OLYMPUS ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150mm F2.0

I was awestruck by the comments Mr. Atkins had regarding the Olympus E-1 and its lenses. This type of article misleads the photographic community about the 4/3 concept and its matching Olympus offering. The E-1 is a new system! It is not comparable with DSLR equipment based on the 35mm format. Mr. Atkins incorrectly states that Olympus uses a 2x multiplier to "compare" their lenses to 35mm lenses when in fact they are using this as a TRANSLATION (note: field of view should be used as the standard in digital photography to eliminate this confusion). Multipliers are only required when 35mm lenses are attached to cameras utilizing APS sized sensors.

For example, consumer based digital cameras do not have a crop factor or multiplier. Why is that? It is generally accepted throughout the photographic community that this equipment is "different" from DSLRs while DSLRs themselves must remain somehow tied to the 35mm format. This situation has been ingrained in the minds of photographers because most manufacturers are attempting to retain customers through backwards compatibility. Olympus has broken this mold with the 4/3 format (and I will not take this opportunity to explain its benefits in order to stay on topic). To reiterate, no reviewer has ever stated that if you "shot" with a 1Ds and cropped the image by a factor of four, you also get a "4x multiplier" effect, although less pixels than the Sony F828. The Olympus E-1 and its lenses should be measured on its merits alone and not twisted into some sort of 35mm comparison.

To add insult to injury, Mr. Atkins compares the cost of the Olympus 300/2.8 to the Nikon 300/2.8. The FOV is entirely different and thus the final resulting photograph will be different as well. To use the Sony F828 as an example again, shall we compare its 7.1-51mm built in lens to the Nikon 35mm equivalent? Of course not. Let's please stop comparing DSLRs to 35mm equipment. Lenses remain the only tie DSLRs have to the 35mm format and those lenses are being underutilized due to the crop factor required to make digital photography with DSLRs affordable. The Four Thirds format changes the rules and don't you forget it.

Yes, I am also curious why lenses of different field of views are being compared ... from the little blurb given, the comparison (if from the final picture point of view) should be

Nikon 300mm f2.8 (on 35mm body )vs. Zuiko 150 f2.0

or

Nikon 180mm f2.0 (on a nikon digital) vs. Zuiko 150 f2.0

and

Canon 400mm f2.8 (on a 10D) vs. Zuiko 300mm f2.0

or

Canon 600mm f4 (on a 1Ds) vs. Zuiko 300mm f2.0

once you do those comparisons, the prices war becomes a little different ...

I'm afraid Mr/Ms Filipas is sadly misguided. It would take too long to refute all the arguments he/she makes and point out all the errors in his/her analysis, but I'll try to address a few of them.

The E-1 is just like the 10D or the D100. It's an SLR with a sensor which is smaller than 35mm full frame. The E-1 has a "2x multiplier/crop factor", the 10D has a "1.6x multiplier/crop factor" and the D100 has a "1.5x multiplier/crop factor".

The reason you don't see "multiplier/crop factors" applied to digicams is that they already apply it before they tell you what lens is on the camera. For example, new Nikon Coolpix 5400 is advertised and sold to the public as having a "28-116 mm 35mm equivalent" lens. In fact it has a 5.8mm to 24mm zoom lens and so they are taking the 4.83x multiplier/crop factor into account when describing it.

Olympus recognize the multiplier/crop factor concept in describing their lens as (and these are their words, not mine) "...The new Zuiko Digital 150mm F2.0 (equivalent to 300mm on a 35mm film camera)..., obviously refering to the 2x multiplier/crop factor compared to 35mm. They then go on to comment on the ... previously introduced Zuiko Digital 300mm (600mm) F2.8..., again making reference to the 2x multipler/crop factor.

...Mr. Atkins compares the cost of the Olympus 300/2.8 to the Nikon 300/2.8... yes, indeed I do. A 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8. It's not an "equivalent" 300mm f2.8 lens, it's an actual 300mm f2.8 lens. Same focal length, same relative aperture, same physical aperture (107mm front element) The Olympus lens has to cover a much smaller image circle - 1.4x smaller in fact and so you might think it would also be cheaper, but you'd be wrong since it costs $3000 more than the Nikon! Perhaps this is because it's a better lens, or a more complex design or perhaps because of the economy of scale (Nikon sell more 300/2.8 lenses than Olympus). Who knows for sure.

