Olympus PEN EP-3

[menthel]

This is a new system compared to the established systems already out there. Just look at how quickly Olympus developed Four Thirds lenses from absolutely nothing, and what they did produce was top notch. There's a 300mm f2.8, a 150mm f2, a 35-100mm f2, a 90-250 f2.8, a 14-35mm f2, a 7-14mm wideangle....and so on....the lenses will come, but they won't just chuck out crappy lenses to speed things up. Also note any of the above lenses can be used with an adaptor and keep AF - although none of them are micro so it sort of seems pointless.


Regarding menthel's comment about why it can't succeed with 43 size sensor...why not? Unless you're truly in to shooting with high ISO the four thirds sensor is a great system. Of course, if you're also in to getting f1 style DOF then forget it...but you know...if you're talented you can get the desired results. The older sensor in the E-5 was found to resolve more detail than some full frame cameras, according to DPreview, so the sensor is good, just need to wait on micro glass to become more abundant.

Seriously, the DOF thing is the big problem, not the light. It is much more difficult to be creative with shallow DOF on any crop camera. With creative use of distances and different lenses it is just about possible on my 7D and having played with an E-PL1 for some time you just are even further restricted. For static wedding, portraiture etc they will need a larger sensor to make the shots that people now expect possible.

We are also yet to see any real benchmarks for the new oly's with regards to focussing (and keeping focus) in the real world. I think we will all need to wait for those rather than foaming at the lips proclaiming the death of SLRs.

 

[Almost_Invisible]

A few of the limitations of the 4/3 sensor can be got around. As has been said shallow DOF can be obtained, you just have to approach it differently. Resolution of the sensors has also improved but dynamic range has not so much. Again this can be got around by bracketing etc but until it is improved to be on par with FF with a single shot (bear in mind that FF can also improve so it would have to keep on matching) I can't see a working pro that requires wide DR changing.

 

[Willo]

A few of the limitations of the 4/3 sensor can be got around. As has been said shallow DOF can be obtained, you just have to approach it differently. Resolution of the sensors has also improved but dynamic range has not so much. Again this can be got around by bracketing etc but until it is improved to be on par with FF with a single shot (bear in mind that FF can also improve so it would have to keep on matching) I can't see a working pro that requires wide DR changing.

Your right about the 4/3 sensor, by the time they have caught up everyone else has upped the game and moved the goal posts. It seems the 4/3 sensor is always playing catch up, shame as Oly made some amazing glass for the 4/3 cameras.

I did invest in m4/3, had a G1, GF1 and E-P1. Good cameras but I was never happy enough with them (felt the 20mm was very overrated). The DR was really bad, try to lift detail from the shadows and it becomes noisy as hell, sold all the kit and went back to Nikon.

 

[menthel]

In the dynamic situations I have mentioned and in paid situations the dof problem just can't be worked around. There are also significant limitations to the work arounds that will make them unworkable. I don't doubt that these cameras could take a big chunk of the Market but a m4/3 sized sensor will not be suitable or able to cope with a number of situations, especially those paid.

 

[goldenlight]

What fast telephotos does this camera have?

I cant see them producing a 100-400mm, 600mm prime or even a 70-200 f/2.8 for it somehow!

To say itll be the "standard choice for every level photographer" is wide from the mark.

No fast tele's, and none in the near future, shutter lag, EVF... This thing is not persuading me!

If Olympus can improve the focusing of it's Four Thirds lenses on the Pens they will have all the fast lenses you could need.

14-35mm f2 (28-70 equiv)
35-100mm f2 (70-200 equiv)
90-250mm f2.8 (180-500 equiv)
150mm f2 (300mm equiv)
300mm F2.8 (600mm equiv)

All the zooms listed above are constant aperture.

In addition there is the 50-200mm f2.8/3.5 (100-400 equiv)

Olympus are not there yet with the focusing of these lenses on the Pens but they are steadily getting better. Also, I accept, some of these lenses you might not want to use on a Pen regardless of how fast they focus, but you can't say Olympus don't have the lenses! Realistically, they are far better suited to the E-5 and Wow! what a system that makes! I'm sure many Canon and Nikon users would love to have equivalents of those lenses in their ranges!

 

[goldenlight]

Seriously, the DOF thing is the big problem, not the light. It is much more difficult to be creative with shallow DOF on any crop camera. With creative use of distances and different lenses it is just about possible on my 7D and having played with an E-PL1 for some time you just are even further restricted. For static wedding, portraiture etc they will need a larger sensor to make the shots that people now expect possible.

We are also yet to see any real benchmarks for the new oly's with regards to focussing (and keeping focus) in the real world. I think we will all need to wait for those rather than foaming at the lips proclaiming the death of SLRs.

Taken with a Zuiko 14-35mm at 33mm (66mm equivalent) at f2

I apologise for the poor composition (cut the top of the crown off) but the DOF isn't too bad.

 

[DemiLion]

John, I hate to say this, but for f/2 that is way too much depth of field. I've got narrower fields than that on an APS-H at f/6.3.

 

[goldenlight]

John, I hate to say this, but for f/2 that is way too much depth of field. I've got narrower fields than that on an APS-H at f/6.3.

At the same equivalent focal length? Show me!

 

[DemiLion]

At the same equivalent focal length? Show me!

I can't I'm afraid. I'd love to because it's a great portrait, but the Exif is:

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Lens: EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image Date: 2011-07-07
Focal Length: 55mm
Focus Distance: 0.8m
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)

It's an almost identical pose, but with the fade off starting at the sideburns (although the face is slightly more angled towards the camera.)

That's the whole thing about sensor size and what menthal was saying.

I'm sure that the 3/4 Olys are great cameras, but they just don't match DSlrs and in terms of the physics of light they won't be able to.

 

[goldenlight]

I can't I'm afraid. I'd love to because it's a great portrait, but the Exif is:

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Lens: EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image Date: 2011-07-07
Focal Length: 55mm
Focus Distance: 0.8m
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)

It's an almost identical pose, but with the fade off starting at the sideburns (although the face is slightly more angled towards the camera.)

That's the whole thing about sensor size and what menthal was saying.

I'm sure that the 3/4 Olys are great cameras, but they just don't match DSlrs and in terms of the physics of light they won't be able to.

Oh, that's a shame - got any others?

Seriously, I know 4/3 will never match Full Frame for shallow DOF (and the camera you were using was not far off FF, with only a 1.3x crop) but the difference between 4/3 and 1.6x or 1.5x crop sensors is nowhere near as great as many people believe, especially when using f2 zooms (which are stunningly sharp wide open) that aren't available for other makes. Incidentally, f2 on 4/3 has very similar DOF characteristics to f4 on Full Frame.

Being primarily a landscaper, I do of course value the extra DOF I can get with my 4/3 lenses. DOF characteristics with any format is something of a double edged sword, as I well know from using medium format in my film days.

 

[odd jim]

If Olympus can improve the focusing of it's Four Thirds lenses on the Pens they will have all the fast lenses you could need.

14-35mm f2 (28-70 equiv)
35-100mm f2 (70-200 equiv)
90-250mm f2.8 (180-500 equiv)
150mm f2 (300mm equiv)
300mm F2.8 (600mm equiv)

All the zooms listed above are constant aperture.

In addition there is the 50-200mm f2.8/3.5 (100-400 equiv)

Olympus are not there yet with the focusing of these lenses on the Pens but they are steadily getting better. Also, I accept, some of these lenses you might not want to use on a Pen regardless of how fast they focus, but you can't say Olympus don't have the lenses! Realistically, they are far better suited to the E-5 and Wow! what a system that makes! I'm sure many Canon and Nikon users would love to have equivalents of those lenses in their ranges!

So why arnt all the pro sports 'togs using them then??

 

[goldenlight]

So why arnt all the pro sports 'togs using them then??

I don't know, Jim, bit of a mystery to me, too. Perhaps you could ask them. As you can see, the lenses are there, they are available, and I've never come across anyone brave enough to dispute the quality of the SHG Zuikos (or even the kit lenses within their price range, come to that).

 

[odd jim]

I suspect the shutter delay and EVF puts of sports shooters, such as me!

Plus AF speed and tracking, and high ISO for indoor stuff. And ergonomics.

