Oly E620?

[Kalvaer]

What do you all think of it, if anything?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Doomed to obscurity, if you ask me. I don't see the point of the 4/3 idea, really. They don't have anything that's smaller than a Pentax MX body (which is Full Frame, in today's speak). They're only real selling point is compactness, but the bodies aren't really *that* compact? In just about everything else, their cameras are, at best, just the same as everything else on the market.

Don't get me wrong, I think their cameras are nice. But unless they can offer everything that the big-name brands does, plus something they don't, they'll keep fading further into obscurity.

The same goes for Pentax. They even have a slightly better chance, since they have legacy compatibility and the door on future full frame possibilities aren't completely shut, but they're focusing on the things that the (rapidly shrinking) minority is interested in. Sony, by comparison, does much better, despite offering cameras that are (in my opinion) not as good, but that address the needs of the broader market.

 

[Kalvaer]

I never asked about the 4/3rds debate or even the brand. I've been in many, seen and read hundreds of fanbois fights and its still going on.

The Canon/Nikon Fanbois always rip it off and yet in big photography circles its still doing well. Olympus is not a small brand by any means, and still continue to offer many world first's in todays digital camera range that many rip off very quickly after. Yet 99% of south africans and British all flock for canons and nikons. Yes bad market stratagy on thier part but their glass is still rated as one of, if not the top in the world (A quick glance through the DPreview forums shows it quick enough, The best was one I read today where somebody had just bought an E30 and said OMW.. i'm in love for the first time in 30 years...WTF was I doing staying loyal to canon)

I was asking however on the camera and its functions itself ?

PS: I thought the Oly E420 was the smallest DSLR in the world, did pentax make one smaller?
Edit: Hmmm about the legacy compatibility... Oly does with almost all their glass?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Sorry Kalvaer, I didn't intend to slag off the brand. I should stay away from the computer after going to the pub

The camera looks nice. The inclusion of 5 cross type AF points and micro adjustments at that level is a nice touch. For the rest it's really down to personal preference, isn't it? I don't like an articulated LCD and I struggle with small bodies, so not my taste.

BTW, *everybody* thinks their brand makes the best glass out there. The truth is all the major brands have some excellent lenses, some lemons and a lot of average glass. And all the major brands supply industrial optics. And if you read enough of the forums, for every brand there's someone who just got a new brand camera saying WTF was I doing staying with whatever other brand. Everyone thinks their brand has better ergonomics too. So that argument doesn't wash with me - it's entirely subjective.

The Pentax K-m (a.k.a. K2000) is roughly the same size, but that wasn't my point. If manufacturers are going to mention compactness as something to set them apart, I expect that they can make a DSLR much smaller, given the size of the sensor. Sigma has shown that it's possible to make a really compact camera (DP1) with a APS-C (-ish) size sensor.

 

[Kalvaer]

I know I am more than likely going to search now anyway, but what is the "articulated" part of the LCD?

I also agree that everyone will say there glass is good, though the zuiko lens' really are good I've read some really great things about them from all sides of the fence, specifically that the kit lens Oly supply are some of the best on the market.

With the smaller sensor, everything is going to get get smaller as technology gets better. I am sure they can make things even smaller than they are now (all brands) but the problem is feeling comfortable with it. It would seem funny taking photo's with something the size of a match stick. I wouldn't be surprised if one day all the electronics and things are actually the size of a match stick, but the bodies are kept bigger to keep up with peoples preferances. Going too small is also a problem with the glass. It needs to be a certain size in order to get the desired effect, You cant have a camera the size of your pinky, when the lens is the size of your leg, hence the 4/3rds

I know this debate is a touchy one, though I believe its due to the way the lens' have been designed. They have moved away from the traditional curvature and redsigned everything from the ground up. When people mentioned "full" frame, they talk about the size of a traditional film plane. This is mostly for legacy support. Almost all glass is designed to perfectly hit a 35mm film plane. So when moving to smaller sensors, you get the edges of your image cut off. Since most of the other brands try to make their glass compatible with a "full frame" sensor, smaller sensors all get cut off. Unless they move the sensor very far back, but then you have the problem of a very "long" camera again. This doesn't happen with 4/3rds IIRC.

EDIT: Never mind I see the articulated LCD is the fact that it flips and twists.. need coffee

 

[Kalvaer]

Hmmm I see there are rebates available on certain camera's (in the USA at least, Its national photo month it seems)

 

[koffiejunkie]

Since most of the other brands try to make their glass compatible with a "full frame" sensor, smaller sensors all get cut off. Unless they move the sensor very far back, but then you have the problem of a very "long" camera again. This doesn't happen with 4/3rds IIRC.

