Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    I have a 14-54 and 50-200. How will the new SWD versions improve my shooting with a E-500 and E-510?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Cool Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by mckennma View Post
    I have a 14-54 and 50-200. How will the new SWD versions improve my shooting with a E-500 and E-510?
    Until Olympus officially announces it and it starts shipping, nobody knows. It might be a new mode that only the E-3 can enable (possibly the E-410/E-510), or it might mean that it focuses faster than the current lenses. I believe to get the fastest focusing that the E-3 hints at you need both an E-3 and a SWD lens.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    896
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    I agree with what Michael said.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    2,379
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Meissner View Post
    Until Olympus officially announces it and it starts shipping, nobody knows. It might be a new mode that only the E-3 can enable (possibly the E-410/E-510), or it might mean that it focuses faster than the current lenses. I believe to get the fastest focusing that the E-3 hints at you need both an E-3 and a SWD lens.
    FWIW I think the first option is so unlikely as to hardly warrant mentioning, especially since I've seen at least a half dozen hysterical posts concerned that Olympus would choose to do this, yet no credible source for the rumour.

    It's much more likely that SWD will simply allow the lens to rack focus from point A to point B more quickly, and more quietly. That's automatically a win, but it's even better if combined with a camera that's more adept at figuring out where to tell the lens to go, and it's this later capability that only the newer bodies can provide.

    For completeness I should also mention that Olympus have stated that the new 50-200 will have some optical changes in addition to the SWD, but weren't clear on what they meant. (Unless you can figure out a way to define "improved colour blur property".)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    I can see them making SWD for only E-3 body instead of E-510 as a selling point. If the E-510 is as good as everyone here is saying, having SWD could affect E-3 sales. Michael tends to go on the cautious side. It is hard to say until they are released. They might give the E-3 better firmware for SWD and make the E-510 and E-410 just able to use it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Cool Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    ne
    Quote Originally Posted by acme View Post
    FWIW I think the first option is so unlikely as to hardly warrant mentioning, especially since I've seen at least a half dozen hysterical posts concerned that Olympus would choose to do this, yet no credible source for the rumour.
    Most of the hysterical posts were concerned with whether it will work at all on older bodies. I agree it would very stupid if Olympus made it work on only new bodies.

    What I was trying to get at is what I understand to be the case with the UDMA compact flash cards that are starting to appear. If your camera doesn't support UDMA, the card is generally faster than the previous cards anyway, but you don't get the advantange of UDMA. If your camera does support UDMA, then the card will be much faster than with a non-UDMA card.

    Another example is the 64-bit mode that most shipping x86 systems now have. Until you boot a 64-bit OS such as 64-bit Linux or Vista, that extra capability is just unused silicon.

    Quote Originally Posted by acme View Post
    It's much more likely that SWD will simply allow the lens to rack focus from point A to point B more quickly, and more quietly. That's automatically a win, but it's even better if combined with a camera that's more adept at figuring out where to tell the lens to go, and it's this later capability that only the newer bodies can provide.
    As I said, until the lens is generally available, all of these posts are pure speculation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    2,379
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Meissner View Post
    the card is generally faster than the previous cards anyway, but you don't get the advantange of UDMA. If your camera does support UDMA, then the card will be much faster than with a non-UDMA card.

    Another example is the 64-bit mode that most shipping x86 systems now have. Until you boot a 64-bit OS such as 64-bit Linux or Vista, that extra capability is just unused silicon.
    I grant that until we hear from Olympus, or the lenses finally launch, we won't know anything for sure. But your analogies don't quite fit with this circumstance. Rather than a family of products based on hasty specifications, like most removable digital media from the last 20 years, which gain ascendancy by weight of marketing and leveraged integration rather than technical competence, we have reason to believe the fourthirds specification was reasonably well thought out from the start.

    The 32 bit to 64 transition would be analogous to Olympus releasing a line of larger format lenses, compatible with a 4/3" senor but really only giving their all on a 32x24mm one. (I wish, yes I do.)

    Fundamentally SWD is just a different kind of motor. I can think of no reason why it would demand any special handling by the lens to body protocol, and only limited reasons why it might have different electrical demands. Outside of any evidence to the contrary I'm willing to believe it will work to full specification on any fourthirds body.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In Beautiful So-Cal
    Posts
    6,791
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    A Olympus rumor that was given to me is that the 90-250 may have the SWD motor's inside of it. But this is only a rumor
    Here is what I have been assured- it is just a replacement of the motor - it will work with all the current camera bodies.
    #2 - It is quick - The focus time is much faster than any other Olympus camera bodies.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    2,379
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by tspore View Post
    A Olympus rumor that was given to me is that the 90-250 may have the SWD motor's inside of it. But this is only a rumor
    Anyone want to submit theirs to the screwdriver?