 

[dd1989]

I don't know, Jim, bit of a mystery to me, too. Perhaps you could ask them. As you can see, the lenses are there, they are available, and I've never come across anyone brave enough to dispute the quality of the SHG Zuikos (or even the kit lenses within their price range, come to that).

Agreed, I think the E-5 is sadly the only camera that can truly do those lenses justice. The pro zooms are up there with the very best Zeiss optics.

 

[goldenlight]

I suspect the shutter delay and EVF puts of sports shooters, such as me!

Plus AF speed and tracking, and high ISO for indoor stuff. And ergonomics.

Er Jim, I acknowledged that the Pens were not yet able to do justice to the lenses we are talking about and stated they are far better suited to the E-5. In case you don't know, the E-5 is a DSLR, with superb ergonomics, a very big and bright OVF (no EVF here), pro class AF speed and tracking and no appreciable shutter delay. Have you ever tried one?

 

[odd jim]

Er Jim, I acknowledged that the Pens were not yet able to do justice to the lenses we are talking about and stated they are far better suited to the E-5. In case you don't know, the E-5 is a DSLR, with superb ergonomics, a very big and bright OVF (no EVF here), pro class AF speed and tracking and no appreciable shutter delay. Have you ever tried one?

Yes I know about the E-5 though I've not used one (they are rarer than rocking horse ****) I was referring to the tech the OP was originally referring to in this thread. Sorry for any confusion!

 

[goldenlight]

Yes I know about the E-5 though I've not used one (they are rarer thank rocking horse ****) I was referring to the tech the OP was originally referring to in this thread. Sorry for any confusion!

That's O.K. Jim, the thread has become a bit confused anyway. The OP posed the question "Is this finally the end of crop sensor dslrs as we know it" and everyone seems to be comparing the Pen to Full Frame! I'd be worried if a format with four times the sensor area of the Pen didn't still retain some advantages.

 

[HoppyUK]

John, I hate to say this, but for f/2 that is way too much depth of field. I've got narrower fields than that on an APS-H at f/6.3.

F/6.3 on APS-H is equivalent in terms of DoF to f/8.2 on full frame. F/2 on 4/3rds is equivalent to f/4.

Er Jim, I acknowledged that the Pens were not yet able to do justice to the lenses we are talking about and stated they are far better suited to the E-5. In case you don't know, the E-5 is a DSLR, with superb ergonomics, a very big and bright OVF (no EVF here), pro class AF speed and tracking and no appreciable shutter delay. Have you ever tried one?

Don't over-egg it It's still 4/3rds, and while that's getting better all the time, it's never going to be as good as 1.5 or 1.6x crop format because it only has around 60% of their image area, and only 25% of full frame.

As to why pros aren't shooting Olympus, apart from the above, why should they? Frankly, they'd be mad - zero benefit. The cameras can't cut it, the lens range can't match Canikon, they already have huge investment in those systems, and Olympus' commitment to the DSLR market is seriously under question.

 

[OlyPaul]

John, I hate to say this, but for f/2 that is way too much depth of field. I've got narrower fields than that on an APS-H at f/6.3.

I can't I'm afraid. I'd love to because it's a great portrait, but the Exif is:

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Lens: EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image Date: 2011-07-07
Focal Length: 55mm
Focus Distance: 0.8m
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)

It's an almost identical pose, but with the fade off starting at the sideburns (although the face is slightly more angled towards the camera.)

You certainly talk a great exif, but lets not forget according to it your image was taken a 0.8m (30 inches away from the subject!)

Also to claim that you get much more dof on that model of camera at f6.3 than the OP has at f2 shows that you know little of dof scales or dof for that matter.

So keeping everything as equal as possible and using a 5D full frame and equivalent focal lengths.And f5.6 FF against f2 FT

Canon 5D (50mm) at 3 ft distance at f5.6,dof is 2ft.10in to 3ft.2.2 in

Pen EP2 (25mm) at 3ft distance at f2, dof is 2ft.10.5in to 3ft.1.6in

Wow all of a quarter of a inch difference.

A phrase another poster used in this thread comes to mind "over egging it"

I usually just keep away from these mine is bigger than yours threads but thought this needed correcting.

 

[goldenlight]

they already have huge investment in those systems, and Olympus' commitment to the DSLR market is seriously under question.

Those two points I agree with, so we're 50% in agreement!

 

[OlyPaul]

Those two points I agree with, so we're 50% in agreement!

+1

 

[menthel]

Taken with a Zuiko 14-35mm at 33mm (66mm equivalent) at f2

I apologise for the poor composition (cut the top of the crown off) but the DOF isn't too bad.

Good use of the situation but the OP claimed that photographers of every level would be using these cameras. You won't be able to do the kind of photos expected of wedding and portrait photographers with these cameras unless you can isolate the subjects so far from the background that it may be impractical. It's not that it can't be done but it's the practicality of doing so. That is why a m4/3 camera just cannot do all jobs.

 

[goldenlight]

Good use of the situation but the OP claimed that photographers of every level would be using these cameras. You won't be able to do the kind of photos expected of wedding and portrait photographers with these cameras unless you can isolate the subjects so far from the background that it may be impractical. It's not that it can't be done but it's the practicality of doing so. That is why a m4/3 camera just cannot do all jobs.

No, no, no, the OP didn't say that at all. This is what he said:-

The fastest AF of any interchangeable lens camera system. ISO 12,800.

Is this finally the end of crop sensor dslrs as we know it. Previously the main issue was slow AF. If they have nailed this, then it's game over as far as I can see.

Discuss.

Nowhere did he say "photographers of all levels." Neither did he suggest it was the end of Full Frame DSLRs, which so far seems to be the thrust of the counter arguement here.

But let's clear up this DOF issue once and for all. There is roughly a 2 stop differential in DOF characteristics between Full Frame and 4/3 so f2 on 4/3 becomes the equivalent of f4 on Full Frame. Although faster primes are available many pros shoot weddings with "fast" f2.8 zooms, so the DOF advantage for Full Frame is one aperture stop - significant but not decisive. In fact, to follow your arguement through, the Olympus fast zooms actually give 4/3 a slight DOF advantage over 1.6x and 1.5x cropped sensors.

What also puzzles me is if DOF is such an important characteristic, then why don't more landscapers shoot 4/3? It's a double-edged sword you know!

I also note that, despite some mighty fine exif data, I'm the only one so far to actually back up my words with a picture.

The other statement made by the OP that has been wilfully misinterpreted is :-

the end of crop sensor DSLRs as we know it

He qualified "the end of the crop sensor DSLR," with "as we know it."

I rather think the crop sensor DSLR will continue to thrive (in all formats including 4/3) and evolve. It's just that at some point in the future they will be mirrorless and the focusing improvements achieved with the E-P3 has moved that day somewhat closer.

That's not to say Full Frame will become mirrorless at the same time, or even at all. There may very well always be a need for OVFs in Full Frame, but this is rather a niche market compared to the interchangeable lens camera market as a whole.

 

[menthel]

I love when people get determined to fight against change.

This technology will remain compact but will very quickly become the standard choice for every level of photographer. It's an inevitability.

I thank you. Case closed.

 

[goldenlight]

I thank you. Case closed.

Yes, I failed to notice that the OP had substantially changed his position from the first post with that rather rash statement. We agree on that, so case closed it is then - which I take to mean you agree with all my other points.

 

[mid_gen]

Micro 4/3s is not going to take over the world.

Mirrors are likely to disappear eventually.

That's not to say that there won't be FF mirrorless systems around (well, there is already, the M9)

 

[menthel]

Yes, I failed to notice that the OP had substantially changed his position from the first post with that rather rash statement. We agree on that, so case closed it is then - which I take to mean you agree with all my other points.

Nope, not necessarily!

 

[dd1989]

F/6.3 on APS-H is equivalent in terms of DoF to f/8.2 on full frame. F/2 on 4/3rds is equivalent to f/4.

Don't over-egg it It's still 4/3rds, and while that's getting better all the time, it's never going to be as good as 1.5 or 1.6x crop format because it only has around 60% of their image area, and only 25% of full frame.

As to why pros aren't shooting Olympus, apart from the above, why should they? Frankly, they'd be mad - zero benefit. The cameras can't cut it, the lens range can't match Canikon, they already have huge investment in those systems, and Olympus' commitment to the DSLR market is seriously under question.

The lens range can match any system. It might not have 100000 lenses but the system covers 7mm to 300mm with fixed aperture lenses. You see pro L lenses with f4 apertures. You just don't get lenses that slow in the pro Zuiko line up. In every single measurable test these lenses perform outstandingly. That's not a sweeping statement but a fact seen through years of lenses being put through their paces by various well regarded sources. The 14-35 f2 is thought to be the best zoom lens ever made.

 

[Greytop]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, I never struggled to get the DOF that I want with 4/3rds and I can say from experience that there really is very little if any difference using a x1.5 crop body either (I've used both extensively).
It's Just a case of knowing how to use your tool correctly at the end of the day
Some examples for what it's worth, I could search out many more but.....

 

[Almost_Invisible]

Micro 4/3s is not going to take over the world.

Mirrors are likely to disappear eventually.

That's not to say that there won't be FF mirrorless systems around (well, there is already, the M9)

Indeedy.
Mirrorless does not have to mean a 4/3 sensor.
The EVF does not have to be a screen on the rear of the camera. I am sure fitting a small high quality screen behind an eye cup will be possible.
If only someone would make one with a large sensor and a modular system for the lens mount so you could bolt on whatever lenses you own which would also not restrict you to one type of lens mount in the future.

 

[Almost_Invisible]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, I never struggled to get the DOF that I want with 4/3rds and I can say from experience that there really is very little if any difference using a x1.5 crop body either (I've used both extensively).

True the difference between 4/3 and the crops is not that great. It is great between FF and 4/3 though and most wedding togs I see use FF for that and the high ISO abilities.
Menthel's point regarding the close background is where you see the biggest difference. I can easily get shallow DOF with 4/3 if in control of positioning the subject, but if the background is real close and I am not close to the subject I wouldn't stand a chance.

Hope people don't think I am knocking 4/3 in this thread (it could have that appearance!), I am not. I am on my third 4/3 camera and my E5 has many attributes that I consider superior to other makes. I do very little low light or extreme shallow DOF stuff and like goldenlight often welcome the increased DOF. So choosing 4/3 was a wise choice for me - well more down to dumb luck really

 

[Greytop]

I still think it's a storm in tea cup to be honest, work with and know your gear and you may be surprised at what is possible

 

[HoppyUK]

The lens range can match any system. It might not have 100000 lenses but the system covers 7mm to 300mm with fixed aperture lenses. You see pro L lenses with f4 apertures. You just don't get lenses that slow in the pro Zuiko line up. In every single measurable test these lenses perform outstandingly. That's not a sweeping statement but a fact seen through years of lenses being put through their paces by various well regarded sources. The 14-35 f2 is thought to be the best zoom lens ever made.

Assuming then that Olympus could magically quadruple their lens range overnight to compare with Canikon, can you give one reason why anyone should buy an Olympus DSLR?

 

[Gazza_DJ]

Good to see the F.U.D from people who have never even picked up anything other than their chosen system when commenting on other systems is still ripe here.

 

[DemiLion]

You certainly talk a great exif, but lets not forget according to it your image was taken a 0.8m (30 inches away from the subject!)

Also to claim that you get much more dof on that model of camera at f6.3 than the OP has at f2 shows that you know little of dof scales or dof for that matter.

So keeping everything as equal as possible and using a 5D full frame and equivalent focal lengths.And f5.6 FF against f2 FT

Canon 5D (50mm) at 3 ft distance at f5.6,dof is 2ft.10in to 3ft.2.2 in

Pen EP2 (25mm) at 3ft distance at f2, dof is 2ft.10.5in to 3ft.1.6in

Wow all of a quarter of a inch difference.

A phrase another poster used in this thread comes to mind "over egging it"

I usually just keep away from these mine is bigger than yours threads but thought this needed correcting.

Thanks for the education, but you seem to have rather missed my point by a country mile.

The discussion about the cameras had turned to depth of field and Goldenlight was (as I read it) using that image to display the capabilities of a 4/3 sensor.

