Oly E-510

[fengwei]

Shall rephrase my sentences, although it might sounds a bit rude:

It's not a big deal that Olympus is making a 35-100 F/2 considering it's for such a small sensor. And for that, I believe the lens is overpriced.

If Canon had a 70-200/2 lens for its 5D, I'm sure it'd be priced the same or even higher than the Olympus 35-100/2 lens.

Sometimes lens price can be increased quite a bit when the lens has just abit better spec or performance:
Canon 50/1.8: S$180
Canon 50/1.4: S$580
Canon 50/1.2L: S$2500
You can't say the 50/1.4 is 3 times better than the 50/1.8, or the 50/1.2 is 4 times better than the 50/1.4.


On the other hand, if you think the lens doesn't worth that much, then it is over priced (to you only). Someone else might think it's well worth the high price tag

 

[nightpiper]

4/3 System : Full Frame 5D

1. Sensor Area - 1:4

2. Assuming both sensor have equal pixels, noise level is inversely proportional to square root of sensor size (i.e. proportional to square root of pixel density),
3. Noise level for same ISO used - 2:1
4. ISO used to achieve same nosie level: 1:4
5. Equivilant 35mm focal lenth of Oly 35-100 on 4/3 system vs 70-200 on full frame - 1:1
6. Equivilant 35mm DOF of F2.0 on 4/3 vs F4 on full frame - 1:1
7. Shutter speed for ISO100 with F/2 and ISO400 with F/4 - 1:1

8. From the above comparisons, assuming 'No. 2', a 35-100 F2 on 4/3 body with ISO 100 will give the same image as a 70-200 F4 with ISO 400 on a full frame body i.e. 5D, using same shutter speed.

9. Price of 35-100 F/2 vs 70-200 F/4 - 3:1

sorry, i'm kind of lost here.

no.2. how do u get noise is inversely prop to root of sensor size? does it mean that no matter what type of sensor, may it be CCD, FFT CCD, CMOS, JFET ,NMOS, etc. this rule applies? if it applies, does it mean all diff sensors exhibit the same amount of noise given a fix pixel pitch? my understanding is no. there is too much variables to make the playing field level to begin with. can't imagine the pix count is the same too. 5D has 12 & E510 has 10. on top of it, the sensors r very diff. noise reduction also very diff. 5D has NR at pixel level whereas E510 doesn't. so where do u take measurement for noise? to make matter more challenging, the micro lenses on the sensors r again diff. efficiency also diff.

with that in mind, no.3 is not correct. diff type of sensor has diff amt of noise & noise pattern as well. again i dun quite understand how to level this field.

the DOF part i understand. the lens however WILL NOT change its speed. i think a better person to explain is ykkok. he explained to me once & i forgot, cos its kind of confusing. :sweat:

pic 1 is taken with Oly 14-54 at 54mm F4 1/13s

now pic 2 taken with leica 90mm F4 1/13s also

besides the FL diff, the expose looks identical when i try to crop the wider shot to make it looks like the 90mm FOV. how to explain this despite having only the center of the img circle from leica is used & the rest of the photons was lost? interesting isn't it? :think:

 

[drakon09]

A 70-200/f2 lens for 135-format is going to be one HUGE momma. :bsmilie:

Personally, I think the 35-100/f2 is really something else; it's handholdable but man is it HEAVY (1.8kg with tripod collar) or what! ;p

 

[fengwei]

A 70-200/f2 lens for 135-format is going to be one HUGE momma. :bsmilie:

Personally, I think the 35-100/f2 is really something else; it's handholdable but man is it HEAVY (1.8kg with tripod collar) or what! ;p

Well, that's why I prefer 1.5x crop over the 35mm full frame ones when taking tele photos

On the other hand, Olympus does have some best digital lenses, and most of Olympus lenses are weather sealed too. Sometimes I wish I could have a lens like the Oly 150/2 macro for my Pentax ;p, and I don't mind it's a DA lens - for a cropped sensor only

 

[drakon09]

Well, that's why I prefer 1.5x crop over the 35mm full frame ones when taking tele photos

On the other hand, Olympus does have some best digital lenses, and most of Olympus lenses are weather sealed too. Sometimes I wish I could have a lens like the Oly 150/2 macro for my Pentax ;p, and I don't mind it's a DA lens - for a cropped sensor only

I'm sure the DA* range will be expanded, it is just a matter of time; after all, Pentax know-how now has Hoya muscle behind it.

