FourThirds- What it is and What it isn't

[VSonic06]

Yes. That is one reason why it is NOT possible to make 4/3 lenses smaller and faster than film lenses. That's why all the arguments that the lenses are actually small and fast is just bull***t. They are not small nor fast. May be smaller than other dSLR lenses may also be faster and higher quality for the same price but definitely not smaller or faster than OM or any other 35mm film lenses.

You're right about the lens size and speed part... Here's a comparison between similar 'digital' fisheye glass:

The Pentax/Tokina 10-17mm/3.5-4.5 (DA = 1.5x crop like "EF-S" or "DX" in C&N speak) is SMALLER and LIGHTER than the ZD 8mm/3.5. Image quality-wise both are pretty much the same as far as fisheyes go.

The DA 10-17mm cost about 60% of the ZD 8mm.

 

[ykkok]

On the other end, the difference is greater. Compare Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 vs Zuiko Digital 90-250mm f2.8, both gives the same angle of view on 35mm film and 4/3 bodies:

Sigma 200-500 f2.8 EX DG

Zuiko Digital 90-250 f2.8 ED:

Anyway, both are not light weight to me

 

[zuikoku]

Our advantage is like this:50-200mm F2.8-F3.5=100-400mm F2.8-F3.5 in 35mm term.100-400mm F4.5-F5.6 is already 1.1kg,how huge will 100-400mm F2.8-F3.5??Another example is ZD 90-250mm F2.8 on E1 compare to Sigma 200-500mm F2.8 on 1DSMKII,how much is the weight difference?Over 10KG,that where the difference.

We have to be careful to see about FOV.
FOV is not the same with magnification factor which you mentioned about.

i.e : 50-200 mm lens in 4/3 system will give the same angle of view with 100-400 mm on 35 mm term, BUT... not the same magnification ratio on the sensor.

I've just compare several times between ZD 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 with Canon EF 100-400 mm L and the things are quite clear.. Canon wins more detail for tele end due to better magnification ratio.

 

[zuikoku]

Drakon09,

Please include Sigma system which having around 1.7x FOV too on your presentation.

Noise ? it depends on the perception itself. EOS 5D with a low noise characteristics is having different noise (Chroma) compare to i.e Olympus E-1 (Luminance Noise). So, on Olympus mostly the noise character is almost like "Film grain".

Consider also about "Color fidelity" on Olympus D-SLR which most pleasing feature especially on skintone characteristic. No wonder the jpeg file sizes usually bigger than other brands due to smooth transition on color rendition.

on Dynamic Range issue, agreed that other brands which use bigger sensor gives wider range compare to Olympus. But the smart mapping colour reproduction on each colour channel (R,G,B) gives terrific results on all model of Olympus D-SLR..

Zuiko Lenses is the key to get nice results too

 

[Clockunder]

We have to be careful to see about FOV.
FOV is not the same with magnification factor which you mentioned about.

i.e : 50-200 mm lens in 4/3 system will give the same angle of view with 100-400 mm on 35 mm term, BUT... not the same magnification ratio on the sensor.

I've just compare several times between ZD 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 with Canon EF 100-400 mm L and the things are quite clear.. Canon wins more detail for tele end due to better magnification ratio.

Finally, someone who really know his stuff. :thumbsup:

I've been following Olympus forums here and Dpreview because I find some Olympus features like the live view, swivel LCD (E-330), Supersonic Wave filter (dust reduction) etc. interesting.

However, I kept seeing some Olympus die hard fans erroneously equating 35mm format equivalent of focal lengths on Olympus DSLRs to actual focal lengths without they realising their differences and they like to think that they are getting a Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche for the price of a Mini for their Olympus DSLRs. :bsmilie:

That's why we see them equating and comparing 40-150mm lens to 70-200mm of other brands on a bigger sensor because their apparent focal lengths on their respective DSLRs are quite similar.

They never realise that if they do a crop on the full frame (or any sensor bigger than 2x crop), they would also get the apparent 2x focal length seen in Olympus DSLRs. For e.g. if they do an appropriate crop for the picture taken by a 1.5x crop factor camer with 500mm lens, they can also get a similar 1000mm as an Olympus DSLR on the 35mm format equivalent with the same 500mm lens.). They conveniently forgot about the detail differences which are especially more apparent for close-up on a very distant object and the DOF differences.

