intersting thought, but because there are no films to buy and therefore worry about their being discontinued, it doesnot matter.

10 megapixels is the current sweet spot in the DSLR market. I'd wait until the next generation of 4/3 and see what develops. The camera you're looking at is last years technology and though it may seem like a good deal price wise, waiting and spending a little more may get you higher quality images.

Usually I don't recommend waiting with computer technology because better quality at lower prices will always be over the next horizon. So if you should decide to purchase now, consider upgrading when better technology becomes available.

Larry is right to imply that this is a time of transition for the Four Thirds system and that the jury is not quite out on it. Two key issues are the sensors themselves and the processing technologies for dealing with noise and other aspects of the image. Olympus has been using Kodak and Panasonic sensors and has been held up in crucial product launches. However, the collaboration among the various companies involved has been stepping up. Panasonic is new to the game, for example, as is Leica, and Sigma has been increasing its involvement. A Website on the various players is:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index.html.
One sign of how it is coming along is the new E-400, available only in Europe. Early signs are that it delivers high quality, relatively low noise images at 10MP, but no highly credible testa are yet available. It seems that Olympus America is waiting for a second generation of this camera, suggesting that they may have some reservations. Most telling of all will be their long-overdue pro model, expected next Spring.
Fundamentally, this system is best if you like its key characteristics a lot: a less rectangular image ratio and smaller, lighter lenses with more depth of field.

Quote:
intersting thought, but because there are no films to buy and therefore worry about their being discontinued, it doesnot matter.

It matters to me. I don't want to invest in a system that may not be upgradable in the future. Right now, the Four Thirds system looks promising, what with several manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon and the lure of lens compatibility, etc., but it wouldn't be the first time someone's "better idea" failed to find a market. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to spend the money on "old technology" that's been adapted to work with digital. Unlike film cameras, which can be resold to recover the lion's share of the investment if the owner finds he made the wrong choice, "last year's technology" digital cameras have a next-to-nothing resale value, especially if the format becomes obsolete. I don't expect anyone here to have a crystal ball and be able to guarantee the future of this new format, but some considered opinions on the viability of this format are appreciated.

Bob,

You have all the information that is currently available at your fingertips. Asking people for crystal-ball predictions is not going to give you the information you are looking for. At this moment it is anybody's guess what is going to happen in the future. The only issue that I see is whether or not you like the 3 to 2 or the 4 to 3 ratio. If 4 to 3 is a must for you, then go ahead and buy. I don't think that the claimed advantage of better lenses because 4/3 approximates the lens image circle better than the 3/2 holds any significant water or that you would ever be able to detect the difference yourself without a heap of scientific measuring equipment. Your analogy with the APS system rings very true here, in my opinion.

One handy thing about 4/3 is that it is closer to standard picture sizes, this makes for less cropping of the image.
One factor to consider when upgrading is how large will you print? Olan Mills uses an E-1 to print 30x40. An artile in SB a couple of months ago stated that the mp race is moot with the new GF program.

What's a standard picture size?

There are standard paper sizes but no such thing as standard pucture sizes because the composition dictates the image proportion.

I have to agree with Larry. I crop to enhance composition and out of hundreds of prints, maybe one or two will be a "standard" size or ratio, strictly by chance......

Although I personally prefer the 4:3 ratio to 3:2 this isn

Ronk,

You said "An artile in SB a couple of months ago stated that the mp race is moot with the new GF program."

Excuse me for saying this, but that's a bunch of horse feathers. Upsampling only does so much; it gets rid of jaggies but won't get you details that are not there in the first place. Another major shortcoming of that particular article is the fact that George did NOT compare the performance of GF (at $150 or so) against the FREE tool in Photoshop CS and later, which gives the same or better results than GF. I did extensive testing of GF and resampling with Photoshop CS and the results were very close, except that GF sometimes gave "funny" looking results, like weird distortions of details like nuts and rivets on locomotive details.

In my experience with GF Frans is right, with the proviso that with images that are technically pretty good to begin with it can help to make larger prints. So on one hand I think that the tables one sees about the MP needed for various print sizes are overly conservative, on the other hand resolution still matters. As Frans says, nothing can make up for detail that wasn't captured in the first place. It's not quite as severe as focus, where you really can't do a thing if you haven't got that in the first place.

I do however agree with Ronk and disagree with Larry and Bill regarding image format. I think they've used a bit of a sleight of hand here in suggesting that, because one crops however one wishes (true) image ratios are immaterial. This argument is plausible enough with medium format two and a quarter square (I know, 6 X 6). However, which ratio is more likely to be efficient with most sizes that are chosen for cropping? This is not just a function of available paper; after all one need not print at the paper ratio anyway. Look at the history of painting, let alone photography. With some exceptions - El Greco and Modigliani come to mind - few are quite as elongated as the 3:2 of 35mm and by extension most digital formats. It's worth remembering that the 3:2 ratio only solidified in the early 1950s, with early Nikon rangefinders using (first) 32 X 24 and (second, with the M) 34 X 24. So Larry and Bill are correct that one can always crop, but not that the format ratio is immaterial, nor that one cannot argue for the 4:3 as more efficient for many - I'd say most - people.

