• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Olympus does it again (1 Viewer)

G

grahams

Active member
Anybody who bought an Olympus E1 should by now be aware that they are offering an adapter to take the old OM lenses for the E1. I have received mine and by fitting an OM 50mm f1.8 lens to the E1 along with the adapter, it makes a perfect digiscoping camera. Obviously you are looking throught he scope lens so what you see is what you get. No vignetting and initial results (handheld up to the scope are excellent) Currently making an adapter myself, once made will post some images.

The above configuration also works with the Maxview S adapter. My scope is an Swarovski ATS 80. You can also use the Olympus E1 1.4 teleconverter between the camera body and the OM adapter.

Incidentally if you have an E1 and it is registered with Olympus the OM adapter is free - you only have to ask for it.
 
grahams said:
Anybody who bought an Olympus E1 should by now be aware that they are offering an adapter to take the old OM lenses for the E1. I have received mine and by fitting an OM 50mm f1.8 lens to the E1 along with the adapter, it makes a perfect digiscoping camera.


Where did you see the information on the adapter? I have a friend who has older Olympus lenses but can't see buying an E1 unless he can use them.

bob
Click to expand...
 
Chuck A. Walla said:
grahams said:
Anybody who bought an Olympus E1 should by now be aware that they are offering an adapter to take the old OM lenses for the E1. I have received mine and by fitting an OM 50mm f1.8 lens to the E1 along with the adapter, it makes a perfect digiscoping camera.


Where did you see the information on the adapter? I have a friend who has older Olympus lenses but can't see buying an E1 unless he can use them.

bob
Click to expand...

Olympus do not advertise these. You have to talk to Olympus. The adapter is free of charge to people who have bought an E1 and registered it with them. If you look on www.dpreview.com under forums - olympus slr talk there are numerous threads relating to this subject.
Click to expand...
 
grahams said:
Olympus do not advertise these. You have to talk to Olympus. The adapter is free of charge to people who have bought an E1 and registered it with them. If you look on www.dpreview.com under forums - olympus slr talk there are numerous threads relating to this subject.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'll pass it on to him. Odd marketing technique keeping it a secret though. I wonder how many other old Olympus users have passed on the E1 when they learned that it wasn't compatible with thier old lenses, this is advertised, at least in the reviews.

bob
 
Chuck A. Walla said:
Thanks. I'll pass it on to him. Odd marketing technique keeping it a secret though. I wonder how many other old Olympus users have passed on the E1 when they learned that it wasn't compatible with thier old lenses, this is advertised, at least in the reviews.

bob
Click to expand...
The whole idea with the E-1 and the 4/3 lens system is that the lenses can be designed to fit the sensor with the required resolution. If old lenses are used, the full potential of the system is not drawn since they (according to Olympus) doesn't provide adequate resolution.

Maybe they don't want us to become disappointed or maybe they want us to buy the new very expensive lenses... ;)

Cheers, Jens
 
jebir said:
The whole idea with the E-1 and the 4/3 lens system is that the lenses can be designed to fit the sensor with the required resolution. If old lenses are used, the full potential of the system is not drawn since they (according to Olympus) doesn't provide adequate resolution.

Maybe they don't want us to become disappointed or maybe they want us to buy the new very expensive lenses... ;)

Cheers, Jens
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right, and I understand that the E1 was aimed at the pro market. It's just such a stark contrast with Canon and Nikon though. It was regarded as a major selling point that both of their newest cameras were more or less backward compatible. I guess I'm a little frustrated also because I think the 3/4 system has real advantages for birding. Being able to use a faster 400mm rather then a 500mm lens in the same situation would be a real plus. I wonder if being able to use faster lenses might cancel some of the noise problem. In any case, I feel fairly certain that this is the direction future digital photography will take.

bob
 
Chuck A. Walla said:
It's just such a stark contrast with Canon and Nikon though. It was regarded as a major selling point that both of their newest cameras were more or less backward compatible.
Click to expand...
Yes, but (at least for Nikon) you need the newer AF-lenses that transmit the focus distance to the microprocessor in the body. So manual lenses can't be used with Nikon which I find a real drawback.