As for the higher noise in Olympus DSLRs, some Olympus fans think that it can be gotten rid of by a good noise removel software without thinking about the loss of details. Moreover, they never realise that the lower the light condition, the more apparent the noise difference between an Olympus DSLRs and other brands. That is why we see some Olympus fans taking an ISO 800 picture when it's still pretty bright (e.g. outdoor at 7+pm) and claim that noise level is low.

Despite all the bashing I have hurled at Olympus DSLRs, I'm impressed with Olympus for their efforts in incorporating many features which consumers desire to have.

 

[drakon09]

Drakon09,

Please include Sigma system which having around 1.7x FOV too on your presentation.

Noise ? it depends on the perception itself. EOS 5D with a low noise characteristics is having different noise (Chroma) compare to i.e Olympus E-1 (Luminance Noise). So, on Olympus mostly the noise character is almost like "Film grain".

Consider also about "Color fidelity" on Olympus D-SLR which most pleasing feature especially on skintone characteristic. No wonder the jpeg file sizes usually bigger than other brands due to smooth transition on color rendition.

on Dynamic Range issue, agreed that other brands which use bigger sensor gives wider range compare to Olympus. But the smart mapping colour reproduction on each colour channel (R,G,B) gives terrific results on all model of Olympus D-SLR..

Zuiko Lenses is the key to get nice results too

Ok, thanks for the info. I didn't know Sigma uses an APS 1.7x.

The reason why I didn't include colour rendering and all that because it is subjective and really personal preference. The DR part is based on principle of physics.

Also, the thread is not about exhorting FourThirds as the "best" system, but rather what is really is and isn't (see my earlier reply to espion).

 

[drakon09]

Finally, someone who really know his stuff. :thumbsup:

I've been following Olympus forums here and Dpreview because I find some Olympus features like the live view, swivel LCD (E-330), Supersonic Wave filter (dust reduction) etc. interesting.

However, I kept seeing some Olympus die hard fans erroneously equating 35mm format equivalent of focal lengths on Olympus DSLRs to actual focal lengths without they realising their differences and they like to think that they are getting a Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche for the price of a Mini for their Olympus DSLRs. :bsmilie:

That's why we see them equating and comparing 40-150mm lens to 70-200mm of other brands on a bigger sensor because their apparent focal lengths on their respective DSLRs are quite similar.

They never realise that if they do a crop on the full frame (or any sensor bigger than 2x crop), they would also get the apparent 2x focal length seen in Olympus DSLRs. For e.g. if they do an appropriate crop for the picture taken by a 1.5x crop factor camer with 500mm lens, they can also get a similar 1000mm as an Olympus DSLR on the 35mm format equivalent with the same 500mm lens.). They conveniently forgot about the detail differences which are especially more apparent for close-up on a very distant object and the DOF differences.

As for the higher noise in Olympus DSLRs, some Olympus fans think that it can be gotten rid of by a good noise removel software without thinking about the loss of details. Moreover, they never realise that the lower the light condition, the more apparent the noise difference between an Olympus DSLRs and other brands. That is why we see some Olympus fans taking an ISO 800 picture when it's still pretty bright (e.g. outdoor at 7+pm) and claim that noise level is low.

Despite all the bashing I have hurled at Olympus DSLRs, I'm impressed with Olympus for their efforts in incorporating many features which consumers desire to have.

It is really not difficult to understand that at all. One Powerpoint slide is all it takes (working on it).

Unfortunately not everyone understand the physics of optics; because once they do, as I said before, it is just manipulation of the same common constant.

 

[wind30]

As for the higher noise in Olympus DSLRs, some Olympus fans think that it can be gotten rid of by a good noise removel software without thinking about the loss of details. Moreover, they never realise that the lower the light condition, the more apparent the noise difference between an Olympus DSLRs and other brands. That is why we see some Olympus fans taking an ISO 800 picture when it's still pretty bright (e.g. outdoor at 7+pm) and claim that noise level is low.

Have you owned/used an oly DSLR to any appreciable extent? Have you shot with these cameras in low light?

