Olympus PEN EP-3

[goldenlight]

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?

Mark, I don't know where you get the evangelist thing from, you do a pretty good job of talking up Full Frame and respect to you for that. One thing that does irritate Oly users is that as soon as the brand takes a step forward some Canikon users seem to want to immediately rubbish it with endless comparisons to Full Frame and frighteningly incorrect statements about DOF. As for "stirring up trouble," no, it's just putting the record straight. Discussions and opinions are a two way thing, or aren't Olympus users entitled to an opinion?

I never claim that Olympus cameras are better than any other brand, although I will say they are better for me, personally. That's why I use them. Choice of brand is very subjective.

One thing that is beyond doubt is the quality of the Zuiko lenses and their fast apertures, which go some way to closing the IQ gap between 4/3 and APS-C and negating the DOF advantage of Full Frame.

Yes I do frequent an Olympus forum, far more than I do here, and yesterday a newbie was asking for advice on buying an entry level DSLR. He was attracted by the E-620 but was concerned about the future, having found it has been discontinued. For various reasons he did not want to go down the MFT route. Now I'm not the best person to give advice about other brands but I suggested, with regard to his budget and concerns, that he might want to look at something like the Nikon D5100, even thoughthe E-620 twin lens package gives substantially more bang for the buck. Is that being evangelistic?

 

[goldenlight]

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?

Yes, assuming it's the E-5:-

The lens range

Preferable (to me) aspect ratio

In body IS

The most effecient dust removal system

Fully articulated screen

Weatherproof body and lenses (can take the ocassional dip in the North Sea)

Build quality

Handling

Menus, including the very user friendly super control panel

Best JPEGs in the industry

Image Quality (up to ISO 1600) now on a par with the best APS-C models

Ability to use a wide range of legacy lenses via adaptors

Increased DOF for landscapes

Is that enough to be getting on with?

 

[Almost_Invisible]

Bigger has always been better for IQ and so far technology has not managed to reverse the laws of physics.

That's the crux of it. As that Scotty chap said "ye canna change the laws of physics". So any improvement in one format will undoubtedly improve the other making small sensors always being behind same generation large sensors.

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes, assuming it's the E-5:-

<snip>

Is that enough to be getting on with?

Well, unsurprisingly, no. Let me rephrase the equestion.

Name one significant and exclusive benefit that might make a sane person choose an E-5 over anything else?

 

[odd jim]

Why do we always have to end up in these urinating competitions? lol!

 

[HoppyUK]

Why do we always have to end up in these urinating competitions? lol!

There's no competition Jim - it's a foregone conclusion

 

[odd jim]

Lol very true!!

 

[AJQS]

Well, unsurprisingly, no. Let me rephrase the equestion.

Name one significant and exclusive benefit that might make a sane person choose an E-5 over anything else?

E5 Resolution and detail, simple.

 

[Almost_Invisible]

Well, unsurprisingly, no. Let me rephrase the equestion.

Name one significant and exclusive benefit that might make a sane person choose an E-5 over anything else?

You calling me mad??

It depends on your requirements for a camera.
I once had someone with a xxxD with a kit lens insist that their camera was better than my E-3 with the 12-60SWD simply because his had Canon written on it. Leaving aside the mag alloy body and weather sealing as not many want that (although the number of weatherproof housing requests I see many really do); my setup focused faster than his; had sharper images; had better colours.
Oh and no dust on the sensor

The E5 is better than a lot of the cameras out there. There are better cameras than the E5 out there. Just because it doesn't say Canon or Nikon on it does not make it bad or the people that choose it insane.

 

[DemiLion]

Mark, I don't know where you get the evangelist thing from, you do a pretty good job of talking up Full Frame and respect to you for that. One thing that does irritate Oly users is that as soon as the brand takes a step forward some Canikon users seem to want to immediately rubbish it with endless comparisons to Full Frame and frighteningly incorrect statements about DOF. As for "stirring up trouble," no, it's just putting the record straight. Discussions and opinions are a two way thing, or aren't Olympus users entitled to an opinion?

I never claim that Olympus cameras are better than any other brand, although I will say they are better for me, personally. That's why I use them. Choice of brand is very subjective.