    More seriously, I'm not sure if the 90-250's introduction dates from before or after the original ultrasonic motor patent's recent expiry, so if it does use SWD Olympus may have had to license the tech. Now, though, anyone can build one so they should pop up in all kinds of less expensive applications, well beyond camera lenses!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Michael, about 64-bit OS analogy. 64-bit OS makes a difference. You don't have a limit of 4GB RAM. I have 8GB. I can go to 16GB on my K8WE. If you have 64-bit apps like Adobe Photoshop CS2 or CS3, you really notice it. Also 32-bits run much better in XP x64 than XP Pro. I can open 130 pictures in Lview Pro in XP Pro. I can open 900 pictures in XP x64 because of WOW64 creating separate memory space for each 32-bit app. They really work well on my pair of dual core 280 Opterons.

    I would be curious to see if SWD lenses help with quicker low light focusing. How much of a premium will be added for these lenses? Or will they just replace the non-SWD lenses at similar pricing.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Cool Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by mckennma View Post
    Michael, about 64-bit OS analogy. 64-bit OS makes a difference. You don't have a limit of 4GB RAM. I have 8GB. I can go to 16GB on my K8WE. If you have 64-bit apps like Adobe Photoshop CS2 or CS3, you really notice it. Also 32-bits run much better in XP x64 than XP Pro. I can open 130 pictures in Lview Pro in XP Pro. I can open 900 pictures in XP x64 because of WOW64 creating separate memory space for each 32-bit app. They really work well on my pair of dual core 280 Opterons.
    To put on my day job hat, there are benchmarks that run better in 32-bit rather than 64-bit, mostly relating to the cache sizes (32-bit programs utilize the cache better than 64-bit due to the data size, and due to the 64-bit instructions tending to be larger than 32-bit instructions).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    You have to run benchmarks that have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions together like Sandra Pro and Cinebench. I believe Crystalmark also can do 64-bit. Running a 32-bit benchmark on x64 will be slower because of WOW64.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Cool Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by mckennma View Post
    You have to run benchmarks that have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions together like Sandra Pro and Cinebench. I believe Crystalmark also can do 64-bit. Running a 32-bit benchmark on x64 will be slower because of WOW64.
    This is getting away from the original post, but there are benchmarks, such as twolf from SPEC that don't need a 4GB working set, and due to things like cache size and instruction encoding run faster in 32-bit than in 64-bit. It depends on many, many factors, including cache size, cache layout, what chipset is used for the computer, what compiler is used, whether the program is compiled for a specific chipset, or compiled in a generic fashion.

    I do agree that as memory sizes increase, that programs like photoshop, etc. which can trade memory for performance do work better on 64-bit systems that have enough physical memory because they aren't limited to 4GB address space.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    The motherboard makes a huge difference. My Tyan Thunder K8WE is NUMA enabled server board that really increased memory bandwidth. This helps A/V and CAD apps. The new C2D with 1066 MHz RAM are not that much faster on memory bandwidth.

    If the SWD is faster, I wonder if they need more battery power or less to drive the lens? The E-1 battery grip can handle more batteries than a E-500 or E-510. I wonder if it will affect battery life and lens performance on older batteries.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    2,348
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Supersonic Wave Drive.

    Supersonic means faster than the speed of sound.

    Think about that for a minute before applying it to a lens motor for focusing.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by laingjd View Post
    Supersonic Wave Drive.

    Supersonic means faster than the speed of sound.

    Think about that for a minute before applying it to a lens motor for focusing.
    Imagine the destructive power of Sigma Hyper Sonic Motor! Oly is behind the technology curve again!

    :P

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: SWD Lens vs non-SWD Lens

    So with IS vibrating, dust cleaning hypersonic shaking, and SWD motion will my camera create a reading the seismographs or just explode.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 02:30 PM
  2. FS:LNIB E510 with the 40-150 F4.0 5.6 lens a 14.54 lens
    By huberta in forum Buy / Sell Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 07:57 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-03-2007, 11:08 AM
  4. macro lens vs. lens plus EX25
    By Olcankonmin in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-02-2007, 10:35 PM
  5. Lens Cases for Either 300mm or 90-250mm Lens
    By the beast in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2006, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •