Olympus E300/E500 forum

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Alfred Molon, Dec 9, 2005.

  1. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    No one ever accused Canon of producing reliable products, except at
    the highest level. Many of their DLSRs have had numerous problems.
    Also, some of the specs for mid-level Canons are poor, such as shutter
    life guarantees, etc. If Olympus somehow comes up with a new pro
    camera with the same quality specs as the E-1 coupled to a CCD with
    a greater megapixel count and does it for $2000, no Canon in that
    range will be competitive with it.
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Skip M wrote:
    Oh, the ability for novel optical systems, significantly less weight and
    bulk to carry around, break out of last century's design rut etc. etc.
    May be we don't all need the absolute sensitivity of a full-frame sensor.

    David J Taylor, Dec 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Subjective I guess? I wouldn't call mushy edges and corners "good".

    Lens back focus issues for one and don't even try to pretend that isn't a
    problem.. And a "occasional spec of dust"? LOL!
    Didn't one of the bodies you bought have an off center sensor? Or isn't that
    a "glitch" in your mind? Looked like pretty bad quality control to me for a
    camera that expencive. Then again you wouldn't admit here if the camera
    locked up everytime you turned it on!
    Wow and you are posting in this olympus thread about your canon because?
    Stacey, Dec 11, 2005
  4. Alfred Molon

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Do avid photographers much care about the aspect ratio?

    Probably not.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 11, 2005
  5. Different people have different needs. I'm delighted that I have a 350g
    camera which I actually carry around and use rather than a 1000g monster
    outfit that would be left at home.

    David J Taylor, Dec 11, 2005
  6. Alfred Molon

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    You haven't answered anything but just put your attitude into words.
    Neil Ellwood, Dec 11, 2005
  7. Alfred Molon

    G.T. Guest

    Have you even bothered doing a dust test?

    G.T., Dec 11, 2005
  8. Alfred Molon

    Tony Polson Guest

    Avid photographers have been discussing aspect ratios for as long as I
    can remember, certainly for the last 35 years. It seems to be a major
    topic for discussion wherever keen photographers gather, whether at
    camera clubs or online.

    People get very passionate indeed about what suits their particular
    type of photography - for example in medium format, where you will
    find keen protagonists for 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x4.5, all keen to
    argue their point of view.

    35mm users mostly had to accept 24x36mm, but there was also half frame
    and there is now the X-Pan format. Digital users can choose between
    3:2, 5:4 and 4:3, the latter in both Four Thirds and digital backs for
    medium format cameras.

    So I don't agree with your "probably not".

    Tony Polson, Dec 11, 2005
  9. Alfred Molon

    Sarah Brown Guest

    Isn't "zoom" a 4-letter word?

    I like my 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon, but I lust after a TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L.
    Sarah Brown, Dec 11, 2005
  10. Alfred Molon

    Sarah Brown Guest

    Is "canonite" like Kryptonite?
    Sarah Brown, Dec 11, 2005
  11. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    There is an adhesive strip at the bottom which collects the dust when it
    falls down. This strip has to be replaced every two or three years if
    I'm not mistaken (you send the camera in for servicing).
    Alfred Molon, Dec 11, 2005
  12. Hanging on my wall I have a couple of 20x30's and also a couple of
    24x36's. Finding frames was no hassle - in fact part of why I printed to
    these sizes was because I found the frame then printed to match it.
    The other sizes I have hanging on my wall are 16x20 and 8x10. These are
    4:5 which is not much closer to 4:3 than 3:2 is. 14x11 is another common
    size, again close to 4:5, not close to 4:3 or 3:2. The most common
    print size in printing is A4 which is 1.4:1 - quite close to 3:2. The
    only 3:4 format size I have seen is 6x8 - a size that only seems to have
    started being half-popular in the last year or so. 6x8 frames and mattes
    are still fairly hard to come by though, so I don't know where you get
    your claim that print sizes are closer to 4:3 than 3:2.
    I don't see a fact at all. There are quite a few standard 3:2 sizes,
    most standard sizes are 4:5, there are hardly any standard 3:4 sizes. To
    my way of thinking therefore it would make sense for a camera to either
    use 3:2 or 4:5. 4:3 is an orphan that always needs cropping.
    Graham Fountain, Dec 11, 2005
  13. Alfred Molon

    G.T. Guest

    I've never killfiled someone who's opinions I don't agree with, in fact
    I've never killfiled anyone, nor have I buried my head in the sand.
    What's selective amnesia have to do with people not wanting to hear
    things that might effect their blind brand loyalty?

