olympus E-3 shows up in korea

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
34
91
It is sexy. I wonder just how weatherproof it is. I think back in the day Olympus actually half recommended cleaning their E-1 in the SHOWER.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,266
7,762
126
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It is sexy. I wonder just how weatherproof it is. I think back in the day Olympus actually half recommended cleaning their E-1 in the SHOWER.
i saw plenty of pics of the E-1 being submerged. also the lenses in a bank of snow.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,885
52
91
The picture in the upper right cracks me up. I think of jazz hands for some reason.
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It is sexy. I wonder just how weatherproof it is. I think back in the day Olympus actually half recommended cleaning their E-1 in the SHOWER.
If it's anywhere near E-1 weatherproofing, it'll be good. I've cleaned an E-1 in the sink.
 

Neos

Senior member
Jul 19, 2000
881
0
0
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It is sexy. I wonder just how weatherproof it is. I think back in the day Olympus actually half recommended cleaning their E-1 in the SHOWER.
I am glad I found a bit of discussion on the new E3 on this forum.

I would bet that it is every bit as weather worthy as the E1 was/is. Of course, everyone is coming out with seals on the better camera bodies, but some are no more than felt strips.

Thing about the Olympus is that ALL the lenses, once you get past the kit lenses - are weather proof. That be pretty strong.

I am biting at the bits to see what Oly has up their sleeves with the new E3. It really looks as if 4/3 is finally coming into it's prime, being vindicated by Nikon. The new D3 with new lenses that are built for the sensor is doing teh same thing Oly started with 4/3 - just a good bit bigger setup - weight and size wise.

Interesting times.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,266
7,762
126
Originally posted by: Neos
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It is sexy. I wonder just how weatherproof it is. I think back in the day Olympus actually half recommended cleaning their E-1 in the SHOWER.
I am glad I found a bit of discussion on the new E3 on this forum.

I would bet that it is every bit as weather worthy as the E1 was/is. Of course, everyone is coming out with seals on the better camera bodies, but some are no more than felt strips.

Thing about the Olympus is that ALL the lenses, once you get past the kit lenses - are weather proof. That be pretty strong.

I am biting at the bits to see what Oly has up their sleeves with the new E3. It really looks as if 4/3 is finally coming into it's prime, being vindicated by Nikon. The new D3 with new lenses that are built for the sensor is doing teh same thing Oly started with 4/3 - just a good bit bigger setup - weight and size wise.

Interesting times.
i really like olympus' lens lineup for it's rationality and that they put good glass in every lens. three distinct levels is great. and as you said, the middle and top tier of lenses are all weatherproof. if i were a pro shooting in the outdoors i'd have to take a hard look at it (especially that f/2 zoom). though they are severely lacking in the prime department. i'd like to see them release a few primes along with the E-3. a series of f/2 primes to acknowledge the OM history would be nice. or perhaps some pancakes to complement the relatively small body.


as for olympus and 4/3 being vindicated by nikon, i'm not sure where you're going with that one. 4 of the lenses nikon released are matching canon's offerings. and it's all just 35 mm historical gear. they didn't design those lenses anymore for the D3 than for the F6.
 

Neos

Senior member
Jul 19, 2000
881
0
0
What I mean by Nikon vindicating Oly is this. Up till now Oly was the only one making a body and lenses built for digital.
When digital began Canon and Nikon both jumped on the bandwagon touting the ability to use older film lenses. Oly was different, building body, lenses and a sensor size for digital. They realized that the pixels in a sensor had to have the light hitting them head on, unlike film that could take light from an angle.
The C&N folks were able to use the older lenses, but with many drawbacks - such as back focus issues, soft in corners, wide angles not good.
Now Nikon has the new D3, a Full Frame (35mm size) masterpiece. Their NEWEST FF lenses to come, being made to work best with this 'system' are not unlike what Oly has done from the beginning. They are designed for that sensor. Only thing is it will be a BIG camera & lens combo - close to 7 lbs - if I recall, as lenses designed for a FF sensor have to be bigger to get that light headed dead on for the center of that pixel.
My 2c.
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
"pixels in a sensor had to have the light hitting them head on"
I'd much rather NOT have the light hitting the pixels head-on, because that way it goes around any dust on the low-pass filter. At f/16, my D50's sensor looks covered in dust. At f/8 or below, you can't see any of it. The Bayer filter, UV/IR filter, and low-pass antialiasing filters align the light properly.

"back focus issues"
Erm...no. My 80-200mm f/2.8 push-pull, which is a twenty-year-old Nikon 35mm lens, is absolutely sharp, even at f/2.8, where the depth of field is tiny and any focusing issues would be blatantly apparent. Heck, I can still manual-focus a 35-year-old pre-AI Nikkor lens and get nice results, though not as contrasty as the ED lenses.

"soft in corners"
Actually, with a a cropped-frame body, it's the opposite. A 35mm image circle on a cropped-frame sensor results in only the middle of the image circle being used, where vignetting and distortion are less apparent, and better contrast and resolution.

"wide angles not good"
That problem lies with the cropped-frame sensor size. Nikon and Canon designed digital-only fisheyes and digital-only standard zooms, just like Olympus, to deal with this.

