olympus e30 or canon 40d?

I have been looking at these two cameras and cant make up my mind. I want a camera that is bordering on professional. Im doing a photography course at the moment and after that in my spare time i want to be out shooting pictures and maybe enlarge them and frame to sell. I also want to print onto canvas sometimes. I read somewhere and dont know whether it is true that 4 thirds cameras do not enlarge properly? Are they still in proportion? In my mind im am preferring the Olympus but just want different opinions, Forgot to add, i want to mainly take pictures of wildlife, land and seascape and maybe weddings and people/pet portraits so need the camera to be suitable for these situations thanks!

Unless Olympus actually gets around to making an SWD lens longer than 200mm, you're going to find that they don't offer the lens you need for wildlife work, unless you don't mind getting one of the Sigma long lenses.

I left the Olympus system because they don't offer the lenses needed for shooting birds and wildlife. As far as the rest of what you want, the Olympus is great. But they have that one gaping hole in their offering - a reasonably priced fast focusing long telephoto. There is not a problem with the image quality - just that lack of support for a proper lens for shooting wildlife.

The word "wildlife" can be roughly translated as "birds."

Other than those pesky avians, zuiko makes a number of very good lenses for wildlife. I certainly do miss a good birding lens, but other than that I'm very happy with the 4/3 lineup. And I consider myself a wildlife photographer more than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

The word "wildlife" can be roughly translated as "birds."

Other than those pesky avians, zuiko makes a number of very good lenses for wildlife. I certainly do miss a good birding lens, but other than that I'm very happy with the 4/3 lineup. And I consider myself a wildlife photographer more than anything else.

---

I wouldn't shoot lions or tigers with a 200mm lens either. They are also wildlife.

I have the E-510 and just bought the E30 yesterday. These were taken with the E 510

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7733884@N03/2661694529/" title="Bison itch by Ravage247, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/2661694529_9cd44d618a.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Bison itch" /></a> 300MM

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7733884@N03/2661694189/" title="Cub by Ravage247, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2661694189_a86058043f.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Cub" /></a> 180 MM

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7733884@N03/3254584214/" title="P1303010_edited-1 by Ravage247, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3254584214_4979fb8dd5.jpg" width="500" height="438" alt="P1303010_edited-1" /></a>
200MM with 2X teleconverter

Have you compared the spec's of both camera's? And even more importantly, check the prices and range of lens..

As far as the "size" of the images, the E-30 has the ability change the image ratios.

Cheers, Don

On 4/3 a 200mm is a 35mm 400 equivalent, and I'd consider that an adequate lens.
What about the 70-300 which is 600mm equivalent ?
Or the Olympus 90-250 f/2.8 only 500mm but wide aperture?

Why not look at other lens manufacturers' offerings in 4/3 mount ?
It doesn't have to be an Olympus lens after all, that's a good thing about an open system like 4/3.

How about the Sigma 50-500 in 4/3 mount - that's a 100-1000mm equivalent 35mm.
Surely that is long enough ?


With built-in image stabilisation in the camera, and shorter lighter lenses compared to 35mm, the 4/3 system has a few plus points for shooting in the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmartWombat

How about the Sigma 50-500 in 4/3 mount - that's a 100-1000mm equivalent 35mm.
Surely that is long enough ?

---

As I said earlier, if one wanted a long enough lens in the 4/3 system, one needed to be comfortable buying one of the long Sigma lenses. That lens is one of them - the other is the 135-400mm.

I personally wouldn't buy a Sigma lens without testing the specific sample I was considering buying before hand, because their quality is too variable between individual samples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougjgreen

I personally wouldn't buy a Sigma lens without testing the specific sample I was considering buying before hand, because their quality is too variable between individual samples.

---

I wonder how true that really is ? And what the numbers are with other brands ?

Or is it just something I hear repeated over and over about how the 4/3 sensor is "bad" because of it's size :D

Cheers, Don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Kondra

I wonder how true that really is ? And what the numbers are with other brands ?

Or is it just something I hear repeated over and over about how the 4/3 sensor is "bad" because of it's size :D

Cheers, Don

---

C'mon, are you trying to kill the 'net? If we ruled out 'parroting', it would probably cease to exist. - TF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Kondra

I wonder how true that really is ? And what the numbers are with other brands ?