All the major DSLR manufacturers have lenses that are designed with a reduced image circle, specifically for the crop sensors. Canon has EF-S, Nikon has DX, Pentax has DA, Sigma has DC, Sony has DT iirc. This is no different from 4/3rds lenses.

The cropping effect you get when using a full frame lens on a crop body, by the way, is not a bad thing. Lenses are generally at their sharpest at the centre. Sharpness drops off as you move further outwards towards the edge of the lens. The same goes for all manner of distortions and vignetting - it gets worse further out. So with a crop body you get to take advantage of the so-called "sweet spot." Look at the photozone.de reviews. Look at the ones tested on both full frame and crop bodies, for example the Canon 24-105L on 5DmkII (full frame) and 50D (crop).

Designing a smaller lens that only covers the size of the smaller sensor, just compresses the range, so you retain the problems you get on the edges of the lens. It's worse, in fact, because to get the same field of view, you have to use a much shorter (factor of 2 on the Oly, 1.5-1.6 on most other crop bodies) focal length, which means your distortions are even worse. See the test of the Panasonic 14-45mm. Unfortunately they don't have any of the Oly/Zuiko lenses, but I'd be willing to bet they perform very similar.

EDIT: Never mind I see the articulated LCD is the fact that it flips and twists..

To my mind that means it can break off

Hmmm I see there are rebates available on certain camera's (in the USA at least, Its national photo month it seems)

Yeah, and thanks to the strong dollar and weak pound, my next body is still more expensive in the US than here (UK).

 

[Kalvaer]

All the major DSLR manufacturers have lenses that are designed with a reduced image circle, specifically for the crop sensors. Canon has EF-S, Nikon has DX, Pentax has DA, Sigma has DC, Sony has DT iirc. This is no different from 4/3rds lenses.

Will all those lenses work on full frame?

but I'd be willing to bet they perform very similar.

That I'm not sure on, I've heard so many different stories about the croping and how people get it so wrong with 4/3rds that I dont know whats up and whats down anymore.

This is mostly what I am going from http://www.four-thirds.org/en/about/index.html and of course dpreview user comments on the systems

 

[koffiejunkie]

Will all those lenses work on full frame?

Some do, some don't. Canon makes their EF-S lenses so the don't fit. Sigma's lenses do and work, although with heavy vignetting.

 

[Kalvaer]

To me if they fit and work, then they haven't been designed for that sensor? YES they might work better on the right camera, but the optics are still designed the simular???

Am I getting this wrong, because everyone always brings up the crop factor. The crop factor is the result of using a "standard lens design" on a smaller film plane. Which is different to the Angle of view and focal length. With 4/3rds everyone says its 2x, though this is only a result of using it in conjunction with older lens designs

IE:

To maximize the performance of the image sensor, the camera must be designed so that the light is straight even on the periphery of even on the periphery of the image sensor surface. If a traditional 35mm film-size or APS-size image sensor is used, the only way to ensure that the light is passed through in a straight line to the image sensor is to increase the size of the optics. When the Four Thirds system was designed, special care was taken to avoid this problem and to achieve the optimum balance between high picture quality and compact size. The 4/3-type image sensor that resulted from this quest is where the Four Thirds system gets its name.

The foundation for the high picture quality of the Four Thirds system is the lens mount, which is about twice the diameter of the image circle. This extra headroom allows much more freedom in lens design and ensures sharp, clear imaging performance. Despite the compact size of both camera and lens, light still hits the image sensor directly even on the periphery of the image. The straight light path has also made possible a dramatic improvement in image quality.

The diagonal size of the 4/3-type image sensor is about half that of a 35mm film sensor. This means that the focal distance required to obtain a given angle of view is half that needed for a 35mm film camera. As a result, the optical system can be made much smaller. Moreover, because the effective aperture can be reduced without reducing brightness, the Four Thirds system makes it possible to design much brighter lenses. Thanks to this compatibility between compact size and large aperture, the potential for evolution of lenses is virtually unlimited. In other words, the adoption of the 4/3-type image sensor has made it possible to develop lenses that not only offer performance that surpasses almost anything achieved with traditional lenses, but are also compact and highly mobile.
For example, a Four Thirds telescopic lens equivalent to a 35mm 300mm lens can be implemented with a focal length of 150mm, and it can also offer wide aperture and high brightness corresponding to f2.0 while the maximum brightness available with a traditional lens was f2.8.
As you can see, the Four Thirds system is the ideal digital SLR system. By pursuing the optimum relationship between image sensor size and lens mount size, the Four Thirds system successfully combines high image quality and compact size. The potential of the Four Thirds system is further enhanced by exclusive software that supports all aspects of the image creation process from image exposure to editing and management of photographed data.