One thing that is beyond doubt is the quality of the Zuiko lenses and their fast apertures, which go some way to closing the IQ gap between 4/3 and APS-C and negating the DOF advantage of Full Frame.

Yes I do frequent an Olympus forum, far more than I do here, and yesterday a newbie was asking for advice on buying an entry level DSLR. He was attracted by the E-620 but was concerned about the future, having found it has been discontinued. For various reasons he did not want to go down the MFT route. Now I'm not the best person to give advice about other brands but I suggested, with regard to his budget and concerns, that he might want to look at something like the Nikon D5100, even thoughthe E-620 twin lens package gives substantially more bang for the buck. Is that being evangelistic?

John, I'm not talking about you, but you have to admit that there has been (admittedly in the past) quite a bit of Hit and Run posting from another place, primarily rubbishing TP as a mainstay of anti Olympus.

I'm not in the business of promoting one brand, format or manufacturer over another because I think that it's largely pointless- you use what you need and, equally as important, like to get the job done.

Full Frame has its benefits (I don't have one.....yet ), but so does the compactness of a CSC; after all there's no point is seeing a shot if your camera has been too big to lump about that day!

Let's face it when everything is boiled down cameras are just tools that are used to produce an end result, and it's that final product that I'm interested in!

 

[OlyPaul]

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

:

Not at all, is full frame capable of a narrower DOF, hell yes. Would I recomend Oly to anyone starting into a true DSLR system..hell no, not any more.

But I was answering this statement and this statement alone by you
.

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.

In fact I visited your site (something I like to do to see if the pictures match up to the talk) and there is great example of a portrait there similar to Johns in composition and taken at the same focal length wide open at f4 on a 7D, except that there is more dof than Johns.

So just how you can make the above statement is beyond me unless you yourself are what you accuse me of being..a evangalist distorting the facts to score points.

 

[Gazza_DJ]

It depends on your requirements for a camera.
I once had someone with a xxxD with a kit lens insist that their camera was better than my E-3 with the 12-60SWD simply because his had Canon written on it. Leaving aside the mag alloy body and weather sealing as not many want that (although the number of weatherproof housing requests I see many really do); my setup focused faster than his; had sharper images; had better colours.
Oh and no dust on the sensor

I have had people ask if my E3 is a Nikon (usually D300) on more than one occasion, always makes me chuckle

 

[DemiLion]

In fact I visited your site (something I like to do to see if the pictures match up to the talk) and there is great example of a portrait there similar to Johns in composition and taken at the same focal length wide open at f4 on a 7D, except that there is more dof than Johns, why not post that one as a example?

So just how you can make the above statement is beyond me unless you yourself are what you accuse me of being..a evangalist distorting the facts to score points.

The portrait (assuming it's the one that I think it is) isn't similar in the slightest.
It's taken from further away, with a different composition, ie head & shoulders as opposed to a straightforward head shot, and little or no background for comparison apart from a brick wall. It would be utterly pointless posting it, because it's not a direct comparison.

 

[Greytop]

Well, unsurprisingly, no. Let me rephrase the equestion.

Name one significant and exclusive benefit that might make a sane person choose an E-5 over anything else?

The E-5, 12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD package.
No other manufacturer has quite this combination of relatively light, robust, weather and dust proof, high quality optics and image resolving power package covering 12 to 200mm (24 to 400 in old 35mm film terms).
As close to the optimum system for me as I can get at the moment

 

[squishy]

The E-5, 12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD package.
No other manufacturer has quite this combination of relatively light, robust, weather and dust proof, high quality optics and image resolving power package covering 12 to 200mm (24 to 400 in old 35mm film terms).
As close to the optimum system for me as I can get at the moment

That is a drool worthy set-up.

If I had the cash I would very seriously consider having an olympus system as well as my canon, for an extremely high quality (image and build) yet compact set-up.

To me, the E-5 + 12-60 is the ideal go anywhere walk about set up.