If you think you're actually getting a 300/2 "equivalent" lens when you buy a 150mm f2, then just make the sensor 1/2 the size again (or crop the image), and you'll get an astounding 600mm f2! Now that's a real bargin! The change in the field of view comes from the size of the sensor. You can do the same thing with film by cropping the image.

I'm not knocking the E-1. It's certainly a very high quality camera with an innovative design and complete a series of very high quality lenses. By all accounts it's an excellent performer. It's just important to get the facts straight, something many people seem to find quite difficult when it comes to digital cameras.

Brace yourselves for an onslaught of defensive, indignant, self-righteous tirades from owners and supporters of the Olympus E-1 -- and the 4/3 format in general -- in response to any kind of comparison/contrast between these new systems and the 35mm-based dSLR product space.

M Filipas' comments are quite representative of the kind of vitriol I anticipate. It's reminiscent of the Mac vs PC rants which seem to have (thankfully) finally settled down. I didn't detect an iota of bias in Bob Atkin's preview, and yet, M Filipas was "awestruck" by Mr. Atkins audacity in "misleading the photographic community."

Some folks just can't seem to grasp that "different" doesn't in and of itself equate to worse (or better), nor that a fundamental practice in describing new, unknown things is to compare and contrast them to established, known things.

It is not my intention to be defensive, indignant or self-righteous as Mr. Austin stated (I would imagine the comment was rather insulting to many E-1 supporters). It is my intention to however point out that Mr. Atkins comments don't appear to do the Four Thirds system justice. By comparing a crop taken from a 1Ds to the E-1 doesn't really compare or contrast equivalent DSLR products spaces. Nor does comparing the Nikon 300/2.8 to the Olympus 300/2.8. Attaching these lenses to their corresponding systems do not produce equivalent results (assuming a D100/E-1 comparison).

I thought this point of view should be expressed. We could always end here and agree to disagree...I think I'll take that stance.

It seems to me Mr/Ms. Filipas' problem with Bob's statement is not "that Mr. Atkins comments don't appear to do the Four Thirds system justice," but rather that they don't parrot the 'revolution'-oriented marketing language Olympus is putting out.

They've got a really neat system. But you know what? Back when 35mm came out, folks had to talk about focal lengths in terms of equivalents to what they were familiar with, just as we are now doing.

Today, for most photographers, 35mm is the frame of reference. That means it's what most of us go back to when making comparisons or trying to understand new things

To be sure, there exists a fixed set of rules governing relationships between focal lenth and aperture and film size. And, in spite of similar angles or fields of view, a 50mm on this Olympus won't render an image identical to that from a 50 on 35mm film (or a 31.25mm on a 1.6x EOS 10D, or a 210mm on 4x5)--but that doesn't mean the comparison isn't worthwhile.

Just because "Olympus has broken the mold" [not exactly the kind of language one associates with nonpartisan analysis] with this new camera doesn't mean it shouldn't be twisted into some sort of 35mm comparison. We're not talking apples and oranges, more like oranges and tangerines. Sheesh.

By the way, that looks like a heck of a lens. LIke a 300/2.8* only smaller and faster. Good on ya, Oly!

*reference to 35mm 'equivalent' focal length for amusement only and should not be construed as comparison.

"the one showing all focused light-rays hitting the sensor in perpendicular"

Really. That's right up there with Foveon claiming they don't require an antialiasing filter and Fuji rotating the matrix 45 degrees and claiming that that increases the resolution. Sigh.

By the way, my personal anti-E-1 rant is that the 1.25x larger crop factor involves smaller pixels and thus higher noise. The Dpreview tests show the 10D being lower noise than the E-1 at twice the ISO for every ISO. That means that a 200/2.8 lens on a 10D is functionally equivalent to the 150/2.0 lens on the E-1 (since you can shoot at a higher ISO). But the 200/2.8 lens weighs about half what the 150/2.0 lens weighs (under 800 grams vs over 1300), and is available for US$400 or so used.

Proof your work: ratio, compare

4/3 is a new format. Fine. DX (Nikon's 1.5x sensor size) is a new format, but it uses an existing system mount. So unlike Olympus which is starting from scratch with zero users and installed base, folks getting into F-mount bodies have a wealth of lenses and system components to use - now. There's no magic that rationalizes why an Olympus 150 f2 lens is expensive, the simple answer is that there is and will be a tiny market for the lenses. The costs have to be rolled into the production even if Olympus minimizes its profits to jump start its new system.

I wish Olympus well on its new system, but any major mount can be adapted to a less-than 24x36 sensor and it will offer most of the purported 4/3 benefits while attracting existing system users and working with existing lenses, flashes, and accessories. The E1 is a nice camera, with a so-so resolution and a very limited, expensive line of lenses and accessories. This is one former OM system owner who isn't buying...

I would like to applaid Olympus for "fresh look". I am also aware of the average resolution, and noise of the capture on the E-1. But like most technolgy, it takes time to iron out the bugs. If you look a few years back how buggy the windows program was and how it is now. That shows how a company is committed to having a good thing. Those who will still compare a system against an antique will probably be left behind for we have to accept new ideas if we as professionals are to survive. Canon abandoned its own successful line of FD lenses to make EOS line back in the 1980's. I think it was a big risk for Canon since Nikons had their line since the 1950s. And it left owners like me to either dump my F-1 system for an EOS 650, or go to Nikon, Minolta, or others. And those EOS lenses were very expensive because of the new in-lens motor, and a new mount that was larger than any 35mm. So I couldn't use any adapters from my F-1 lenses, and I was rather forced to upgrade. But look where Canon is now..On top of the lens-making world, and other manufacturers are copying the in-lens motor design.

So this new 4/3 idea would not get out of my head, for I almost fear I am going to be left behind here. This four-third will crop to almost perfect 16x20 print, even an 8x10. So I know I can frame it in my camera for a magazine without cropping too much off. And I have to admit..having a 300mm eqiv. at f2.0 would be nice to have. I do hope Olympus luck on their system, and I will see if theirs is the next 'betamax'.

As an owner of the E1 I have nothing but praise for the camera. I've owned three Nikon DSLR's including a D1x and none of them have given the consistant overall image quality that the Oly has. Yes it does have a bit more noise at 400 and above but it's not that bad and totally usable at 800. As far as lens prices go well lets take Oly's 300 2.8. At $6499 (B&H) it's a lot more than either Nikon's or Canons 300 2.8 but you will get a 600mm field of view on the E1. To get the same on a Nikon you have to buy a 400 2.8 at $7499 (US Model). I hate to see Olympus charge for the magnification factor but then again you do get 600mm cheaper than you do on a Nikon. Food for thought. -Mike

Bob is right -- on all counts. The multiplier factor is merely to give an idea to the 35mm user of its field of view. Also $7000 for a 300/2.8 ?? Gimme a break ! A 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8. That which we call a 300/2.8 by any other..

Sure Olympus made some fine OM cameras/lenses during its day, and I am a die-hard owner/supporter of the system. But honestly, the E-system sounds like a loser to me despite the aggressive advertising. No 1 is the tiny noisy sensor which immediately cripples its ability for low noise higher resolution designs in the future. Olympus can call it a "PRO" system all they want..truth is its going against the 10D/D100 and now D70. And a $7000 300/2.8 ??? Who is Olympus kidding ?

Comparing Olympus and their E system to Microsoft and windows is invalid. Olympus is hardly the dominant force in their industry, certainly not comparable to Microsoft in the pre-Windows 95 years. Yes, even before Windows 95 came out, Microsoft was already the dominant software company.

Tim you're way off base and should do your homework before making statements. First the sensor is not tiny. It's much larger than a 5mp digicam and not much smaller than other dslr's. Especially when you consider it's not shooting in an elongated 2/3 format. Also it's not noisy at all. Much better than any digicam though not quite as good as the 10d or D100. Most reviews rave about the E1. What is it that sets folks off when discussing this camera? The superb, weather tight build alone is worth the extra $$ over the competition IMO.

It appears Olympus is doing a sensible thing and will pricing the 150 f/2 around the US$800 mark. If true this will be a very good buy. However, the pricing of the 300 f/2.8 is a pathetic joke. Compared to Canon's and Nikon's superb offerings I'm not sure what Olympus are smoking.

One of the problems Olympus has is that they're going up against other manufacturers who offer DSLRs that are higher resolution and lower noise for the same price or less. If these were the only issues, they'd be in some trouble. They also have the same problem in their lens lineup - other companies have competitive lenses that are priced much lower for the same lens.

I think these two problems pale in comparison to the third. Namely, a number of years ago Olympus saw that they could make more money by concentrating on the high profit, low innovation P&S market. They ended the OM series, and until now haven't looked back. A lot of folks still resent that move, and I know I will view ANY 'pro' system pushed by Olympus with suspicion. What happens three years from now, when Olympus sees their 4/3 system cameras making a lot less money than their P&S cameras and decides to pull the plug again?

Tim you're way off base and should do your homework before making statements

Michael,
by 'tiny' I meant compared to the competition, not P&S tiny. Dpreview did a side by side comparison and found the E1 sensor to be noisier than both the d100 and the 10d. From ISO 400 upwards the noise levels start to move into the unacceptable range. This from a $1700 "pro" camera ?

Hello Folks,

I think Bob put it the right way. Olympus has started a quite good system, but public is still fixing all the focal lenghts to "35mm". Even with video equipment, on compares the imaging angle to equivalent lenses of 35mm still photography, which is relatively useless if you ever worked with 35mm film cameras (they use the so called "half format", which has a smaller negative size than 35mm still photography).

To put it my way: Olympus' equipment is not fish nor flesh. It is a good system for amateurs, but as expensive as if only pros shall buy it. And pros normaly have enought good equipment suited for any D-SLR in their system they can afford.

I have quite usable Canon equipment, and I only needed to buy an EOS 300D set to get a usable D-SLR equipment. Olympus' 3/4-system was only interesting to me as long as I did not know the prices they want for it.

And, by the way: Such ordinary 35mm lenses like an EF 75-300mm 1/4-5.6 IS USM are not a bit worse on a D-SLR body than they are on a 35mm body. Viewed that way, I found not a grain of an argument to invest a cent into a different system.

Greetings,

Axel

I would be very interested to see some tests of the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 and 300mm f/2.8 on FTM/optical Bench against the competition, in order to know theirs 'potential'.

It makes sense to believe that those lenses have been designed for the mid/long term needs = for better sensors than the 5MP E1. The logic (New, Optimized for digital), weight/size and price seems to support this (I agree that this could also be completely wrong...).

I consider one scenario: If those Zuiko lenses have 1/3 more resolution than their competitors, it will mean that you will reach the same 'optimum' limit on MegaPixels for Nikon DX sensors and Canon x1.6 sensors (let's say: D2X 8MP <=> 10DMkII 8MP <=> E2 8MP on resolution, and you will not gain a lot with more MP because of performances of current lenses).
Of course the noise will still be better in a larger sensor, but once we will have reached 8MP-6400 ISO with clean images on '4/3' format, going up to 12800 ISO will not be that much of an advantage for most people...

So, until we know more about how those new Zuiko lenses compare optically with their competitors, it is difficult to make valid comparison on price with their 35mm equivalents (300mm f/2.8 or whatever...).

Olivier

The 4/3 concept went to public in early 2001. The idea existed before that much earlier. Back to then DSLR was by far much less sophisticated and much more expensive. The huge gap between a Pro DSLR and a Pro film SLR existed on both price wise and technical aspect. The idea to get a market penetration through the huge gap with a body equipped with a smaller sensor, which is relatively easier and cheaper to make, and a new lens system, which is theoretically cheaper because of its smaller image circle, WAS brilliant!

It still sounds a brilliant idea today. But it appears much less brilliant as it did back then.

Why? Because the gap between a film body and a digital body is narrowed down quickly. Although making a larger sensor is still difficult, it's no longer unsurpassable and has been proved promising and perfectly feasible. As far as the lens with smaller image cycle, anyone can do it. For both Nikon and Canon, with large amount of established users, their introduction price of any new lens including the ones exclusively for Digital format can be much cheaper.

Regarding comparison, IMHO it makes sense to comparing E1's 300/2.8 Vs. Nikon's 300/2.8 Vs. Canon's 300/2.8. Although the E1's 300/2.8 has a 600 mm FOV, don't forget neither Nikon's nor Canon's only give 300mm FOV if you use them on a body with a crop factor.

In a matter of fact, a larger digital sensor can be crop into ANY smaller FOV provided the sensor gives enough pixel density. Look at this example:

E1 sensor size 18x13.5mm pixel count 4.9M

10D sensor size 22.5x15mm pixel count 6.3M

D70 sensor size 23.7x15.5mm pixel count 6.0M

If we crop a 4/3 size (18x13.5mm) over 10D's and D70's sensor, we will get 4.5M and 4.0M pixels roughly. In this case:

E1 with ZuiKo 300mm/f2.8 gives 4.9M pixel on 600mm FOV

Vs.

10D with EF 300mm/f2.8 gives 4.5M pixel on 600mm FOV

Vs.

D70 with Nikkor 300mm/f2.8 gives 4.0M pixel on 600mm FOV

I would think the pixel counts for each system over 600mm FOV are close enough to do the direct comparison. As for the other aspects of the three 300/f2.8 lens, the weights are 7.2 lbs Vs. 5.6 lbs Vs. 5.7 lbs. And the sizes are 5.1x11.1" Vs. 5.0x9.9" Vs. 4.8x10.6". Did I miss anything here? Where is the advantage of the smaller image circle? The Zuiko is the heaviest, longest and thickest one!

Personally I'm happy to see more competition as we all benefit from it. As for the 4/3 system, they just couldn't move fast enough. The market is closing the door!

Next time if I walk into a store to buy a lens, I will carry different cameras depends on what I am buying.

For example, if I am going to buy a EF 300 f4 IS, I will carry my film body with me. If I carry my 10D, I am afraid they will charge me $5300 instead of $1100, because that's the price for an equivalent 500 f4.

However, if I want to buy a wideangle lens, for example the EF 35 f1.4, I will show them my EOS 10D. They can only charge me the price of the 50mm f1.4, because that's all "equivalent" has to be.

Just ridiculous! This time I am fully agreed with Mr. Reichmann's words of "Magical Thinking".

To: Orlando Andico:

In my analogy comparing the 4/3 system vs. the rest of the dSLR market to Windows vs. Macintosh, the 4/3 system is the "Macintosh," not the "Windows."

I really cannot see why 4/3 system is appealing now, may be it was sometimes ago.

In terms of cost: For existing Canon/Nikon users to go digital, it only takes them less than $1,000 for a Digital Rebel/D70 SLR body and continuing using all their existing lenses. For new users who need to buy both lenses and DSLR body, it will still be cheaper overall by going to them rather than the new 4/3 system manufacturers.

In terms of image quality, Digital Rebel/D70 are better than E-1 on no of pixels and noise level. For sure Olympus will improve in the next model, but so will Canon/Nikon.

In terms of future, one major problem with the 4/3 system is that they have already chosen a small sensor size (relative to full size 135, may be it was considered big a few years ago). For sure this can make the lenses smaller and improve the performance at the edge of the sensor. However, we all know that a sensor larger in size in general performs better than a smaller one. For the future, it is easier to improve and reduce the production cost of bigger sensors than to improve small sensors to match the same pixel/noise level of bigger sensors. See the impact on image quality by adding 3MP to a 5MP sensor without increasing the size - just read the reviews of these new 8MP cameras - they all have colour fringing problem.

Just to give some perspective, at the other end of the range, Olympus wide-angle options are much better than Canon. I'm surprised no one has pointed this out. If a 300 is a 300 is a 300, then is WA zoom not a WA zoom?