PS: Blah.. ended up being another 4/3rds discussion LOL. BTW I must say I really love the multiple exposure option on the E30/E620. It ones of the reason I have not moved over to digital yet and why I have to use my wife and fathers camera, among other things. I always ask them if they can do ME images without photoshop and then laugh. Would love to see how it works on digital (Below is one I took of my wife a few years ago on film)

I guess its funny, I skipped a whole digital camera era, and now I'm considering jumping ahead to one that many are fighting over? BUT are there any other things other than the 4/3rds and the LCD that anyone is concerned about?

 

[BigAl-sa]

Love that pic Kalvaer. Here's one I did using PSP 9 from two images and scan of a map, using gradient masks on the two pics. I used it as a background for a PPT presentation I did a while back. (You have much more control if you do it from an image editor )



WRT to 4/3, the biggest advantage is being able to use all the lenses from all the 4/3 manufacturers (Leica of course being #1). The second is that 4/3 (1.333) is closer to a square (1/1) than 3/2 (1.5). The sensor will thus be using more of the optimum portion of the lens than 3/2.

 

[koffiejunkie]

To me if they fit and work, then they haven't been designed for that sensor? YES they might work better on the right camera, but the optics are still designed the simular???

I think we're going in circles. when you build a lens for a smaller sensor, you shrink the whole design, so you eliminate the sweet spot effect. It's much harder to correct problems on the outer side of the glass than in the middle, which ends up making the lens bigger again.

...4/3rds everyone says its 2x, though this is only a result of using it in conjunction with older lens designs

Correct, it's just a reference.

PS: Blah.. ended up being another 4/3rds discussion LOL.

Not really, we're talking about formats in general, aren't we?

BTW I must say I really love the multiple exposure option on the E30/E620.

That is useful, I wish the Canons had that. One of my dad's bodies (film) has it - made some interesting images with that.

BUT are there any other things other than the 4/3rds and the LCD that anyone is concerned about?

For me? I like bigger bodies - it's just more comfortable in my hands. I had a Pentax K100D Super, which was a nice camera, but after a whole day shooting with it my hands were aching. I don't get that with the 40D, despite being much heavier.

Smaller viewfinder also bother me. My sight is deteriorating, and the bigger viewfinders help. That's one thing I love about the full frame bodies - I can see so much better.

 

[Kalvaer]

You have much more control if you do it from an image editor

This is true. Just felt much better knowing that the image above was completely manual (and granted tons of luck, I was in a hurry and my wife was asking me, AGAIN, why I prefered the film and not her digital. I said.. this is why... and then granted.. I waited a week to get the film back, but it proved the point)

I think we're going in circles. when you build a lens for a smaller sensor, you shrink the whole design, so you eliminate the sweet spot effect. It's much harder to correct problems on the outer side of the glass than in the middle, which ends up making the lens bigger again.

Yes and no. When 4/3rds was developed that was exactly what they considered as far as I know. The question they asked was "What would be the optimum design for modern digital technology in sensors, and Lenses instead of having to use "outdated" ideals, and what will happen in the future". Read the 1st story In the link above by one of the researchers (Mr Katsuhiro Takada) who's data was use to create the 4/3rds. The whole system was designed from scratch working out the best possible combination of lens vs sensor size vs body size, for the best possible picture quality. Its not like the decided on a certain sensor and then built the lenses around the sensor, There was 3-4 years of research into which was perfect for todays world. The problem now is to get people to "change", and its human nature to hate change (I'm prove of that by still using film)

Not really, we're talking about formats in general, aren't we?

I guess so, and I'm learning more all the time which is great

For me? I like bigger bodies - it's just more comfortable in my hands. I had a Pentax K100D Super, which was a nice camera, but after a whole day shooting with it my hands were aching. I don't get that with the 40D, despite being much heavier.

That I understand, It is also mentioned in the original design of the Oly camera's using 4/3rds. Research showed them that everyone said the best and easiest camera to use, was the OM1, Since Auto-focusing and things like that were introduced into camera's they just seemed to get bigger and bulker. It was their aim to make them smaller again since technology allowed for it, and to get it as close as possible to the OM1, while still keeping modern features and preferences from the masses

Smaller viewfinder also bother me. My sight is deteriorating, and the bigger viewfinders help. That's one thing I love about the full frame bodies - I can see so much better.

