• 11-27-2007, 04:21 AM
    viewfinder.2007
    FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    What is FourThirds Technology?

    Is this the new paradigm shift in DSLR camera generation?

    What FourThirds DSLR camera more advantageous compared to others?

    Will the FourThirds based technology a new performance DSLR camera to most digital photography works?

    Happy clicking!


    ViewFinder 2007
    You never shoot alone in the world of digital photography.
  • 11-27-2007, 10:17 AM
    Glasstream15
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    I can answer all those questions in one word:


    TROLL
  • 11-27-2007, 12:16 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    You're probably right, Glasstream15. However, the questions were asked politely enough and they're good subjects for discussion. Troll or not, there's no reason we should talk about the FourThirds System. With the recent introduction of the Olympus E-3 pro DSLR, I think it's becoming even more interesting. Because I think Olympus finally has a really exciting digital SLR. Actually, we really liked the E-510 a lot. But the E-3 is looking like a reason for pros to start taking a closer look at Olympus. I know I am.
  • 11-27-2007, 02:41 PM
    Glasstream15
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Captain John,

    The Olys are an interesting subject for discussion. They have a lot of pros and a lot of cons and they can create VERY heated discussions.

    But the OPs first post, as well as another thread he/she opened at the same time as 1st and 2nd posts, make it fairly obvious, at least to me, that these 2 threads are trolls. I did not reply to the second one.

    If I am wrong or out of line, I do apologize. If I have wrongly offended someone, please accept my apology.
  • 11-27-2007, 02:49 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Like I said, I think you're probably right about the poster. But I don't think it really matters. Let's not worry about that person's motives and just discuss the interesting subject. I'm pretty excited about the new E-3 and I like the E-510, too. I attended the E-3 introduction and am impressed with what Olympus has done with the new camera. We actually already have the E-3 in-house for review. It arrived on Friday and I promptly shot the studio tests and product shots and passed it on the Laurence Chen, who did out E-510 review. One of the things I like the most about the Four Thirds format is the smaller size of the lenses and camera bodies. I'm actually a little disappointed that the E-3 isn't a bit smaller and lighter. But to appeal to the market they're going after with that camera, it's probably about perfect. As far as which cameras are best, I think Olympus has done the best job. I like the in-camera image stabilization. I think it's the best deal for the camera owner and it keeps the lenses smaller. The Panasonic and Leica Four Thirds bodies and lenses are huge in comparison to the Olympus DSLRs. The E-510 is especially small and light and I love it for that. It's and awesome backpack camera.
  • 11-27-2007, 05:36 PM
    Glasstream15
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    PJ, you are definitely right about the new Olys being interesting. A great job of integrating the Oly system in the 510 and E3. And I have NEVER had an Olympus DSLR in my hands so I have no first person (first fingers?) experience with them.

    To be quite honest, this past Spring when I was looking for a DSLR the first ones I looked at (on line) were Olys, and especially the E500. Lots of features and a great kit price with 2 lenses. Camera stores around here, and it's Wolf for the only choice, inhale deeply and even with a credit card in my hand I couldn't get a lot of help from the people behind the counter. And I do not look like I'm homeless so I don't know why, even if I walk in with a Canon XT in hand they still basically ignore me. So I was shopping on line

    I do a LOT of business with Amazon and when I logged on to buy the E500 kit, they were sold out. Leaving on vacation the next week, I got the XT and Tamron 18-200. Served me well.

    Olympus has a very good name, perhaps one of the best, in scientific optics so I know their lenses are second to none. And I had 3 P&S Olys so I really wanted to stay there, but timing got me into Canon without a backward glance.

    My feeling about the whole brand loyalty thing is, I will stay with Canon now because I also now have a Canon film SLR which lenses will work on the XT. And Canon Speedlights which work with both.

    But is Canon BETTER? Better than Nikon, Olympus, Sony or Pentax? Price point to price point, throw them all in a gunny sack and grab one. The picture quality will be equal. The build quality will be equal. The feature set may vary from brand to brand but are basically equal.

