Delivering on the Promise of the 4/3 System?
by Wesley Fink on December 24, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- What's New with Wes
When we were taking a look at the new Digital SLR cameras for our recent Digital SLR Buyers Guide the Olympus E-510 proved to be a really impressive entry - except for one serious flaw. This small, fast, reasonably-priced 10 megapixel DSLR came with kit lenses that were also very small and much better quality than we normally see in kit lenses from the bigger players. It also featured Live View, which was pioneered by Olympus, body-integral Image Stabilization that worked with any lens, and automatic sensor cleaning, which was also pioneered by Olympus but which is now finding its way into cameras from all the makers.
We were reminded how far the 4/3 system had developed with the E-510 and made a mental note to take a closer look at the Olympus E-3 to see if Olympus could finally fix their biggest issue. The E-3 is the Pro level DSLR which had been announced as a replacement for the four year old and seriously out-of-date E-1, and no there was never an E-2.
This photo shows the new E-3 with the 12-60 SWD lens beside the current E-410 with standard 14-42mm lens. The E-3 is about the same size as a Nikon D300, where the E-410/510 are the smallest production DSLRs available today. The magnesium body and weather-sealing adds size and weight to the E-3 but ergonomics are still excellent. The top Pro lenses like the 12-60 SWD are also weather-sealed which adds size and weight.
I have toyed with the 4/3 digital SLR system several times since it was introduced in 2003, shrugged my shoulders and gone back to Nikon or Canon (or lately Sony/Minolta or Pentax). Frankly, I had about given up on 4/3, but when Olympus dropped the E-3 on us a few weeks ago it showed us that 4/3 really could be all that was promised when it was introduced. The current E-410/E-510 answer the original 4/3 promise of small, while the new E-3 breaks new ground in 4/3 system performance.
ANY DSLR system is about lenses in the end, and Olympus 4/3 is blessed with superb optics. To get an idea of how really great the new Olympus glass is you need to use some of the top 4/3 lenses. If you are skeptical a computer site like AT can know anything about photography, then be my guest and read a few of the big photo sites like dpreview, imaging-resource, or dcresource. They all have finally admitted in reviews of the E-410 and E-510 that Olympus has the best kit lenses of any camera maker, and that yes the Olympus claim that lenses designed for digital produce better quality images is proving to be true. www.slrgear.com, which is affiliated with imaging-resource, even went so far as to test most of the current Olympus lenses after being so impressed with the kit lenses.
The Olympus issue has never been glass, nor has it been mount, since the 4/3 mount is all-electronic with a motor in every lens just like Canon. It has really been the options you had (or rather didn't have) in camera bodies to use with this excellent Olympus glass. As great as the current E-410 and E-510 really are, they are still saddled with the serious handicap of an ancient and not particularly sensitive 3-point autofocus system, and there just wasn't a choice of anything better from Olympus. That is until the E-3.
The E-3 takes Olympus AF from outdated technology to state-of-the-art, and as soon as the new 11-point, all cross sensor, dual-plane AF module makes its way down the food chain, no one can ignore Olympus any more. Perhaps Olympus can also find a way to move the terrific E-3 feature of AF with manual touch-up down the food chain as well - because the other big Olympus issue is that stupid "Manual focus by wire" feature and Manual Focus select by menu. Canon has offered the manual touchup after auto-focus as a feature on Pro models for some time and it is good to see Olympus doing the same with their E-3 body and lenses – and SWD (Supersonic Wave Motor) lenses in particular.
There are currently 32 lenses available for the 4/3 system plus teleconverters, extension tubes, etc. You can find a complete listing and specifications at http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html. Four of the lenses are from Leica, and these include the fast normal 25mm f1.4 and three lenses that feature Optical Image Stabilization, which they call Mega O.I.S. This makes the 4/3 system the only one I am currently aware of that has both body integral mechanical stabilization and optical stabilization as options. This could be the equipment needed for a very interesting test comparison of mechanical vs. optical I.S. to try provide answers to an argument based on emotion more than fact. I have tried the Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 on the E3 and both the IS and Optical I.S. worked very well individually. However, when both were activated they seemed to cancel each other out and were not effective.
Another interesting lens is the new Leica 14 -150mm f3.5-5.6 Mega O.I.S. This features a Leica brand lens with an equivalent 28mm-300mm focal length with built-in Optical Image Stabilization. Lenses that have super long focal length ranges generally make too many compromises, but this Leica walk-around lens is really intriguing with 4 aspherical and 1 ED elements used to correct lens aberrations.
Another interesting lens is the new Leica 14 -150mm f3.5-5.6 Mega O.I.S. This features a Leica brand lens with an equivalent 28mm-300mm focal length with built-in Optical Image Stabilization. Lenses that have super long focal length ranges generally make too many compromises, but this Leica walk-around lens is really intriguing with 4 aspherical and 1 ED elements used to correct lens aberrations.
I am completely and totally impressed with the E-3. All the lenses are designed for 4/3 mount and for best performance on a 4/3 camera - they aren't 35mm film designs. No other camera in its class offers the combination of effective live-view, built-in image stabilization, the best auto sensor cleaning you can buy, an articulating LCD that can fold away for protection (AND a top LCD for basic data that is missing from the Sony A700), a built-in pop-up flash, effective dust and splash sealing of the camera AND the lenses, a popularly-priced zoom that covers the equivalent of 140mm to 600mm and does Macro up to equivalent life size (70-300mm), MUCH improved noise reduction that goes to ISO 3200, user-programmable Auto ISO that can cover the full ISO range (Canon still stubbornly refuses to fully offer this option), and the best range of available lenses DESIGNED FOR a digital camera system.
At first it looks like the 10 megapixel Live MOS sensor is a bit pedestrian for a new Pro camera until you do the sensor math. The truth is that 4/3 and APS C sensors are almost exactly the same height, and the only real difference is the width for 4:3 is around 18mm compared to the 22.2mm for the 35mm shape 2:3 ratio APS C sensor. Put another way if you take a 10 megapixel 4/3 sensor and filled in the sides to 2:3 ratio the sensor would have 12.5 megapixel resolution. This means a 10 megapixel 4/3 sensor is very similar in resolution in the shared photo (4:3) area to a 12 megapixel APS C sensor. There is no substantive difference in the size of a 4/3 sensor and an APS C, and those who think the 4/3 is much smaller need to do some research. This was demonstrated recently by PopPhoto in a review of the Panasonic DMC-L10 and the Leica 14-50mm F3.8-5.6. They found resolution for the L10 as 2350 lines at ISO100, which out-resolves the Sony 12.2MP A700 (and presumably the Nikon D300 which uses the same sensor). The difference is ratios and diagonals. 4/3 tries to match photo sizes and the 4/3 ratio yields a smaller diagonal and APS C tries to match the shape of 35mm with a 3:2 ratio and a larger diagonal (image circle). Olympus, Leica, and Panasonic also use a Panasonic MOS sensor and not the Canon or Sony used by everyone else.
The E-3 is a bargain for a true PRO grade camera - and it is easily built as well as the Nikon D3 or the top Canons which are $5000 or more. However, most will find the E-3 expensive unless they are serious photo hobbyists or Pros, and Olympus needs to move the E-3 refinements down to E-510 price levels as fast as they can.
This time around I bought an E-3 and a 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD - and the tiny little excellent-quality kit lenses for when the 12-60mm weighs too much and I can compromise just a little on quality. The system has been quickly filled out with other 4/3 lenses and accessories. It now sits beside my Canon and Nikon equipment, and one of those systems will liquidated.
The E-3 is a great piece of creative engineering, an area Olympus is known for. After all they invented auto-sensor cleaning and live view - features which are now finding their way to every DSLR. This is the best Olympus camera EVER, and once you have used it you will be hooked.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
erichK - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
You are very wrong here. While the D300 may have a few "Gee Whiz" features that the E-3 doesn't, like 8fps and a larger higher res LCD,it is not a "pro-body": environmentally-sealed, ruggedized, very high strength (they posted a video of the engineer *standing* on top of it). Nikon did give the D300 a pro-level100% pentaprism viewfinder, whose large bright image the Olympus E-3, through some pretty amazing optical technology, almost matches.
erichK
saskatoon, canada
Stripe - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
I purchased an E510 2 lens kit based partially on the DSLR review on AnandTech. My 1st DSLR. I upgraded from a Canon S3is. I have only owned it a few days, but I LUV it! I especially like the wide angle of the 14-40 lense. I need long loses for some of the things I do, but the wide angle is great for interior shots and special effects. So far, I am very impressed with the quality of the shots, and the compact size of the lenses. Most of my Christmas family shots were indoor with available light. They look great, with available light, the stabilization worked well, and the lights on the Christmas tree are visible in the shots. I don't like the look of on-camera flash for people shots. My next purchase will be an Olympus flash for the hot shoe. My favor rite camera was a Cannon S2is with a hotshoe flash. Most of my flash shots were shot with bounce and a diffuser. Then the S2is was stolen from checked baggage on a flight, so I got an S3is. The newer S3is didn't have a hot shoe. So far - best things - image stabilization, wide angle lens, image quality - but, need to start using RAW or figure out white balance, indoors the combo of incandescent and compact fluorescents made me have to correct colors in Photoshop.E510 - highly recommended.
BTW - I miss being able to shoot video - the Cannon S3 was a great camcorder
melgross - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Still pushing the 4:3Sorry, but this sensor is too small. Only the lenses made for it by Olympus, or it's stablemate, will fit it's image circle properly.
Olympus could have taken the APS C image circle for a larger sensor than the competition, and shown some real quality potential, but they went the cheap route.
Maybe I have to remind you of the statement Olympus made when first coming out with this product category.
To paraphrase:
"This will offer the best compromise of price, size and quality."
Even they knew that it was a compromise when quality was the only criterion. Now they're trying to make up for it, and compete in bigger leagues. But the higher magnification required will always put them at a disadvantage.
Too bad. Olympus has always had some very good glass.
nizanh - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
Just for the argument I compared 3 equivalent lenses (in term of price and purpose):1. Olympus 50mm f2.0
2. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
3. Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor
According SLRGear.com detailed review, the Olympus is far better than both. The Olympus is sharper at f/2.0 than both Nikon and Canon at their best. It is sharper in every aperture value. The chromatic aberrations are lower than both Nikon and Canon in every aperture value.
Claiming that Olympus lenses can't match Nikon and Canon is nonsense.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link
Please look at the sensor diagram in the blog, as there is no practical size difference between 4/3 and APS C - it has more to do with shape. Since you don't believe me I quote from the photography bible of dpreview in their just published review of the Sony A700:"The E-3 may have 'only' ten megapixels to the A700's twelve but because of it's four to three aspect ratio the lost pixels are on the left and right of our scene (as it's framed vertically) and so it has almost exactly the same vertical pixel count. Compared to the A700 the E-3 delivers very nice detailed images with good low contrast detail and a noticeable 'crispness' (again, per pixel sharpness)."
Sometimes it is better to educate yourself than to just repeat uneducated rumors such as "4/3 is too small". The Sony sensor is also the 12.2 megapixel sensor used in the new Holy Grail Nikon D300.
The 4/3 system has more lenses covering useful focal lengths for the 4/3 system than either Nikon or Canon have that are made for their APS C sensor digital SLRs. A quick check at http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html">http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html shows 32 current 4/3 system lenses plus teleconverters and 3 discontinued 4/3 lenses. Compare this to the nuber of Canon or Nikon lenses DESIGNED FOR THEIR DIGITAL SLRS or APS C.
I also own, use and love Nikon and Canon, but that does not make me blind to facts.
melgross - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
Wesley, I understand what they're saying. I'm not exactly new at this game.But, I don't particularly care what they're saying. 13 mm is not 14.8 mm, and never will be. Instead, why don't you read the numerous articles published in Pop Photo over the years about this? They think the difference is meaningful, as I do. It's 11.4%. Is that huge? No, of course not. But, it still results in smaller sensor sites compared to APS C. When we're talking about sensors that are already on the smaller side, every bit of difference does matter.
In addition, Who says that 4:3 is the best way to go? The idea that it's equal to 12+ MP is nonsense!
If you're talking about consumer cameras, the difference is fine. Possibly, for some purposes, even better. But not for pro cameras. Not at all.
I owned a commercial Photo lab for a long time. We also had an Agfa mini lab. Prints went from 3.5 x 5, and 4 x 5, to 4 x 6 and 6 x 8, in the most popular snapshot sizes. That's 3:2.
For larger sizes we often did 8 x 10, but fairly often, 8 x 12 as well.
Where is the automatic advantage of 4:3? I don't see it.
If you're talking about pro cameras, you're also talking about the often needed 11 x17 double page spread. Is that 4:3?
No.
I could give more examples as to why 4:3 isn't such a hot idea, but it shouldn't be required. It's obvious.
But, as I said, if Olympus went for the APS C image circle when making this sensor, they could have had a 4:3 sensor that was significantly bigger than the APS C sensor, and could have had an advantage in quality, using the full coverage of APS C lenses, neither of which is true now.