I think you've misread me. I don't believe either Larry or I said that format size/ratio is immaterial, only that there's no such thing as a standard "picture size". the very continued existence of 35mm, 6X6cm, 6X9cm, 4X5 in., 8X10 in., etc. demonstrates that. Choice of format is determined by the subject. After that, cropping is determined by the composition within that format.....

OK, I hadn't thought you meant choose the camera/format for the picture. If you only bring one camera along, though, I think you're more likely to get the cropping you'll want with something less elongated than 36*24. I write this as my Nikon V ED whirs away with negs from my Nikon F3!

Sounds like what I said also.

I have an article on proportion and sizing so your image doesn't get cropped when being printed on an automated printer. It explains how to add canvas to match the paper size. My local Costco gives it out to people who complain when their carefully prepared photographs get cropped.

Quote:
I think you've misread me. I don't believe either Larry or I said that format size/ratio is immaterial, only that there's no such thing as a standard "picture size". the very continued existence of 35mm, 6X6cm, 6X9cm, 4X5 in., 8X10 in., etc. demonstrates that. Choice of format is determined by the subject. After that, cropping is determined by the composition within that format.....

I can't help but put 2 cents worth into this discussion. First of all, digital cameras are made for a world market, not just the US. The EU market is almost as big consumption wise and China's domestic market will overtake both the US and EU very soon.

The US is the only market that uses the paper size standards in inches we are used to. Most of the world has adopted ISO standard paper sizes, except Japan, And the US is now the only market of any size that has not adopted the metric system, even Canada and Mexico largely dominated by US consumer products are both entirely metric.

And for what it is worth the traditional 24x36mm 35mm format, the 2x3 aspect ratio is very close to the ISO A4 letter size of 210x297mm that is the most popular paper size in the world today.

This discussion has been quite interesting and helpful. It has led me to some very informative searches and I feel a little less intimidated by all the digital "mumbo jumbo". Quality-wise, I believe the E-VOLT would be more than adequate for my intended use. I mainly use digital to shoot for a regional motorcycle magazine called Quick Throttle. I've been getting by for some time with a Coolpix 4300, so an entry-level D-SLR will work just fine, no need for a pro camera. While I do want high quality pictures and exposure versatility, price point is very important. The 2-lens E-VOLT kit is a heckuva bargain and would give me a 35mm equivalent of 28-300mm, which is all that's needed for my use. I have also considered the Pentax K100D, which has a very attractive price, but I understand it goes through batteries very quickly. The new Sony Alpha is also high on my list, but, cheapskate that I am, I keep coming back to the Olympus. Since no one seems to have any definite technological arguments against the Four Thirds format, I will probably go with the E-VOLT. Now to find a good el cheapo editing software package for my Mac. Photoshop is prety intimidating in both complexity and price.

If you're going to shoot action, you'll probably need faster lenses than what comes in the kit. I suggest you do some more research.

As far as an image editing package is concerned from what you say your use and purpose is very likely Adobe Photoshop Elements will do the job easily and adequately, and its under $100.

If by kit lenses you include the 40-150mm it's reasonably fast. I use the faster 50-200mm, sometimes with the very good 1.4 teleconverter, but the standard kit tele is actually faster than the kit wide angle-mild tele. The problem in shooting action would arise if you look to shoot in burst mode and you need a moderately high ISO in order to use a fast enough shutter speed. Actually you also don't want to use the lens wide open anyway as you'll have trouble focusing so there again you'll want a high ISO. For normal amateur use all of this will compute. I've done pretty fair shots of soccer and the like this way. However if this is going to be a focus of yours you should recognize a few limitations of this system. It doesn't autofocus as quickly nor does it handle high ISO noise as well as Canon or Nikon competitors. The reason they'd do bursts faster is because they might not need the noise reduction system on, which slows the camera down. Again, for most action purposes this won't be an issue but you should be aware of what you're getting into, especially as Olympus does not currently have a pro level model you could upgrade to should the limitations of the prosumer models start to frustrate you. I write this as a frustrated Olympus owner, barely hanging in with them.

"Action" shots are not an issue for me, other than having a camera that takes the picture the moment I press the shutter release and doesn't have to "think about it" for a couple of seconds, like the Coolpix I'm using now. Likewise, "burst rate" is not an issue either. As long as the camera can take a second followup shot as soon as I press the shutter release again. The "live view" swivel LCD of the E-330 would be really useful to me, but there's enough of a price difference between it and the E-500 to bring out the miser in me. This could all be moot anyway, because a couple of things have come up that have caused me to put off investing in a new camera for a few months, and by then there will probably be some new wonder camera on the market, or the ones I'm considering now my come down in price. I still have my film cameras for "serious" work. I really do appreciate all the input. I'm learning quite a lot here.