

But if I was as cynical as you, I would still be using film cameras ...... :bsmilie:

The E-30 is definitely different to the E-3 but also most definitely not superior to it, as you like to make it.

1. True. The E-3 is weather sealed the E-30 is not. The E-30 is plastic, the E-3 is metal. The E-3 is heavier.
2. You don't know that. It has more MP, but if it is better or not, wait and see.
3. http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_digital_slr_specs_e-30_20269.htm says Truepic III. There is nothing about Truepic III+. Maybe you know more than they do... :dunno:
4. True, for the few lenses available today, that may give an advantage.
5. No, not individual. Same specs as above says: settings for up to 20 lenses can be registered. I doubt it will be individually adjustable.
6. Fun but how useful?
7. Yes, 2.7" instead of 2.5" but the same resolution. In fact, probably the same as in the SP570. Not noticably larger and definitely not better in any way.
8. Yes, definitely different. Also smaller and not covering 100%. If that matters or not is another question.
9. Where did you get that from? :dunno: The IS is the same in both but superior of the E-5xx bodies.

Lastly, Moore's Law was for computers and it did not even became true. Just not applicable here and I think you are wrong about the E-3, it is definitely not obsolete before there is a replacement. The E-30 is not the one.

I don't think anyone is making any claims as to the final IQ of the E30. As in the earlier part of the discussion, some of us are just trying to reiterate that the E30 is a different camera from the E3 - not a dumbed down E3.

BUT I would be surprised if the IQ is LESS than the E3. I guess it'll be equivalent or even better. It is after all a different sensor and an upgraded processor. And yes, it is TruePic III+.

In this review, the IQ seems decent up to ISO 800 in bad light and ?1600 in good lighting (though to my less trained eyes, I would say 400 for bad light and 800 for good light ...:dunno: ). But if the sensor is the same as in the coming E30 then, it does seem to indicate good IQ ......

 

[mactigasuku]

Another practical point is the multi-aspect ratio in the E30.

When one prints at the shop a 4R size print for 4:3 pics, they tend to crop. The alternative is to have uneven borders or worse still distortion. Unless it is what they call "Jumbo 4R". Most of them here in SG still uses the 3:2 aspect ratio.

 

[olymac]

The E-30 is definitely different to the E-3 but also most definitely not superior to it, as you like to make it.

1. True. The E-3 is weather sealed the E-30 is not. The E-30 is plastic, the E-3 is metal. The E-3 is heavier.
2. You don't know that. It has more MP, but if it is better or not, wait and see.
3. http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_digital_slr_specs_e-30_20269.htm says Truepic III. There is nothing about Truepic III+. Maybe you know more than they do... :dunno:
4. True, for the few lenses available today, that may give an advantage.
5. No, not individual. Same specs as above says: settings for up to 20 lenses can be registered. I doubt it will be individually adjustable.
6. Fun but how useful?
7. Yes, 2.7" instead of 2.5" but the same resolution. In fact, probably the same as in the SP570. Not noticably larger and definitely not better in any way.
8. Yes, definitely different. Also smaller and not covering 100%. If that matters or not is another question.
9. Where did you get that from? :dunno: The IS is the same in both but superior of the E-5xx bodies.

Lastly, Moore's Law was for computers and it did not even became true. Just not applicable here and I think you are wrong about the E-3, it is definitely not obsolete before there is a replacement. The E-30 is not the one.

In Singapore it is TruePic III+ .... they even have a picture of it on the website with the claim " ...The newly developed 12.3M Live MOS sensor and a further advancement with the TruePicIII+ produces even higher quality reproducibility." Maybe they put in a crippled version in the UK :dunno:

And the IS is definitely different ... and prob superior as well compare to that of the E3 ... you want the link .... ?

Ohh ... you may be right about me being wrong on the E3 being obsolete but .... you know ... there ARE a lot of stuff out there getting obsolete without any replacement .... e.g. Polaroid cameras ...

But again .... I make no claim that the E30 produces BETTER images than the E3 ...

 

[microcosm]

Waiting for the cameras to hit our shores and then let's see...

My only thought is... E-1 maintained superb images even though it was first generation, uses CMOS, lowest resolution ever in a E-System body, but yet "improved" bodies like E-300, E-400, heck, even E-330 was not able to better the E-1 until the E-3 came about. Someone once said this... though I love red wine, but there are many different grades of red wine. There are sensors out there, but there many grades of sensors out there. What is being put into the camera body is anyone's guess. I love the colours of CMOS... and E-1, E-300 and E-400 all used CMOS, but the picture quality was worlds apart.

So let's wait for the sample pictures to be released and see for ourselves...

 

[olymac]

Waiting for the cameras to hit our shores and then let's see...

My only thought is... E-1 maintained superb images even though it was first generation, uses CMOS, lowest resolution ever in a E-System body, but yet "improved" bodies like E-300, E-400, heck, even E-330 was not able to better the E-1 until the E-3 came about. Someone once said this... though I love red wine, but there are many different grades of red wine. There are sensors out there, but there many grades of sensors out there. What is being put into the camera body is anyone's guess. I love the colours of CMOS... and E-1, E-300 and E-400 all used CMOS, but the picture quality was worlds apart.

So let's wait for the sample pictures to be released and see for ourselves...

The E-1 uses a Kodak CCD sensor.

 

[mactigasuku]

Waiting for the cameras to hit our shores and then let's see...

My only thought is... E-1 maintained superb images even though it was first generation, uses CMOS, lowest resolution ever in a E-System body, but yet "improved" bodies like E-300, E-400, heck, even E-330 was not able to better the E-1 until the E-3 came about. Someone once said this... though I love red wine, but there are many different grades of red wine. There are sensors out there, but there many grades of sensors out there. What is being put into the camera body is anyone's guess. I love the colours of CMOS... and E-1, E-300 and E-400 all used CMOS, but the picture quality was worlds apart.

So let's wait for the sample pictures to be released and see for ourselves...

Yeah ... but at 5 MP .... just not enough for good cropping work ... just my 2 cents

 

[microcosm]

The E-1 uses a Kodak CCD sensor.

Yeah, shucks, I confused myself... CCDs, not CMOS... LOL... That was what I was trying to say... thanks for spotting this...