M8 and E3 suggestion...

[Mauribix]

I'm tryin' to make up my mind, so I'm looking for opinions:
How many of you combine the use of an M8 together with an E3 (or any 4/3 camera), and why?
How many times do you prefere the first or the ladder?And if so for what specific use?

I know that this sound like the usual "what's the best lens for...?", but just want to make a wide opinion poll, hoping that this could help me.

I only shoot with my M8, but sometimes (nature, sea...) i felt the need for a DSLR, and after a long search (few minutes, indeed) i directed my mind towards an E3.... and that 14-35 F2.0 zoom + the 50-200 SWD seems to be a nice combo... What you think?

Thanks as always,

[sreidvt]

How much high ISO work would you be doing with the E3?

Cheers,

Sean

[marknorton]

Why would you want to use a camera with a smaller sensor than the M8? There will inevitably be compromises from doing so, a trade-off of resolution against sensor noise. Even at full frame, there's the same compromise as the Nikon D3 and (expected) D3x will likely demonstrate.

I recently met someone who had an Olympus something-or-other (and I happen to think they're doing a better job than Panasonic/Leica at Four Thirds) but it wasn't that much smaller than, say, a D300. It was quiet though, seemingly quieter than the M8 I was using at the time.

[Edit: Yes, I know a Nikon DX sensor is smaller than a Leica M8 snesor, but it's not Leica Digilux 3 small]

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by sreidvt

How much high ISO work would you be doing with the E3?

Cheers,

Sean

I don't think I will be using it frequently for high ISO work, maybe just the minimum needed for shooting wildlife (let me guess... 400 max 800 iso?).
I like Zuiko lenses quality, I can't compare 'em scientificly to other manufacturers', but i can remember great performances at the time when I had an Olympus E500 + some pro Zuiko lenses.
I usually like their speed but may this partially compensate 4/3 system ISO performances?
Sean, are you planning some test for this camera?
You're usually my reference guide when I use my wallet for camera/lenses...

After reading your review, i just ordered my Sigma DP-1 as my M8' backup...

Thanks a lot

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by marknorton

Why would you want to use a camera with a smaller sensor than the M8? There will inevitably be compromises from doing so, a trade-off of resolution against sensor noise. Even at full frame, there's the same compromise as the Nikon D3 and (expected) D3x will likely demonstrate.

I recently met someone who had an Olympus something-or-other (and I happen to think they're doing a better job than Panasonic/Leica at Four Thirds) but it wasn't that much smaller than, say, a D300. It was quiet though, seemingly quieter than the M8 I was using at the time.

[Edit: Yes, I know a Nikon DX sensor is smaller than a Leica M8 snesor, but it's not Leica Digilux 3 small]

Finally, you'd prefer the D300?I'll really take it in consideration thus.
Frankly, my choice would be particularly driven by Olympus lenses' quality and speed... The 2x crop factor could be really a nice advantage when using long teles... How did you find 4/3 high iso noise?

[marknorton]

I'm sure there are Canon and Pentax alternatives to Nikon for you to consider; the point I was making was that the 4/3 standard is forever constrained by the size limits of the sensor. Noise or resolution? Your choice...

I also don't agree that just because a smaller sensor creates a narrower angle of view with a given lens that this is some sort of advantage. You may not be making use of the the full image circle provided by the lens and if they are cramming more pixels into that smaller space, they will be smaller, noisier pixels.

If I was choosing an SLR, I would now always go for full frame lenses and regard a cropped SLR as a stepping stone. In the next couple of years, we'll see FF sensors at a fraction of their current price and if you are able to protect your investment in FF glass, that will outweigh your investment in a camera body.

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by Mauribix

I don't think I will be using it frequently for high ISO work, maybe just the minimum needed for shooting wildlife (let me guess... 400 max 800 iso?).
I like Zuiko lenses quality, I can't compare 'em scientificly to other manufacturers', but i can remember great performances at the time when I had an Olympus E500 + some pro Zuiko lenses.
I usually like their speed but may this partially compensate 4/3 system ISO performances?
Sean, are you planning some test for this camera?
You're usually my reference guide when I use my wallet for camera/lenses...

After reading your review, i just ordered my Sigma DP-1 as my M8' backup...

Thanks a lot

I am planning to review it. I just need to get the camera from Olympus and I haven't been in touch with them recently. I want to get these Summarit articles done and then get to the D3 and E3. The advantage of the smaller sensor, of course, is the increase in DOF (which might be great for the wildlife pictures you mention).

