Olympus E-3 not a software update

[Phil Rudin 459]

Olympus announced the new E-3 DSLR last tuesday in New York. This is a camera targeted at the same pro/serious amateur group as the Nikon D-300.

 

It has been four years since the release of the E-1, Olympus first DSLR and interchangable auto focus lens system. With the release of the E-3 Olympus now has the largest selection of digital specific lenses with performance second to none, the best dust cleaning system made (a feature others are now trying), the best live view system (a feature others are now trying), the fastest AF speed with the three new SWD lenses, a very large 100% view finder with magnification of 1.15X, new 11-point AF system, splash and dust resistance second to none, magnesium alloy body, new wireless strobe system and much more.

 

In addition Olympus is releasing a new 12 to 60 mm F/2.8-4 zoom (24 to 120 35mm) which will focus to 25 CM throughout the range, has the fastest AF speed and at 60 mm will have an approx. 1:2 (35 mm) range. A 2 X teleconverter is also on the way that will work with every Olympus E-system lens.

 

Divephotoguide.com is also reporting in their PDN Photo Plus Expo report that Olympus will release a housing for the E-3 shortly after the cameras release in late November.

 

This also makes Olympus the only brand that has a housing for several of the cameras in their DSLR line.

 

This is all good news for the small group of Olympus DSLR users who frequent Wetpixel.

Edited October 22, 2007 by tropical1

[rtrski 20]

...the fastest AF speed with the three new SWD lenses, ...

 

Phil:

 

This might sound ignorant, but will the SWD lenses work on the older Oly 4:3's (330, 410, 510)? I suspect they will work, but wonder if perhaps they'll either not work as fast or perhaps drain more battery or something for the faster focus speed. There's a chance they require higher current or something from the camera than the older ones delivered...

 

Like I said, might be an ignorant question. I honestly don't understand how the 'motor' in lenses works in general....

 

RTR

[Phil Rudin 459]

The new lenses will work on all the 4/3 standard cameras including all the Olympus E-system cameras. The AF will reach its top speed on the new E-3 due to issues with both the camera body and lens.

 

Phil

[MikeO 5]

Divephotoguide.com is also reporting in their PDN Photo Plus Expo report that Olympus will release a housing for the E-3 shortly after the cameras release in late November.

 

Phil,

 

See this page reporting on the Tokyo launch of the E-3:

 

http://www.clubsnap.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319642

 

Scroll down a ways (or search the page) and you'll come to this:

 

"Posed Question:

Olympus is well known for its underwater housing. As the E-3 is developed for nature, will Olympus be developing the underwater housing itself or will it develop with a partner? Also, when would it be expected for release?

 

Answer:

(Haruo Ogawa) - In the E series, it is already available for the E410. For the E-3, Olympus plans to develop in conjunction with a partner who is strong and experience in this area. Hence Olympus recommends to use that company's underwater housing for use with the E-3. The timing of the announcement will more or less be concurrent with the commercial launch of the product."

 

Hmmmm, this leads one to believe that Oly is partnering on this one and NOT producing their own housing . . .

 

Mike

[james 0]

I agree w/ Mike. I wonder if Oly are partnering w/ a Japanese company? If so, that would leave Sea and Sea and Nexus, right? Do they consider UK (Who makes all of the Olympus branded housings) as a partner?

 

Cheers

James

[MikeO 5]

I agree w/ Mike. I wonder if Oly are partnering w/ a Japanese company? If so, that would leave Sea and Sea and Nexus, right? Do they consider UK (Who makes all of the Olympus branded housings) as a partner?

 

Cheers

James

 

One poster on DPReview posted that it would be Anthis/Nexus. Hard to tell, in the mess that is that forum, whether there is any validity to that rumour or if it is meant as a troll to get people who like oly housings to freak out . . .

 

Mike

[Phil Rudin 459]

James,

 

I think you missed a few. I don't think Sea & Sea has any DSLR housings that are made for fiber optics. Nexus has just begun to see the wisdom of fiber optics with the new D-300, D-30/40 and Rebal X housings for use with the Z-240 strobes.

 

I think Inon is in Japan and they already make dome ports for the Olympus E-system housings along with other E-system parts.

 

Athena also in Japan makes ports and a bunch of other stuff for the E-system housings.

 

Zillion is in japan and has a port system much like the Olympus ports.

 

SeaTool (japan) might be another contender.

 

Fisheye (Japan) might be another contender and the list goes on.

 

I think UN (Japan) makes the present E-system housings.

 

Olympus has a fiber optics only strobe and has sold a bunch of ports. I hope they would insist on a housing for the E-3 which can make use of these items and an optical viewing system which can take advantage of the much improved Olympus E-3 viewfinder.

 

Phil Rudin

[MikeO 5]

For those interested, the instruction manual for the E-3 is posted at Amazon.

[MikeO 5]

Well, things are certainly shaping up to be interesting. DPReview today posted a review of the Canon 40D which was flattering, to say the least, especially regarding DR (though they said it was in the shadows, not the highlights). Of course, they always seem to be a bit infatuated with Canon in general. Still, it will be very interesting to see how the 12-bit, 4/3 Oly stacks up against the 14-bit 40D and D300 in image quality. Though my 10D setup is getting a bit long in the tooth, it still serves me well; but I'm finally seriously considering upgrading and a 5D (Mk I or God forbid, someday a II) or D3 is pretty much above where I want to go unless I find an heiress to take pity on me. The Oly system is appealing, and I don't tend to use high ISOs all that much, but I think the bottom line for me will be how the sensor performs. My suspicion is that Oly is basically saying, "Yes, we admit our sensor will be noisier but we can make up for it with faster lenses and our 'best in class IS.'" Of course IS isn't a panacea as sometimes you just can't substitute a slower shutter speed. I also wonder about the availability of more lens choices -- it would appear that Oly has declined to allow Sigma to produce 4/3 versions of the lenses that would most likely compete with Oly's own offerings (I'm thinking of the 120-300 f2.8, especially (Oly's 90-250 is substantially more expensive (and OMG, the price of that 300)), though the new 50-200 does look like a reasonable alternative) while simultaneously starting to offer licensed Sigma lower-end designs under the Oly brand name. The 40D for me, is pretty appealing at the moment -- especially given that I could probably get a new 40D body and a 10-17 Tokina for just a little more than what an E-3 body will go for. I guess I also have to see if a new system is a financial possibility before my three-week trek back to Indonesia next May.

 

Just rambling . . .

 

Mike

Edited October 27, 2007 by MikeO

[RogerC 4]

My suspicion is that Oly is basically saying, "Yes, we admit our sensor will be noisier but we can make up for it with faster lenses and our 'best in class IS.'"

 

they also make up for it with lenses with higher resolution, and I'd say the noise is acceptable (or nonexistent, or competitive) at low ISO.

 

it would appear that Oly has declined to allow Sigma to produce 4/3 versions of the lenses that would most likely compete with Oly's own offerings

 

once you really compare the oly glass and sigma glass, you won't want the sigma glass anyway.

 

(and OMG, the price of that 300)

 

it's actually a fantastic value for a fantastic piece of glass that you can actually carry. Not that I will be buying one anytime soon, the new cheap 70-300mm (140-600mm) 1:4.0-5.6 is more my range, especially with the 1.4 TC or 2.0 TC on it.

 

anyway, in film equivalent, that pricey 300mm is a 600mm, and it's f2.8, AND it's only 5" diam, 11" long, 7.2 pounds. and now you get 5 stops of IS on it, damn!

 

Canon and nikon both make 600mm lenses, they are both f4, the nikon is 6.5" diam, 17" long, and 11 pounds. $9.5k. The Canon is similar, 6.6 diam, 18" long, 12 pounds, $7.2k.

 

At $5.7k, the oly is a steal. It's nickname is the big tuna.

 

To get f2.8 on a bigger sensor at only 500mm, you need something like this. It gets a little heavier and a little pricier than the big tuna:

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3306

 

 

 

ps - I don't care if pla-doh makes the housings as long as they use existing ports. But I hope for UN, honestly, I'm perfectly happy with mechanical, clear, lexan housings.

[MikeO 5]

once you really compare the oly glass and sigma glass, you won't want the sigma glass anyway.

it's actually a fantastic value for a fantastic piece of glass that you can actually carry. Not that I will be buying one anytime soon, the new cheap 70-300mm (140-600mm) 1:4.0-5.6 is more my range, especially with the 1.4 TC or 2.0 TC on it.

 

 

Two things. First, throwing in the 300 was probably the wrong thing to do. The main thing I probably should have pointed out is that the Sigma 120-300 2.8 is half the price of the Oly 90-250. That particular Sigma is fairly well regarded and for some reason isn't an option. Second, the new Oly 70-300 is, if you believe the rumor mill (which is actually in surprising agreement), a Sigma. It remains to be seen how much Oly modifies the design, if at all . . .

 

Mike

Edited October 27, 2007 by MikeO

[RogerC 4]

thanks. Work and travel has not allowed me time for the rumor mill, pretty surprising since there ar efew things I have tracked as closely and as long as the E3.

 

I went through a cycle with Sigma lenses, and I think a few others have, too. You get excited about the specs and the price... then you spend some time with an olympus lens in the same focal length, and you forget about the sigma.

 

That said, I hope the 70-300 is good.

 

I'm not knocking sigma. I think that anyone, sigma or oly or nikon or canon, can make great glass or economy glass. Sigma has made some remarkable lenses. The classic trade in lenses is quality vs price, I think that sigma has the extra compromise to make in making flexibile lenses, and they do that pretty well, at a very competative price.

[MikeO 5]

anyway, in film equivalent, that pricey 300mm is a 600mm, and it's f2.8, AND it's only 5" diam, 11" long, 7.2 pounds. and now you get 5 stops of IS on it, damn!

 

Canon and nikon both make 600mm lenses, they are both f4, the nikon is 6.5" diam, 17" long, and 11 pounds. $9.5k. The Canon is similar, 6.6 diam, 18" long, 12 pounds, $7.2k.

 

At $5.7k, the oly is a steal. It's nickname is the big tuna.

 

To get f2.8 on a bigger sensor at only 500mm, you need something like this. It gets a little heavier and a little pricier than the big tuna:

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3306

ps - I don't care if pla-doh makes the housings as long as they use existing ports. But I hope for UN, honestly, I'm perfectly happy with mechanical, clear, lexan housings.

 

OK. I thought about this one some more and am going back to my original position. A 300 f2.8 is still a 300 f2.8 no matter what size sensor you pair it with. The coverage similarities you quote are caused here by the relation to the size of the sensor, so it is, IMHO specious reasoning to equate the Oly 300 to a Nikon or Canon 500 or 600 when comparing pricing. Plus, the Canon 300 2.8 ($3900) and Nikon 300 f2.8 ($4400) have stabilization in the lens and the Oly doesn't so you'd think that would make the Oly even more reasonably priced compared to the other two! Maybe now Nikon should introduce a camera with a 2.0x sensor and charge twice as much as Olympus for the camera body. Maybe Olympus needs to charge more based on smaller sales volume or some amount of superior materials and engineering but why should they be able to charge more for a similar lens just because they pair it with a smaller sensor? Well?

 

If the final result is all you care about, then sure, I suppose you get the same coverage with this lens as you do with an expensive full frame camera with a big Nikon lens. However, you also get the noise and DR advantages of that full frame sensor. If your argument is their basis for pricing, I suggest we re-name it the "big red herring"!

 

Mike

Edited November 4, 2007 by MikeO

[Phil Rudin 459]

Hi Mike,

 

Nikon does make a camera with a X2 crop factor and it does cost more than twice as much as the Olympus E-3 will, its called the D2Xs and has high speed X2 crop.

 

The debate over cost v. the Olympus 300 F/2.8 has raged on since it came out and the bottom line is that those that have the lens sayit is the best lens in the very high quality Olympus line.

 

At $9500 or so for the Nikon 600mm F/4 and $7200 for the Canon F/4 and $5700 for the Olympus 300 F/2.8 the fact remains the lenses all have an angle of view of 4.1or 2 degrees on the camera body for which they were designed. The Canon and Nikon were designed for film bodys by the way.

 

A Nikon 300 mm F/2.8 may be less at $4300. but consider that a Nikon 300 mm F/4 is $1150. The diffrence between F/4 and F/2.8 is costly and the fact still remains that the Oly 300 mm is a 4.2 AOV lens at F/2.8. You may wish to use the arrgument that you can raise ISO on your 35 mm sensor camera but at base ISO 35 mm and the Olympus 4/3 sensor show little diffrence in the 10 MP range bodies.

 

Last if you want to compare like lenses, look at the price of the Olympus 150 mm, F/2 at $2050. against the Canon 150 mm F/2 no longer sold which was $4000+ and the Nikon 200mm F/2 which is $4000.

 

Olympus image stabilization is in the body of the E-3 and E-510 which means it works for all lenses in the system. The Leica 14 to 50 F/2.8 to 3.5 with I.S. results shows no diffrence on a 4/3 body over using the Olympus in camera I.S. and when both are used at the same time results are the same.

 

All lens costs from B&H web site and better deals can be found I am sure.

 

I don't disagree that the lens is expensive but I can understand wanting a lens for the field which is fully weather sealed, can be used handheld all day long, at 7.2 lbs. and 11.1 inchs can be packed and carried on an airplaine with ease and provides pro quality images.

 

Weather sealing example.

 

Phil Rudin

Edited November 4, 2007 by tropical1

[james 0]

Phil,

 

Just keep in mind that virtually all of the lenses made by Canon and Nikon since the introduction of the D1x and 1D are "designed with digital in mind." Just because there were more film cameras around then doesn't mean that the lens designers didn't take digital into account. In fact, the Nikon 17-35AF-S was designed w/ digital in mind.

 

Also, the fact that IS is built into the body is a "one size fits all fits no-one" approach. While I hear it works well for mid-range zooms (their target market) it just can't beat fit-for purpose IS in an exotic telephoto.

 

Cheers

James

[herbko 0]

Correct scaling for the sensor size should be a factor 2 in focal length and 2 f-stops between the Olympus and the Nikon and Canon full frames. That will give the same DOF range and total light captured, which at the sensor level determines image quality. So an Olympus 300mm f2.8 should be compared to a full frame 600mm f5.6 which as far as I know does not exits.

[Phil Rudin 459]

Herb and James,

 

Your to smart for me, all I know is that at F/2.8 with my 50 mm at ISO 100 I get the same proper exposure as a 105 mm on a 35 mm sensor at F/2.8 at ISO 100. I also get the depth of field of a 50 mm lens with the same angle of view of a 100 mm lens.

 

The big diffrence and you are welcome to school me on this if you want is that the image quality from the Olympus lens seems to be better than from some other lenses.

 

Example, These subjective Quality factor charts are from Popphoto, a magazine that takes 20+ times the ad dollars from Nikon and Canon as they do from Olympus. They bench test all lenses with the same type of sensor and run the results through the same processing, which means that all things being equal the results should give an idea of lens quality.

 

The first chart is the Olympus 50 mm F/2 macro,$425. B&H, 24 degree angle of view.

The second chart is the Nikon 105 mm F/2.8 VR macro, $740 B&H, 23 degree angle of view.

 

Phil Rudin

[RogerC 4]

If lenses were named by their field of view in degrees instead of their focal distance vs 35mm film, this would be easier, it would be apples to apples.

 

I'm going to stick to my guns and say that it is fair to compare a 300mm oly to a 600mm film lens, and in this case, it's not like adding a teleconverter: you double the mm only to get into the same nomenclature, you aren't really doubling the mm or halving the FoV, and you don't double the f stop in this case. A 300mm oly f2.8 is like a 600mm f2.8 for 35mm film.

 

So let's start over: price me a lens in your system with a 4.2 degree field of view, at f2.8. Bring whatever color herring you want.

 

And Phil, if somehow that chart could show the wonderful bokeh on that 50mm.....

[herbko 0]

I'm going to stick to my guns and say that it is fair to compare a 300mm oly to a 600mm film lens, and in this case, it's not like adding a teleconverter: you double the mm only to get into the same nomenclature, you aren't really doubling the mm or halving the FoV, and you don't double the f stop in this case. A 300mm oly f2.8 is like a 600mm f2.8 for 35mm film.

 

Of course your selection criteria is entirely up to you, and it's true that a 300mm oly will have the same FOV of a 600mm on a full frame. I'm just pointing out that at f2.8 it will have the DOF of a 600mm on a full frame at f5.6 and also the same is true of the total light captured at a given shutter speed. So, 600mm f5.6 on a full frame will match a 300mm f2.8 on an oly at any given shot. The full frame will have to be shot at 2 stops higher ISO. The net result is the same amout of light on the sensor, and if the sensor technology is the same so too will be the signal-to-noise at the sensor. Also the oly will reach diffraction limit 2-stops before the full frame for the same final output resolution.

[herbko 0]

I'm not going to debate the merits of choosing lenses on the basis of popphoto subjective tests.

 

You are correct that proper exposure depends only on f-stop, shutter speed and ISO, and the FOV of the 50mm on the Olympus is the same as 100mm on a full frame. And yes, at the same f-stop the DOF of the 50mm is NOT the same as the DOF of the 100mm. The 100mm at F2.8 has a more shallow DOF, the 50 will have to be stop down to F1.4 to match that. Also, if the two cameras has the same number of pixels, the full frame can be shot at 2 f-stops higher before becoming diffraction limited in resolution. Ever wondered why the point-and-shoots have f-stops that only goes up to f5?

 

As I mentioned in my responses to Roger's post. For the same FOV, DOF and light captured by the sensor. The full frame should have 2x lens focal length, 2 f-stops higher (smaller aperture), and shot at 2-stops higher ISO.

 

 

Herb and James,

 

Your to smart for me, all I know is that at F/2.8 with my 50 mm at ISO 100 I get the same proper exposure as a 105 mm on a 35 mm sensor at F/2.8 at ISO 100. I also get the depth of field of a 50 mm lens with the same angle of view of a 100 mm lens.

 

The big diffrence and you are welcome to school me on this if you want is that the image quality from the Olympus lens seems to be better than from some other lenses.

 

Example, These subjective Quality factor charts are from Popphoto, a magazine that takes 20+ times the ad dollars from Nikon and Canon as they do from Olympus. They bench test all lenses with the same type of sensor and run the results through the same processing, which means that all things being equal the results should give an idea of lens quality.

 

The first chart is the Olympus 50 mm F/2 macro,$425. B&H, 24 degree angle of view.

The second chart is the Nikon 105 mm F/2.8 VR macro, $740 B&H, 23 degree angle of view.

 

Phil Rudin

[RogerC 4]

You are correct that proper exposure depends only on f-stop, shutter speed and ISO, and the FOV of the 50mm on the Olympus is the same as 100mm on a full frame. And yes, at the same f-stop the DOF of the 50mm is NOT the same as the DOF of the 100mm. The 100mm at F2.8 has a more shallow DOF, the 50 will have to be stop down to F1.4 to match that. Also, if the two cameras has the same number of pixels, the full frame can be shot at 2 f-stops higher before becoming diffraction limited in resolution. Ever wondered why the point-and-shoots have f-stops that only goes up to f5?

 

Partly diffraction, as you say, but also partly that the lenses were cheap and hit confusion before diffraction, and partly that they are small and at some point a tiny hole is hard to make, even if with the rest of the lens geometry, it's only f8. And why go to f22 when they sync at 1/4000 and can compensate with fast shutter speeds for most of their users (with shaky hands).

 

As I mentioned in my responses to Roger's post. For the same FOV, DOF and light captured by the sensor. The full frame should have 2x lens focal length, 2 f-stops higher (smaller aperture), and shot at 2-stops higher ISO.

 

hooo, you lost me. But I want to figure this out, I might learn something.

 

Herb, put it simply for me. Let's stick with 100mm lenses, your 100mm and my 50mm, assume they have the same FOV, 24 degrees. Say the subject is at 2 feet. What are the relative fstops and DoFs? Are you saying that your aperture is larger, your plate scale means you put more photons into each sensor?

 

according to the DofMaster, at 2' and f2, I have a DoF of .03', 1.99 to 2.01 (must be some round off). At 2' and f22, I have a DoF of .31', 1.86 to 2.16.

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[herbko 0]

according to the DofMaster, at 2' and f2, I have a DoF of .03', 1.99 to 2.01 (must be some round off). At 2' and f22, I have a DoF of .31', 1.86 to 2.16.

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

I posted something about this long ago starting with the Lens Tutorial in photo.net.

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...amp;#entry80286

 

Skipping to the bottom line it boils down to

 

DOF = ( c N / M ) * ( 1 + 1/M )

 

where c is the circle of confusion (about 0.03mm for FF), N is the F-stop, and M is the magnification ( Image size / Subject size ).