That is why I wonder if an absolutely ordinary Zuiko lens from the end of the 70's will work on the E-1? Wouldn't that be fantastic?

I guess I'm a little frustrated also because I think the 3/4 system has real advantages for birding. Being able to use a faster 400mm rather then a 500mm lens in the same situation would be a real plus. I wonder if being able to use faster lenses might cancel some of the noise problem. In any case, I feel fairly certain that this is the direction future digital photography will take.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. A good thing is that noise is not a huge problem with the E-1 because it has a sensor with quite large area for each pixel.

Cheers, Jens.
 
As far as I can work it out, lenses for digital cameras need to have high quality coatings to minimise any flare within the camera caused by the almost mirror-like surface of the sensor 'bouncing' more light around than film.

Also, the light rays from the rear of the lens need to hit the sensor more or less 'straight-on' to give their best - therefore, wide-angle lenses designed for film cameras don't perform to their potential as well as telephotos would.

High-quality telephoto lenses ought to perform well, although you have to bear in mind that, as the E1 sensor is only half the size of a 35mm camera frame you are, effectively, having to double the amount of enlargement to produce a print of the same size as the quoted '35mm-equivalent' focal-length lens - Olympus may very well have optimised their new lenses for digital cameras, but I'm not aware that they've managed to double the resolution of lenses!

Similarly, with other camera makes, (Nikon, 1.5x and Canon 1.3 or 1.6x, etc.) you are 'enlarging' the centre of the frame more to produce same-size prints as the 'equivalent' 35mm focal-length. So if you want a 400mm to become a '640mm' then you need the best 400mm that you can afford!

Going back to the Olympus E1/OM-lens adaptor, I would say that its main advantage would be for someone starting-out with a new system but who can't afford a whole new range of lenses straight away - as the E1 has a new lens-mount then nobody will have any lenses for it like they would if they have,say a Canon 35mm system, already.
 
Adey Baker said:
High-quality telephoto lenses ought to perform well, although you have to bear in mind that, as the E1 sensor is only half the size of a 35mm camera frame you are, effectively, having to double the amount of enlargement to produce a print of the same size as the quoted '35mm-equivalent' focal-length lens - Olympus may very well have optimised their new lenses for digital cameras, but I'm not aware that they've managed to double the resolution of lenses!

QUOTE]


Don't forget though, unlike the old film days, a 5-megapixel sensor has the same resolution regardless of what size it is. There is a noise issue as the sensor size gets smaller but I believe this is a technical problem only. The pixel density, that is the resolution of the sensors, has increased for pro DSLRs 5X in ten years, and maintained noise performance. I see no reason why this should not continue. Do we all need 50 megapixel sensors? I doubt it. In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised to see 5 to 10 magapixel sensors with "crop factors" of four or five. I'm thinking about using a 200 mm lens to get the same field of view as an 800 mm with a resolution as good or better then a pro DSLR today.

bob
Click to expand...
 
jebir said:
Yes, but (at least for Nikon) you need the newer AF-lenses that transmit the focus distance to the microprocessor in the body. So manual lenses can't be used with Nikon which I find a real drawback.



I'm not so sure about that. Older lenses won't work automatically true, but you can actually use manual lenses with the D70, even a Meade telescope if you want to. True the light meter won't work, but you get the famous digital replay with curves, which for digiscoping might even be better





That is why I wonder if an absolutely ordinary Zuiko lens from the end of the 70's will work on the E-1? Wouldn't that be fantastic?



According to what I've read, OM lenses will work, but manually. You can now get an adapter that adapts Nikon lenses to the E1.

What about a 135 - 400 zoom. This would give you A 270 to 800mm zoom on the E1.

bob


bob
Click to expand...
 
Chuck A. Walla said:
Adey Baker said:
High-quality telephoto lenses ought to perform well, although you have to bear in mind that, as the E1 sensor is only half the size of a 35mm camera frame you are, effectively, having to double the amount of enlargement to produce a print of the same size as the quoted '35mm-equivalent' focal-length lens - Olympus may very well have optimised their new lenses for digital cameras, but I'm not aware that they've managed to double the resolution of lenses!

QUOTE]


Don't forget though, unlike the old film days, a 5-megapixel sensor has the same resolution regardless of what size it is. There is a noise issue as the sensor size gets smaller but I believe this is a technical problem only. The pixel density, that is the resolution of the sensors, has increased for pro DSLRs 5X in ten years, and maintained noise performance. I see no reason why this should not continue. Do we all need 50 megapixel sensors? I doubt it. In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised to see 5 to 10 magapixel sensors with "crop factors" of four or five. I'm thinking about using a 200 mm lens to get the same field of view as an 800 mm with a resolution as good or better then a pro DSLR today.

bob
Click to expand...

I'm sure technology will improve and give us 'noise-free' bigger megapixel sensors the same size as in the E1 but the point I'm making is that you can't improve the resolution of the lens accordingly - your 200mm lens would still be a 200mm lens and would have a maximum resolution determined, mainly, by diffraction. All you'd eventually do would be to 'enlarge' the limitations of your lens - if it had a maximum resolution of, say, 100 lines per millimetre then enlarging the middle quarter of the image would give you the equivalent of an 800mm lens, but with only 25 lpm res. (I think!)

Adey
Click to expand...
 
Adey Baker said:
I'm sure technology will improve and give us 'noise-free' bigger megapixel sensors the same size as in the E1 but the point I'm making is that you can't improve the resolution of the lens accordingly - your 200mm lens would still be a 200mm lens and would have a maximum resolution determined, mainly, by diffraction. All you'd eventually do would be to 'enlarge' the limitations of your lens - if it had a maximum resolution of, say, 100 lines per millimetre then enlarging the middle quarter of the image would give you the equivalent of an 800mm lens, but with only 25 lpm res. (I think!)

Adey
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know where the limits are. My feeling so far is that the lens is not yet the limiting factor, at least not for film and I haven't heard anyone say that digital exceeds film.

Below I have some quotes and sites I've come across trying to understand this issue.

You will note that other issues such as shutter speed, lens speed, and media speed also have a direct effect on overall picture sharpness. When taking pictures of birds in usually less then optimum settings, these other factors may become more important then simple resolution anyway. How many birders take pictures with 8X10 view cameras? That's the trend I think the 3/4 format is leading.

bob

"35mm is limited by film quality, while LF is limited by film flatness and the need to use small apertures"

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/resolution.html

Film Resolution in Lines Per Millimeter
"Lenses by themselves have spectacular aerial resolutions, often reaching 300+ lpmm and even 650+ lpmm for typical 35mm SLR optics.
Now the color film becomes much more limiting, typically running 40 lpmm to 63 lpmm.
Obviously, if the film can only resolve 50 lpmm, then you aren't going to get all the resolution your lenses can deliver given their aerial resolution greatly exceeds this limit. "
The greater light sensitivity of digital devices versus today's films give digital cameras another boost, but can also translate into slower and smaller zoom lenses (f/8 or even f/11). The smaller chip sizes means that lens coverage can be minimized, meaning lens resolution can be maximized with less tradeoffs due to smaller coverage requirements.
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html
http://www.photodo.com/nav/artindex.html
 
As far as I'm aware, the limiting factor is the very wave-pattern of light itself which cannot be improved by better lens/film/sensor design.

If you photograph a white disc, of a certain size, it will reproduce on film at a smaller size (depending on focal-length, distance from object, etc.) - then if you reduce the disc-size by half it reproduces on film at half the previous size.

This continues until you reach a certain point where the disc on film just doesn't get any smaller in ratio to the ever-decreasing size of your original disc. Magnified, this shows not as a tiny perfect disc, but as a 'circle of confusion' where diffraction has interrupted the wave pattern of light as soon as it hits a solid object (the film, sensor, etc.).

Of course, there's scope for a good deal of magnification within the existing formats - a 35mm film or a digital image from an even smaller sensor can be enlarged to A4/10x8 and beyond with good results and with a high enough resolution film/sensor you could double the enlargement factor of a shot taken with, say, a 300mm lens to compare favourably with another shot taken with a very big/expensive 600mm lens.

However, trying to follow this route farther will lead to problems from those 'circles of confusion' limiting the theoretically available resolution. No matter how high the resolution of the sensor or film a 150mm lens with four times more enlargement or a 75mm with eight times, etc., just wont stand comparison with the 'full-frame' 600mm shot. Even with the 600mm, a distant object may need quite a bit of enlarging to get a satisfactory photo.

If only.......! I suppose this is why digiscoping is so popular - the resolution in terms of lpmm may not be as good, but as the magnification is so much bigger to start with, there's no need to worry about how much enlargement the image can take to get a reasonably-sized picture of the bird.
 
> As far as I'm aware, the limiting factor is the very wave-pattern of light itself which
> cannot be improved by better lens/film/sensor design.

Right, I was only referring to the lens /film combination. Even this is tricky. I was reading a review on the Canon full frame and he seems to think that either the resolution of that 11 meg sensor may exceed the resolving power of the lens or that the lack of noise makes it appear to be so. I'm confused on this issue.


> Of course, there's scope for a good deal of magnification within the existing formats - a
> 35mm film or a digital image from an even smaller sensor can be enlarged to A4/10x8
> and beyond with good results and with a high enough resolution film/sensor you could
> double the enlargement factor of a shot taken with, say, a 300mm lens to compare
> favourably with another shot taken with a very big/expensive 600mm lens.

Are you saying that if you took one shot with a 600mm lens with low-resolution film, then took another shot with a 300mm les but with film that had twice the resolution, and enlarged the 300mm shot, that the 600mm would still be inherently better?

As I understand it, it is the combined resolution of the lens and the media that counts.

In a comparison with Canon's two new 8 meg cameras, the chip size and lower noise ration of the 1D Mark II was superior to the Powershot Pro1, but probably not in itself enough to justify the difference in price. As he says: "Here's where things get interesting. On 10 X 15" prints on A3 paper the difference (meaning the Mark II's resolution advantage) is still visible, but it is small."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/8mp-alternatives.shtml

By the way, I could easily justify the price difference and would kill to have a 1D Mark II, unfortunately that's probably the only way I could ever get my hands on one.

I'm just not willing to say that we have reached the ultimate technology in sensor resolution and noise ratio. And since the advent of photography, there has been a distinct trend towards smaller lighter cameras with increased picture quality. There was a time when full frame 35mm was scoffed at also.

> If only.......! I suppose this is why digiscoping is so popular - the resolution in terms of > lpmm may not be as good, but as the magnification is so much bigger to start with,
> there's no need to worry about how much enlargement the image can take to get a
> reasonably-sized picture of the bird.

That's it in a nutshell. I regularly shoot with a 2000mm + equivalent spotting scope. I'd love to be able to spend day after day waiting for that perfectly lit, posed, close up shot. But I only get out for a few hours a week. Occasionally I do get lucky, but mostly have to settle for record shots. The world just won't support my hobby. I just wish I could have worked up some interest in golf. They pay people to do that. :)

bob
 
I'm with you 100% on your comments, there, Bob.

Most of my comments are what I've picked-up from books, magazines, etc., including 'The Leica Manual' but I have tried out some of those high resolution black and white films quoted in one of your links.

I've tried Agfa Ortho developed in 'Doku,' Kodak Technical Pan 2415 developed in 'Acutol' as a 'compensating developer' and whilst they give good smooth-toned grain free pictures, it's just not possible to enlarge them bigger than 'normal' without a certain 'unsharpness' creeping in to spoil your hopes!

