Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Olympus e-3 is here.
- Thread starter srf4real
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is one of the funniest exchanges I have read in the last few days.
Just like Mr. G4 said, people who have no "feature X" in their camera will go to earth's end to justify to themselves and everyone else that "feature X" is a "gimmick".
And you are proving Mr. G4 right with every post you make.
Now as far as your uninformed comments on dust go...
The sensor in my E1 is not, as you said, "cleanish". I consider it *clean* for all practical purposes (there are three small specs that are marginally visible only at f22, with extreme levels adjustment).
I have not had to clone out a dust spot a single time since I have started using the camera.
I also did not have to clean the sensor a single time. It Just Works (TM).
If you still don't get it - let me spell it out for you: no vodoo sticks, no Eclipse, no pec-pads, no shooting the sky at f16 over and over and over again. Nothing like that. And I do not have more visible dust in my images than I had with my other cameras. It is not a quality for convenience compromise, as your post might suggest. I can see NO dust. None. Zero.
On the other hand, dust was driving me ******* crazy on my Sigma SD9 and Canon DRebel. There was some even after vodoo stick treatment. Even after Eclipse and pec-pads. Even after spending 40 minutes doing nothing but cleaning the sensor. Ever tried cleaning out those pesky specs in the top right corner of the sensor?
Dust was creeping in even if I was not changing the lenses.
My approach in pre-Oly days was to clean the sensor bi-weekly. I loathed the experience, and it was more of a compromise anyway. I would get the big specs off, introduce 2-3 small ones in the process, and if these were not in inconvenient locations, I would leave it at that.
Your "moving parts" argument is rather laughable too. The ultrasound emitter used by E-cameras is a solid state device. It is bolted to a flat piece of optical glass placed before the sensor. There are no moving parts in this system. There is nothing to break. This dust reduction system will most certainly outlast any shutter or mirror mechanism.
So, guess what, Sherlock - dust IS a problem. Maybe not for you, but certainly for many people, including me. Before I had a first hand experience with 4/3, I did not have an opinion on this feature (I was rather sceptical). After owning the E1, I will NOT buy another DSLR without this feature.
Now for some love
Image below shot with a E-330IR (E-330 disassembled, and converted for IR-only use):
The reverse is also true, so no gain there- you can see lots of posts about how essential "feature X" is for any given feature unique to a camera model or brand. However, since most photographs sold are made with cameras without this feature, it can't be all that essential can it?
You may consider it clean, but independent testing has not come to the same conclusion. Therefore, I'll stick with independent testing results and their categorizations. "We would rate the effectiveness to 50%." and "Although the result after the second cleaning cycle wasn't very impressive, we still counted over 30 spots gone. We were hoping to get more off with the first two cycles." Neither of those statements seems to be a resounding endorsement- better than the competition sure, better than a clean sensor, I think not. I'll stick with cleanish until I see independent results stating otherwise- and I'll also weigh those results against the smaller sensor size which affects the amount of charge and how much dust is attracted to the sensor.
I've done very few sensor cleanings over three bodies digital bodies. I hardly find it onerous. It doesn't take me more than 2 minutes to do it either, once it might have taken me 4 minutes because the first time I had to dig for my A/C adapter, unpackage a new set of swabs and read the instructions. I've cloned out dust once in the last 4 years- hardly a drain on my time.
As I've said, independent testing finds the Olympus system good, but not perfect- since you're hardly an unbiased opinion we'll have to disagree.
FWIW, I don't shoot the sky at f/16 over and over and I don't have any visible dust in my images- in fact Wiley's just picked up some images I shot the week before last week for a textbook- so it's not just *my* opinion that the images are publication-quality. They're passing muster by photo editors, including one for the cover- that works for me, your mileage obviously varies.
I have yet to spend more than 2 minutes per camera actually cleaning sensors on three different cameras (two S2Pros and a D2x) each time.
I know folks who shoot in quarries with DLSRs without this essential feature who manage to sell their images too. I've done post-flood insurance shoots under very dusty conditions and industrial manufacturing shoots in places where you need a dust mask- but maybe it's just that you're shooting unsealed consumer cameras where I've mostly had my D2x when shooting in hostile environments.