EDIT: This post has been delayed by a day, or so, because of a problem with the site, which returned an error every time I attempted to send it, until now.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
Remember, those Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not "Designed for Digital", they are mount adaptations of existing lens designs. Do you really think they would completely redesign the Sigmonster for the few people that actually need a lens that gives a framing equivalent to a 35mm 600-1600?The area of the E3 sensor is 243mm^2, the Canon XTi is 328.56mm^2 (1.35x larger), and the Nikon D40x is 369.72mm^2 (1.52x larger). Not the difference between a P&S 1/2.5" sensor and APS-C, but still not tiny.
If your output size matches the shape of the 4/3 sensor well then it is an advantage - some wedding photographers like them because less is lost in an 8x10 print. OTOH, if you crop to a 3:2 ratio to match most other dSLRs, you lose pixels where they don't; not noticeable at 4x6, might be at 20x30.
Olympus is also doing something shady with their Macro magnification specs. Sensor size is irrelevant - 1:1 magnification is when the size of the object being photographed is identical to the size of the image on the sensor. If your subject is 3mm long, at 1:1 it does not matter whether the sensor is 5mm or 50mm wide, that image should cover 3mm of it.
Also, while the mainstream lenses are reasonably priced, some of the others are just insane. the 7-14 f/4 is $1595 with a 175 rebate at B&H right now. Sure, a 7mm lens is a tough design, but the approximate equivalents are the Canon 10-22 at $675 and the Sigma 10-20 at around $500. B&H doesn't currently show it, but I'm oretty sure at one point they had an 11-18 which was overpriced at around $1000, but still cheaper than that Oly. On the other end, there is the 300 2.8 at $5895; Nikon is $4499 and Canon is $3899 and both of those include in-lens IS.
nizanh - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
You compare the prices of Olympus 300mm f/2.8 to Canon 300mm f/2.8 - but those lenses are different - the Olympus is equivalent to 600mm. Canon don't have 600mm f/2.8,but f/4.0 and it costs more than 7000$. On the other hand, Olympus 150mm f/2.0 is "only" 2200$ and is one aperture stop faster than the 3500$ 300mm f/2.8 Canon. Canon 400m f/2.8 which is equivalent to 600mm on APS-C is more than 6000$.P.S. In-lens IS is not relevant to Olympus since the IS is in-camera.
strikeback03 - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link
Right, but the fact is that the IS costs money, otherwise the Canikon lenses would be even cheaper. a 300 2.8 is a 300 2.8 regardless of the sensor behind it - the majority of the expense is in the glass in front of the aperture diaphragm. The front element has to be at least a ~107mm piece of optic. So what it is compared to in use is irellevant - it's still a 300 2.8. The Canon 135 f/2L is also a bunch cheaper than that Oly 150 2.0.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link
Four of the 9 Sigmas available for 4/3 ARE designed for digital, but they were designed to accomodate the largest APS C digital sensor at 1.5x and 1.6x, which is wider than the 4/3 sensor. However, that is not all bad, since the 30mm f1.4 EX Sigma is a fantastic performer on the E-3, but only good and not great on the Nikon and Canon APS C versions. It is outperformed by similar Canon and Nikon lenses on those cameras.An f1.4 lens is tough to design without significant edge falloff no matter the brand. In this case the design for a 1.5X multiplier means the image circle on the Olympus 4/3 is smaller since the diagonal for the 4/3 shape uses a 2X factor. This makes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 a pretty amazing performer on 4/3.
I recently had the chance to borrow a Leica 25mm f1.4 (designed for 4/3) from a friend and shoot some comparison shots against the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Frankly we were both hard-pressed to see an advantage to the Leica 25mm f1.4 on the E-3 even though the Leica was alsmost three times the price of the Sigma 30mm f1.4. At near the same price I would definitely choose Leica but that is hard to do considering the same speed, simlar performance and a Sigma price that is 60%+ less than the Leica. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 even uses the HSM lens motor which is very quiet and quite fast on the E-3.
As for macro Olympus states the real, by your correct definition, Macro ratios in their specifications. They also state the "35mm equivalent" Macro rating. The 35mm f3.5 is 1:1 macro, but twice life size in 35mm equivalent. The 50mm f2.0 is .52x Macro or life-size as a 35mm equivalent.
If we exclude the 5 Sigmas designed for full-frame that leaves 27 lenses designed for digital 4/3. Nikon lists 10 lenses designed for DX digital format, and Canon lists 5 lenses for EF-S digital format. With Canon and Nikon both moving toward full-frame digital format for their Pro level cameras how many APS C lenses do you think they might introduce for their consumer APS C DSLR lines in the future?