Nowadays, either with SLR or digiscoping kit, if a bird comes within range, I try for a photograph - if it doesn't, then I move on until one does!

Either way, it's much more interesting, though less lucrative, than golf!

Adey
 
I see two main issues here. The first is the theoretical limiitation of resolution due to the wave nature of light and the second is whether 35mm lenses as designed for 35mm film cameras actually deliver sufficient resolution to a 4/3 sensor to make full use of its resolving capability.

A small sensor 8MP digicam requires about three times the resolving power that is typically needed for a 35mm film camera. (around 180 lp/mm vs. around 60 lp/mm). The 4/3 system falls somewhere between these two extremes but I don't have numbers readily available. So its understandable that a lens designed to deliver 60 lp/mm or better could very well not be adequate if we assume that the 4/3 system needs something closer to twice that resolution. On the other hand, the 4/3 sensor would only be using the very sharpest center section from the 35mm lens and this is where the best resolution is typically found.

The wave nature of light really shouldn't be an issue with 35mm lenses. Its probably more related to the optical design and the larger area of coverage that such designs must consider. There are a few ways to calculate it, but interestingly, the resolution limits due to diffraction come down to the f-number of the camera lens. A given f-number can only resolve a certain limit of lines per millimeter. So the 8mp small sensor digicam mentioned above becomes diffraction limited at around f9 while a 35mm lens becomes diffraction limited at around f22. Image contrast (MTF) due to diffraction effects begins to suffer well before these limits, which is why the sweet spot for 35mm cameras is usually around f8-f11 and why such a sweet spot is almost non-existent on small sensor digicams. This also explains why small sensor digcams seldom stop down further than f10. But I'm drifting off-topic.

The 3/4 system is probably diffraction limited at around f16. So the wave nature of light limiting resolution really isn''t the issue when considering using a 35mm lens with these sensors.

You can see how the f-number influences possible resolution by fiddling with values in my digiscoping calculator.
http://www.jayandwanda.com/digiscope/digiscope_calc.html

If you enter in a scope magnification of 1, you can use the calculator to give values for the camera and lens only. I don't have sensor values for a 3/4 sensor entered, but perhaps I'll get the time to enter in that data this weekend.
 
OK. I grabbed a few minutes an entered the data for the Olympus E1 into my digiscoping calculator. It turns out that the E1 sensor doesn't require much more resolution than a 35mm camera. The maximum CCD resolution is around 74 lp/mm while the practical (after demosaicing and any anti-aliasing filtering) resolution is around 60 lp/mm. I would have guessed a higher number, but the extra pixels that push the sensor to nearly 5MP are found in the height of the sensor, not its width. The 4/3 sensor is about 500 pixels narrower than the typical DSLR sensor. This CCD has a 3:4 aspect ratio and is closer to square than a 35mm or similar proportioned frame.

The lens resolution tests for 35mm lenses are typically obtained by taking pictures of lens resolution test targets. The film used influences the resulting number substantially and the use of super fine grained film has been shown to increas resolution substantially. It seems reasonable to assume that a super flat high resolution CCD will have a similar effect and help to extract the best that a lens has to offer.

My guess is that if you choose sharp Olympus 35mm lenses (lenses capable of around 60 lp/mm with 35mm film), you will find that they deliver nice and sharp results with the E1. BTW, the E1's 4/3 sensor doesn't become resolution limited until around f22.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

T
Digiscoping with Olympus E-M1 mark iii.
Replies
4
Views
963
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes
ammadoux
Olympus vs Nikon
Replies
0
Views
3K
ammadoux
ammadoux
rosbifs
Olympus or powershot
Replies
1
Views
1K
Binoseeker
Binoseeker
dorubird
Field Review of my (four) binoculars and my gear setup
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Thotmosis
Thotmosis
V
Digiscoping Adapter for the Vortex Viper HD spotting scope and my Olympus OM-D E-M5?
Replies
3
Views
4K
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top