Olympus E300/E500 forum

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

  1. Alfred Molon

    lens crack Guest

    You must be trolling - either that or you have never used a 4/3 camera.

    I, on the other hand, have used on (300) and I can say from personal
    experience that noise is visible even at 200 iso, becomes most annoying at
    400 iso, and is obnoxious at anything above that.

    It's hard for people who routinely see noise in their images to appreciate
    what it means to have a nice clean shot - even that noise which you don't
    think is detrimental, actually is, marring textures and colours, and
    generally robbing the image of detail.

    I can understand the reluctance of Olympus owners to admit they made a
    mistake in buying into 4/3, after all they have quite a lot of money tied up
    in the wretched system - but just take a look at DPreview!, no other dslr
    forum has so much time and space devoted to the problem of noise and how to
    mitigate its effects.

    So, when I said to Alf that I don't know why you all bother, I meant it!
    Sod Olympus, dump the junk and move on to the world of effortless low light
    photography that everyone else takes for granted.
    lens crack, Dec 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Graham Fountain wrote:

    Good grief, have you bothered to do the math? 4:3 make a 10.6 X 8 so you
    crop .6 inch rather than 2 inches off the print.

    It's aprox 3 times closer to 8X10 than 3:2 is!
    Stacey, Dec 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Good wide angle optics, especially compared to canon and the aftermarket
    wide lenses..

    And it's a plastic piece of junk.
    God forbid we look at the actual end results!
    Yea it's only got a 10-11 stop range, that's SO poor. Now what does the
    canon sensor have again?
    Stacey, Dec 12, 2005
  4. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Most of which is thrown away making the 8X10 and 16X20 prints you have
    hanging on your wall. Croped to normal prints sizes, the APS sensor is
    almost the same size.
    For what 4X6 prints?

    Again you're ignoring the crappy wide angle optics some of these have, dust
    issues, back focus problem etc in assuming they can "perform as well"
    It just has different strong point and you are ignoring the weak points of
    the other models.
    Stacey, Dec 12, 2005
  5. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    G.T. wrote:

    Of course or I wouldn't say this..
    Stacey, Dec 12, 2005
  6. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Well your attitude is obvious, you are a canon user who NEEDS to bash
    anything you don't own.

    FYI there is a strip under the sensor that collects the dust shaken off and
    is replaced when the camera is serviced. It's supposed to hold 2-3 years
    worth of dust..

    So when you "blow" your canon's sensor, where do you think the dust goes?
    Out the lens mount? LOL!
    Stacey, Dec 12, 2005
  7. Alfred Molon

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Alfred Molon writes ...
    Calculate the areas and you'll find the Canon 1.6x sensor has 50% more
    area, the Nikon 1.5x sensor has 60% more area. As larger sensor sizes
    become cheaper this advantage will only grow in time.

    What this means is Oly has a built-in disadvantage against the cameras
    it's competing directly with ... at the same pixel pitch as the 8
    Mpixel Oly Canon could have 12 Mpixels and Nikon almost 13, or at the
    same pixel count Canon and Nikon will have lower noise. It's a
    fundamental fact, driven by Oly's choice of sensor size. Plus you have
    millions of legacy lenses in the hands of 35 mm users, making it
    unlikely they'll ditch those when moving to digital. To counter these
    advantages Oly needed to make a system that was noticeably cheaper
    and/or lighter but they failed to do this, it's just "less" of the
    same. That's why sales are so dismal, it's a fatally flawed system
    from the start.
    I keep coming back to the incredible numbers on the Oly 4/3 300 f/2.8
    .... even though it only has to cover 28% the area of, say, the Nikon
    300 f/2.8 it's more than a pound heavier, it's bulkier and it costs
    thousands of dollars more. Amazing ... who would buy this when for the
    same $$ you could buy say a Canon 500 f/4 L IS *and* a 20D, or a Nikon
    500 f/4 and a D70, for the price of the Oly lens alone.

    I'm glad you're happy with your system but if they don't start turning
    a profit soon my guess is the entire 4/3 concept will get dumped or
    sold off to a bottom feeder like Sigma (I'm sure a lot of folks in this
    NG are eagerly awaiting the Foveon 4/3 :). Oly's Imaging Division lost
    36 billion yen the past two quarters at a time when digital camera
    sales are skyrocketing and Nikon and Canon were rolling in profits.
    What happens when the market flattens out?

    Bill Hilton, Dec 12, 2005
  8. Alfred Molon

    G.T. Guest

    And where did I do that? Please point to one example. Don't flame me
    for others' behavior. I have plenty of other bad behavior that's fair game.

    G.T., Dec 12, 2005
  9. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Buullllcrap, on many levels.
    First, I'm not bashing, merely pointing out Alfred's mis-statements. Unlike
    you how says "All the samples I've seen show the FF canon wide zooms are
    pathetic performers." That's bashing, and you know it, he was talking about
    camera bodies,not lenses. The camera isn't the problem, the lens is, and
    it's far from "pathetic." The 5D is better suited to wide angle, or at
    least as well suited, since fewer compromises need to be made in lens design
    for it to work properly. The Oly wide angles are not appreciably smaller
    than the Canon wides, despite only having to cover a image circle of 1/2 the
    And you're being selective, there's much more to that post, as you well
    Like I said, buullllcrap, on many levels.
    Skip M, Dec 12, 2005
  10. Maybe the canon was a bad choice to compare with, because I agree that
    it's lens quality is a little lacking. Not quite a piece of junk, but
    definitely lacking. How about the Nikon DX 18-55/3.5-5.6 then at 210g?
    still lighter than the olympus. The Nikon 28-80/3.5-5.6 comes in at 190g
    - this is a lens designed for 35mm. So again, how are the olympus lenses
    smaller and lighter than their APS or 35mm equivalents?
    note the use of the word _some_. I have also seen some results that are
    absolute crap. I have access to a number of images (some of which
    actually won prizes in an olympus sponsored competition), which show
    just how bad it does perform in circumstances where other brands perform
    admirably. Unfortunately I don't have copyright on these images so
    cannot distribute them - if I get permission from the owners I gladly
    will. I can describe accurately the circumstances used to create one
    particular image though - Nighttime football match, E300 with
    50-200/2.8-3.5 lens. I'm not 100% sure of the ISO setting or the
    shutter/aperture, although by the look of the shot it was taken at a
    high shutter speed, therefore probably with a fairly high ISO setting as
    well. The shot won a prize in an Olympus competition - presumably based
    on the timing and framing of the shot. The image however looks like it
    was formed from the sprinkles used as cake topping, that is how much
    colour speckling is in it.
    Graham Fountain, Dec 12, 2005
  11. Alfred Molon

    SMS Guest

    Well stated. The bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to
    buy the E300 or E500. You're giving up the image quality that the SLR is
    supposed to provide, and gaining nothing except perhaps the automatic
    sensor cleaning. I doubt if Olympus will be in the D-SLR business for
    more than another year, just look at the market share numbers. They
    can't even pay the tooling and development costs with the numbers of
    cameras that they are selling.
    SMS, Dec 12, 2005
  12. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Normal zooms, you're right because of their telecentric design, they aren't
    lighter. The ZD has 12 (2 asph) elements vs the nikon's 6 so yes it's isn't
    as lightweight. Given it has 2X the lens elements and is only a couple of
    ounces heavier is interesting..

    Now go look at at 35mm equiv FOV 100-400 lens and notice nikons F4.5-F5.6
    lens is the same weight as the oly 50-200. That is where the lenses become
    smaller and lighter.
    Which means it's capable of good end results.
    Same can be said for any camera. Put a moron behind the camera and garbage
    comes out..
    Stacey, Dec 12, 2005
  13. Alfred Molon

    Paul Furman Guest

    Well it costs less though. Compare the oly 2-lens kit to comparable
    lenses & body APS digital and it's a big difference. I think it's a good
    option for someone who wants to have a DSLR on a budget with some good
    Paul Furman, Dec 12, 2005
  14. Alfred Molon