 

[OlyPaul]

The portrait (assuming it's the one that I think it is) isn't similar in the slightest.
It's taken from further away, with a different composition, ie head & shoulders as opposed to a straightforward head shot, and little or no background for comparison apart from a brick wall. It would be utterly pointless posting it, because it's not a direct comparison.

Maybe but it's still a nice photo all the same.

I guess you are still going to stick to the statement that you get less dof at f6.3 on Canon APS-H sensor than you do at f2 on a fourthirds sensor.

I guess that says it all and I will leave it there for others to read into it what they will.

 

[Greytop]

To me, the E-5 + 12-60 is the ideal go anywhere walk about set up.

Couldn't agree more Adam

 

[DemiLion]

Maybe but it's still a nice photo all the same.

I guess you are still going to stick to the statement that you get less dof at f6.3 on Canon APS-H sensor than you do at f2 on a fourthirds sensor.

I guess that says it all and I will leave it there for others to read into it what they will.

Yup I do. Others can read into it what they like, but I'm not going to stick an embargoed photograph on the web just to make you feel happy.

 

[dd1989]

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.

Indeed, but along with this comes the realisation that some companies can produce lenses and sensor combinations better than others.

Since you mentioned MTF and wanted to get technical about it all, Lenstip did a huge review on the 35-100mm F2..

'Such graphs you would like to see more often. The results in the 35-65 mm range at maximum relative aperture are excellent. On stopping down the situation becomes even better. Really it would be difficult to find a system standard prime lens which would have noticeable better results than the ZD 35-100 mm by f/2.8-11.'

'On stopping down to f/2.8 the situation improves and the images become simply beyond reproach.'

'We have tested several 70-200 mm f/2.8 class lenses so far. This group includes both older Canons, Nikkors, Sigmas and a new Tamron. Undoubtedly the Olympus 35-100 mm fared the best of all when it comes to resolution. '

'No other 70-200 mm f/2.8 device tested by us could boast such a performance.'


...and so on. Go try one of the top pro lenses with an E-5...which BTW according to DPReview...

'Olympus promised that the E-5 would give excellent resolution, and it does. Considering its relatively modest pixel count,at ISO the E-5 is capable of describing an extraordinary amount of detail, both in JPEG and RAW files. As you can see from these examples, the E-5's RAW files contain some line detail well beyond Nyquist. '

So...an E-5 with the pro Zuiko lens is a match for any dSLR system, including Full Frame systems in the lower ISO range. With a Lightroom catalogue of 10s of thousands of photos, I can see a tiny percentage of my shooting goes above ISO 400, and for that reason the E-5 would easily be recommended for shooters such as my self, where low ISO quality would be paramount. Having a fully weathersealed system that's completely robust and produces excellent images at these lower ISO ranges would be more important to me than a system that happens to be good at ISO 12 million.

 

[goldenlight]

Well, unsurprisingly, no. Let me rephrase the equestion.

Name one significant and exclusive benefit that might make a sane person choose an E-5 over anything else?

Well, I would have thought it obvious that a decision on what system to buy would take into account a whole package of features, balancing out the pluses and minuses, or perhaps you just blindly follow the herd when buying yours, but since you ask, one exclusive benefit is the ability to use Olympus SHG lenses.

Now, can you "name one significant and exclusive benefit" that might make a "sane person" choose your particular camera over anything else?

 

[goldenlight]

The portrait (assuming it's the one that I think it is) isn't similar in the slightest.
It's taken from further away, with a different composition, ie head & shoulders as opposed to a straightforward head shot, and little or no background for comparison apart from a brick wall. It would be utterly pointless posting it, because it's not a direct comparison.

Then how about posting the one that is?

 

[OlyPaul]

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.



.

Well at least one Canon shooter seems to understand the physics of DOF.

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

I had a Oly E510 with kit lenses, 35mm Macro, 12-60mm and 50-200mm SWD lenses as well as a few other bits and bobs, but I sold it all.

What do I shoot now?
Canon 7D

Am I a better photographer than before?
I would say so, but thats as much to do with learning about photography than it is the equipment.

Do I miss my Oly kit?
You bet. The SWD lenses were sublime.

Would I buy Oly again?
No.

"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."

