Oly E-510

[fengwei]

It's not a 300/2.8 but a 300/4... and the 35-100/2 is a 70-200/4... Think about it... What a rip. :sweat: Had I have that kind of money, I'd rather go the other way to get EOS 5D+70-200/4.

Well, even on the Olympus dSLR cameras, a 300/2.8 lens is still a 300/2.8 lens, and a 35-100/2 is still a 35-100/2 lens. But their equivelent (to 35mm format) field of view become similar to a 600/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lens. Only the equivelent FoV change, the aperture doesn't have any crop factor here.

Same goes to our Pentax dSLR cameras which have 1.5x crop factor. A 50/1.4 lens is still a 50/1.4 on our Pentax, it's the equivelent FoV become like a 75/1.4 lens mounted on a 35mm full fram SLR camera.

 

[fengwei]

I shoot editorials for a UK magazine and the E-410 has already paid for itself in one shoot.

About the Zuiko Digital lenses... yes... they are glass to die for, else ZD would not have had the reputation of being the Leica of the East. And for sports, don't forget the very very useful 90-250mm... (180-500mm 35mm equiv). That is one of the best lens that I have ever used. Just too bad that in my assignments I usually shoot handheld and the 90-250,, proved to be too heavy for hours of shooting, else I would have kept it.

The 35-100 (70-200mm) must be one of the fastest in its class. f2.0 at the widest and yet the image quality, edge to edge is unmatched. But that said, if you were to invest in the Super High Grade lens, you might want to hold on to the camera body purchase until the end of the year when the Pro body and even up to summer 2008 for the semi pro bodies to be released. They would be a better match for the Zuiko Digital Super High Grade lenses. Cheers.

I agree, Olympus has some best digital lenses on the market. Their specs and performances are very good indeed. The only thing is that those good ones are too expensive for most amateurs, but they do worth the cost if you need and can afford one

 

[microcosm]

I agree, Olympus has some best digital lenses on the market. Their specs and performances are very good indeed. The only thing is that those good ones are too expensive for most amateurs, but they do worth the cost if you need and can afford one

Actually, the Super High Grades are not all rounders because of their impossible to carry around weight. They are so heavy that photojournalists will be struggling with them in no time. This is why their High Grade lenses are so popular and yield pretty good pictures, and at the same, being weatherproof. I kid you not. Give me a shower head and I will run the water through my camera and lens anytime (which I usually do after a shoot at very dusty locations or finished at a seaside/beach location to remove salt built up).

Almost all the time, it is the serious amateurs who are lugging the Super High Grades around. Almost all the working pros are only using the HG lenses because of practical reasons (weight versus image quality). Hope this clears up the myth. But not all is good for the Olympus camp though... the Olympians in this part of the world are suffering from bad after sales service and lacklustre technical support. This is a bugging issue that has some pulling their hair, but fortunately, the Hong Kong service centre comes to the rescue and also, Olympus is the only company that gives international warranty for both their lenses and camera bodies.

One very important thing that keeps me in the Oly camp is that the people at Olympus understands digital photography. If you look at product roadmaps and product shelf life, you will notice that they sell their camera bodies cheap and lenses at a higher price (generally, not all). This is because they understand in today's era, camera bodies gets changed every few years due to improvements in sensor technology and this means the camera bodies are "disposable" after a certain period of time. Whereas good optics/lenses are keepers over a much longer period of time and therefore so much investment is made into the development of very good quality lenses with weatherproofing and in most cases, the lenses are more capable of taking abuse than its competitors. Hardly one see a whole line of middle range lenses (High Grades) which is made weatherproof and of such good optical quality. (Look at MTF charts carefully on the ZD lenses, they are using 60 lines instead of the 20/30 others use, like in the case of Sigma).

If you guys are keen to see the image quality on the Zuiko Digital lenses, do join the Olympian meetings which we try to hold on a monthly basis. Just bring along a CF card. And bring your camera too... I have heard so much about the Pentax legacy... I am sure the Pentax can hold its weight against the Olys and also, the super user-friendly menu system. Cheers.

 

[fengwei]

Actually, the Super High Grades are not all rounders because of their impossible to carry around weight. They are so heavy that photojournalists will be struggling with them in no time. This is why their High Grade lenses are so popular and yield pretty good pictures, and at the same, being weatherproof. I kid you not. Give me a shower head and I will run the water through my camera and lens anytime (which I usually do after a shoot at very dusty locations or finished at a seaside/beach location to remove salt built up).

Almost all the time, it is the serious amateurs who are lugging the Super High Grades around. Almost all the working pros are only using the HG lenses because of practical reasons. Hope this clears up the myth.

If you guys are keen to see the image quality on the Zuiko Digital lenses, do join us in our meetings which we try to hold on a monthly basis. Just bring along a CF card. Cheers.

Thanks. Actually one of my friends, a professional photographer, is using Olympus dSLR cameras, but he used to use Pentax cameras for near 20 years before he went for digital.

I've seen enough excellent photos taken by some Olympus gear, don't think I need to be spoiled again by you guys Besides, I'm already suffering w/ my sicky LBA for Pentax glass, can't afford a switch now :cry:

Thanks anyway and cheers!

 

[microcosm]

Thanks. Actually one of my friends, a professional photographer, is using Olympus dSLR cameras, but he used to use Pentax cameras for near 20 years before he went for digital.

I've seen enough excellent photos taken by some Olympus gear, don't think I need to be spoiled again by you guys Besides, I'm already suffering w/ my sicky LBA for Pentax glass, can't afford a switch now :cry:

Thanks anyway and cheers!

I am just sharing what I feel about Oly. In any case, I am not here to convert anyone, just to share and discover things about Pentax as well. I have seen a few really good photojournalists in Taiwan who are hardcore Pentax users.

We should get together for kopi someday and you can show me more about Pentax.

 

[grantyale]

Well, even on the Olympus dSLR cameras, a 300/2.8 lens is still a 300/2.8 lens, and a 35-100/2 is still a 35-100/2 lens. But their equivelent (to 35mm format) field of view become similar to a 600/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lens. Only the equivelent FoV change, the aperture doesn't have any crop factor here.

Same goes to our Pentax dSLR cameras which have 1.5x crop factor. A 50/1.4 lens is still a 50/1.4 on our Pentax, it's the equivelent FoV become like a 75/1.4 lens mounted on a 35mm full fram SLR camera.

It's a 300/2.8 physically, 600/5.6 in terms of FOV and DOF.

Look at the circle of confusion, DOF, and bokeh radius.

You may refer to http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

 

[drakon09]

It's a 300/2.8 physically, 600/5.6 in terms of FOV and DOF.

Look at the circle of confusion, DOF, and bokeh radius.

You may refer to http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

It is still f2.8 in terms of light gathering ability.

You have increased DoF but you do not lose shutter speed; denoting it as 600/5.6 is extremely misleading. A 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8, not matter what is the sensor size.

 

[grantyale]

If you have that kind of money, you will want those lenses. And by the way, it is not crop factor. And the aperture does not double. Go read up again about the things you say instead of misleading people.

:sweatsm:

Talking about FOV and DOF, both will be doubled if one would like like to calculate the equivalent. Talking about photon shot noise, had a 4/3 and a 36x24 sensor have the same number of pixels, assuming 100% quantum efficiency and perfect microlenses - each 4/3 sensor photosite will be of 1/4 the surface area, 1/4 the number of photons and therefore 1/2 (sqrt{1/4}) the SNR. So it's the same story.

 

[grantyale]

It is still f2.8 in terms of light gathering ability.

You have increased DoF but you do not lose shutter speed; denoting it as 600/5.6 is extremely misleading. A 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8, not matter what is the sensor size.

See my post above. The chip is about 1/4 the area.

 

[fengwei]

:sweatsm:

Talking about FOV and DOF, both will be doubled if one would like like to calculate the equivalent. Talking about photon shot noise, had a 4/3 and a 36x24 sensor have the same number of pixels, assuming 100% quantum efficiency and perfect microlenses - each 4/3 sensor photosite will be of 1/4 the surface area, 1/4 the number of photons and therefore 1/2 (sqrt{1/4}) the SNR. So it's the same story.

Sorry, I think you made a mistake here. A lens's spec won't change no matter what sensor size is w/ your camera, just like some said above. A 300/2.8 lens will always be a 300/2.8 lens, no matter what sensor size is. FoV and DoF might be different because of the sensor crop factor, but this won't change the light gathering (the max aperture) of the lens.

And my FA50/1.4 lens will always be a 50/1.4, it isn't a 75/1.7 lens even used on the K10D camera

This has been well discussed for many times. We don't want to start it over again.

 

[grantyale]

Sorry, I think you made a mistake here. A lens's spec won't change no matter what sensor size is w/ your camera, just like some said above. A 300/2.8 lens will always be a 300/2.8 lens, no matter what sensor size is. FoV and DoF might be different because of the sensor crop factor, but this won't change the light gathering (the max aperture) of the lens.

And my FA50/1.4 lens will always be a 50/1.4, it isn't a 75/1.7 lens even used on the K10D camera

This has been well discussed for many times. We don't want to start it over again.

It's still a 50/1.4 of course. But if one were to talk about its "35mm format equivalent", it is incorrect to say it is equivalent to a "75/1.4 on FF". That's the point I was trying to make.

Talking about light "gathered" - it can be different - in terms of the light actually "captured". On a K10D, about half of the image formed by the lens is "wasted" due to the 1.5x cropping factor. Thus about half of the photons hit the black mirror chamber instead of the sensor. If a 50/1.4 lens were to be designed for K10D, it would be of a smaller diameter and producing a smaller image circle.