    Bill Funk Guest

    Go a little wider on the zoom?
    Take a few steps back?
    While I'm sure there are specific situations where these may not work,
    I'm just as sure that the vast majority of situations really don't
    call for a new camera just because a different aspect ratio would
    eliminate a rare need to crop in a very specific manner.
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2005
  15. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    Maybe the potential is there, but the reality is that it isn't available.
    Oly, as the only current purveyor of the 4/3 system, hasn't been able to
    realize the economy of scale that mfrs. of established systems have, nor the
    aftermarket guys, who can depend on a lens that is designed for a 1.5x crop
    performing roughly the same on Minolta, Nikon and Pentax, and close to
    optimum on Canon's 1.6x crop. But a 10mm -20mm zoom, which gives full frame
    equivalent performance to a 15-30 on the above mentioned cameras, is only a
    20-40 on the Oly, not very wide. And Oly's ff equivalent lenses give
    little, if any, size and bulk advantage over the ff lenses from Canon. To
    date, Oly hasn't realized much of a reduction in size over the smaller 1.5
    and 1.6 crop cameras from the other mfrs.
    So far, the "novel" optical solutions that Oly has introduced, like the very
    fast zooms and 8mm rectilinear lens, are there to compensate for the small
    sensor, and give equivalent reach or width with equivalent DOF control to
    the lenses offered by the other camera makers.
    And why should we give up something that is achievable with a 35 mm sensor,
    or larger, just so we can "break out of a rut?" Sometimes, those ruts in
    the road most traveled are there for a reason, it's the best road to get
    where you are going...
    Skip M, Dec 12, 2005
  16. Alfred Molon

    SMS Guest

    Where did you see 36 billion Yen? From their financial report at
    "http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/corc/ir/financial/pdf/n051108aE_2.pdf" it
    looks like only 6 billion Yen for imaging.

    What's quite misleading is to look at the Olympus financial results for
    imaging, and to look at the "Growth" figure. Olympus claims a percentage
    growth in income of 131.1% over the past 12 months. They went from a
    loss of 2,908 million Yen to a loss of 6,719 million Yen, and claimed a
    growth rate of 131.1%?! Uh, there's a minus sign missing there
    somewhere, but in the spreadsheet they simply divided a negative by a
    negative and ended up with a positive.
    SMS, Dec 12, 2005
  17. I agree, and that's why I'm disappointed with 4/3 right now.

    Depends on your needs - there will always be the most demanding,
    professional requirements, of course. Having the split-body cameras (like
    Nikon Coolpix 900/990 etc.) and swivel live-preview LCD gives you a
    flexibility of taking which is missing from the 35mm SLR design. Smaller
    sensors make that easier. There is now a potential for good quality
    images which was not present before the smaller digital sensors were

    David J Taylor, Dec 12, 2005
  18. Alfred Molon

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote
    24 billion for two quarters back (for the Imaging Division, the other
    2/3's of the company was profitable by 12 million yen), 12 billion for
    one quarter back. Reported on the financial pages and discussed with
    links in this NG.
    (or loss, in this case). This doesn't take into account "one-time
    expenses" or "non-recurring charges" (used to work for a small start-up
    semi-conductor company, which used same accounting 'standards' after we
    went public) ... I think 6 months ago Oly announced they were laying
    off about 4,000 people and cutting production 25-30% because of slow
    sales (something like that, I dunno the exact figures), and these
    "non-recurring charges" count against their overall profit statements
    (and the 36 billion yen loss) but not against "operating income" profit
    and loss. So figure it cost them 30 billion yen to shut down plants
    and pay for laying off several thousand workers?
    Well, it was a growing loss ... I think they just left the ( ) off,
    which indicates loss instead of profit. If I were a shareholder or had
    a stake in their camera system the scary thing to me would be the drop
    in revenue, 22 billion yen drop in the Imaging Division from 2004 to
    2005, even while the PMAI (photo marketing association) estimated
    digital camera sales would grow from 18 million in 2004 to 20.5 million
    in 2005 ... if you can't make it in an expanding market then you will
    likely be roadkill during the inevitable slowdown when sales flatten

    Bill Hilton, Dec 12, 2005
  19. Alfred Molon

    SMS Guest

    Sales of digital cameras are already flattening out as the market is
    beginning to be saturated. D-SLR sales are doing well, but only for
    Canon and Nikon, the rest of the companies are losing their shirts.
    SMS, Dec 12, 2005
  20. Alfred Molon

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    More assumptions, why don't you check before excreting through the mouth.
    Neil Ellwood, 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.