You do understand that it takes vibration (also known as movement) to create sound even above 20KHz? Generally, introducing another component that may fail into the equation isn't something I want when my cameras function just fine without it.
Well Watson, to me sensor cleaning is elementary. Perhaps if I were like you and couldn't clean my sensor after 40 minutes or shot with an unsealed body I'd feel differently, but since I'm not and since I am selling pictures without it, I'll live without the gimmick thanks.
Critique away.
>taken with a 4/3 camera<
A tiny bit of fill to bring out the cat's eyes and some fur detail would have been nice- maybe a silver light disc for the fur (instead of flash.) Overall though, it's a well-framed shot and I like it.
No, still does not compute, does it?
What part of "clean" aren't you getting?
My sensor is clean, because I *see* no dust on it. No matter how many times I change lenses, I do not see more dust appear on it.
Most people who use 4/3 cameras share the same experience.
This is really the only thing that matters.
Obviously, if the sensor is purposely dusted, you will *need* to perform a wet cleaning. Duh. The system is, as is evident from that test I have linked, not designed to get rid of 100 particles in one fell swoop. Bummer. But if you are getting these particles on the sensor only a few at a time (like you will in normal use), the sensor will stay absolutely clean.
And, by the way, this is exactly the conclusion the authors of that test came to.
If you missed this part, read the test report again. It is almost at the very end.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/366270/
^^
This forum member will strongly disagree with you.
Nuff said.
Of course, he did not perform the cleaning correctly, but this is not the point.
It is not the first thread like that that I see, and not the last. Go to DPR forums, and you will find an "I have runed my sensor" thread like that daily. Honest.
Let me say it again - manual sensor cleaning sucks, and you will not clean out *normal* contamination as with your swab as well as the constant utrasound treatment will do it. You will get rid of some specks, an introduce a few others. Sometimes you end up simply relocating the dust. Yes, it happens even to the best of us.
If, as you claim, you simply swab the sensor for two minutes "blindly", and consider the job done, you are not cleaning it thoroughly enough.
It will work just fine for you, if you never have to shoot at apertures smaller than f5.6 or f8. But for some types of photography you actually *need* to stop down. And it is then when the "ouch" moment of truth comes. Of course, you do claim that you shoot the sky at f16 every day, and never see dust... But, conveniently enough, you do not provide any examples.
I know what sensor dust is from direct experience - I shot with an older Canon DSLR, and I shot with a Sigma. The Sigma actually has a seal on the mirror box that supposedly prevents dust from getting in - I still got plenty of dust spots. The word "annoying" is an underestimation - and I have hundreds of ruined shots to prove it.
Finally, dare I suggest you actually use one of these cameras yourself before going to the forum and declaring something a "gimmick" like you have just done. I don't think you have ever held an Olympus camera in your hands.
As for the "moving parts", I think you do not understand what is usually meant by "moving parts". The displacement of the SSWF is on the order of a few microns, and it is entirely a solid state device. Ultrasound emitters last virtually forever - I have a few sonicators in our lab that date back to early 90s - late 80s, and still going strong. It might also be of interest to you that we actually use these sonicators to clean silicon and glass surfaces to do surface chemistry. Swabbing just does not cut it - but 25 kHz ultrasound does a marvellous job.
This is a direct quote from that "ruined sensor" thread I have linked above.
It is SO funny
Sure, sensor cleaning is easy and fun for you... You even use the word "frustrating" there, as I can see. And then there is all that talk about chopped up Rubbermaid spatulas... In a thread about a ruined sensor... Priceless.
Don't get me wrong - I still have a chopped up Rubbermaid spatula in my toolbox. I know exactly where you are coming from.
But I really like it how you come to an Oly thread right afterwards and declare the SSWF a "gimmick".
Of course, cleaning the sensor with a chopped up Rubbermaid spatula (or folded up Pec-pads) has that genuine, macho, Wild West feel to it.
Owned.
This is a direct quote from that "ruined sensor" thread I have linked above.
It is SO funny
Sure, sensor cleaning is easy and fun for you... You even use the word "frustrating" there, as I can see. And then there is all that talk about chopped up Rubbermaid spatulas... In a thread about a ruined sensor... Priceless.