    Your mind works in bizarre and mysterious ways.

    G.T., Dec 11, 2005
  14. In what way? The widest lens available (in Australia at least) is the
    7-14, which is equiv to 14-28 on 35mm. Sigma make an 8mm lens which is
    equiv to 12 on Nikon/KM/Pentax. The 7-14 is the only ultrawide lens for
    olympus, the next widest is the 11-22 (equiv to 22-44). For other brands
    there are several choices that give widths wider than 22 equiv.
    More DOF is only an advantage in some instances. For many of us though
    it is a disadvantage. In 35mm terms, I only find myself wanting more DOF
    if I'm doing macro work without extra lighting. For landscapes I can get
    all the DOF I need by going to F11 or smaller, for portraits I generally
    find myself using the aperture wide open to reduce DOF as much as
    possible. To get the same effect on small sensors requires very fast lenses.
    Are they? The standard lens (14-45/3.5-5.6) weighs 285g. The Standard
    Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 weighs 190g. At a bit longer end, their 150/2 weighs
    in at 1.6kg, the nearest equivalent canon is the 200/2.8 (delivers same
    effective focal length on a 350/20d) which is comparatively light at
    only 760g (admittedly it is 1 stop slower). The Oly 50-200/2.8-3.5
    weighs in at 1.1 kg, while the Sigma 70-200/2.8 comes in at 1.2 kg - it
    has a little less effective zoom range, but is constant aperture at only
    10% heavier. So yes at some lengths they are a little lighter than their
    equivalents, but not significantly so.
    Again improved DOF can be an improvement or a disadvantage. The 2.8 does
    mean faster shutters can be used yes, but it's DOF is only on par with
    5.6 on full frame, which is a disadvantage if you are trying to use
    selective focussing (a portrait for example). Also the viewfinder is
    smaller and duller compared to an APS or 35mm Camera.
    These are excellent features I agree, and it is a pity that the others
    don't have this. For someone shooting in a dusty environment this could
    be a compelling reason to buy the olympus over anything else.
    So are you saying they aren't meant to compete with Canon/Nikon/Pentax/KM?
    I agree that not all cameras are suitable for all uses. The olympus is a
    little more limited in it's suitability than others though. They have
    little ability to use creative DOF. You cannot use very small apertures
    due to diffraction, thus limiting your options if you want slower
    shutter speeds outdoors. The noise from the sensor means they are not
    well suited to long-exposure and low-light photography. They have a
    limited lens selection, from a limited choice of vendors. I have seen
    some very good photos from the olympus cameras, they are quite good. But
    in my opinion they are a little too limited in some respects. One thing
    that to some extent has been their downfall is they were tempted to
    squeeze too many pixels into their tiny sensor. The E300 suffers from
    quite poor dynamic range and noise compared to other brands. The E1,
    with only 5MP, didn't. If they stuck with 5 or 6 MP on the E300, it
    probably wouldn't have received the criticism it has in these areas, and
    would have stood up to the competition from KM/Pentax in the low-end
    much better.
    Graham Fountain, Dec 11, 2005
  15. Alfred Molon

