PDA

View Full Version : Jeff, E-500 Review comment?



CaveDweller
11-08-2005, 10:31 PM
"The good news is that Olympus has built up a nice collection of Zuiko Digital Specific Lenses, while the bad news is that the FourThirds system has a 2X focal length conversion ratio (versus 1.5X or 1.6X on other D-SLRs)"

:confused: Could you please explain your rationale for this comment? Why does it matter? The Olympus lenses have been designed specifically with this 2x factor in consideration, so the lenses have been sized accordingly.

IMO, it's only a factor when owners use their legacy lenses (mostly C&N) their new digital bodies, where the FOV is no longer what the user expects (from their 35mm experience).

Most of the Olympus owners seem to consider this an advantage, as they get greater zoom reach with smaller lenses, and I tend to agree.

Back into my cave.

Rex914
11-08-2005, 11:14 PM
I agree that it's a personal decision to prefer one format over another, but there gets to be a point (which I don't know exactly) where the crop factor starts getting more in the way rather than help. Whether this occurs at 2x or not is a again, a personal decision, but for a sizable group of people 2x is indeed too much of a crop for their tastes. As you suggest, neither way is necessarily "better" than another. It's just a matter of what works for you.

Jeff Keller
11-09-2005, 01:03 AM
"The good news is that Olympus has built up a nice collection of Zuiko Digital Specific Lenses, while the bad news is that the FourThirds system has a 2X focal length conversion ratio (versus 1.5X or 1.6X on other D-SLRs)"

:confused: Could you please explain your rationale for this comment? Why does it matter? The Olympus lenses have been designed specifically with this 2x factor in consideration, so the lenses have been sized accordingly.

IMO, it's only a factor when owners use their legacy lenses (mostly C&N) their new digital bodies, where the FOV is no longer what the user expects (from their 35mm experience).

Most of the Olympus owners seem to consider this an advantage, as they get greater zoom reach with smaller lenses, and I tend to agree.

After thinking about it I decided that the comment was not appropriate, so I reworded things a bit. I think my brain is still trying to get back on its feet after all the stress of moving.

Norm in Fujino
11-09-2005, 05:47 AM
but for a sizable group of people 2x is indeed too much of a crop for their tastes.

I think the problem for a lot of us is that it is not a "crop" at all. It's a smaller sensor, that's all. The lenses are designed for that sensor, not for 135 film dimensions, so the term "crop" or "multiplier" is nothing but a short-hand way of telling what the equivalent FOV would be for all us old fogeys who grew up with 35mm cameras. It doesn't matter if it's 1.6x 2x, or .5x, it's only a quick reference point. If the e-series cameras were using lenses designed for 35mm film, a la Canon and Nikon, then people might be concerned about whether a camera with a given "crop" factor is making adequate use of the entire capability of the lens, but that's simply not applicable to the 4/3 system. So when people say "the 2x crop factor is too great," it makes us wonder just what they're talking about. If you're opposed to "small" sensors (smaller than aps, say), then say so, only leave confusing talk about crop factors out of it .

CaveDweller
11-09-2005, 08:19 AM
There is no crop factor, maybe a 2x FOV factor?

It's just a lens system designed specifically for a sensor that's smaller than 35mm film. It was full frame long before the Canon 5D -- just not a 35mm-sized frame.

For the 1.5x and 1.6x guys, it really *is* a crop factor, as the image is essentially being cropped out of the center of the glass - this can be thought of as an advantage (that lens with soft corners suddenly looks much better) or disadvantage (you're carrying around a lot of glass on the edges that you're not using, plus your FOV isn't what you were used to on your 35mm)

Balrog
11-09-2005, 09:44 AM
And in fact, even for the 1.5 and 1.6 guys, if you use the "digital specific" lenses of the respective cameras, it's no longer a crop once again.
The only thing I can see really making a difference is the DOF factor ... each sensor size will have its own characteristic depth of field for any given field of view.

evolt
11-09-2005, 09:46 AM
Hi Jeff,

Nice review. Just 1 question on the battery charging time, DP review claimed 1 1/2 hrs, Steve Digicam claimed 2hrs needed, I was wondering how you concluded " a sluggish 5 hrs " charging time is needed ? Did you used a different testing method from the others ?

Regards

Jeff Keller
11-09-2005, 10:15 AM
Hi Jeff,

Nice review. Just 1 question on the battery charging time, DP review claimed 1 1/2 hrs, Steve Digicam claimed 2hrs needed, I was wondering how you concluded " a sluggish 5 hrs " charging time is needed ? Did you used a different testing method from the others ?

Regards

I used Olympus' own numbers for that. They say 300 minutes which is five hours.