Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: 4/3 better?

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Upp Bukit Timah
    Posts
    179

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    hi guys, maybe we should not start comparing apple to orange as both the brand are different. To answer the TS's question.

    Is 4/3 good? - I came from the N camp during the days of film and switched to oly for digital by chance. Having the E1 and recently bought the E500, I find that oly system is quite good value for $$ (price vs performance) if you are just starting out with nothing (ie old lens etc). I have had a used D70 for a while as I have some old lens and decided to sell it away. One of the main pull factor for me is the dust buster and the zuiko lenses (even the kit lens can kick some serious a** man)

    Future of 4/3 - I think that will depend on mainly the consumers like us as frankly speaking, oly with zuiko has come up with a pretty impressive range of equipment that can cater to the amature to professional not to mention other manufacture of the 4/3 system.

    Finally, may i advise you to maybe start with a used oly E500 (I got a kit at $600 from B & S recently and its less than a year old!!!) and experienced for yourself. If you are not happy, at least you will not suffer too much a lost if you sell it away.
    A Picture paints a thousand word.....

  2. #42
    Senior Member dorts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    2,173

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    My first DSLR is a E500, which is what I am using now. From a newbie's point of view. I didn't knew anything about this 4/3 when I first bought the E500. After finding out a bit on it, I never regreted, because I believe as 4/3 advances, it will be great. The kit lens is very good, considering it is a kit lens. I have tried 400D's kit lens, and I must say, I can see the difference. The lenses are light and compact, easy to carry around and easy to handle. Balances very well with my E500. Get to a store and try it out.

  3. #43

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    We shall see what happens to 4/3 when major brands start selling full frame digital cameras at reasonable prices.

    A feat that so far Canon seems to have achieved. (for full frame).
    Canon has FF but it's not reasonably priced. I could get a better film body for a fraction of the price. If so, they should have kept up with a FF 1DsmkIII instead of a 1.3x crop factor 1DmkIII. With current litho steppers it's just too costly. The reticle size is 25mm, so Canon had to use 2 masks per layer on alternate reticles and align them to match seamlessly. A very expensive and very low yield process. Since Canon makes their own sensor, all they need is someone on top to approve it to get this expensive process going since everything is internal.

    For the others, it's all about money and profitability for the sensor makers. Sony is not going to develop an expensive process to obtain FF sensors just for Nikon. At least the saving grace is that Nikon supplies Sony with the litho steppers, so it's more or less a collaboration.

  4. #44

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by zj2000 View Post
    Well if you want to see it that way then there's no point comparing 4/3 with anything since 4/3 vs FF is like comparing 35mm vs MF / LF

    ef-s 300mm is still a 300mm btw, ef-s is only the mount... there is already an ef 300mm so there's no need for an ef-s 300mm
    The difference between EF and EF-S is not just in the lens mount. The size of the lens elements in the EF and EF-S lenses are not the same. The EF-S lenses like those in the Nikon DX range are sized smaller to suit the smaller image circle of the APS sensor format.

    I need to correct my earlier post in that a EF-S 400mm (and not 300mm) would still be needed to produce an image of the similar in size and magnification as that from the ZD 300mm. To use a 300mm lens to produce an image which is then cropped to match the magnification of an uncropped image from the ZD 300mm is just arguing for arguement sake.

  5. #45

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    The difference between EF and EF-S is not just in the lens mount. The size of the lens elements in the EF and EF-S lenses are not the same. The EF-S lenses like those in the Nikon DX range are sized smaller to suit the smaller image circle of the APS sensor format.

    I need to correct my earlier post in that a EF-S 400mm (and not 300mm) would still be needed to produce an image of the similar in size and magnification as that from the ZD 300mm. To use a 300mm lens to produce an image which is then cropped to match the magnification of an uncropped image from the ZD 300mm is just arguing for arguement sake.
    background compression? same.... dof? same.... if you want to believe that all your lenses are magically x2 in focal length that's fine with me.... you don't want to bring in cropping by PP in to the argument? your camera is already doing the cropping....