I'm not starting it over again. It's simply that the discussion hasn't come to a correct conclusion, or there has been some miscommunication. Olympus might have tried to promote a false concept but that's their decision and I think we'd better not be misled.

 

[dnaxe]

If you guys are keen to see the image quality on the Zuiko Digital lenses, do join the Olympian meetings which we try to hold on a monthly basis. Just bring along a CF card. And bring your camera too... I have heard so much about the Pentax legacy... I am sure the Pentax can hold its weight against the Olys and also, the super user-friendly menu system. Cheers.

Haha. What a fan

 

[fengwei]

I am just sharing what I feel about Oly. In any case, I am not here to convert anyone, just to share and discover things about Pentax as well. I have seen a few really good photojournalists in Taiwan who are hardcore Pentax users.

We should get together for kopi someday and you can show me more about Pentax.

It'd be very hard to get me converted anyway

It'll be great if we could get together sometimes. Used to go out shooting around with bunch of guys all over the island, but now the two kids have taken up most of my spare time

Cheers!

 

[dnaxe]

It's still a 50/1.4 of course. But if one were to talk about its "35mm format equivalent", it is incorrect to say it is equivalent to a "75/1.4 on FF". That's the point I was trying to make.

Talking about light "gathered" - it can be different - in terms of the light actually "captured". On a K10D, about half of the image formed by the lens is "wasted" due to the 1.5x cropping factor. Thus about half of the photons hit the black mirror chamber instead of the sensor. If a 50/1.4 lens were to be designed for K10D, it would be of a smaller diameter and producing a smaller image circle.

I'm not starting it over again. It's simply that the discussion hasn't come to a correct conclusion, or there has been some miscommunication. Olympus might have tried to promote a false concept but that's their decision and I think we'd better not be misled.

So you think that if two cameras took the same picture at the same time/place/etc, one is a 35mm pentax film camera and the other is a K10D , the shutter/aperture speeds for each camera will be different to get identical exposure?

 

[fengwei]

So you think that if two cameras took the same picture at the same time/place/etc, one is a 35mm pentax film camera and the other is a K10D , the shutter/aperture speeds for each camera will be different to get identical exposure?

Spot on!

 

[grantyale]

So you think that if two cameras took the same picture at the same time/place/etc, one is a 35mm pentax film camera and the other is a K10D , the shutter/aperture speeds for each camera will be different to get identical exposure?

It's not spot on. It's the I/O intensity correspondence that will be different. The cropped sensor requires a higher "amplification".

Let me put it this way - Here we have a 1D3, 1.3x crop, and a PowerShot G7, 5x crop. Both are 10MP. Do they meter differently? No. Do they gather the same amount of light per pixel? No. E510 sits in between with a 2x crop.

 

[dnaxe]

No. The I/O intensity correspondence will be different. The cropped sensor requires a higher "amplification".

erh.

So the shutter/aperture will be different, or the same? You said "no", then said something which (appears) to be largely irrelevant.

Do you mean no, or perhaps yes? (I may be misunderstanding your last two sentences)

 

[dnaxe]

It's not spot on. It's the I/O intensity correspondence that will be different. The cropped sensor requires a higher "amplification".

Let me put it this way - Here we have a 1D3, 1.3x crop, and a PowerShot G7, 5x crop. Both are 10MP. Do they meter differently? No. Do they gather the same amount of light per pixel? No. E510 sits in between with a 2x crop.

Ah.

But who cares?

If the shutter/aperture is the same, the only effective difference is that DOF of the 2x sensors will be slightly larger than that of the 1.5x or 1x sensors - the lenses don't magically lose aperture.

 

[microcosm]

Anyone from NASA care to enlighten our friends in here?

 

[drakon09]

It's still a 50/1.4 of course. But if one were to talk about its "35mm format equivalent", it is incorrect to say it is equivalent to a "75/1.4 on FF". That's the point I was trying to make.

Talking about light "gathered" - it can be different - in terms of the light actually "captured". On a K10D, about half of the image formed by the lens is "wasted" due to the 1.5x cropping factor. Thus about half of the photons hit the black mirror chamber instead of the sensor. If a 50/1.4 lens were to be designed for K10D, it would be of a smaller diameter and producing a smaller image circle.

We should move away from "135-format speak" (manufacturers included!) because all it does is muddying the issue; what you did above was simply to compare sensor sizes (FF by the way, is a Canon-concept).

But digital-specific lenses are designed to cast image circles smaller than 135-format lenses:
135 format lenses casts an image circle with a minimum diameter of 43.27mm, FourThirds lenses casts an image circle of 33.87mm, similarly Pentax DA-format, Nikon DX-format and Canon EFS format casts a correspondingly smaller image circle to match the smaller sensor.

All these digital-specific lenses are marked in their true focal length and maximum aperture and not in 135-format equivalence.

It is impossible to attempt to give any equivalency in this respect, and there's no need to.