E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

[Jorgen Udvang]

The fact that Panasonic has solved the AF challenge doesn't mean that Olympus will solve it the same way. As opposed to Panasonic, Olympus has a lot of 4/3 users that they will probably try to serve in the best possible way.

How large the pro Pen will be is to early to say, but I take it for given that it will be larger than the GH2. The biggest problem with the GH1, at least for me, is that there's not enough space for my fingers between the buttons. The E-1 was perfect in this respect.

Although it's clear that Olympus will develop new HG or SHG lenses for m4/3, I doubt that there will be a 14-35 or 35-100mm f/2.0. There's a limit as to how small they can make f/2.0 zooms, and if they can't make them much smaller, they might as well go with what they have. There might be Mark II versions that work better with contrast detect AF, but Olympus know that there are many customers who have invested considerable amounts in SHG glass, and who will not invest in a new set from Olympus if their existing lenses suddenly has zero value.

Olympus has been criticized for discontinuing the OM system leaving the users with lenses that couldn't be used with full functionality on existing cameras. But the OM system lived for nearly 30 years. 4/3 is so far less than 7 years old, and I would be surprised if they don't understand what a PR disaster it would be to leave all the users on dry land.

 

[raist3d]

The fact that Panasonic has solved the AF challenge doesn't mean that Olympus will solve it the same way. As opposed to Panasonic, Olympus has a lot of 4/3 users that they will probably try to serve in the best possible way.

I agree Olympus may not solve it the same way, what I am saying is that Panasonic can focus very fast 4/3rd lenses of their brand on the GH2. I saw a video showing the focusing with the Panny Leica and it was pretty much DSLR class fast. In other words, Panasonic took care of their own.

How large the pro Pen will be is to early to say, but I take it for given that it will be larger than the GH2. The biggest problem with the GH1, at least for me, is that there's not enough space for my fingers between the buttons. The E-1 was perfect in this respect.

Yes, but making a Pen Pro as big as a E-1 is history repeating itself. I mean what is the advantage then? I actually think that a small camera close to the GH1 may be doable with a better grip or ergonomics. Maybe just a notch bigger (K-5 size?) but not more than that. Otherwise what's the point of doing pens? The idea of micro four thirds is small. Anything else is history repeating itself.

Although it's clear that Olympus will develop new HG or SHG lenses for m4/3, I doubt that there will be a 14-35 or 35-100mm f/2.0. There's a limit as to how small they can make f/2.0 zooms, and if they can't make them much smaller, they might as well go with what they have.

Think this through for a second: you really think people buying a micro four thirds will pay $2,000+USD for a 14-35 with the size and weight it is (again for micro four thirds?). I don't see that happening. Again, if to put such a big lens on the camera, then what's the point of micro four thirds?

I think we are going to see possibly an F2.8 constant or F2.0 zoom that will be really good in quality but may have some barrel/pincushion whatever distortion and they will correct it in software. It will still be a good lens, wont' be as good as say the 14-35 but it will be good enough, won't be as expensive and will be small. Small is key here.

There might be Mark II versions that work better with contrast detect AF, but Olympus know that there are many customers who have invested considerable amounts in SHG glass, and who will not invest in a new set from Olympus if their existing lenses suddenly has zero value.

Oh but just because they discontinue 4/3rd lenses doesn't mean they won't focus well on the new system. I mean I am also going by that. Otherwise they face a huge pr backlash. But that doesn't mean the 4/3rd lenses carry on. There is simply zero reason to continue manufacturing 4/3rd lenses at least once the pen pro comes along.

Olympus has been criticized for discontinuing the OM system leaving the users with lenses that couldn't be used with full functionality on existing cameras. But the OM system lived for nearly 30 years. 4/3 is so far less than 7 years old, and I would be surprised if they don't understand what a PR disaster it would be to leave all the users on dry land.

I am not saying they will leave us on dry land- I think they will support the lenses. I also think there's a possibility they wont' be as supported but I am much more inclined to think they will. But the lenses will be discontinued, no doubt, and new micro four thirds lenses will come along.