  6. #46

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    If you meant whether old 35mm manual lenses could be reused or not on the new camera bodies... well, they can be used on the new Olympus 4/3 camera bodies also with an adapter as well.... just like with the other brands.
    It's like using medium format lenses on 35mm. People can go on to claim how good it is.. blah blah blah.. but people tend to forget that for a smaller format, the lenses have to be much sharper to achieve the same resolution when blown up. This is why MTF of 4/3 lenses are measured at 20lpmm and 60lpmm instead of 10lpmm and 30lpmm to achieve a similar resolution because of the 2x crop factor. Similarly, I feel that lenses made for APS-C sized sensors should have their MTF measured at 15lpmm and 45lpmm.

    However, problem of the 4/3 sensor is that because of the smaller size sensor, to achieve the same resolution, you would hit the diffraction limits faster and also the sensor would be more noisy. For general photography where faster aperture is used, especially when a shallow DoF is required, there is no problems about diffraction limits. Also, since lenses can be made a stop faster than 35mm counterparts because of the shorter focal length required to achieve the same FoV, ISO can be a stop slower also, so noise is not a problem also.

    The only downside will arise because the aperture of the ultrawides cannot be a stop faster. Still, I think Oly and Pana/Leica have an impressive lineup of 4/3 lenses. If I were to start over, I might have jumped on the 4/3 bandwagon because of Leica lenses.

  7. #47

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by zj2000 View Post
    background compression? same.... dof? same.... if you want to believe that all your lenses are magically x2 in focal length that's fine with me.... you don't want to bring in cropping by PP in to the argument? your camera is already doing the cropping....
    The difference is in the resolution. Doing it your way is saying that a 8M cropped image of the same subject by a 300mm lens at 1.6x FOV is exactly the same as a 10M uncropped image from a 300mm at 2x FOV.

  8. #48

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    The difference is in the resolution. Doing it your way is saying that a 8M cropped image of the same subject by a 300mm lens at 1.6x FOV is exactly the same as a 10M uncropped image from a 300mm at 2x FOV.
    If it's the same lens, and the sensors already outresolved the lens, then there's no difference.

    However, a 300mm lens with elements ground to achieve good MTF at 60lpmm, and you use that lens on a 4/3 sensor then...........

    However, we know that for telephoto lenses, to achieve double the resolution, it would just be much more expensive....
    Last edited by lsisaxon; 11th August 2007 at 05:56 PM.

  9. #49

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    The difference is in the resolution. Doing it your way is saying that a 8M cropped image of the same subject by a 300mm lens at 1.6x FOV is exactly the same as a 10M uncropped image from a 300mm at 2x FOV.
    yes.... it's 6mp actually.... you will get the exact same image cropped from a FF / 1.6x as that on a 4/3.... only difference is resolution.... but if we are goin to continue arguing along this line then the comparison is no longer on 4/3 lenses and C / N lenses but rather on pixel density....

  10. #50

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by zj2000 View Post
    yes.... it's 6mp actually.... you will get the exact same image cropped from a FF / 1.6x as that on a 4/3.... only difference is resolution.... but if we are goin to continue arguing along this line then the comparison is no longer on 4/3 lenses and C / N lenses but rather on pixel density....
    Again, doesn't matter if the sensor outresolves the lenses, which at that kind of resolution and 4/3 or APS-C size, it's probably the case anyway.

  11. #51
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    1,953

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by piyoz View Post
    Hi, I'm new and would like to know what is this 4/3 system about? In future will there be more? Or is it better to stick to those "normal" DSLR?
    to the TS, just take everything you see in here with a pinch of salt.

    is 4/3 better? IMHO, no.

    as others have already advised you, every dslr system has its pros and cons, you'll probably find your own answer if you know what you would want to achieve in your photography with a camera, whether a dslr or a pns.

    do read up on the various dslr system's technology, concepts and objectives to see which suits your own idea of photography. since you would like to know more about 4/3, you could start here http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index.html

    there will be more 4/3 cameras, lenses and accessories as the system matures, just as the other systems have mature over the last few years.

    is it better to stick to 'normal' dslrs? we will need to define what is 'normal'. there are several systems and formats available on the market and each manufacturer are trying to differentiate their product from the others.

    sensor sizes (APS-C 1.5, 1.6, FF, 4/3, etc) notwithstanding, all dslrs have the basic premise of operating with interchangeable lenses, 'seeing' through the lens (parallax free view finder) and the basic function of taking photos. so 4/3 is as normal a dslr system as any other make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dslr

    hope you'll find your answer.

  12. #52

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by headfonz View Post
    to the TS, just take everything you see in here with a pinch of salt.

    is 4/3 better? IMHO, no.


    I like this answer best. Each system has their pros and cons. Best to understand their strengths and weaknesses and choose a system which suits your style and preference. No point picking a technically superior system, paying loads of money and finding that you don't like the placement of the controls..

    Pick a system that is intuitive and allows you to shoot without thinking twice about where a certain control/feature is. If a system is that lousy, Japan's QC will not even allow such a system to go out in the market to tarnish the good name of Japanese products.

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northen part of Sing a pore
    Posts
    2,153

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    is 4/3 better? No.

    However after using Oly DSLRs for 2.5 years, i still cant find the heart to change system cos the rest of the other brands cant give the comparative edge against Oly. One of the biggest draw for me in Oly would be its optic. The normal mid range zuiko lenses can easily beat the some of the higher grade lenses from other camps.

    But unless someone wants to donate his FF DSLR to me, i might consider switching camp!

  14. #54

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    In my earlier posts i've already stated.. Each camera system has its advantages. No one system is absolute superior to the other. It really depends on what the poster wants. If u require good DOF/Bokeh at a portrait setting. 4/3 might not be the best choice. If u're a wildlife or superzoom kind of guy, 4/3 gives u that advantage. But so far... Oly hasn't been up to scratch on their AF pts and FPS on their cams. We'll see if the P1 makes it this year.

    However, my personal opinion is that Canon offers the most flexibility here. You can use the same lens(except for EFS lens) for both 35mmFF and 1.6X. A lot of users are getting very good results with their EF lens on the 1.6 crop and that itself says that the lens resolving power has still not breached the sensor limit. Think about it. If i can resolve lines on such a pixel packed 1.6X sensor, why will my lens suddenly become unable to resolve in a 35mmFF(the pixels are fatter om 35mmFF)?

    The 4/3s supporters has always refer that the lens edge sharpness is a major issue with 35mmFF but I've always wanted my edges to be soft for that nice Bokeh effect. I have always been wanted to ask how many of you really requires that edge to edge sharpness in your pics? Don't u require that creativity on your shots that brings out or substantiate the subject in your pictures? How often are your subject at the edge of your frame?
    Last edited by AhSeng; 12th August 2007 at 03:05 AM.

  15. #55
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    1,953

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    "Great photography is about depth of feeling, not depth of field" - Peter Adams

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: 4/3 better?

    Quote Originally Posted by piyoz View Post
    Hi, I'm new and would like to know what is this 4/3 system about? In future will there be more? Or is it better to stick to those "normal" DSLR?
    I'm betting that you haven't gotten your answer, though you've gotten plenty of answers for something.

    Four-thirds (4/3) is a non-35mm compatible format. It's completely digital, though you could pollute it with older lenses via an adapter. The lenses and flash units are intelligent and designed for digital photography.

    Other "normal" dSLRs which rely on the compromise from 35mm, four-thirds is a clean break with the past.

    Currently, you can buy bodies and lenses from Olympus and Panasonic/Leica, lenses from Sigma, and flash units from Metz.

    Four-thirds is as good as any of the other options, but no better or worse, though the current bodies are stronger on usable features than their price point would suggest.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •