Tiniest DSLR?

[GeneW]

www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08030501olympuse420.asp

This new announcement on the E420 from Olympus has generated a lot of buzz on some of the forums. It's said to be the smallest DSLR yet produced and one option will be to take it with a 25mm f/2.8 pancake prime rather than the usual zoom. The prime is really tiny. The crop factor on the Olympus is 2x so the 25 is an effective 50mm lens.

Perhaps Olympus is getting back to its heritage of small, quality gear that's a little different from everyone else's offerings.

Gene

[Deleted]

The Olympus can be smaller because it has a smaller sensor that other DSLR.--puts it sort of between the point and shoots and other DSLRs quality-wise.

Also, Pentax has its K20D out with a 14 megapixel sensor. But it's not a miniature DSLR.

[nikonbob]

I just read the link and one thing jumped out at me was the lack of in body stabilization being mentioned. I may have missed it but I don't think so. I think that is a serious short coming and something I would demand in any new digicam that I would buy. I have rather large hands and a camera body can get too small to be able to hold comfortably again that is just me. The 50mm equivalent prime lens is just too slow to lure me especially without IS. A fast, f2 or faster, 35mm equivalent lens would have been much more useful as an all purpose prime. That said, for most other user it will likely sell well but for me it is a pass.

Bob

[GeneW]

In discussing the sensor size of 4/3 format it's helpful to see a comparison chart.



Courtesy of luxars.com/index.php?http%3A//luxars.com/matrix/articles/sensorsizes/index.html

A standard P&S these days is the small sensor in the bottom right. When you compare the APS-C size (most DSLR models, e.g. Nikon D300, Pentax 10D, Canon 40D, etc) with the 4/3 size the Olympus uses, you can see that it's not actually all that much smaller. So for a carryaround cam, this size is lightyears ahead of a P&S.

Bob, I agree that IS would be nice in the body, but bear in mind I don't get that in my Nikon body and it's not in the Canon body either. Part of how useful this cam proves to be will depend on its higher ISO performance.

If you have the money, you can purchase a Leica 25mm f1.4 4/3 lens: www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030703leica50mmsumm.asp

I'm not selling this cam, but I'm fascinated by it as a possible alternative to a carryaround P&S. Perhaps as a supplement to a big DLSR of a different brand.

Gene

[Deleted]

Body stabilization (or lens stabilization for that matter) hasn't been a factor for me in DSLRs. The mid and high end Pentax DSLRs had body stabilization. If I did a lot of shooting with long teles it might be more important to me.

Gene, you are right. There is considerable difference in sensor size and the Olympus mught have something going for it for walk around.

[nikonbob]

Gene

I had forgotten about that Leica lens but that is not going to an viable alternative to me as it is likely to be too pricey. I also don't see a 50mm equivalent lens as a useful general purpose lens. That is a personal issue and will not hold true for others. The only way I would accept not having some form of IS, body or lens type, would be to be able to use my old MF Nikkor lenses with in camera metering.

Wayne

I have found IS very useful when using my FZ50 at the wide end with slow shutter speeds to avoid setting higher ISOs. That is less important with the new generation of sensors which have very good high ISO settings ie noise is not too much of a problem. I'll still take every advantage that I can though especially with the slow consumer zooms that generally available at reasonable cost.

Bob

[Dan Vincent]

Interesting, can't wait to see a size comparison picture with the little Olympus next to a Nikon or Canon.

Olympus has a history of making cameras that are smaller than the average. My XA and XA2 are neat little buggers.

I was very interested in the Olympus OM-1 SLR when it first came out but in handling the camera I found the strap locations did not match my hands. On the other hand, when Minolta introduced their XD series cameras which were about the same size, I found it very comfortable to operate.

[jmi]

Gene - you make a good point with the 4/3 sensor size. I see the argument that 4/3 can't be any good because the sensor is smaller all the time on various web sites! Really the main difference is in aspect ratio, and I prefer the "squarer" formats anyway, 135 and APS-C are too "skinny" for my tastes - 4/3 should be about right being the same aspect ratio as 6x4.5 medium format. The 4x5 / 8x10 / 6x7 format is also quite nice but maybe a bit too close to square.

Here's to hoping they complement this normal prime with some wide primes - I'm sure I am not alone in wishing more for those than the normal lens A fast 12 or 14 would be great on this system for a bit of street shooting, etc.

Regarding the in-body stabilisation, I expect they left it out in order for people to have a reason to buy the more expensive models! I've never used it so have no idea how effective it is on short lenses anyway - although if it does as claimed, maybe it'd be enough to redress the problems with the SLR mirror slap and get me back down to the speeds I can do on my M3.

Recent experience with the Mamiya RB67 has led me to believe that a lot of the mirror slap problems with dSLR bodies are at least in part due to this crazy trend for very high frame rates - the RB has a governor on the mirror and the motion is fairly slow compared to most 135 SLRs. That and the size/weight aspect seem to make it far more handholdable than it has any right to be! I can handhold this much slower than any of my 35mm SLR bodies and still get acceptable results.

[GeneW]

Wayne, Bob, Dan, Jonathan, good points! I'd never replace my Nikon D200 with one of these, but I'm attracted by the size. I read somewhere that Olympus is going to produce more small primes and everyone on the forums is assuming that will include wider-angle offerings. The sensor in the 420 has been confirmed to be the same new sensor that's in their E3 professional model, and that's been getting praise.

I'll be very interested in the reviews and user reports. I like to see creative alternatives instead of the usual 'me too' designs. It's healthy. Of course I used OM-1's for some 30 yrs and I have a fondness for Olympus so I'm encouraged to see them innovating.

Bob, I learned that there is an F-mount adapter for the 4/3 mount. How well it works is anyone's guess. Metering is said to work, though it may be stop-down. I think there's a focus confirmation light, a la Nikon as well, but the VF's on the 4/3 cameras are said to be on the dim side. Might not be an ideal match for manual-focus lenses.

I found this link interesting. It's to a Spanish site that has quite a few pics of the cam, the lens, and some image samples.

Olympus 420 samples & pics

Gene

[nikonbob]

jmi

I think that with IS you can get down to the shutter speeds you use with your M3. I always wondered why Leica did not have body IS in there M8 and came to the conclusion that it was just too radical an idea for their traditional customers. If it helps with an SLR it should also give the RF an edge too.

Bob

[GeneW]

Bob, I'd certainly agree with that. With my Canon S3 IS I'm amazed at what I can get by with in terms of slow shutter speeds even with wide angle. I've taken many shots at 1/4s that were steady. I'm a believer.

Gene

[Peter S.]

Hi there,

one additional point: a small sensor is likely resulting in a small viewfinder, too, as the ground glass inside the finder needs to match the size of the sensor. So I would expect a big finder from the 5D and a tiny one for an Oly four thirds camera.

For me the quality of the finder is one key aspect in a camera.

Best regards
Peter

[jmi]

Good point, I always find dSLR viewfinders to be like looking down a tiny tunnel at the best of times! They do try to compensate by upping the magnification, but at 0.92x it's only the equivalent of the older Canikon budget models with their 0.7 something if I did the maths right. As for me I think I'm spoiled by the beautiful finders I have used most extensively - OM2, FM2n, M3, 'blad, RB67

An M8 with a full frame sensor (say the Canon 5D one) and built-in IS, that might even get me to part with the $5k they want for it! *drool*

Just think of what that could do with a Noctilux on it...

(and the huge hole in the bank balance)

[Peter S.]

jmi said:

...and the huge hole in the bank balance

I think no longer one could speak of "balance"...
P