There is zero point to a pen pro going with the assumption you have to buy 4/3rd lenses to use it well.

- Raist

 

[ptomsu]

So far I see NO SINGLS M43 lens which I would rate pro level or pro quality. I am not saying these are bad lenses, some of them are great, but as a pro I would want something different. And I do not see any signs of something close to SHG coming in M43.

So if Olympus really discontinues their SHG lenses then I would be very pissed. But till then I will be happy with the 43 lenses and E5 which I have now. What comes then (in 2-3 years) nobody knows. But what is actually so bad about it? I switched complete systems every 2 years anyway, so I just will stay in the same track

 

[Paratom]

I dobt believe a "proffessional" m4/3 to be the solution to replace a DSLR.
First I agree when you have a certain number of buttons on a camera and if you want certain size lenses then a super small body doesnt handle balanced.
Even the K5 is the limited for me regarding small size and I allready find it harder to press the right buttons compared to my D700.
Hands just have a certain size and smaller and smaller means lighter and convenient to carry but doesnt mean better handling IMO.
The other thing is that with all advantages of electronic viewfinder there might still be some disadvantages (what about delay for sports?).
I reall find m4/3 great for certain things, but I dont believe it can replace dslrs.

 

[ptomsu]

I dobt believe a "proffessional" m4/3 to be the solution to replace a DSLR.
First I agree when you have a certain number of buttons on a camera and if you want certain size lenses then a super small body doesnt handle balanced.
Even the K5 is the limited for me regarding small size and I allready find it harder to press the right buttons compared to my D700.
Hands just have a certain size and smaller and smaller means lighter and convenient to carry but doesnt mean better handling IMO.
The other thing is that with all advantages of electronic viewfinder there might still be some disadvantages (what about delay for sports?).
I reall find m4/3 great for certain things, but I dont believe it can replace dslrs.

Could not agree more!

An acceptable Pro M43 camera would need to have a similar size for me as the E5. Much smaller I would not accept anyway! Plus an OVF or at least a hybrid viewfinder wit same quality as an OVF. I doubt this can be realized pretty soon.

 

[Riley]

So what do you make of the e-410 then, which has "hot" ISO 100 and lower than expected ISO 1600?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page16.asp

Even the more recent e-420 is off at ISO 100:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse420/page16.asp

If what you were trying to prove is that, that was because the e-330 came before this document, surely the e-410 proves that logic wrong.

'logic' has nothing to do with it, the standard was not established when 330 was produced and reviewed. 330 is non-compliant to the standard

I have corroborated what dpreview pointed out too, I have one.

that was faulty metering, not all 410 produced the same results and that was widely discussed at the time. It was like there were 2 kinds of 410 out there, and this was recognised at wrotniak too http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e410-usr.html. The similar sensor E3 tested perfectly for ISO with DPR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page19.asp yet the curves themselves at DxO dont show any remarkable difference. If you dont believe myself perhaps you believe that

Not sure why DxO has to make any cameras to understand the engineering issues involved in dynamic range- at least far better than preview. As for photos they have to take a bunch if they want their RAW converter be worth anything.

this has jack to do with their converter tools (which suck anyway) it is about their non-compliant test philosophy

I don't have to take it up with him at all. I don't have to do anything. Andy is not an authority in this subject and DXo is. It's that simple. But for the record, I have taken it up to preview before to Phil and Simon.

yet you dont mind irresponsibly quoting their results when you think it suits you, even when you would recall the truth to it

The fact that RAW converters when they don't support cameras show the truth of what is going on- that the ISO's are pushed is very telling. Now, you can comply with the standard and get that exposure at the respective ISO, but what will happen is that cameras that are actually more sensitive to light/better sensors will show less noise. This is why the 620/e-30 and forward have so much more noise than the resolution increase from 10-12 megapixels would have suggested. An E-3 has noticeable more shadow range than the E-30 and forward. The real reason is that ISO push on the other cameras, which comply with the ISO standard as you say but then you get that noise.

its about the difference between curves beholding to the standard and those of non compliant DxO push the specification positions for ISO across DxO charted curves. The noise they provide at their own ISO locations is not the one to read but those of the standards specification location, Its as simple as that

This is why Dxo normalizes the sensitivity and talks in the graph about signal to noise ratio. This is important, because better sensors will have a better signal.

only ever correct if by some accident the DxO data complies with the standard, which it doesnt.

Please refrain from making suppositions as to "what I supposedly know" that you want to prove and allegedly implicitly agree with because that's simply nonsense.

this is the core of the problem with you, you wont listen to reason, you dont answer questions, then you get all accusatory when someone gets close to the truth of it.

you said "Those manufacturer curves don't change sensor characteristics."
What I said was "if they dont, why are the data points different. You already know the answer,"

and the answer you avoid is b/se the data is acquired differently, one complies with the standard beholding to the industry, the manufacturers and reviewers, the other is out on its own, the other is DxO

so instead of accusing me of things I never participated in, answer the question. Do you or do you not already know that put to you above ?

Not really. This is all pretty linear and it's arbitrary where the manufacturers set it to.

The manufacturers comply to the standard, they do this b/se they must as they are contractually compelled to. DxO OTOH do not comply to any standard

 

[Riley]

I dobt believe a "proffessional" m4/3 to be the solution to replace a DSLR.
First I agree when you have a certain number of buttons on a camera and if you want certain size lenses then a super small body doesnt handle balanced.
Even the K5 is the limited for me regarding small size and I allready find it harder to press the right buttons compared to my D700.
Hands just have a certain size and smaller and smaller means lighter and convenient to carry but doesnt mean better handling IMO.
The other thing is that with all advantages of electronic viewfinder there might still be some disadvantages (what about delay for sports?).
I reall find m4/3 great for certain things, but I dont believe it can replace dslrs.

these are my fears too
I suspect this standard ends to be replaced with a giant micro b/se thats the only thing that makes sense. Sometimes I wonder if someone out there figures they made a slight miscalculation in all that

 

[raist3d]

'logic' has nothing to do with it, the standard was not established when 330 was produced and reviewed. 330 is non-compliant to the standard

To conclude that requires logic. Of course this doesn't explain the 410 *and* the more recent 420. This is why it's important to test. However the DXo graph more than anything is not just ISO but actual sensor sensitivity, marked with a signal to noise ratio.

yet you dont mind irresponsibly quoting their results when you think it suits you, even when you would recall the truth to it

I am sorry but that's a flat out lie, slander.

this is the core of the problem with you, you wont listen to reason, you dont answer questions, then you get all accusatory when someone gets close to the truth of it.

I am sorry but I do listen to reason when I see it proven and there. That doesn't make me perfect. In the meantime the only one accusing me of something, presuming something so far in this thread has been you. Stop projecting.

At the feedback of a respected member I am bowing out of this thread. Those who want to listen and read will, and most importantly, test for themselves and reach their own conclusions will, those who don't won't.

you said "Those manufacturer curves don't change sensor characteristics."
What I said was "if they dont, why are the data points different. You already know the answer,"

A curve is post processing. Not an inherent sensor characteristic. And, no, stop attributing what "answer I supposedly already know." Then you accuse of me accusing!

I am out of the thread. You can think what you want. I encourage everyone to read what Dxo has to say for themselves and most importantly, download E-5 and A900 RAWS and try for yourselves, preferably with a good raw converter like LR 3.3 or Apple's Aperture (do note Aperture is better than the built in preview app conversions). That ultimately should answer any questions as to how better the A900 is that an E-5 at high ISO (remember to resize the A900 to ballpark 12 megapixels when comparing).

- Raist

 

[Terry]

This thread is now closed. Was going to do it earlier but I decided to let it go on until there were complaints.