 

If we only consider non-macro cases where M is much smaller than 1 then DOF is simply c N / M^2. The most confusing part of this equation is of course c, the circle of confusion. That's roughly the distance on the sensor over which the image can blur and still be consider in focus, and should scale with the width of the sensor. That is a sensor twice as wide should have c twice as big for the same image resolution, and also for that sensor M is twice as big which implies that N must be a factor of 2 bigger also for this sensor.

 

Just checking with the DOF calculator you cited I get

 

for the Canon 5D

100mm lens

f/16

10ft

DOF = 2.89 ft

 

for the Olympus E-500

50mm lens

f/8

10ft

DOF = 2.94 ft

 

The difference from complete agreement, I suspect, is due to the author of this site scaling by number of pixels instead of sensor width.

 

Partly diffraction, as you say, but also partly that the lenses were cheap and hit confusion before diffraction, and partly that they are small and at some point a tiny hole is hard to make, even if with the rest of the lens geometry, it's only f8. And why go to f22 when they sync at 1/4000 and can compensate with fast shutter speeds for most of their users (with shaky hands).

 

Actually, if you ignore diffraction a smaller aperture would mask the imperfections of lousy lenses more than a larger aperture. Also, if you look back, maximum f-stop( minimum aperture ) has gone from ~f/8 -> f/5 as they put more pixels into the same size sensor, so I think it's unlikely it's f/5 because they can't make smaller holes.

[Phil Rudin 459]

Herb,

 

I appreciate that you have taken the time to learn all these formulas to explain the merits of a 35 mm sensor but I am a show me kind of guy and I have found that added DOF in macro and wide angle for underwater photography is a good thing not a bad thing. It is in fact the reason that medium format has limited use for underwater photography.

 

The fact is that Canon, Nikon and Olympus don't all use the same sensor or the same sensor design. It appears from your comments that you would expect that if we both shot an image at F/8 1/125th at ISO 100 with cameras of the same MP count that your image would be four times better and could be enlarged four times larger without less of quality because your sensor is appox. four times larger. That is just not the case.

 

I agree that if I want to limit DOF that I will need a lens that is one stop brighter than a 35 mm lens but I already have a macro lens one stop faster than any other modern macro lens.

 

I won't even get into the issues of corner sharpness with W/A 35 mm lenses.

 

Phil Rudin

[herbko 0]

I appreciate that you have taken the time to learn all these formulas to explain the merits of a 35 mm sensor but I am a show me kind of guy and I have found that added DOF in macro and wide angle for underwater photography is a good thing not a bad thing. It is in fact the reason that medium format has limited use for underwater photography.

 

I've never used medium format, but from what I've read, the problem of using it underwater is that the lens selection does not give it advantages vs 35mm. In my view, the same is not true of 35mm vs 4/3. I'll state my basic claim here again. If in the 35mm system you increase the focal length, f-stop and ISO by 2 you get the same image as the 4/3 if the sensor technology is comparable. For example, the 4/3 system would require an F/1.4 50mm macro to match the range of a 100mm F/2.8 in the 35mm.

 

Yes. Usually more DOF is a good thing in macro. Because the diffraction of light though a small aperture limits the resolution, there's a trade-off between DOF and resolution. 35mm has better DOF than 4/3 at a given resolution. It's acheived at 2 stops smaller aperture. The misunderstanding in this debate is that it's not DOF at a give aperture that's important but what's achievable at a give resolution. Have you seen world beating DOF and resolution from the point-and-shoots with a much smaller sensor?

 

The fact is that Canon, Nikon and Olympus don't all use the same sensor or the same sensor design. It appears from your comments that you would expect that if we both shot an image at F/8 1/125th at ISO 100 with cameras of the same MP count that your image would be four times better and could be enlarged four times larger without less of quality because your sensor is appox. four times larger. That is just not the case.

 

No. That's not what I wrote. In this case, if the resolution is not limited by the optics, the resolution should be the same. However, the noise in the 35mm sensor will be lowered in proportion to area (4x) if the sensor technology is the same. There are no direct data available for any of current sensors. We can only estimate from the camera output after much signal processing. You can look at the noise and detail and see if there's noise reduction that destroys details has been applied and so on.... So it's possible to argue that Olympus has found someone to make a sensor for them that perform better than the one that Canon has developed. In my opinion, that's not the case.

[Phil Rudin 459]

E-3 field report from Popphoto Editor in Chief, John Owens.

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4793/field...lympus-e-3.html

 

Phil Rudin