    So you look at the features, in camera IS, for example. Is that important to you. Live view. I think that Canikon now have that too. And to me it does not matter one way or another. I grew up learning to steady a camera at slow shutter speeds and while I might someday like to try it, I really don't think I miss it. Of course, IF I had it and it went away, then I might miss it. Who knows.

    I do not know how the physical size of the newest Olys compare to the Xt and XTi. They are about as small as I want to go to still be able to hold the camera stedily and comfortabley.

    The main thing I can't stand is the constant bashing. I have a Canon. Does tha mean I have to get down on everyone who has another brand??? Does that mean that Nikon and Olympus owners have to get down on me? Hell, a camera is a tool. It is something used to produce something else. If I have Craftsman tools, does someone with Matco or Snap-On have to look down on me and think that I can't do the same job they can?

    So yes, after all of that, I really do think the new Olys are great cameras.I won't switch for the same reason many people, including pros, won't switch. I'm to much invested in Canon. And the new Olympus cameras will not be a "paradigm shift".

    But competition is a good thing.It keeps Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax on their toes and on their drawing boards.

    YMMV
  • 11-27-2007, 08:49 PM
    Greg McCary
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Here is a nice web site explaining just what the four thirds sysytem is and why and who developed it. I can't tell you how happy I am with the 510. Certainly a great improvment over the 500 in all kinds of ways. The Image Stabilization Is sweet.

    http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index.html
  • 11-28-2007, 06:22 AM
    mwfanelli2
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    FWIW... DP Review posted a tech review of the new E510. Although a wonderful camera in many ways, that 4/3 camera has a sensor that still has higher than normal noise at 400 ISO and above, a tiny dim viewfinder, nasty highlight clipping, and a dynamic range has been cut by 0.7 EV (at a time when others are trying to widen the DR).

    Personally, I see nothing to recommend spending the money when competitors have better IQ for the same or lower prices. Your mileage may vary.
  • 11-28-2007, 10:16 AM
    Photo-John
    Heresy
    Here it goes - image quality is overrated. You can quote me on that. I'm comfortable with it.

    There are too many people on the Web comparing images at 100% and declaring one camera better than another because they can see more noise on one on the computer screen. That's a nice comparison, but it shouldn't be the only way we evaluate cameras. If it was, we'd should all still be using large format view cameras. I prefer to compare with 8.5x11 prints. A lot of the noise you see at 100% on the computer is just irellevant in a normal viewing environment. And noise isn't necessarily even a bad thing. We are fixated on it, not really thinking about whether it's really an issue. Good picture-taking is a real issue. Noise sometimes is, and sometimes isn't.

    As for the Olympus E-510, it's a wonderfully compact and light body. Add the reach and quality of the Zuiko lenses and you have something special. Does it have more noise than the Canon XTi / 400D? Sure. Does I regret using it for any photos? Not at all.

    I also think that most photographers will be better served by trading a little image quality for built-in image stabilization like the Pentax, Sony, and Olympus DSLRs have. That image stabilization will ensure better photos for them where image quality will not. Who cares about noise if your photos are blurred from camera shake?

    There's a little op-ed from Photo-John :-D
  • 11-28-2007, 11:31 AM
    mwfanelli2
    Re: Heresy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    Here it goes - image quality is overrated. You can quote me on that. I'm comfortable with it.

    There are too many people on the Web comparing images at 100% and declaring one camera better than another because they can see more noise on one on the computer screen. That's a nice comparison, but it shouldn't be the only way we evaluate cameras. If it was, we'd should all still be using large format view cameras. I prefer to compare with 8.5x11 prints. A lot of the noise you see at 100% on the computer is just irellevant in a normal viewing environment. And noise isn't necessarily even a bad thing. We are fixated on it, not really thinking about whether it's really an issue. Good picture-taking is a real issue. Noise sometimes is, and sometimes isn't.

    As for the Olympus E-510, it's a wonderfully compact and light body. Add the reach and quality of the Zuiko lenses and you have something special. Does it have more noise than the Canon XTi / 400D? Sure. Does I regret using it for any photos? Not at all.

    I also think that most photographers will be better served by trading a little image quality for built-in image stabilization like the Pentax, Sony, and Olympus DSLRs have. That image stabilization will ensure better photos for them where image quality will not. Who cares about noise if your photos are blurred from camera shake?

    There's a little op-ed from Photo-John :-D

    LOL! I have stated here before that IQ is not the holy grail. But if I'm going to pay that much for a DSLR, I really don't want something on the bottom end of IQ. My P&S Panny has a bit more noise than other similiar cameras: but it only cost me $235!

    Notice that the other problems had nothing to do with IQ. Dynamic range is slowing being increased in other cameras, Olympus actually reduced theirs! That is not something I see as a plus. The viewfinder coming off the small sensor is dim, how is that a good thing?

    On another web site (gads!), Oly Owners are saying things such as "High ISO is not very useful anyway." "I've got LiveView so the eyepiece is irrelevent." "Low DR? You shouldn't be shooting in conditions that need more DR."

    I really don't care who buys the E-510, it ain't my money! But any manufacturer can add whiz-bang features. However, the fundamentals have to be sound to make those features worthwhile.

    Oh yeah... IS is the greatest invention since chocolate. In camera does OK but lens-based makes the system match the lens more effectively. Not a deal breaker by any means and most users probably can't tell the difference. But in-camera IS is not the only nor necessarily the best answer.
  • 11-28-2007, 04:21 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: Heresy
    This is fun, huh Michael? We don't often have a nice little back-and-forth here :-)

    The thing I like most about the E-510 is the size. Because I ride with a camera, I love the that the E-510 offers the power and flexibility of the an SLR and the Zuiko lenses in such a small package. If image quality were my top priority I'd definitely look elsewhere. And of course, I'm already deeply invested in Canon so that's my standard ride gear. But if I weren't a Canon user I think I'd be an Olympus user right now. I can't get around the portability of the E-510 and I am not really concerned with the noise or dynamic range issues. It's still better than the EOS 10D that I made a lot of money with.

    As for lens vs sensor-based image stabilization - I've been thinking a lot about this. I'm starting to wonder if optical is better. At first it seemed obvious - you make a separate system for each lens with dedicated motors, sensors, and programming and it has to be better. However, after the E-3 intro I started to think about it more. Here are just a couple of things to consider:

    1) Camera manufacturers can easily program a camera body to recognize and compensate differently for each specific lens.

    2) This is the big one - a camera sensor has much less mass than an SLR lens element. Hence, it should be more energy-efficient and easier to move.

    Those two things make me wonder if the in-camera systems might not be better. Also, if you check the specs on Nikon and Canon image-stabilized lenses against the specs for image-stabilized SLR bodies, you'll see that there's already a difference in claimed performance. Canon an Nikon are claiming 2 stops of correction on their best lenses. Olympus is claiming 4 - and even 5 stops - of correction on their IS DSLR bodies. So I'm not so sure the optical systems are better. It would be interesting to test head to head.
  • 11-28-2007, 04:26 PM
    deckcadet
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    John, are you sure you have that the right way around?

    All Nikon VR lenses offer 3 (earlier) or 4 (recent VRII lenses) stops of stabilization.

    Canon has 2 and 3 stops, and their latest may have 4.

    For me, having the stabilized viewfinder image is worth it. I can more easily keep my composition the way I want it, not get as dizzy, and keep my focus points positioned precisely.
  • 11-28-2007, 04:37 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by deckcadet
    John, are you sure you have that the right way around?

    All Nikon VR lenses offer 3 (earlier) or 4 (recent VRII lenses) stops of stabilization.

    Canon has 2 and 3 stops, and their latest may have 4.

    For me, having the stabilized viewfinder image is worth it. I can more easily keep my composition the way I want it, not get as dizzy, and keep my focus points positioned precisely.