The 5 new lenses that came out are fully compatible with the D3, any DX-format DSLR, and older film cameras like the F6, F5, F100, and the like. The 400/500/600mm lenses are simply updates that add Vibration Reduction to Nikon's old supertelephotos. The 24-70mm is the latest and greatest standard zoom for 35mm bodies. The 14-24mm is an interesting proposition, as 14mm is currently Nikon's 35mm fisheye focal length, and it replaces the 17-35mm f/2.8. The lenses are not designed only for the D3, they're simply designed to put the best possible 35mm-diameter image circle a certain distance behind the lens mount.

The only correct statement I can find in your post is that the full-frame lenses have to be bigger, because they need more glass to get the full-sized 35mm-diameter image circle.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,266
7,762
126
Originally posted by: Neos
The C&N folks were able to use the older lenses, but with many drawbacks - such as back focus issues, soft in corners, wide angles not good.
My 2c.
for crop bodies the center sweet spot of film lenses cuts out the soft corners. olympus does the same thing, though they're not telling anyone about it.

olympus really isn't that much more telecentric than a crop canon or nikon, either, which is why using 35 mm lenses on the crop bodies doesn't result in much corner shading (which is the issue you're talking about with the light hitting the sensor 'head on'). i guess if nikon's new lenses for the FX camera recessed the rear element well into the lens to get the same level of telecentricity then maybe, but i don't think they're placing the rear element 2 cm deep into the lens. i could be wrong.

and if the microlenses could be gotten rid of by making the photosites a larger portion of the chip then the corner shading issue largely goes away. the photosites themselves can take a much larger angle of incidence than the microlenses can.

i guess you could say that pentax, which has adopted 1.5x crop as it's format for all lenses going forward, and has now released two professional quality lenses for their newly adopted format, is also vindicating olympus.
 

Neos

Senior member
Jul 19, 2000
881
0
0
I am sure that my perception may not line up with some technical explanation by a reviewer or some tech head - where most (if not all) of us get our info.
Some corrections in my post.
I was wrong in saying that Oly was the only one "up till now" making digital lenses, or lenses to fit the sensor format. Actually, I do read that there have been lenses brought out here and there by C&N that do this. These have been rather high end, though - as I understand it.
When I spoke of back focus issues, I admit I do not understand it 100%. I was not addressing the potential sharpness of the lens, but my understanding of how certain lenses (film lenses?) have problems with autofocus, thus being out of focus.
Telecentric lenses? Again, I just repeat what I read and understand. I read posts in forums - C, N & O ..and I see many issues brought up about lenses not working well in the corners, and accurate auto focus being an issue. I have attributed much of this behavior to using lenses designed for film cameras being used on DSLRs. Whether they are older film type lenses, or newer ones - the problems mentioned are there. Some of the better lenses that are coming out from C, N, & P should address these issues. Again my perception.
Regardless of my perception - one fact is true. Oly was the only mfg. that made their DSLR from the ground up to address issues with digital, which seem to be far more complex than film ever had. From the outset, loyalties to brands by reviewers and pundits have scorned Olys approach. I read reviews where innovations such as the Oly dustbuster and live view are pooh pahhed as not important, and then in time are adopted (or tried to be, anyway) by the big boys.
Oly has always been a quirky mfg., and the OM film cameras were the same in that day. They showed innovation that others did not have. It is the same today.
Of course this is my perception. :)
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Neos, the only Nikon and Canon cropped-frame lenses are the low-end kit zooms, and one mid-range zoom each. All the pro lenses are 35mm full-frame.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,266
7,762
126
canon's EF-S kit lens designed to use just the smaller sensor is probably the cheapest lens ever. in fact, canon has very few 'high end' digital specific lenses. the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is $1000, but canon left out the L class build quality. so, even though it has a high end price, it isn't a high end lens. not sure how the build quality on nikon's equivalent lens is, but it's even pricier. like canon, most of nikon's DX lenses are pretty inexpensive.

no one has figured out why canon seems to have auto focus issues. it's probably a quality control thing, as not all of the cameras exhibit it (the 40D doesn't appear to have any problems), and i haven't heard of any problems with nikon.

and like i said, if you're using a crop frame slr, there isn't any problem in the corners (especially when using film lenses) any more than there is with olympus gear. if you're using a 35 mm slr, the corners are soft and shaded wide open, but a couple stops down fixes that.

even for wide angle there have been good lenses released. nikon and canon both make super wide zooms specifically for the crop sensors, and sigma makes an incredible super wide zoom (while not quite as wide and probably not as sharp as the olympus, it costs 1/3 the price).
 

Heidfirst

Platinum Member
May 18, 2005
2,015
0
0
Originally posted by: Neos
I was wrong in saying that Oly was the only one "up till now" making digital lenses, or lenses to fit the sensor format. Actually, I do read that there have been lenses brought out here and there by C&N that do this. These have been rather high end, though - as I understand it.
Konica Minolta (now Sony) had/has lenses for APS-C too & tbh I would expect Pentax to as well.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY