Olympus E-3 officially announced

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Tony Polson, Oct 17, 2007.

  1. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    Ah, yes, the E-300. The Olympus "noise factory".

    If that is "good enough" for you, your standards are pretty darn low.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 19, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. That's an insult, not an answer. What's the answer? Hasselblad? Or trash?
     
    Brion K. Lienhart, Oct 19, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    It's none of your business.

    Whether I own some crap no-name piece of junk made in a Chinese
    sweatshop or an expensive top brand camera made in Europe by the
    finest craftsmen and using some of the world's best optics makes no
    difference, because your Olympus E-300 is a noise factory. Period.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 19, 2007
    #23
  4. So you are conceding you don't have a point, and going back to the
    baseless insults.
     
    Brion K. Lienhart, Oct 20, 2007
    #24
  5. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest


    No, it is not an insult of any kind. It is an objective statement,
    based on fact, and its objectivity means that it doesn't matter one
    little bit what equipment I use.

    The Olympus E-300 is an extremely noisy camera, thanks to a very
    disappointing Kodak CCD sensor. The E-300 had great difficulty
    competing with other DSLRs when it was new, and Olympus were quick to
    replace it with the E-330 which had the far superior Panasonic 7.5 MP
    LiveMOS sensor, with much lower noise and Live View.

    The relationship with Kodak was a disaster for Olympus. Olympus were
    saddled with a mere 5.1 MP sensor in their pro E-1 model. The 8 MP
    Kodak sensor was intended for the E-1's successor which never came to
    market. Instead, the sensor was used in the E-300.

    Because the sensor was just barely adequate for the E-300, and wholly
    inadequate for the E-1 replacement, Olympus had to act quickly to find
    a more suitable partner to replace Kodak, and one came along in the
    form of Panasonic. Otherwise, Olympus' DSLR ambitions and the whole
    future of Four Thirds would have been in jeopardy. Panasonic saved
    the day, but at the expense of Olympus having to share its technology
    and features with Panasonic, giving birth to Panasonic's DSLR range.

    The camera you own is the final bastard child of the failed
    relationship between Olympus and Kodak. By the standards of the time,
    its noise levels at ISO 100 were only just acceptable and the high
    noise levels at ISO 400 and higher were certainly not.

    By today's standards, it is a noisebox. Today, no camera manufacturer
    could offer a DSLR with such high noise and expect to get away with
    it. Olympus only got away with it because standards were much lower
    then, and the company knew that a very good Panasonic sensor was just
    a few short months away.

    And apart from having an extremely noisy sensor, the E-300 has
    possibly the worst viewfinder ever seen on any SLR, film or digital.

    But you're happy with yours, and that's all that matters.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 20, 2007
    #25
  6. There you go, you can make objective statements. Yes, more noise is an
    actual criticism. "Noisebox" or "Noisefactory" are just, well, noise.

    So, as I said before, since you are so concerned about this kind of
    thing, you won't be settling for some puny full-frame 35mm sensor. There
    is nothing magic about the 35mm frame size that a larger medium format
    sensor doesn't do better.
     
    Brion K. Lienhart, Oct 21, 2007
    #26
  7. Tony Polson

    Tony Polson Guest



    The equipment I use is not only irrelevant,
    it is none of your business.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 21, 2007
    #27
  8. Tony Polson

    D_Mac Guest

    Quite the opposite Tony. You set yourself up as some sort of
    knowledgeable expert. A source for all information photographic with
    no visible evidence you actually are that knowledgeable.

    People Including Brion, have a right to know if you actually own a
    camera at all and what you do with it. I now consider it your call if
    you post photos or not. I personally think you really ought to post
    half a dozen images from your time as a Paris Match cover shooter to
    refute those who have judged you by those God awful train photos that
    keep popping up whenever your nasty streak surfaces. At least it would
    halt your critics.

    Given the amount of bashing you do on those who do post their images
    or criticize your opinion , I'd have a guess that maybe 50 people are
    lurking with baited breath to see some of your work and pounce on it.
    "Reap what you sow". is so correct where you are concerned.
     
    D_Mac, Oct 22, 2007
    #28
  9. Tony Polson

    RichA Guest

     
    RichA, Oct 22, 2007
    #29
  10. Tony Polson

    Scott W Guest

    Whereas I agree in part with you D-Mac, that it would help if Tony
    revealed a bit more about just what gear he has experience with I have
    to point out a few things.

    Owning top gear does not make one an expert on anything, it does not
    even mean one is competent.

    No matter how good a persons photos are someone will label them as trash.

    Tony can be a real asshole at times, but he is also often right in what
    he says.

    At the start of this thread he stated that the 10MP of the E-3 likely
    will make it not sell as well as other cameras in its class, for which
    he as attached for not having a 39MP camera, but this is a crazy
    comparison since a 39MP camera is not in the same class as the E-3, but
    the Nikon D300 is and the 5D does not cost that much more.

    Brion made a big deal out of only needed a camera that is "good enough",
    but at the price pint the E-3 is at the people buying it are not going
    to be looking for a camera that is just "good enough".

    Does everyone need a 12MP camera? of course not but then again not
    everyone needs a $1700 camera either.

    In the end the question is not is the E-3 good enough to take good
    photos, the real question is, is it good enough to sell well, time will
    tell.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Oct 22, 2007
    #30
  11. Tony Polson

    Pete D Guest

     
    Pete D, Oct 22, 2007
    #31
  12. Tony Polson

    Guest Guest

    it only is 'the fastest' autofocus with certain olympus lenses, not all
    of them.
     
    Guest, Oct 22, 2007
    #32
  13. Thanks, I thought I was the only one getting annoyed at his incessant
    pontificating.

    Since the clear trend over the last 150 years has been that improvements
    in image technology lead to smaller image sizes, I don't think its
    unreasonable at all to assume that "Full-Frame" 35mm cameras aren't
    really necessary any more. Will it be the 4/3 system that wins? Probably
    not, but based on my historical trends I'll be buying into a whole new
    system line in about 7 years anyway. I bought my first camera in 1979,
    and none of the new cameras use my Minolta MD lenses any more so I was
    pretty open when I went shopping for a digital camera.
     
    Brion K. Lienhart, Oct 22, 2007
    #33
  14. Tony Polson

    dh003i Guest

    Does everyone need a 12MP camera? of course not but then again not
    It seems like everyone here is ignoring one of the biggest advantage
    of the 4:3 standard cameras offered by Olympus: the smaller size-
    factor. This mainly comes into play with the lenses being much smaller
    than any other lens of the same features. This means lighter, cheaper,
    more portable, etc. This can be very valuable depending on what kind
    of photography one does, as well as bringing one's camera with them
    all the time.

    Of course, the E-510 body is approximately half the weight of the E-3,
    although the main size / weight factor is with the lenses. But the
    question is, do the features of the E-3 over the E-510 make it worth
    the extra $1000 dollars, because for portability, the 510 is even
    better than the E-3.
     
    dh003i, Nov 13, 2007
    #34
  15. One might think so. But. First of all, some physics.

    For the same image quality, one has to collect the same number of
    photons at each pixel.

    So an f/2.0 lens on an E-3 is the same as an f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera,
    and the same as an f/4.0 lens on a FF camera.
    OK. The next lens I might buy for my 5D is the 70-200/4.0 IS.

    That's a 760 gm, US$1300 (in Tokyo) lens. Uses 67mm filters.

    How much does the 35-100/2.0 for the E-3 weigh and cost?

    This is a lens that provides _exactly_ the same functionality as the
    70-200/4.0 on the 5D: for the same image quality and shutter speed, you get
    the same DOF shooting at two stops more closed down on the 5D.

    Weight: 1,650 gm.
    Filter size: 77mm
    Price: US$1,900

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 13, 2007
    #35
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.