Or is it just something I hear repeated over and over about how the 4/3 sensor is "bad" because of it's size :D

Cheers, Don

---

It isn't "bad" about it, but it is what distinguishes it most from other DSLR systems. With that, a long list of pro's and cons. I personally much prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio in and of itself (as well as all the other benefits of the APS sensors), but I can see the appeal of smaller, lighter lens and bodies, and more telephoto reach in crop factor.

Brings me to another thought - I was wondering about how the crop factor worked for Olympus, I know its stated 2x, but the 35mm equiv being a 3:2, it could only be a 2x crop factor either horizontal or vertical. I assume they measured the vertical - which would make the horizontal crop factor more like 2.4x. If anybody knows specifically please clarify, thnx, just a random thought I had today.

From the Oly site re E-30

Quote:

---

CREATIVE IDEAS COME IN ALL SIZES WITH MULTI-ASPECT RATIO SHOOTING.
Since photography is a form of expression that is essentially based on clipping a scene, framing is an important component of style. The E-620 provides four aspect ratios to frame your image to the desired proportions, including: the standard 4:3 aspect ratio that is suited for an 8" x 10" enlargement; the 16:9 aspect ratio that will display your images beautifully in widescreen television format; 6:6 for a square image, and 3:2 for the popular 4" x 6" print size.

---

More light reading on crop factors/aspect ratio's...

Cheers, Don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

I assume they measured the vertical - which would make the horizontal crop factor more like 2.4x. If anybody knows specifically please clarify, thnx, just a random thought I had today.

---

It's measured diagonally. It's 2X on the diagonal, slightly more than 2X on the horizontal, slightly less than 2X on the vertical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Kondra

I wonder how true that really is ? And what the numbers are with other brands ?

Or is it just something I hear repeated over and over about how the 4/3 sensor is "bad" because of it's size :D

Cheers, Don

---

I don't know how they stack up statistically, but there is FAR more anecdotal evidence around about sample variation in Sigma lenses than about any other brand, Tamron would be next worst. BTW, what does that have to do with 4/3 sensors being "bad"? They're not, they just have a roughly 50% higher pixel density than comparable resolution APS sensors - which lessens the size of the photosensitive parts of the pixel, making them somewhat less light sensitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougjgreen

I don't know how they stack up statistically, but there is FAR more anecdotal evidence around about sample variation in Sigma lenses than about any other brand, Tamron would be next worst. BTW, what does that have to do with 4/3 sensors being "bad"? They're not, they just have a roughly 50% higher pixel density than comparable resolution APS sensors - which lessens the size of the photosensitive parts of the pixel, making them somewhat less light sensitive.

---

True, also demanding better lens to achieve those good results. 10 megapixels on an APS sensor vs 10 on 4/3, put an identical lens on each and the lens problems will be more noticeable on the 4/3 than on the APS.

Thanks for the info on the crop factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

True, also demanding better lens to achieve those good results. 10 megapixels on an APS sensor vs 10 on 4/3, put an identical lens on each and the lens problems will be more noticeable on the 4/3 than on the APS.

Thanks for the info on the crop factor.

---

The opposite, actually.

A 4/3 sensor would just use the "sweet spot" of an APS lens, while an APS sensor would record the imperfections at the edges like vignetting and softness. Since the center of the lens is closest to "on plane," it is the sharpest and most accurate part of the lens.

Quality diminishes towards the edges, which wouldn't even be visible on a 4/3 sensor.

Full frame cameras are the most susceptible to lens flaws. The smaller the sensor, the cheaper and easier it is to manufacture a crackin' lens.

This is why the (sigma, rebadged by olympus Zuiko) 70-300 lens is sharper on 4/3 than any of the other mounts it comes in: the 4/3 sensor just uses the good parts of the image circle and discards the rest. It's just like cropping the center out of an APS shot and blowing it up to equal size, without losing any IQ due to enlargement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

The opposite, actually.

A 4/3 sensor would just use the "sweet spot" of an APS lens, while an APS sensor would record the imperfections at the edges like vignetting and softness. Since the center of the lens is closest to "on plane," it is the sharpest and most accurate part of the lens.

Quality diminishes towards the edges, which wouldn't even be visible on a 4/3 sensor.

Full frame cameras are the most susceptible to lens flaws. The smaller the sensor, the cheaper and easier it is to manufacture a crackin' lens.

This is why the (sigma, rebadged by olympus Zuiko) 70-300 lens is sharper on 4/3 than any of the other mounts it comes in: the 4/3 sensor just uses the good parts of the image circle and discards the rest. It's just like cropping the center out of an APS shot and blowing it up to equal size, without losing any IQ due to enlargement.

---

No, that is only one aspect of lens quality. Higher pixel density means things like diffraction will be more severe. High pixel densities can bring out the best things in a lens, but it also makes lens problems worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

No, that is only one aspect of lens quality. Higher pixel density means things like diffraction will be more severe. High pixel densities can bring out the best things in a lens, but it also makes lens problems worse.

---

True, but APS pixel density is higher than 4/3 - the 50d's 15 mp is higher than the density of it's closest 4/3 competition, the 10mp E3.

You can rightly say that those are two very different image sizes, but those are the best fit for a camera comparison. based on exact same image sizes, 4/3 will always be more dense.

My point isn't to split hairs but to provide a real-world working example...my point is that you are MORE likely to notice edge distortion on a large sensor than 4/3 pixel density issues in the sweet spot of a lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

True, but APS pixel density is higher than 4/3 - the 50d's 15 mp is higher than the density of it's closest 4/3 competition, the 10mp E3.

You can rightly say that those are two very different image sizes, but those are the best fit for a camera comparison. based on exact same image sizes, 4/3 will always be more dense.

My point isn't to split hairs but to provide a real-world working example...my point is that you are MORE likely to notice edge distortion on a large sensor than 4/3 pixel density issues in the sweet spot of a lens.

---

Another point here - most people shooting APS are also using lens in which they pull through the sweet spot. EF-S lens aren't anywhere near as common as the standard EF, and the same with Sony's DT lens. Nikons the only exception with their popular DX lens type.

And well, pixel density can also be a very good thing, my original point was simply that greater pixel density makes the camera much pickier with lens, a very expensive catch 22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

True, but APS pixel density is higher than 4/3 - the 50d's 15 mp is higher than the density of it's closest 4/3 competition, the 10mp E3.

---

No it's not. The Canon has 15.5 million actual pixels (15.1 million effective), on a sensor that is 329 mm square, for a total density of 47.1K pixels per square mm.

The Olympus has 11.8 million actual pixels (with 10.1 million effective) on a sensor that is 225 mm square, for a total density of 52.4K pixels per square mm.

Incidentally, the reason Olympus has so many more actual pixels vs. effective pixels relates to their live view implementation, which basically consumes around 1/8th of the total sensor resolution.

That being said, those two density numbers are pretty darn close, so there isn't any fundamental reason that a 16 MP Canon APS-C sensor would be any more sensitive than a 10 MP 4/3 sensor of the same generation. Other than the fact that Canon has been making their own sensors for quite some time, and has lots of experience at high ISO sensitivity. Of course, the 50d's sensor is actually a generation newer than that of the E-3. The more direct competitor from a silicon generation standpoint is the E-30's sensor.

In any case, BOTH an APS-C sensor and a 4/3 sensor get the benefit of the sweet-spot effect when only using the center portion of a lens that's designed for the full 35mm frame. Most good lenses have no problem resolving that density at the center, at least when stopped down 1-2 stops from the max, but the further away one gets from the center point, the more it becomes an issue.

Oh yeah, got me on actual vs. effective, i hadn't even thought about that. I just cranked the math on a calculator without checking specs...but still too close to call IMO. Of course the new 12 mp 4/3 sensors are going to be denser still.

But to address the original topic, the pixel density is unlikely to make much difference in APS vs. 4/3 format in regard to "sweet spot" sharpness. Sensor and processor manufacturing is more likely to effect output - some companies are just plain better at making sensors than others, but it's really a marginal improvement and only applicable to the minority of photographers.

In reality the 4/3 format and the APS formats are very very similar in image quality, especially at normal sensitivities.

As far as lenses go, the 4/3 system is FAR cheaper than APS systems for very high quality glass. 4/3 just doesn't have the huge selection of primes that are found on the larger systems. No matter, the ZD zooms are as sharp as the other system's primes :D

Where olympus really gouges you is the pro-level cameras. The entry level models are probably the best deals on the market, but the E3 and E30 are priced by a crazy person - they are both easily 1/3 higher priced than they should be. The E3 is 18 months old and it is just now going for the price it should have MSRP'd for. The fortunate thing is that you can go from 24-400mm for $1400 (new) in two lenses that easily compete with the "L" series in quality (and weathersealed, too).

I hope Sarah is enjoying "our" conversation :)

It would be nice to hear about her decision.....

Cheers, Don

I'm a little curious too, Sarah - what made you narrow it down to those two cameras?