I need to test to know for sure but I think the weak point of 4/3, Oly included, is still high ISO noise. The S/N ratio has certainly gotten better over time but that standard for clean high ISO performance has also gone up because of progress by Nikon, Canon, etc. I'll bet its adequate but not up with the best. That may not matter at all, though, in your case.

My wife was considering switching to Oly for her pro kit (weddings) but the high ISO performance is a big question mark for her. Otherwise, I think the E1 had a lot going for it and the E3 probably does as well. There are some on the forum here who own the latter and I hope they chime in. I agree that Oly lens quality tends to be excellent.

Cheers,

Sean

[Bob Ross]

I have an E-1 and E-3 as the SLR compliment to the M8. I use the E things for macro, tele, accurate framing and ultra wide angle. Next to the M8, the E-3 is complexity, with all the options and frills like Live View. I consider the 4/3rds advantages to be the lenses, dust buster, color palets and weather proofing. I also like the ability to use legacy lenses from many mfrs. I suppose one downside, for me, is the size (about Nikon F2 size & weight), having gotten used to the M size again. I have used the system since Oct. 2003 and haven't run into any sever limitations, for my hobbiest uses. The 100% view finder on the E-3 is really nice as i the IS. The interface can be..... .........when compare to the 1½ menus of the M8. I do my hi ISO work with the M8 so I haven't run into any of the reported problems in that area.
Rugged, weather proof, built from ground up in the digital metaphor, works for me.
Bob

[calvados]

I believe that the advantage of DSLR is just lens and wide possibility of photography.
DSLR and M8 has big difference, it is not parallel.

I agree with you about Zuiko Digital Lens quality.
Specially, 14-35 F2.0 is super; currently I always chose this lens at bright place or dark place with manual focus exlude very dark place.
When you will use 4/3 body with LEICA or other lens, you will use very good performance area, because 4/3 system working in half size of image circle, therefore we can use very hi quality area.

I believe disadvantage of 4/3 are we need new lens, especially wide area.

Almost people say that disadvantage of 4/3 are small sensor than APS size sensor, therefore 4/3s noise.... It is not thru, because the noise of OLYMPUS / Panasonic / LEICA are caused by noise reduction technology, not sensor. The real noise is same level 4/3nser and other sensors, because photo diode size is nearly equal, CMOS can't make big photo diode. Why Canon is low noise, it is simple, Canon sensor include noise reduction system on cell level. This 4/3 noise is caused by this difference, not cell size.
Currently, OLYMPUS shipped 2 type of noise reduction, first is same as M8, second is Noise Filter. This result, ISO400-800 has same level more low ISO and very few deciles quality. But Nikon and Canon has more high level noise reduction technology, therefore they can make higher ISO. If you need very high ISO, Nikon or Canon is best choice.

Other view point, 4/3 has twice of DOF, and High speed lens.
I like this point, because photograph is more easy than 35mm format.

If you have Nikon or Canon SLR lens, and it is good quality, the best choice is full size sensor DSLR of same maker. Or you need very high ISO, your best choice is Nikon D3 or Canon.
But all of other case, 4/3 is one of best choice, because you can access new dimension of digital advantage by format. You will use almost lens exclude Canon, and you can use Zuiko Digital and Panasonic/Leica D lens.

The following is sample of E-3 + 14-35 F2.0.

[mym6is12]

Originally Posted by Mauribix

I'm tryin' to make up my mind, so I'm looking for opinions... directed my mind towards an E3.... and that 14-35 F2.0 zoom + the 50-200 SWD seems to be a nice combo... What you think?

Thanks as always,

I've been using a E3 since Christmas. I bought it instead of a M8.
The Leica D summilux 25 f/1.4 was the lens that tipped balance away from the Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony offerings.
No one else could offer a non full frame image stabilized quality fast standard lens.
( see what Erwin Puts says about IS and the E3 :Vibration Reduction compared with handholding (April 2, 2008)
Up to that point, I had used a pair of M6s equipped with ( after years of gradual upgrading ) the fastest 28/35/50 ASPH M lenses.

Indoors the E-3 at ISO 800 is far superior to the M6 and Fuji800 neg film in all aspects bar dynamic range. ( 14mm f/2 image below )
However above 800 is not recommended and banding will show if the shadows are pushed.



After the 25mm, I've added the 7-14,50,150 and 14-35 lenses all of which are absolutely first class, almost beyond reproach.
If I was being picky lens reflections are the only down side with the 7-14 and 14-35 with so many lens elements - but I would doubt Nikon or Canon are any better. ( below is a deliberate reflection test)



see here for more examples : . But then my 35 Summilux produces far more dramatic flare under such conditions

E3 +M6 gives me a very versatile and portable all weather outfit - ultra-wide, fast, macro and tele not possible with just Leica.
Your planned M8/E3 combo should be great.

