4/3rds and the "35mm aesthetic"

[Guy Mancuso]

Jono i saw that comparision and it looks great.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Mark Cargill did a detailed comparison of image quality against the Nikon D300, and up to 1600 ISO the E3 won convincingly. I'm noticing no problems printing up to 17X24, and I'm sure you could go a great deal bigger.

Hi Jono,

Where would I find that? BTW, before I forget, I'll be away Weds. helping a sick friend but lets keep looking for a time.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Here's one with the 100/2.8, at f/5.6 I believe.

HI Jorgen
Great shots all - I think it's sad to find so many people who've just written off 4/3. I haven't explored all the old Zuiko full frame lenses, but the modern ones certainly do the business.

The OM Zuiko lenses don't all work well at all apertures. The best ones do, lenses like the 100/2.8 are best stopped down to f/5.6, while very few of the zooms are any good. There are exceptions though.

Olympus actually made a table which was distributed with the MF-1 OM to 4/3 converter. It lists all OM lenses and at what aperture they are sharp. Their requirement was that only the best will do, so it's more strict than necessary for everyday use, but it's a very useful guideline.

 

[jonoslack]

The OM Zuiko lenses don't all work well at all apertures. The best ones do, lenses like the 100/2.8 are best stopped down to f/5.6, while very few of the zooms are any good. There are exceptions though.

Olympus actually made a table which was distributed with the MF-1 OM to 4/3 converter. It lists all OM lenses and at what aperture they are sharp. Their requirement was that only the best will do, so it's more strict than necessary for everyday use, but it's a very useful guideline.

Thanks for the information - I think I'll stick to the modern lenses! They seem to do pretty well.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

Where would I find that? BTW, before I forget, I'll be away Weds. helping a sick friend but lets keep looking for a time.

Cheers,

Sean

Hi Sean
you have mail - here is the link to Mark's comparison:

http://www.markcargill.co.uk/pages/d300-e3-comp.php

there is a little more discussion here:

dpreview


not earth shattering, but rather like my M8 comparison, it's more remarkable because of the lack of difference (actually, foliage detail seems better in the E3).
I wonder if this isn't the big manufacturers going all out to reduce high ISO noise and throwing the baby of smearing into the bathwater of low light

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Jono,

Thanks. Unfortunately, I needed to stop reading when I saw that they were done at F/11.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Riley]

heres a good reference for using OM lenses on 4/3rds cameras

http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_e1.html
and a range of adapters here
http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm

using Leica R lenses is going to be a similar experience me thinks
Ive found it to be fun when it doesnt cost anything, but a bit hit and miss quality wise. Primes do better than zooms, some lenses might benefit from the fitting of a baffle to improve contrast.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

Thanks. Unfortunately, I needed to stop reading when I saw that they were done at F/11.

Cheers,

Sean

HI Sean
Of course, you are right, but that should have been an advantage to the d300, not the E3 where diffraction sets in at around f8

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Jono,

To really know what's what, F/5.6 would be the way to go (or comparisons at multiple apertures). F/8 is already too far for even the Nikon *if* the camera is what is being tested.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

The believable weatherproofing is another factor (do you remember that mad fool who shot his E1 holding it under water?).

The acid test for the E-1's WX-prufing was the lady in Walnut Creek, CA who investigated a funny smell and found that her dog had put his mark all over and in her camera bag. It washed out just fine.

For me, the real deal is the colour that Olympus manage to crank out, model after model

I agree. I was nervous about the change in sensor going to the E-3, since I thought that Kodak was owed some of the credit, but color taste seems as good as ever.

scott

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've always found 4/3 interesting and reviewed the E-1 for LuLa (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml) because I thought it was such a promising camera. I owned one for awhile, in fact. I've been waiting for a successor to that camera for a long time. If the ISO 1600 files are good, and resilient, my wife may switch to Olympus for her work. The weather seals are important, the lenses are quite good and the AF on the example I tried in NYC was excellent. In camera IS is also a real asset, as I found in the K10D.

So the million dollar questions for Melissa are: Is ISO 1600 really 1600? (It wasn't with the E1) and how well do those files hold up for professional work that is often shot at that ISO.

Cheers,

Sean

OK, here goes with some E-3 available light stuff -- my daughter and friends at basketball practice, first at ISO 800 and then at ISO 1600. I thought the tonal renditions were nice. I haven't done any noise cleaning. For some really stylish results, look for sports shots by a guy named Don Chin, who posts things on dpreview like swimming meets and indoor volleyball, always at ISO 1600, in better light than my examples. I'll edit in a link if I can find it quickly...

take a look here.