"Compared to" as in "there's an easier way, I just don't use it." Why not? Because the extra 30 seconds doesn't make enough difference to me. Why? Because I'm not inept enough to not be able to clean my sensor after 40 minutes.
It's also nice how you don't seem to be able to address the fact that without your gimmick photo editors seem to be perfectly happy with the images produced. Maybe it's because it's not as necessary as you seem to think.
I wonder if any product I have doesn't include a 'gimmick' or two that seduced me into buying it... like that side-view mirror defrost feature on my Chevy. You might not have it, or believe it works, but I never seem to have a problem with foggy mirrors.
Yeh, the cat was shot with no flash in the shade and I had to p/p in a lot of fill light just to achieve the detail that is there in that pic... I could have isolated him and done a little more work specifically I guess, or used the flash (why didn't I think of that!). It only cost me a can of tuna. At least I didn't have to filter noise out of the shadows in development.
Honestly, the one thing I love in the 4/3 system more than anything else is the sensor size giving me a 2x crop factor on the super tele lenses because I shoot surfers and waves that can require a lot of reach like 200 yards without a boat... and I prefer the discretion/mobility achieved with a hand held set-up that still brings out detail and sharpness without needing a wheelbarrow to lug around the equipment. It's certainly a day sport shooter's dream setup. A very modestly priced yet top quality lighter and smaller than the competition zoom lens gets me my results when it counts.
I'll buy the e3 in a while to take advantage of weather-proofing plus larger prints options. I won't mind having a viewfinder that rocks as well.
This bottle nose dolphin is a good example of a subject shot 100 yards out with a ZD40-150mm 3.5/4.5 with nice contrast and detail, hand held and framed on the fly... keep in mind this is a standard kit lens that comes with the e-systems consumer models.
and 100% crop.
Yeh, the cat was shot with no flash in the shade and I had to p/p in a lot of fill light just to achieve the detail that is there in that pic... I could have isolated him and done a little more work specifically I guess, or used the flash (why didn't I think of that!). It only cost me a can of tuna. At least I didn't have to filter noise out of the shadows in development.
Honestly, the one thing I love in the 4/3 system more than anything else is the sensor size giving me a 2x crop factor on the super tele lenses because I shoot surfers and waves that can require a lot of reach like 200 yards without a boat... and I prefer the discretion/mobility achieved with a hand held set-up that still brings out detail and sharpness without needing a wheelbarrow to lug around the equipment. It's certainly a day sport shooter's dream setup. A very modestly priced yet top quality lighter and smaller than the competition zoom lens gets me my results when it counts.
I'll buy the e3 in a while to take advantage of weather-proofing plus larger prints options. I won't mind having a viewfinder that rocks as well.
This bottle nose dolphin is a good example of a subject shot 100 yards out with a ZD40-150mm 3.5/4.5 with nice contrast and detail, hand held and framed on the fly... keep in mind this is a standard kit lens that comes with the e-systems consumer models.
and 100% crop.
Anyone who doesn't follow the manufacturer's directions, nor the generally accepted practices is not an example of why not to do something.
Sure it's the point, ignore the proper way to do it at your peril. It's like not unloading a firearm before cleaning it- because someone blows their head off isn't a good reason to keep a dirty gun.
Obviously, you're not able to read well, as I've never said I shoot anything at f/16. I shoot with a D2x, and diffraction from the small photosites would be apparent at f/16. According to the calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm the Olympus E-3 (4/3 at 10MP) will start to have diffraction problems at f/8.
Finally, dare I suggest you actually use one of these cameras yourself before going to the forum and declaring something a "gimmick" like you have just done. I don't think you have ever held an Olympus camera in your hands.
I've never shot with an Olympus digital for two primary reasons:
- My primary market is Fine Art Nature. Olympus simply doesn't offer any glass over 300mm. In fact the only glass over 300mm for 4/3 are two slow Sigma lenses that I can get in a Nikon or Canon mount. Even with the field of view equivalence it doesn't change the magnification and it's limiting to only have 300mm and 420mm (with a TC) options.
- Anyone who has a list of approved cameras that I've encountered does not accept any 4/3 system camera. I see no good reason to artificially limit which markets my shots can enter without a good reason.
- I'm already diffraction limited early, losing isn't appealing.
But again, since photo editors are accepting my images without this system, and customers are purchasing my images without this system for me it's certainly a gimmick. I'm glad there's a gimmick for people who can't clean a sensor in 40 minutes of trying though.
I wonder if any product I have doesn't include a 'gimmick' or two that seduced me into buying it... like that side-view mirror defrost feature on my Chevy. You might not have it, or believe it works, but I never seem to have a problem with foggy mirrors.
Many people buy based on gimmicks, which is why manufacturer's marketing departments insist on them. It doesn't have to not work to be a gimmick- the light-up keyboard on my MacBook is certainly a gimmick for me because I've been touch typing for about 25 years. It certainly wasn't something that influenced my decision to purchase in any significant way though because in general, I don't make purchasing decisions based on gimmicks. I happen to think it's a neat gimmick though because it pleases my sense of aesthetics when I look at the machine in the dark. If you're not a touch typist, you might find the feature essential and the raised bumps on the f and j keys gimmicky since you can just look at where your fingers are...
The D70 also has commander mode. It's old tech and low-end, given that you can fetch one for about $400.
300 mm correspond to 600 mm on FF, the same maximum focal length Nikon and Canon offer. Needless to say that the Olympus lens is a lot, lot cheaper than either of the 600 mm cannons. And faster.
(Note: I'm using a Nikon.)
I am on a local store's waiting list for the D3 and the D300. I'm excited about both cameras, they each offer some exciting features. My interest was NOT, however, pricked by the gimmicky built-in sensor cleaning, nor by the live view feature. OK, fine, they'll be on the cameras but neither feature is a reason for buying one camera or camera brand over another....
That's hardly something remotely affordable (I haven't seen a price quoted, but only that it is only produced upon request, so I assume it's five digits) or `luggable' (that thing apparently weighs 16 kg
). There are also Sigma zooms (a 300-800 and a humongous 2.8/200-500 which you can combine with a 2x converter, yes). But effectively, the focal length range stops at 600 mm (+ tele converters). Even those are, ahem, expensive ($6k+).
The 1200-1700mm was available until 1999 on special order for $75000.
Sometime ago one a used one in good condition was being offered on fredmiranda for $40000 (Tokyo pickup preferably).
That could be considered affordable compared to the new MF Zeiss 1700mm f4 which weighs 256kg.
Sometime ago one a used one in good condition was being offered on fredmiranda for $40000 (Tokyo pickup preferably).
That could be considered affordable compared to the new MF Zeiss 1700mm f4 which weighs 256kg.
You're right, it could be considered a bargain since I don't have to sell my house to buy one
That's because you bought into the system already. With your 2 pro and semi pro bodies, you probably have a consequence line up of lens that you come to love and work with and that you would never want to part with. Serious photogs don't buy into a body but the system. BTW, if the feature is not important for you, why did you decide to upgrade? You will be able to take the same and beautiful pictures as you did before those D3 and D300 were announced.
Now let's wait six months after you have your new bodies, and assuming that those "gimmicks" as you said work, and let's hear your opinion then.
All the people who talk in this thread beside the Olympus user have not a slide idea of what they are talking about.
Yes, that is very true....as a Nikon user for many, many years I do have a nice collection lineup of lenses in which I have indeed made a substantial financial and emotional investment. I would definitely not be willing to sell them all to switch systems. Even in the unlikely event I were to consider doing so, chances are that it would be to make a lateral move to Canon, and that would have to be for a very, very compelling reason.
OK, fine, in six months I'll try to remember to come back to this thread and state my opinions on the automatic sensor cleaning and the live preview features....
What a bunch of crap. The 5D is 12-bit and it's a hell of a camera. Show me the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit. I would surmise that you can't see a visible difference.
Computer screens have only 8 bit per color, so you cannot see the difference. It may make a difference when you fiddle with RAW files, but even then, it won't make much of a difference if your picture is properly exposed.
You might choose the 5D over the S5 Pro because of the FF sensor. What does the E-3 have to offer image-wise? Megapixels? What about the D300 then?