Remember, the 'top-pro' lenses are massive lenses compared to Leica M. The E3 plus 14-35 weighs more than a Hasselblad, but about the same as 2xM6s and 28+50 lenses.

My M6s now just get used for B&W work, as does my 501c Hasselblad.

In choosing Olympus and Leica, but holding out for the M9 , I've accepted that as niche players both Leica and Olympus will always be a couple of years behind leading edge sensor performance of the top Canon and Nikon bodies.
If that trade off is acceptable, Olympus and Leica will offer advantages that you would not find elsewhere.

[Riley]

first things first, E3 isnt a low light camera. It can and does support shutter speeds in 'kinda' good light circumstances without issue, i shoot fairly frequently at 400-800iso in ambient light circumstances using flash just to fill.
800iso 1/60th F4, 11mm

400iso 1/30th F4.5, 11mm


on the sensor, this is without question the best 4/3rds camera to date, the much discussed noise is not so very far from APSC if it is at all. Would you really use 40D over iso1000 for colour professionally? If you convert Canon APSC sensor are to 4/3rds the sensor is about 16% smaller. The DR being so similar means to me the well sizes are about the same. On sensor density specifically:

4/3rds Olympus E3 = 41,563 (10.1Mp); 243 sq mm
APSC Nikon D300 = 33,300 (12.3Mp) 369 sq mm
APSC Nikon D40 = 16,260 (6Mp) 369 sq mm
APSC Canon 40D = 30,792 (10.1Mp) 328.56 sq mm
APSC Canon 450D = 37,195 (12.2Mp) 328.56 sq mm

reasons to be with 4/3rds in the first place, the lenses, the quality of the glass is consistent and of professional quality. The top end choices are truly top end glass, and Sean you might have your wife check out 14-35, 35-100, 12-60 SWD, maybe even 7-14.

reasons to be with E3, the features, LiveView is ever more useful with an articulated LCD, the OVF is a generous size (mine has a 1.2x mag finder making it bigger than 5D) IS, dust shaker that works (i have no idea how to clean a sensor BTW)

reasons to my mind to pass on E3, low light photography, the weight compared to other 4/3rds cameras (although on par with APSC), the complex menu system. Perhaps a tendency to deeper DoF

one more completely unnecessary gratuitous E3 shot
640iso, 1/40th, F5, 16mm

[david_choy58]

I'm a M8, E-3 and 5D user. As many people pointed out, the reason I went for 4/3 is all because of the lenses.

The top pro/pro lenses: 7-14, 12-60, 35-100, 50 macro, leica D 25, leica D 14-150, leica 14-50 are all really top quality lenses. You can use them wide open from wide to tele without much CA, vignetting and sharp corner to corner. For me, 4/3 is the closest standard to M8 + M lenses.

Yes, Canon + Nikon are both better in terms of noise performance. But whenever I use my 5D + 16-35mm II, I'm just not happy with the amount of vignetting and corner softness there. Wide open performance is just not as good as M lenses or 4/3. Also, Canon + Nikon lenses tend to be less saturated and with lower micro/macro contrast than 4/3 or Leica M lens. I know a lot of people will argue that nowadays, you can do it all in PP for saturation and contrast. But I do not agree. No matter how I tweak my 5D files with L lens, I just cannot get the same look as my M8 + M lenses (e.g. image not as 3D). I think overall, 4/3 (E3) is a good partner with M8. The camera IS and anti-dust work well, lenses are well built and really top quality (only down side is $$, but I guess we're all used to expensive lenses for M8..haha). Together with the 25mm lux, it's an excellent package in low light. It's also a small package given what it can do. With 2 lenses, you can have a range of 24mm to 400mm or even 600mm. ISO peformance up to 400 is not worse than any other APS-C competitors. Especially, with 25mm lux + IS, you can actually use lower ISO....as no other DSLR packages give you that (maybe Sony 35mm 1.4 G + IS, but the IS just does not work as well as the sensor size is larger). Honestly, any ISO higher than 400 is not that usable anyway (at least for me). For my 5D, maybe I'll go as far as ISO 640, but if you really go for image quality, why would you use such high ISO. It's best to use large aperture lens or tripod. I think my 5D + 50mm 1.2 L does about the sames as my E-3 + 25mm lux in low light....just because of the IS advantage (2-3 stops) and I can use much lower ISO. But the overall "look" of the image - I prefer E-3 + 25mm lux. Just more 3D, moody, smoother bokeh..etc....afterall, it's a Leica (QC) lens.