Canon 16-35 f2.8 - $1369 Canon 17-40 f4.0 - $674 Olympus 14-54 f2.8-3.5 - $450 Olympus 11-22 f2.8-3.5 - $720

Why the heck are canon's ultra-wide zoom prices so out of line? They must be crazy since they haven't produced a single lens that can compete with the Olympus 11-22, let alone the 14-54.

If you want to compare lenses you have got to compare focal lenths not mm size. An E system 150mm is equivalant to 300 mm F2. The 135 mm that Mr Akins is trying to compare at $1000 is not even equivlant to a 200mm f2. So let compare apples to apples. If you look at a Nikon or Canon lens that are 300 mm F2 equivalant. You will find they are equaly expensive. The Nikon DX lenses are the closest thing to a E system lens and they are not cheap!

Ken, focal length is usually expressed in millimeters. Just because Olympus made an expensive camera with a small sensor does not mean that they can blindly multiply the price of their lenses by X. Especially when it seems that the image quality of the Nikon and Canon equivalents is superior. More for less? This has got to be the marketing scam of the decade!

"Especially when it seems that the image quality of the Nikon and Canon equivalents is superior"

None of us have seen any images from the 150mm f2.0, but if you've ever looked at images from the 300 f2.8, you'd realize the 300 is among the finest lens ever made by any manufacturer. You can argue prices and weight and size all day, but the 300 f2.8 performance shouts for itself very loudly. I expect the 150mm f2.0 will be in the same category. And compare it to the new Nikkor 200mm f2.0. Both give a 300mm equivalent on the respective DSLRs (E-1, D-100 or D2h), the Zuiko weighs less than half (1350g vs 2900), is much smaller (100 X 146mm vs 124 X 203mm) and looks to be much less expensive.

The 200 mm f/2 has VR and a new type of glass. And it allows use on 35mm film cameras and 24x36 mm digital cameras. So it's not a surprise it's more expensive.

I've seen magazine prints from the 300mm Olympus lens and they were fine in postcard size but one was enlarged to a double spread, and it cried out soft, way worse than 35 mm slide film. But those were just some pictures and maybe not representative of the lens. 5 MP is only 5 MP and is generally inadequate for a double spread.

It's impossible to get around the fact that it's easier to get more information on a larger sensor than it is on a smaller one, and that the pics from the small sensor are generally noisier than those of a larger sensor if they both use similar technologies. It's basic physics and there's no way around it. The E-1 records with clearly more noise than the current Nikon and Canon small-format DSLRs in dpreview.com tests.

"I've seen magazine prints from the 300mm Olympus lens..."

You're going to judge lens performance from a magazine spread? In actual use, I think you would be surprised at the quality.

"It's impossible to get around the fact that it's easier to get more information on a larger sensor than it is on a smaller one"

Comparing the Kodak KAF-5101CE 4/3 sensor to say the 10D, we see that the Canon CMOS has a size advantage of only 1.6mm in the verticle dimension, and 4.7mm in the horizontal. So most of the size differential is due to the aspect ratio, 4/3 vs 3/2. And then we have the fact that the Kodak sensor is a full frame transfer type, using a greater amount of it's surface area to capture photons than the interline CMOS sensors. So to dismiss potential performance of a 4/3 sensor vs a APS sensor based on size is inaccurate.

"The E-1 records with clearly more noise than the current Nikon and Canon small-format DSLRs"

But, according to users of both, the Kodak 4/3 sensor has much more resistance to blowing the highlights, retains highlight detail much better, has far more accurate color due to superior auto white balance, and in it's rated ISO 100-800 range noise isn't a problem at all and certainly cleans up very easily with processing like NeatImage. Much more easily than trying to adjust color after the fact, one reason many users have switched to the Olympus, to decrease post processing time.

The Blue Plus Color Full Frame KAF-5101CE 4/3 sensor is the first of the 4/3 imagers, and you can be sure we will see continuing improvements and evolutions, just as we saw with the evolution of APS sized sensors from Canon and Nikon. With Fuji Photo, MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL, SANYO ELECTRIC, and SIGMA CORPORATION as well as Olympus and Kodak all members of the Four Thirds System, there are a lot of possibilities for sensor technologies.

Regarding the Olympus and Nikkor lens, many users seem to base their decisions on the fact that there may be an affordable FF DSLR in the next few years. Either way, the Zuiko will still be 1350 grams, and the Nikkor will still be 2900 grams.

What does colour accuracy have to do with the imaging sensor hardware? Nothing at all. Colours are determined by the calculations in software at the raw conversion stage, and the quality / style of colours are purely a calibration issue. Auto white balance on the E-1 benefits from an external white balance sensor (unrelated to the 4/3 standard). The Nikon D2H has one too, so it's nothing extraordinary.

You talk about NeatImage use and time savings in the same paragraph! ?! I think it's about the worst way to spend an evening, trying to get an useable result from a noisy image.

The Nikon and Canon small-sensor digitals have a two-stop advantage over the E-1 in terms of noise performance [dpreview.com]. So you should actually compare the 150 mm f/2 Zuiko with a hypothetical 200 mm f/4 lens, which would weight something like 500 grams if it weren't macro. The E-1 lenses need to be two stops faster to get equivalent quality. Oh, and I'm not going to talk about the difference there is in functionality / cost.

"What does colour accuracy have to do with the imaging sensor hardware? Nothing at all."

How about spectral responce of a FFT sensor vs an Interline sensor? This may have more than a little to do with the Olympus color accuracy in the first place.

"You talk about NeatImage use and time savings in the same paragraph! ?! I think it's about the worst way to spend an evening, trying to get an useable result from a noisy image."

No, the worst way to spend an evening is dealing with blown out highlights, poor color accuracy, poor exposure metering performance. Dealing with the minimal noise from a few ISO 800 images is a piece of cake compared to these types of problems. Maybe I'd feel different if the majority of my images were taken at ISO 800-3200, but they're not, they're at ISO 100. And for most photographers, I'll bet they are at ISO 100-400.

"The Nikon and Canon small-sensor digitals have a two-stop advantage over the E-1 in terms of noise performance [dpreview.com]."

Measuring "noise" by shooting a gray card at various ISO and exposure settings only just begins to tell the story of how a camera body will perform under real world photographic settings. If it was really only about "gray card noise", then camera selection would be easy, as would camera marketing (executive: "just make sure it's noiseless on a gray card, the heck with everything else!"). But we do have to also consider auto white balance performance and color accuracy, sensor dynamic range and preservation of highlight detail, accuracy of autofocusing, metering performance, TTL flash metering accuracy, manual focus capability, and so forth. Not to mention ergonomics and build quality, size, weight, lens performance, as well as price. These are many of the reasons I chose the E-1 after trying many different DSLRs including Canon and Nikon, not to mention it was the only below $3000 weather sealed "pro" build body available.

I don't know if I'll get a Zuiko 150mm f2.0 when it's available as I'm very pleased with the performance of the 50-200 at 150mm and I personally don't need the extra speed for my photography, but it's very nice to see Olympus (and Nikon) come out with f2.0 telephoto lens, seems like it's been a while since something like this has been released.

If one read this page all the way,one might never even consider buying into the new Olympus blacksheep system. Unfortunate in a way because it has some growing fans as of mid July and a Myfourthirds,com web page too. Terry McDonald's useful web page analysis(a PN member,check it out) of why he switched systems is a provocative analysis. Ergonomics and real world considerations vis a vis lens sizes and quality of high speed zooms are important. Owning a brace of Canon or Nikon lenses would tip the balance,no argument. For others,with the July 2004 system price reductions and rebates,the balance sheet is tipping more favorably. I could be wrong of course. I will not sell my FD Canons yet as I try out the E-1.

Gentlemen, Bob's only quoting a multiplier figure to help describing a news lens for a new format ...

This "multiplier factor" has become an issue because 1, sensors in most digital cameras are smaller than our familiar 135 film size, and 2; they themselves are having different sizes from each other.

We are familar with the relations between focal lengths and their respective angles of coverage for most known formats and so, for example, when a 28mm lens for 135 and a 50mm lens for 645 are brought in front of us, we can almost tell by instinct that both are wide-angle lenses for their corresponding cameras, and both are having approx 75 degree field of view on respective formats. Now think about this : if we get a certain adaptor to mount the above mentioned 50mm lens for 645 on a 135 format camera, the smaller 135 film size would literally transform this 50mm lens into a "normal lens" with the new reduced field of view. Take this format change as a starting point, I suggest we should now refresh our perspective on the most-talked-about "multiplier factor" for DSLR with small sensors.

Today we won't use a multiplier factor to relates lenses between medium format and 135 format, because we already know both well; for the same reasons, if one day when we all get used to the new digital formats, we will also know the new fields of view of their corresponding lenses without quoting a 135 "multiplier factor".

Interesting thread with many comments from those who have never used an E-1!

I have one. The Olympus produces far better results straight from the camera when compared to the 10D and D100. No contest. And will produce greater results for far less money. I had a 10D. Also had Canon's greatest lenses including the 200 F1.8, 85 F1.2, etc. I use a D100 at work. And I also occassionally use a Mk II and 1DS. And let's not try to compare the $1200 E-1 to the 1DS, okay?

The full frame transfer CCD is superior for still imagers, and has greater dynamic range which can be easily seen in the image. Field flattening elements as Olympus promotes are important and produce greater results.

Wish folks take some basic optics and detector 101 courses to learn before commenting on things they do not understand.

RK

It's so interesting to see the comments on the Olympus E System, I wonder how many have actually used the system?

I can say this for the E1: it's for real.

It's not for poser cry-babies who can't afford high end gear but will harangue a player to death by splitting hairs on comparative technical data.

The E1 is a state of the art, industrial tool targeted specifically to professionals who know cameras to be tools, not toys or status symbols.

I've got a full suite of Canon L series and Nikon lenses to support a few D1's, an S2, and some 10D's. I have no problems with the glass, and for 35mm film, I'm a die hard Canon guy. However, in my opinion, after shooting all four systems (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus) on commercial and editorial assignments, Olympus is clearly superior. Fussy art directors could give a damn about what kind of camera you use, as long you deliver the image. Side by side image comparison has left no doubt in terms of picture quality, especially color saturation, sharpness, and skintone.

I just got into the E system a month ago and the Canon and Nikon stuff hasn't been touched in two weeks(I want to sell the stuff). I've spent my damn life earnings on those systems and they refuse to produce a top quality digital camera from the ground up.

The E1 isn't for everyone, and there's a myriad of small technical details to learn about the camera(that in itself takes a while). It's definitely not for a newbie. If you're a student or hobbyist, consider the Nikon D70, Canon Digital Rebel, or the new Olympus E300.

If you're a techo-geek(no shame) that's into being able to get into the programming of a camera for a lot of technical tweaking, you might want to consider this system.

Me? I'm happy because the spot meter is tight and the pictures raise the eyebrows of these hard-assed art directors that, up until very recently, used to give me a lot of grief.

I'm hip to the E1 and 4/3 system, I hope it is successful and is able to expand.

Very interesting discussion. We have used Canon 35mm for quite a while along with Mamiya 645. Been very pleased with results. When we found that we could not get a decent xfer from film to CD with the services we tried, we decided to add digital to our line.

Since had quite an investment in Canon equipment, the obvious move was to go to Canon digital. Finding that our FD lenses would be be usable, no we did not jump into autofocus, we started comparing systems since it would require another major investment.

We were just about to bite the bullet and go with Canon until we started looking at the E-1. I think you can guess the punch line, we went with the Olympus E-1. Why? Simply because it operates like a real camera to us. It does not have preprogramed modes for pictures of Aunt Martha against a starry background or hand-held portraits of the photographer but 4 simple modes - Program, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and full Manual and a great manual focus.

Moving to that camera was easy. Since digital has never seemed to provide great b&w, I really do not miss the fact that it does not remove the color channels and is color only - we stick with film for b&w work.

I must say that we are very pleased with the results and so are our clients.

In our humble opinion, its a great system and we are sorry to see the religious wars starting on it. Even if they, Olympus, drop the system, as long as it continues to perform as it is, we will keep it and use it until forced to change. At that time, we make "go against the flow" again :-)

Walter

B & B Photography