The Zuiko Digital range itself took about 2 years and a bit, this year and next will see additions to make the consumer range of lenses more comprehensive.

I do hope some genius would fabricate a DA to FourThirds adapter; those pancakes would look good on my E-410. :think:

Edit: Is the Pentax lens-mount collectively known as the K-mount? If so then the genius had already fabricated the adapter...

 

[microcosm]

I'm sure the DA* range will be expanded, it is just a matter of time; after all, Pentax know-how now has Hoya muscle behind it.

The Zuiko Digital range itself took about 2 years and a bit, this year and next will see additions to make the consumer range of lenses more comprehensive.

I do hope some genius would fabricate a DA to FourThirds adapter; those pancakes would look good on my E-410. :think:

When you travel like I do, I would appreciate a lot of pancakes instead of my ZDs... (sometimes).

 

[fengwei]

When you travel like I do, I would appreciate a lot of pancakes instead of my ZDs... (sometimes).

Ha ha, that's another selling point for Pentax Currently only Pentax makes such cool pancake lenses, and they all perform very well. As a matter of fact, two of the three pancake lenses even work on 35mm film SLR cameras w/o any vignetting problem

 

[microcosm]

Ha ha, that's another selling point for Pentax Currently only Pentax makes such cool pancake lenses, and they all perform very well. As a matter of fact, two of the three pancake lenses even work on 35mm film SLR cameras w/o any vignetting problem

Sheesh... that is some technology that will make me want to invest in!

 

[dnaxe]

Edit: Is the Pentax lens-mount collectively known as the K-mount? If so then the genius had already fabricated the adapter...

Yup - all current pentax lenses are K-mount.

 

[dnaxe]

The photon shot niose (that #2) is a function of the number of photons captured only, assuming the absence of readout noise. This assumption is generally biased to the advantage of smaller sensors. More information may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise

Sadly a lens on its own never captures an image, and the sensor cannot be taken out of the process. So it is the sensor and the lens attached. Olympus does have their point that it's about "the system".

Had there been a better way than using "the equivalence"... well..

On No. 2 - fine. Then the extra, missing assumption is even wider than I suggested (i.e. it assumes that everything to create the image is identical, except the FOV, DOF and photon shot noise).

How does that help you, again?

And - of course, a lens on it's own doesn't capture an image - but neither can an f/4 lens be shot at f/2...

 

[dnaxe]

Shall rephrase my sentences, although it might sounds a bit rude:

It's not a big deal that Olympus is making a 35-100 F/2 considering it's for such a small sensor. And for that, I believe the lens is overpriced.

That isn't a rephrasing - it's a new point. Neither of those reasons shows how a 35-100/2 is a 70-200/4.

And sure - you could be right - and as to being overpriced - what do you shoot, btw? (as in what brand, and what type of images generally?)

 

[GriGri]

Sigh.. Why is it so hard to make my point.

Let's put it this way, would you agree that photo taken using 70-200 F/4 on 5D at ISO 400 will be identical to photo taken using 35-100 F/2 on a 4/3 body at ISO 100? Other than the pixel difference and maybe some colour differences? Assuming the noise - sensor size relationship stands.

If not, why?

 

[GriGri]

And just to show that sensor generates more noise as its size get smaller, here are two shots taken with 5D and E410 seperately.

5D at ISO1600
http://www.pbase.com/jrillen/image/79851333/original

E410 at ISO800
http://www.pbase.com/jrillen/image/79852645/original

I might be too optimistic on saying 4/3 system only have twice the noise as compare to full frame sensors. Even when it's using half the ISO, there's still much more noise.

Both photos taken with same focal length (35mm equivalent), same aperture (F/7.1).

 

[dnaxe]

Sigh.. Why is it so hard to make my point.

Let's put it this way, would you agree that photo taken using 70-200 F/4 on 5D at ISO 400 will be identical to photo taken using 35-100 F/2 on a 4/3 body at ISO 100? Other than the pixel difference and maybe some colour differences? Assuming the noise - sensor size relationship stands.