The technology may well be a changing, and why not. However, imo this thread is titled "Olympus PEN EP-3" and the question I have highlighted in bold from the OP. My answer.......No

I simply dont like the PEN series! Not that they arent superb cameras, the results I've seen with them are stonking. However, and this is simply my opinion, I think they're ugly. The ergonomics, for me, made it quite uncomfortable to hold (Though in fairness I only tried one in Jessops) and I couldnt help but think it would feel a tad unbalanced with a long prime lens on the front.

All the time I was considering swapping from Oly to either Canon or Nikon (had it narrowed down to 2 bodies which were similar spec etc one thing everyone kept saying was, "get down to a shop and hold them, see which one 'feels' better) Well the Oly to me 'feels' bloody awful!

Now, take the tech, add a good EVF and bung it in a body with a bit more meat to balance things out and you may have something. I wont hold my breath though, all I wanted from Olympus last year was something, anything saying that they were going to be launching a 'pro-sumer' DSLR to replace the E-30 or even E-620 as I was looking to upgrade and got nothing. Well apart from the E-5, which again is a sensational camera but £1500 was simply out of my price range and would remain so.

For me, as it stands the PEN is not a DSLR beater.

Regards

Neil

 

[goldenlight]

I had a Oly E510 with kit lenses, 35mm Macro, 12-60mm and 50-200mm SWD lenses as well as a few other bits and bobs, but I sold it all.

What do I shoot now?
Canon 7D

Am I a better photographer than before?
I would say so, but thats as much to do with learning about photography than it is the equipment.

Do I miss my Oly kit?
You bet. The SWD lenses were sublime.

Would I buy Oly again?
No.

"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."

The technology may well be a changing, and why not. However, imo this thread is titled "Olympus PEN EP-3" and the question I have highlighted in bold from the OP. My answer.......No

I simply dont like the PEN series! Not that they arent superb cameras, the results I've seen with them are stonking. However, and this is simply my opinion, I think they're ugly. The ergonomics, for me, made it quite uncomfortable to hold (Though in fairness I only tried one in Jessops) and I couldnt help but think it would feel a tad unbalanced with a long prime lens on the front.

All the time I was considering swapping from Oly to either Canon or Nikon (had it narrowed down to 2 bodies which were similar spec etc one thing everyone kept saying was, "get down to a shop and hold them, see which one 'feels' better) Well the Oly to me 'feels' bloody awful!

Now, take the tech, add a good EVF and bung it in a body with a bit more meat to balance things out and you may have something. I wont hold my breath though, all I wanted from Olympus last year was something, anything saying that they were going to be launching a 'pro-sumer' DSLR to replace the E-30 or even E-620 as I was looking to upgrade and got nothing. Well apart from the E-5, which again is a sensational camera but £1500 was simply out of my price range and would remain so.

For me, as it stands the PEN is not a DSLR beater.

Regards

Neil

Hi Neil, glad to hear you're getting on well with the 7D, it's not a bad piece of kit, is it?

Nicely summed up, it's always good to get a balanced view from an ex Oly user.

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

John

Its not bad, to be honest its horses for courses!!

I still get tempted to drift back.....just keeping a eye on the used Oly kit market!!

Neil

 

[dd1989]

John

Its not bad, to be honest its horses for courses!!

I still get tempted to drift back.....just keeping a eye on the used Oly kit market!!

Neil

I'd definitely take an E-3 if I could get one at a good price!

 

[Gazza_DJ]

I'd definitely take an E-3 if I could get one at a good price!

You can get a used one for ~ £500 - I got lucky and got mine for £500 new

 

[HoppyUK]

Well at least one Canon shooter seems to understand the physics of DOF.

Thank you. Sadly, some of the pro-Olympus posters don't have a good grasp of physics at all and are making silly and impossible claims, that don't stand up either in theory or practise.

A few quotes were picked out of DPReview earlier, but they should read to the end. This is a quote from their conclusion.

Judged purely on its own merits the E-5 is a good and capable camera in most situations. But is it good enough to warrant swapping systems from Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony to Olympus? Or good enough that an uncommitted photographer wanting to get into DSLR photography for the first time might choose the E-5 over competitive offerings? Sadly, our answer to both questions has to be 'no'.

The full review is here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/page14.asp

 

[Greytop]

Reviews are all well and good but what really matters when all is said and done is the quality of images that the individual can product with the tool. That is where the E-5 definitely excels.
Having said that I will admit that my backup body E-510 is more than capable and some days I just like to take that out instead of the my E-PL2 or E-5.

Sadly it seems that some areas of this forum it's more important to score points than enjoy photography, hey ho, a sad reflection on human nature I suppose

 

[HoppyUK]

Reviews are all well and good but what really matters when all is said and done is the quality of images that the individual can product with the tool. That is where the E-5 definitely excels.
Having said that I will admit that my backup body E-510 is more than capable and some days I just like to take that out instead of the my E-PL2 or E-5.

Sadly it seems that some areas of this forum it's more important to score points than enjoy photography, hey ho, a sad reflection on human nature I suppose

Well, I'm not trying to score points. Maybe others are, but I do think it's important to make expensive decisions on the basis of fact. Judging by some of the claims being made here, it seems that Olympus users do not understand the limitions of having a small sensor and have, frankly, been mislead.

Olympus make good cameras, they always have, and good lenses too. But at the end of the day they're putting an image on to a sensor that is one quarter the size of full frame, and two thirds the size of Canikon croppers. If basic image quality is a priority, then that's always going to make them second best.

 

[dd1989]

Thank you. Sadly, some of the pro-Olympus posters don't have a good grasp of physics at all and are making silly and impossible claims, that don't stand up either in theory or practise.

A few quotes were picked out of DPReview earlier, but they should read to the end. This is a quote from their conclusion.

Judged purely on its own merits the E-5 is a good and capable camera in most situations. But is it good enough to warrant swapping systems from Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony to Olympus? Or good enough that an uncommitted photographer wanting to get into DSLR photography for the first time might choose the E-5 over competitive offerings? Sadly, our answer to both questions has to be 'no'.

The full review is here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/page14.asp

That's the case for ANY dSLR system though. If you have a system with a load of nice lenses, would any camera ever justify a swap. If you had a D3 with some of the pro glass costing thousands, is there any justifiable reason to sell not only a body but also lots of lenses to jump to another system...I'd say not, the lenses are more important than a new body.

 

[Greytop]

Well, I'm not trying to score points. Maybe others are, but I do think it's important to make expensive decisions on the basis of fact. Judging by some of the claims being made here, it seems that Olympus users do not understand the limitions of having a small sensor and have, frankly, been mislead.

Olympus make good cameras, they always have, and good lenses too. But at the end of the day they're putting an image on to a sensor that is one quarter the size of full frame, and two thirds the size of Canikon croppers. If basic image quality is a priority, then that's always going to make them second best.

Well that's OK then, I'm glad your not keeping a tally

Seriously though I am beginning to see the error of my ways with Olympus and it's inferior capabilities. How misguided I've been, even worse that I left Olympus for Pentax and then returned, I must have been mad :bang:
I must purge myself and visit the high alter of the 'fullest of frames' and convert at some point in the future

 

[HoppyUK]

That's the case for ANY dSLR system though. If you have a system with a load of nice lenses, would any camera ever justify a swap. If you had a D3 with some of the pro glass costing thousands, is there any justifiable reason to sell not only a body but also lots of lenses to jump to another system...I'd say not, the lenses are more important than a new body.

Read the full quote, re 'uncommitted photographers'.

 

[goldenlight]

Originally Posted by HoppyUK
Well, unsurprisingly, no. Let me rephrase the equestion.

Name one significant and exclusive benefit that might make a sane person choose an E-5 over anything else?

Well, I would have thought it obvious that a decision on what system to buy would take into account a whole package of features, balancing out the pluses and minuses, or perhaps you just blindly follow the herd when buying yours, but since you ask, one exclusive benefit is the ability to use Olympus SHG lenses.

Now, can you "name one significant and exclusive benefit" that might make a "sane person" choose your particular camera over anything else?

Hoppy, I'm still waiting!

 

[goldenlight]

Thank you. Sadly, some of the pro-Olympus posters don't have a good grasp of physics at all and are making silly and impossible claims, that don't stand up either in theory or practise.

A few quotes were picked out of DPReview earlier, but they should read to the end. This is a quote from their conclusion.

Judged purely on its own merits the E-5 is a good and capable camera in most situations. But is it good enough to warrant swapping systems from Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony to Olympus? Or good enough that an uncommitted photographer wanting to get into DSLR photography for the first time might choose the E-5 over competitive offerings? Sadly, our answer to both questions has to be 'no'.

The full review is here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/page14.asp

That's cool, I read the review when it first came out and I do have respect for dpreview. But I still want an E-5, eventually to replace my E-3, based on the list you previously asked me for. That's allowed, isn't it?

I don't mind you having Canon, good luck to you I say, if that's what you want, they make some very nice cameras. I'm not trying to rubbish your system, but you seem intent on trying to rubbish mine. :shrug:

 

[Smeghead]

The E-P3 is pretty much everything I would ever want in m4/3 camera (only thing it's missing is a built-in viewfinder of some sort). But £700 for the body only? I could get a second hand 60D body for that.

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoppy, I'm still waiting!

Highest possible image quality available this side of medium format.

That's cool, I read the review when it first came out and I do have respect for dpreview. But I still want an E-5, eventually to replace my E-3, based on the list you previously asked me for. That's allowed, isn't it?

I don't mind you having Canon, good luck to you I say, if that's what you want, they make some very nice cameras. I'm not trying to rubbish your system, but you seem intent on trying to rubbish mine. :shrug:

I can see why you might think that, but I'm not trying to rubbish anything. I trying to explain why, if image quality is a priority, that 4/3rds format is never going to be as good as larger format systems. I have no axe to grind, but I think it's important to understand why.

That doesn't make Olympus cameras bad, it just makes other cameras with bigger sensors inherantly better. If you take that as a starting point, then the Olympus E-5 would have to have some remarkable alternative benefits. But actually, it has none. It's not smaller or lighter, not faster, or cheaper, doesn't have anything like the lens range. Zero upsides over Canikon.

The small format has other potential virtues, useful ones too, but those are realised in Olympus' Micro Four Thirds cameras - which are a compleletly different and very appealing proposition - but not in their DSLRs.

 

[goldenlight]

Olympus make good cameras, they always have, and good lenses too. But at the end of the day they're putting an image on to a sensor that is one quarter the size of full frame, and two thirds the size of Canikon croppers. If basic image quality is a priority, then that's always going to make them second best.

Richard, can I ask what format you used in film days? I find that many photographers who dismiss 4/3 and consider "Full Frame" to be a neccessity were happy with 35mm and that strikes me as rather odd. The E-3, not to mention the E-5, easily surpasses 35mm film in quality and Full Frame easily matches or surpasses medium format film. Now I'm quite happy with the results I get from the E-3 but I was not entirely happy with 35mm film, which is why I switched to medium format.

I did not fully trust digital to start with but decided to give up film when I realized that I could not distinguish the E-3 and the Bronica in a 16x12 print. Maybe I would if I printed bigger, but I don't. I assume you regularly produce much bigger prints in which case, of course, you need the appropriate tool for the job.

If you follow the arguement about needing the largest format available to get the best image quality to its ultimate conclusion then we'd all be lugging around 10x8 cameras with digital backs. The truth is we all need different levels of quality as well as different features and I accept that your needs are evidently greater than mine, which is why I'm guessing you used medium or large format film. But if you tried an E-5 I think you'd find the IQ difference, whilst still there, is appreciably less than you believe.

 

[goldenlight]

Highest possible image quality available this side of medium format.

And that's unique to your particular camera? Don't Nikon or Sony offer similar image quality? ("Unique" was your word.)

 

[goldenlight]

The E-P3 is pretty much everything I would ever want in m4/3 camera (only thing it's missing is a built-in viewfinder of some sort). But £700 for the body only? I could get a second hand 60D body for that.

Yes, I agree about the price! I tend to work one or two generations behind in my cameras, that way I eventually get them at a more realistic price.