So, I'd strongly recommend you to go fo E-3 with the top pro/pro or leica D lenses. Honestly, sometimes, I think a lot of people these days just go for FF body without thinking what the whole system can do. FF, APS-C, 4/3 all have their pros and cons. There will be a market for all these 3 standards in the future. A lot of people think FF is the way to go....but just think about the $$ and lens size you have to deal with for FF. Not every one will be prepared to pay and carry that much for a camera / lens. In fact, I think FF is best to use primes. Just lighter and better corner performance. That's why I go for all L primes for my 5D except 16-35mm II as I need UW. So, afterall, it's not so flexible, I might as well use my M8. Also, for tele, 4/3 is lighter/smaller....APS-C is always going to be the mass market and 4/3 will try to compete with it by providing some smaller alternatives (e.g. E420). Can you imagine if Olympus continue to bring out pancake lenses for E420. It's about the same size as the M package!!!

So, having own a FF, 4/3 and M8 camera.....I appreciate all 3 standards. But if I have to choose 2, I'd go for M8 + 4/3. Just more flexible, light weight and most importantly, I like the glass more. I would not go as far as saying that Olympus top-pro lenses are probably the best Japanese lenses but not a lot of people appreciate that. The correction of these lenses are just amazing, no CA, very little distortion, wide open performance is almost the same as stop down, same performance from wide to tele, weather sealed, nice 3D look, good contrast, good saturation....etc....what else do you need. But prepare to pay for them!!!

[vondauster]

This is a great thread!

I use an E-3 professionally, and have been delighted with it. Previously I used Canon APS cameras, the 10 and 20D, but was consistently disappointed with both the color rendition and the lenses (mostly L glass) compared to Olympus. The deciding factor for me was when Leica partnered with Panasonic to participate in the 4/3rds system.

Low light performance is clearly better in the E-3 than the old 20D, and I personally like the look of the ISO 800 and 1600 files better from the E-3 than those from Canon. Of course, I shoot raw exclusively, and use Adobe Lightroom for my work flow.

Leica is missing an opportunity, IMO, by not bringing out very fast wide angle lenses for the 4/3rd system. They've done well with the 25mm f1.4, and I expect Olympus may be working on more small (pancake) lenses similar to their announced 25mm f2.8 a la Pentax, but I believe Leica would sell a fair number of 17.5mm f1.4s (35mm equiv) or 14mm f2s.

Leica did a lot right with the M8, but it has also had a fair number of teething problems (color balance, etc). Maybe the M9 (M8.2?) will snag me - I used Leica Ms for over 25 years, and love that style of shooting and the superlative lenses.

Will

[Symeon]

Since you like Zuiko lenses and wildlife, check out the Olympus 150mm F2.8 built for older film cameras. It's tops.
Regards.

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by Symeon

Since you like Zuiko lenses and wildlife, check out the Olympus 150mm F2.8 built for older film cameras. It's tops.
Regards.

Thanks for the hint!

[offshore]

Hi Mauribix-I use the M8 for all of my landscape, architecture, event and travel photography. Your using one so I don't need to explain why to you. One thing I really missed was bird photography and started looking into which SLR and telephoto lens I wanted to take it up again. The universe made up my mind for me when I won an Olympus E510 and the new 70-300 Oly lens in a sales contest. I couldn't be happier with the results I've seen so far and although I'm lusting after the 12-60 I wouldn't stop using my M8 when and if I get one. Hope this helps.

[rosuna]

Noise may be a limitation for the Olympus E-3, but dynamic range is another weak point in small size sensors.

Can you imagine if Olympus continue to bring out pancake lenses for E420. It's about the same size as the M package!!!

I cannot agree:

Flickr: digitalbear's Photostream

[Riley]

Originally Posted by rosuna

Noise may be a limitation for the Olympus E-3, but dynamic range is another weak point in small size sensors.

more to do with sensor well sizes than sensor sizes themselves. E3 and 40D have so similar DR as to not make a difference, this because nMOS has half the wiring of CMOS, releasing more sensor real estate for wells

Originally Posted by rosuna

I cannot agree:

Flickr: digitalbear's Photostream

this is a 420 and pancake



E520 should be with us in just a few days, E3 has been reviewed by cameralabs
Olympus E-3 review Cameralabs introduction

[toddbee]

so is the leica 25 1.4 as good as the best olympus glass? i have been looking into getting one? is it sharper then the 12-60?
thanks,
todd