I have used and owned D70 + KM7D + S3PRO + oly E1 E330 E300 for a few months, and I can tell you the E1 and E300 noise not much higher than s3pro or KM7D.

I also had E1 and s3pro concurrent in the same room and I did my own test under indoor lighting and my conclusion was the s3pro "low noise" is just due to clever noise reduction. And after neatimage, the E1 pictures has the same amount of detail and noise comparable to the s3pro.

PS: I am not an oly fan. Previously, other people say I am a s3pro Fan .... I used all brands DSLR and will probably get the s5pro next or maybe the SD14.

 

[wind30]

We have to be careful to see about FOV.
FOV is not the same with magnification factor which you mentioned about.

i.e : 50-200 mm lens in 4/3 system will give the same angle of view with 100-400 mm on 35 mm term, BUT... not the same magnification ratio on the sensor.

I've just compare several times between ZD 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 with Canon EF 100-400 mm L and the things are quite clear.. Canon wins more detail for tele end due to better magnification ratio.

which canon/oly bodies did you use for your comparison? You are assuming all the detail is due to the lens but from experience, I think some of the zuiko lens out resolves what the 4/3 sensor is capable.

Anyway, currently, the oly system lags behind in resolution compared to the competitors but this is a combination of the sensor and lens issue. My personal take is that the reason lies in the sensor.

 

[espion]

Anyway, currently, the oly system lags behind in resolution compared to the competitors but this is a combination of the sensor and lens issue. My personal take is that the reason lies in the sensor.

Thats my suspicions too. I think Oly needs to work on its sensor which is the heart of digital photography.

 

[ykkok]

I think there's no crop for ZD lens to the current 4/3 DSLRs' sensor.
At least, it's not designed to be 'cropped'.

There is if:

1. OM lens on 4/3 bodies (2X crop)
2. Sigma DG lens on 4/3 bodies (2x crop)
3. Sigma DC lens on 4/3 bodies (1.3x crop)

 

[OlyFlyer]

You're right about the lens size and speed part...

Yes, and here is an OM 50mm f1.8 side by side with an ED 50mm f2.0

And here is an OM 100mm f2.8 side by side with an ED 50mm f2.0.

In both cases the OM is a clear vinner in size. No argument about the OM not having the mechanics needed for AF, that does not add anything to it's length anyway.

 

[OlyFlyer]

However, I kept seeing some Olympus die hard fans erroneously equating 35mm format equivalent of focal lengths on Olympus DSLRs to actual focal lengths without they realising their differences and they like to think that they are getting a Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche for the price of a Mini for their Olympus DSLRs. :bsmilie:

I don't think anybody with the right mind can really belive they get anything better than a good quality alternative to some very expensive lenses. Remember, there is a great span between Mini and Ferrari... Life is not just black and white.

They never realise that if they do a crop on the full frame (or any sensor bigger than 2x crop), they would also get the apparent 2x focal length seen in Olympus DSLRs. For e.g. if they do an appropriate crop for the picture taken by a 1.5x crop factor camer with 500mm lens, they can also get a similar 1000mm as an Olympus DSLR on the 35mm format equivalent with the same 500mm lens.). They conveniently forgot about the detail differences which are especially more apparent for close-up on a very distant object and the DOF differences.

If that is true, than they should learn something. The 4/3 sensor is almost exactly 1/4 of the area of a 35mm film frame. Yes, if you crop a film image by the same factor you'd get the same effect. But, E-300 and E-500 has 8MP. A film frame is equal to about 13-16MP. 8MP is about 1/2 of a film frame which means that I should be able to get a more detailed image than a cropped 35mm image, assuming it is cropped to 4/3 sensor proportion. The E-410 and 510 has 10MP and in that case that should be even more obvious.

As for the higher noise in Olympus DSLRs, some Olympus fans think that it can be gotten rid of by a good noise removel software without thinking about the loss of details. Moreover, they never realise that the lower the light condition, the more apparent the noise difference between an Olympus DSLRs and other brands. That is why we see some Olympus fans taking an ISO 800 picture when it's still pretty bright (e.g. outdoor at 7+pm) and claim that noise level is low.

Don't tell me noise is an Oly issue only. It is a fact of life of every electronic engineer, including myself. The only way to get rid of that is using different NR methods. I know there are N & C people who say noise is not an issue, I think it is the same people who say dust is not an issue... Do I have to say more :dunno: ?

I do not say the way Oly handles noise is good, but I would not say it is bad, it is definitely better than film. As for people who use ISO800 under bright conditions, I think you should ask them why? I see only one reason, that is to get high shutter speed and small aperture at the same time. Anyway, how do you know that? I never ask anybody what his ISO is at a given moment. Who cares? It is his/her business.

Despite all the bashing I have hurled at Olympus DSLRs, I'm impressed with Olympus for their efforts in incorporating many features which consumers desire to have.

Not only consumers, even pros...

Olympus invented and patented many things before that have been regarded useless from the start and then everybody followed. It still seems to be the case. Like with the dust buster and the live view. First everybody is laughing and then everybody is following. BTW, I don't know if in camera IS is an Oly invention, but I think that it is a very good feature anyway. Even there, my guess is that everybody will follow that line.

 

[ykkok]

One more - everyone else is coming up with digital specific (uncropped*) lenses.

* in simpler term, uncrop means, if you can mount it on anything bigger than it's intended sensor size, there's serious vignetting.

 

[Mikefellh]

Yes, and here is an OM 50mm f1.8 side by side with an ED 50mm f2.0

In both cases the OM is a clear vinner in size. No argument about the OM not having the mechanics needed for AF, that does not add anything to it's length anyway.

Not quite, you're not comparing similar lenses...here you're comparing an OM 50mm f1.8 with an ED 50mm f2.0 MACRO lens. If you look at the OM 50mm f2.0 macro lens it is MUCH LARGER than the regular 50mm f1.8 lens:

http://www.pbase.com/equipment/image/61816041

It's the macro component of the lens that makes it so large.

In addition I own the 50mm you have pictured (although mine isn't so beat up), and a 28mm f2.8 macro lens, and the 28mm is a physically larger lens than the 50mm, again due to the macro component of the lens.

 

[ykkok]

Not forgetting those ICs, PCB boards, and the AF motor in all the current new lenses.

 

[wind30]

but I heard the new 40-150 is smaller than the old 14-45 kit lens....
wow.... Maybe should sell my 40-150 soon.

 

[Mikefellh]

The new 40-150mm is slower (optically) than the original...I'd wait to see the reviews. Considering the new one is almost half the weight, quality must have been lost somewhere to lose all that weight!

 

[OlyFlyer]

Not quite, you're not comparing similar lenses...here you're comparing an OM 50mm f1.8 with an ED 50mm f2.0 MACRO lens. If you look at the OM 50mm f2.0 macro lens it is MUCH LARGER than the regular 50mm f1.8 lens:

It's the macro component of the lens that makes it so large.

In addition I own the 50mm you have pictured (although mine isn't so beat up), and a 28mm f2.8 macro lens, and the 28mm is a physically larger lens than the 50mm, again due to the macro component of the lens.

Not the whole truth, as far as I know, even the Sigma 30mm is longer, not only larger in diameter.

The OM 50mm f2.0 macro is 55mm long the 50mm f3.5 macro is only 40mm long and the 50mm f1.8 is 32mm long while the ED 50mm f2.0 is a whole 61.5mm, clearly a vinner in length, even against the OM 50mm f2.0 macro.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/macrozuikoC.htm#50mmf20

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/50mm1a.htm

I have yet to see a lens that is as short as its OM counterpart is. No luck so far in finding that lens.

 

[OlyFlyer]

Not forgetting those ICs, PCB boards, and the AF motor in all the current new lenses.

No, I am not forgetting all those things. None of those are in front of or behind my lenses, so they do not add anything to their length. I mentioned earlier, I understand diameters being larger due to AF and electronics but not the length. Just face it, it is just a salesman's argument that it is possible to make shorter lenses.

NO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE THEM SHORTER. That is all I am saying. I don't say they should or could be shorter or that the size disturbs me or anything else than the present lenses are not shorter nor brighter than old OM lenses were. I am not into optics, for me they are just something I need to have on my camera. I am not really interested why they are longer as long as they do what they have to. I just don't like when marketing lies become the "truth" and nobody questions them. I am sure there is a reason why they are longer but that is not important for me, just tha fact that they are longer.