    ASAAR Guest

    Only when they glow green from jealousy. :)
    ASAAR, Dec 11, 2005
  16. I'm no Oly fan, but I can assure you the dust removal system DOES work.
    If you bothered to read up on it, you'd know that it has a dust
    collection system. The dust collection system will eventual fill up,
    which would require a service to clean, but it holds an amount that
    would be equivalent to many years of operation.
    Graham Fountain, Dec 11, 2005
  17. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Have you seen the mushy samples of the 5D with wide angle lenses? Wide
    angles do exist for full frame DLSRs, but they seem to produce poor
    4/3 sensors are not "small", at least not as small as sensors for
    compact cameras. DOF is a big advantage for landscape or architecture
    photography for instance. As for stopping down the lens, this is an
    option which comes at a price (drastically longer exposure times or
    substially higher ISO are required). But of course this all depends on
    the kind of photography you do. If you are into portraits, larger
    sensors are beneficial, but as I wrote for landscape photography the
    extra DOF which comes with a smaller sensor is very useful.
    I guess that's why Olympus is offering bright lenses and zooms.
    The Oly 50-200 corresponds to a 100-400 in 35mm equivalency. You have to
    compare same with same. The Sigma 70-200 is only 70-200 if used on a
    full-frame DSLR and 105-300 of an APS-sized DSLR. 4/3 lenses are smaller
    and lighter because of the zoom multiplication factor.
    Well the F3.5 at which zooms for the Rebel XT start (and other DLSRs as
    well) corresponds to F5.3, so there is not much difference here.

    I wrote "much larger sensor". (Most) Canon/Nikon/Pentax/KM use APS-sized
    sensors which are not that much larger than a 4/3 sensor.
    You are being too negative here and are writing things which are not