My point was that whilst his Oly produced a good image, an APS-C/H/FF can reduce the field further if desired, but that's the point that a 4/3rds begins to bottom out.

I'm well aware that there is quite a bit of difference in the depth of field delivered by the smaller sensors in comparison with the larger ones and that is the whole point; something that a few people on here fail to grasp.

The quarter of an inch is neither here nor there, it's the ability to drastically narrow the field from that point.

Your comment about range to subject is a touch spurious as the Oly image has no focal distance data, and you can't see my comparison; but given the similarity in composition I'd say that they were roughly the same.


I'm not trying to pull an Nigel Tuffnel in the slightest, I just find the evangelism of Oly 4/3 supporters rather perplexing, verging on the point of trolling at times.

Is the Oly a good camera? Probably.
Is this new one a quantum leap forward for compact AF? Yes it certainly seems so.
Can a CSC outperform a DSlr for sport? Nope. Not with that sized sensor or current AF system.

Does a Canon/Nikon produce better portraits than a Hasselblad? Errrrmmm - no.

I've got no issues with CSCs, in fact I rather like the idea of a Sony NEX as a portable solution because it produces better images than my current G9. I just fail to understand why Olympus (and it seems to only be Olympus) supporters have to keep insisting that the DSlr format is dead. It does rather show a somewhat narrow view of photography.

Or perhaps there's another reason, such as a Olympus supporters forum out there somewhere that enjoys stirring and causing trouble?

 

[squishy]

You see pro L lenses with f4 apertures. You just don't get lenses that slow in the pro Zuiko line up.

f/4 on full frame is to all intents and purposes the same as f/2 on 2x crop.

 

[Greytop]

f/4 on full frame is to all intents and purposes the same as f/2 on 2x crop.

Depth of field yes, light gathering no, so to say 'to all intents and purposes' is stretching it just a bit
Also factor in Zuikos tend to be sharp wide open.

 

[Almost_Invisible]

Assuming then that Olympus could magically quadruple their lens range overnight to compare with Canikon, can you give one reason why anyone should buy an Olympus DSLR?

I think the point being made was they don't need to quarduple their lens range in terms of numbers as they cover the focal length range pretty well in terms of zooms; primes is a different matter. They don't have total numbers because they don't do the poor lenses

 

[squishy]

Depth of field yes, light gathering no, so to say 'to all intents and purposes' is stretching it just a bit
Also factor in Zuikos tend to be sharp wide open.

Except full frame large pixels make up the light gathering difference, so yes to all intents and purposes.

 

[HoppyUK]

Depth of field yes, light gathering no, so to say 'to all intents and purposes' is stretching it just a bit
Also factor in Zuikos tend to be sharp wide open.

That's not quite the full story. There is a large degree of equivalence, for example, between a 25mm f/2 lens on 4/3rds and a 50mm f/4 lens on full frame.

Same field of view, same depth of field, and also the same size aperture - they both have an aperture 12.5mm diameter - the f/number is a ratio, not an absolute measure. So the light gathering is actually the same, but with full frame the image is optically 'spread' over 4x the area.

You could cut that another way, and say that ISO100 on 4/3rds is equivalent to ISO400 on full frame, and to a large extent that theory holds true in practice. But comparisons become difficult when you start looking at really quite different sensors and manufacturers' processing engines.

There's another factor that makes life harder for smaller formats in terms of light gathering, and that's the gaps between the pixels. There is no such thing as truly gapless pixels and the smaller the sensor becomes, a larger proportion of the total potential light gathering area is taken up by these gaps.

And sharp though Olympus lenses undoubedly are, remember that they have to work four times as hard to deliver the same level of resolution in final output compared to full frame (and roughly twice as hard compared to Canikon crop). Basic MTF theory is that contrast falls as resolution increases, so they're on a double uphill struggle.

TBH I don't see the point of arguing the image quality thing with 4/3rds, because they're never going to win it, not from any apsect. Bigger has always been better for IQ and so far technology has not managed to reverse the laws of physics. Smaller formats have other upsides, and the main one is that they need much smaller lenses (shorter focal length) for the same framing. Big benefits for size and weight, which is of course what we're seeing with the compact system cameras, especially when you get rid of the mirror/viewfinder too.