That worryed me as well, I've read the E620 is bigger than the E520, but still smaller than the E3. (and of course in wonderful SA, its not like I can walk up to my nearest camera store and ask them to test it out )

 

[bwana]

That is useful, I wish the Canons had that. One of my dad's bodies (film) has it - made some interesting images with that.

Why? I just dont get why you would want to ruin two potentially awesome images by baking them together when you can do it as well, non-destructively, in post.

Then again I dont get why people still use jpg if they dont have to either.

 

[Kalvaer]

Why? I just dont get why you would want to ruin two potentially awesome images by baking them together when you can do it as well, non-destructively, in post.

Because it gives you flexiblity to do more. As far as I understand though, it can keep both original images seperate in RAW format. Its pretty much post processing anyway, just done in house where you can see the effect without having to rush back to your PC to download and spend 30 min messing around to see if you can get an image to look good.

I dont spend time doing post work on images anyway unless its a unique image that I really want. If it didn't come out good first time, I delete it. Isn't that what makes Digital better than film? At least I keep getting told that

 

[koffiejunkie]

Yes and no. When 4/3rds was developed that was exactly what they considered as far as I know. The question they asked was "What would be the optimum design for modern digital technology in sensors, and Lenses instead of having to use "outdated" ideals, and what will happen in the future".[snip]

I'm more or less familiar with the design ideas (read it when I was shopping for a DSLR firs time around). I'm not arguing the design philosophy, but weather or not it translates into any real benefits (other than compactness). I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it does.

That worryed me as well, I've read the E620 is bigger than the E520, but still smaller than the E3. (and of course in wonderful SA, its not like I can walk up to my nearest camera store and ask them to test it out )

Next time I get to a shop that carries Olympus, I'll have a look.

Why? I just dont get why you would want to ruin two potentially awesome images by baking them together when you can do it as well, non-destructively, in post.

As I've argued before with Auto-ISO - having the option doesn't force you to use it. If I'm happy with what the camera does, then great. If not, I'll switch it off and do it in PS.

But I'd rather be out shooting that stuck fiddling with Photoshop.

Then again I dont get why people still use jpg if they dont have to either.

Again, if the picture that came out of the camera is good, I don't see the point of fiddling with RAW. I shoot RAW+JPEG, thus I have the choice.

 

[Kalvaer]

I'm more or less familiar with the design ideas (read it when I was shopping for a DSLR firs time around). I'm not arguing the design philosophy, but weather or not it translates into any real benefits (other than compactness). I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it does.

Fair enough, Are there anything you have seen though that show that it there are major defects caused by it? That I guess would make the difference for me to decide?

Again, if the picture that came out of the camera is good, I don't see the point of fiddling with RAW. I shoot RAW+JPEG, thus I have the choice.

I was reading a blog recently of one of the national geopgrahic photographers who said the same. He mentioned that in house processing was getting so good in camera's that he rarely found the need to go and edit in RAW anymore and only used it to submit his images to his editor who insisted on it

 

[bwana]

Because it gives you flexiblity to do more. As far as I understand though, it can keep both original images seperate in RAW format. Its pretty much post processing anyway, just done in house where you can see the effect without having to rush back to your PC to download and spend 30 min messing around to see if you can get an image to look good.

I dont spend time doing post work on images anyway unless its a unique image that I really want. If it didn't come out good first time, I delete it. Isn't that what makes Digital better than film? At least I keep getting told that

Glad to hear you still get to keep the original files.

If you're spending 30 minutes in photoshop doing anything chances are you're doing it wrong.

Unless the image is blurred beyond recognition or the exposure is so far off the image isnt recognisable I'll probably keep it.

But I'd rather be out shooting that stuck fiddling with Photoshop.

I'm probably a better photoshopper than photographer so I love both.

 

[Kalvaer]

If you're spending 30 minutes in photoshop doing anything chances are you're doing it wrong.

Chances are you are VERY VERY right!

I would love to keep all the images I take, But I've more than once had to spend hours going through things to make more HDD space available.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Fair enough, Are there anything you have seen though that show that it there are major defects caused by it? That I guess would make the difference for me to decide?

Well, bigger sensors generally give better high-ISO/low light performance, but other than that, no. It comes down to personal preference. I'd like to see more reviews on the lenses.

If you're spending 30 minutes in photoshop doing anything chances are you're doing it wrong.

There's a reason I trust the camera more...

I'm probably a better photoshopper than photographer so I love both.

I'm not great at either, but I'm especially clueless with Photoshop.