    - First of all there is not much size difference between a 4/3 sensor
    and an APS-sized sensor.
    - With 4/3 cameras creative DOF is possible with suitable lenses.
    - The aperture for a 4/3 lens can go down to for instance F22. I have
    seen sharp images taken with an E1 at F22, so diffraction is not yet a
    problem at this aperture.
    - In any case for slower shutter speeds outdoors you can always use an
    ND filter.
    - As for noise, you obviously don't know that even compact non-DLSR
    cameras can produce excellent results in low light. I have noise-free 10
    seconds exposures taken with an Olympus 8080, whose sensor is 1/4 the
    area of a 4/3 sensor. Even a camera with a 2/3" sensor is perfectly
    suited for low light or long exposure photography.
    - As for lens choice, the range between 14 and 600mm (35mm equiv.) is
    covered, which should be ok for most uses. What is missing is image
    stabilisation, but here Olympus might introduce IS with the CCD (which
    is movable anyway), thereby making all lenses IS.
    - And again you are too obsessed with pixel size. The 8MP sensor
    produces good results (noise levels low enough not to matter) at ISOs up
    to 400. Not everybody needs ISO 1600. And don't forget that the sensor
    of the Rebel XT is only slightly larger.
    Alfred Molon, Dec 11, 2005
  18. I was comparing them to the APS DSLR's, which have lenses just as wide
    available, and which compete closest to the Oly cameras in price. There
    is only 1 lens for the Oly which goes wider than an equivalent of 22mm.
    In both APS and Full-Frame, there are several options from several
    manufacturers that go significantly wider than this. The widest you can
    get for the Oly is equivalent to 14mm. Again lenses are available in APS
    and Full Frame that go wider than this. This blows away your argument
    that the Oly is best for wide angle. BTW, the 5D isn't the only
    full-frame DSLR, it is just the only one that is reasonably affordable.
    Even if the 5D is mushy with some of the wides available, you can get
    non-mushy results with other lenses, or with the wides on a 350D/20D for
    example. BTW, while I mention Canon, the same applies for all the other
    we are not comparing them to compact cameras. The average user of a
    compact doesn't know what DOF means, let alone creative DOF.
    The area of a 4/3 sensor is only 28% of a 35mm sensor. A Nikon D70 by
    comparison has a sensor that is 45% of the area of a 35mm sensor. That's
    quite a difference, and so yes, it is a "small" sensor compared to it's
    On 35mm, I seldom need more than F11 to get sufficient DOF for a
    landscape. F11 in sunlight gives 1/250 shutter at ISO 100. This sort of
    shutter speed is not a high price to pay. Even on an overcast day, F11
    still gives shutter speed in the order of 1/30th, so shutter speed is
    not an issue for these types of shots.
    But they aren't 2 stops faster than the competition are they? to get
    comparable shallow DOF, an oly lens needs to be 1 stop faster than an
    APS camera, and 2 stops faster than a 35mm.
    I was comparing with the nearest equivalent for an APS camera. Remember
    APS is what they are getting sold against. I couldn't find something
    equivalent to 100-400 for APS, however the sigma has an equivalent of
    100-300 (roughly), but delivers that at constant aperture, at basically
    the same weight as the olympus. The other lenses I compared them with
    were lenses that would give roughly equivalent focal lengths and speed
    on APS, and did so at lower weights. Therefore they are not really
    giving a weight advantage over their competition.
    erm... the kit lens for the E300 is also F3.5-5.6. This is equivalent to
    1 stop less DOF than on a Rebel/Nikon. For substantially more money you
    can upgrade to the 14-54/2.8-3.5 which wide open will deliver the same
    DOF as the canon/nikon kit lenses. (I will concede that the Olympus
    lenses are much better quality than the Canon kit lens. If we compare
    them to the Nikon kit lens things become a little more even). The 14-54
    is quite a bit heavier though than either the Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 or the
    Nikon DX 18-70/3.5-4.5.
    They have 60% greater surface area than a 4/3 sensor - I make that as
    being larger. They are also in the same price bracket, so they are meant
    to be competing on price.
    APS has 60% more area. While APS is still IMO too small for some uses,
    it's size difference over 4/3 makes it more universally suitable.
    but it requires lenses 1 stop faster than APS, or 2 stops faster than
    35mm. This extra speed creates a weight penalty that counteracts the
    weight benefit that they are supposed to have.
    The larger pixel size with the E1 compared to the E300 will tend to
    reduce the visibility of this effect. I actually said that Oly should
    have stuck to the 5MP of the E1 for the E300. I have seen an image at
    F22 on an E300. Around the centre of the shot you can see that sharpness
    has reduced quite a bit compared to the same shot at F8. Around the
    edges of the frame, you can actually see diffraction ghosting. I have
    used the E1 quite a bit and it is a great camera. These days it is
    showing it's age compared to it's competition, and unfortunately the
    inherent limitations of the 4/3 design mean that Oly won't be able to
    keep up with what others are doing in larger formats.
    More glass to cause potential image defects. Much easier to stop-down.
    People have stopped down to slow shutter since the dawn of photography,
    now it becomes an issue.
    I don't dispute that an 8080 can take a low-noise image. But given the
    same exposure conditions a camera with a larger sensor will have less
    noise. How much of that low noise is from the sensor and how much is
    from low-noise algorithms?
    Yes the range is covered, but there are few choices within that range.
    Other brands of camera offer the choice of genuine or non-genuine
    lenses. They also offer lenses of different speeds and features within
    the range. In the Olympus range where are the fast standard and mild
    tele primes (such as an equivalent for a 50/1.4 or 80/1.2)? Where are
    the wide primes?
    I know not everyone needs ISO1600. But that is my point, it is a
    limitation in the system. Because these cameras don't perform well in
    situations that need those types of settings they are not suited to
    them. A canon/nikon/pentax/km can handle those difficult situations
    better, with no loss of performance in the types of shooting the olympus
    does well. On the other cameras there are also choices of high speed
    lenses that can reduce the need to lift ISO. Again, where are the
    50/1.4's or 80/1.2's ? Not everyone needs lenses like this, because not
    everyone shoots in these environments, but even a 50/2 has been almost
    standard for many years, yet olympus offer no equivalent to this. The
    only alternative to a fast lens is fast ISO, and the oly doesn't handle
    that well. I'm not saying it is a bad camera, I'm saying it isn't as
    well suited to a wide range of photography as it's competition is.
    Graham Fountain, Dec 12, 2005
  19. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    Tester: "Canon's WA lenses are poor"
    Canon owner: Hands clamped over ears, screaming "WA" "WA" "WA"
    Rich, Dec 12, 2005
  20. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    Depends. What if you found yourself cropping the sides off all the
    Rich, Dec 12, 2005
    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.