    I was writing about the image stabilization a week or so ago and checked the specs while I was doing that. But I just checked again and you're right - Nikon is claiming that their VR II system corrects for 4 stops. So I stand corrected. But it still makes physical sense that the sensor-based system has more potential. Whether they're actually currently performing better, I don't know. But it would be interesting to do a real comparison and see.

    I hadn't thought about the image stabilization in the viewfinder. That's not something that I usually worry about. But I can see how that might be a benefit for some people. I usually turn that off, if it's an option. That way I can save some battery life.

    Thanks for wading into this. This is a good discussion.
  • 11-28-2007, 07:58 PM
    Greg McCary
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    OK, Here are two shots from tonight (hand held). The first one was shot at ISO100 49mm F/3.5 1/2sec.
    The second one was shot at ISO800 38mm F3.5 1/5sec. I can shoot at 1/4 sec most of the time. More than that I am pushing my luck. I try not to go below 1/10sec. The E3 is suppose to much better than the 510. I used the 510 here. There was a slight breeze blowing on the tree shot. The 510 can't correct for that.

    http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3...9/istest01.jpg

    http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3...treeistest.jpg
  • 11-29-2007, 11:02 AM
    Glasstream15
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Good shots. Now I have to see, hopefully this evening, how slow I can hand hold my XT with kit lens. I'll post some pics as soon as I can.
  • 11-30-2007, 05:56 AM
    viewfinder.2007
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    You can view some colour riched shots from my FourThirds technology based DSLR camera at http://viewfinder2007.multiply.com/photos.

    Happy viewing to all!

    http://viewfinder2007.multiply.com/p.../SpaceGeometry
  • 11-30-2007, 09:11 AM
    Photo-John
    Which Camera?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by viewfinder.2007
    You can view some colour riched shots from my FourThirds technology based DSLR camera at http://viewfinder2007.multiply.com/photos.

    And which camera is it that you used?
  • 11-30-2007, 05:14 PM
    viewfinder.2007
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    All are from my old E-510 only.

    You can also view some at http://www.flickr.com/photos/13442122@N07/.

    Happy viewing to all!

    ViewFinder 2007
    You never shoot alone in the world of digital photography.
  • 12-01-2007, 07:49 PM
    alienator
    Re: Heresy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    As for lens vs sensor-based image stabilization - I've been thinking a lot about this. I'm starting to wonder if optical is better. At first it seemed obvious - you make a separate system for each lens with dedicated motors, sensors, and programming and it has to be better. However, after the E-3 intro I started to think about it more. Here are just a couple of things to consider:

    1) Camera manufacturers can easily program a camera body to recognize and compensate differently for each specific lens.

    2) This is the big one - a camera sensor has much less mass than an SLR lens element. Hence, it should be more energy-efficient and easier to move.

    In camera IS is more convenient. That's about the only advantage. From an optics perspective, it's better to have IS in the lens. Moving the right lens element will result, in most cases, in less movement needed for the correction. I don't know what methods are being used to move lens elements, but I suspect it's piezos. If that is the case, piezos typically don't require a lot of electrons to move, and they're very capable of moving extremely heavy things--like, for instance, 6+ meter mirrors--efficiently, things that dwarf camera lenses. From an image quality point of view, I'd definitely want the IS in the lens.
  • 12-05-2007, 06:41 AM
    viewfinder.2007
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    IS in the lens? Or VR lens? Stabilization through the lens is an old technology. It causes aberation optically in the image or picture. This further results to shift in a corrected colour quality picture. Any movement in the lenses will give optical errors in the image or picture. With the new advent of IS in the camera sensor, regardless of movement in any lenses will stabilize the image or picture hitting the sensor of the camera. That's the engineering beauty of the added techniques with FourThirds technology.

    Happy clicking!
  • 12-05-2007, 06:49 AM
    mwfanelli2
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by viewfinder.2007
    IS in the lens? Or VR lens? Stabilization through the lens is an old technology. It causes aberation optically in the image or picture. This further results to shift in a corrected colour quality picture. Any movement in the lenses will give optical errors in the image or picture. With the new advent of IS in the camera sensor, regardless of movement in any lenses will stabilize the image or picture hitting the sensor of the camera.

    I have never heard about this. Please provide the references you used for this information. Thanks!
  • 12-05-2007, 07:06 AM
    Glasstream15
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    VF2007 is quite obviously a shill for Oly. Now, this is a technique I would never expect from Olympus and I DO NOT believe that he/she/it is in any way connected to Olympus. But the posts by VF2007 are quite obvious as pure trolling and defending a system which truly needs no defense.

    It is quite obvious to all objective people, that 4/3 is NOT the best system. Also NOT the worst. It is an alternative, and a very good alternative, to the Canikon systems. Probably will not be adopted by certain pros because of lack of a Full Frame sensor, which is definitely capable of superior IQ and high sensitivity (High ISO) performance when compared to all smaller sensor cameras, and the Olys, as well as certain Canikon models are just too small for some peoples hands.

    And I am well aware that IQ is frequently over-rated as a criteria for buying into a system, but there are conditions where the last inth bit of quality is important and that is where the Canon 1Ds, 5Ds and Nikon D3s will rule.

    SO!!!! Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Olympus and Sony all make VERY good cameras and camera systems. And for 99.9% of users and uses, it is a total toss up. Pick the system you think works best for you and go do what these gadgets are designed for, TAKE PICTURES!!!!!! And stop the bashing. Canon is Fabulous. OLympus is FABULOUS. Nikon is Fabulous.

    They all work great. Different strokes, but mine is not better than yours and yours is NOT better than mine.

    (Kicks soap box aside)
  • 12-05-2007, 07:19 AM
    viewfinder.2007
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    Glasstream...what camera system you have? Are you open minded to accept the reality that there are many new technologies in sensor of camera that are popular in the current digital SLR camera? Among those is the FourThirds. If you cant accept what is happening...try to check in other forums how matured they are like other professional photographers around who are equipping themselves with FourThirds based DSLR camera.

    You may be offended or **** up with the thread exchanges. You must understand what the forum fairly like to discuss in open minded people. You may be having DSLR based on 3/2 sensor format - an old proven technology. The world is continuously changing as well as technologies in various industry like digital photography.

    If you cant take what the discussion in this room....better to get matured more. And dont show up you bad attitude in this forum.
  • 12-05-2007, 07:56 AM
    deckcadet
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    ViewFinder.2007:

    I find it interesting that you have chosen to call one of our members immature, especially when you have made no contributions to this forum outside of what is looking very much like an Olympus shill.

    You're defending the 4/3 system in a way that is IMHO less mature than Glasstream's responses to your posts.

    As far as VR/IS in the lens causing optical aberrations, I've been using these lenses for several years now on everything from consumer zooms to professional zooms to long telephotos from both Nikon and Canon and have seen nothing of the sort. If I did, I wouldn't use it for my work assignments.

    The VR can very slightly affect bokeh (the out of focus areas of the image) but in practice I've never had any negative impact even in this regard that was noticeable.

    I've handheld my 70-200mm VR lens at 200mm with the Nikon D70 at 1/5 sec and gotten a good shot out of it. With the D200/D300 I have only gotten to about 1/8 or 1/10s, but then again in that time I've also developed wrist problems so it may be my technique.
  • 12-05-2007, 09:56 AM
    Glasstream15
    Re: FourThirds Technology for DSLR Camera
    VF, you get more childish, peavish and immature with every post. You are truly starting to sound as if you really are on the Oly payroll, something I always thought that fine company was above doing. I would really appreciate it if you would point out to me where, in any of my posts, I have said anything negative about the Olympus SLR cameras and their 4/3 system.

    But as far as being the be all and end all of digital photography??? Not happening and won't happen. And Canon and Nikon are not either and none will be in the near future.

    Now, like I said earlier, lets give up on the bashing and all do what the cameras are supposed to do. Lets go take some pictures.