If not, why?

I've already said that I can assume No. 8 is correct -but it's still irrelevant, because:

Do you think you can take the same picture with an f/2 lens as with an f/4 lens, given that everything which determines exposure is constant? (ISO/shutter/aperture)

If so - please let me know ...

Anyway, back to the more interesting economic argument - what do you shoot (i.e. what sorts of subjects generally), and with what equipment (i.e. what brand, and with what lenses)?

 

[GriGri]

There's really no point saying how nicely built is the 35-100 F/2 lens. For that price, I bet it must be.

But it can only work on small sensors, and it doesn't give you better photo than a much cheaper 5D + 70-200 F/4.

Hence other than Live View and some other innovative technologies that other companies have yet to adapt, I don't see why olympus is so attractive.

 

[GriGri]

I've already said that I can assume No. 8 is correct -but it's still irrelevant, because:

Do you think you can take the same picture with an f/2 lens as with an f/4 lens, given that everything which determines exposure is constant? (ISO/shutter/aperture)

If so - please let me know ...

Anyway, back to the more interesting economic argument - what do you shoot (i.e. what sorts of subjects generally), and with what equipment (i.e. what brand, and with what lenses)?

1. Yes, a 35-100 F/2 lens on 2x sensor gives same DOF and FOV as a 70-200 F/4 lens on full frame sensor. The only difference is the light intensity which can be compensated by higher ISO in 5D.

2. It doesn't matter what do I shoot, whoever compares this two combinations would find 5D + 70-200 F/4 more practical and economical. Unless you are one super Olympus fan.

 

[GriGri]

Well if you feel it's so necessary to state my own equipments before making any arguments here, well..

I had been a Nikon user for some time, D2H, D70, 18-70, 70-200, 30 1.4, SB800 / 600. Been shooting for school newspapers for more than a year, covering centre pages etc..

Felt unhappy with my own photos and sold all my equipments 6 months ago, now decide to start over again.

How is this related to the comparison of 5D and Olympus?

 

[microcosm]

There's really no point saying how nicely built is the 35-100 F/2 lens. For that price, I bet it must be.

But it can only work on small sensors, and it doesn't give you better photo than a much cheaper 5D + 70-200 F/4.

Hence other than Live View and some other innovative technologies that other companies have yet to adapt, I don't see why olympus is so attractive.

Really?? But then again, it is really up to the photog. But from your test image, an expensive 5D had a poorer WB than an entry level E-410. Don't you find that interesting??

 

[microcosm]

Well if you feel it's so necessary to state my own equipments before making any arguments here, well..

I had been a Nikon user for some time, D2H, D70, 18-70, 70-200, 30 1.4, SB800 / 600. Been shooting for school newspapers for more than a year, covering centre pages etc..

Felt unhappy with my own photos and sold all my equipments 6 months ago, now decide to start over again.

How is this related to the comparison of 5D and Olympus?

An honest advise. Find your "feel" again through the basics. You have relied too much on the gear in the past. In the period when I was creatively stuck, I went back to all manual and 645 format to rethink the way I shoot. And 645 is more revealing than one think. Shoot slides again, and then evaluate your shooting skills again. The 645 format cameras are much cheaper than your digital set up so you should not have a problem buying these gear these days.

I find no relation to the copier machine/broadcast camera maker and critical optics maker (ok, I am hitting below the belt now). Ha ha ha..

 

[dnaxe]

1. Yes, a 35-100 F/2 lens on 2x sensor gives same DOF and FOV as a 70-200 F/4 lens on full frame sensor. The only difference is the light intensity which can be compensated by higher ISO in 5D.

The 35-100/2 doesn't give the same aperture. You did get that from my numerous posts stating the same thing right?

2. It doesn't matter what do I shoot, whoever compares this two combinations would find 5D + 70-200 F/4 more practical and economical. Unless you are one super Olympus fan.

Well - I can partially agree with that. The canon combination would appear to be lighter and cheaper overall, although I'm not sure if a shot would be better with the 5D at ISO 3200 or a current olympus at ISO 800... but so what? It STILL doesn't mean that the 35-100/2 is a 70-200/4!!!