Olympus E300

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Chuck Chunder, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. I'm thinking of buying the E500 when it comes out in a few weeks time. Has
    anyone had any bad experiences with the Olympus E300 ?

    thanx, chux.
     
    Chuck Chunder, Nov 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chuck Chunder

    Tony Polson Guest


    Yes, but all the problems I had with the E-300 have been fully
    addressed in the E-500. I might have stayed with Four Thirds had the
    E-500 been available. It is the camera that Four Thirds desperately
    needed - a very good performer that looks like a normal camera.
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chuck Chunder

    eds Guest

    I've had an e-300 for 11 months now, using for architectural inspection
    work and just plain play. No problems, very tough and reliable.
    EDS
     
    eds, Nov 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Chuck Chunder

    RichA Guest

    Yes, and we all know you need a camera that "looks" like a camera so it
    doesn't clash
    with other parts of our ensemble.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Nov 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Chuck Chunder

    Basic Wedge Guest

    The E-300 is a special case. It looks like Olympus started with an ugly
    camera, then beat it with a stick! That's not to say I wouldn't want one,
    but I wish they'd styled it better. The look of the new E-500 shows Olympus
    has changed their thinking.

    Rob
     
    Basic Wedge, Nov 23, 2005
    #5
  6. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, I never thought the E300 was ugly
    at all. It's built like a tank, a great feel in the hands. IMO, it has a
    better build feel than the E500 but I by no means think the E500 has a bad
    build quality. I think both are good and I'm more than toying with the idea
    of buying on or the other with the two-lens kit.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Nov 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Chuck Chunder

    Basic Wedge Guest

    Peter.

    I was focusing on the E-300's styling. You're just talking about its build
    quality. On that point, you and I are in complete agreement.

    I would add that I found the E-300 looks much nicer than photos tend to
    suggest. With a battery grip installed, it looks better yet.

    Rob
     
    Basic Wedge, Nov 24, 2005
    #7
  8. I like the styling of the E-300, at least it doesn't turn me off to the
    camera. I've been searching a bit today and I found that at Circuit City
    the E-500 two-lens kit is close in price to what I've found an E-300
    two-lens kit selling for from reputable dealers. I'm still torn between the
    two and wonder how much real difference in picture quality there is between
    the two. The metering is supposedly improved in the E-500 but the photos
    I've seen from the E-300 certainly look fine to me.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Nov 24, 2005
    #8
  9. Chuck Chunder

    Stacey Guest


    Yes, they gave up the ability to use both the built in flash and a shoe
    mounted one at the same time (bounce + fill) to appease the style conscious
    public. Also gave up the corner mounted finder viewport -so you don't have
    to cram your nose into the back of the camera- for "better apearance" and
    ended up with a smaller finder that makes it harder to manually focus the
    camera? Shame form ("styled like every other camera") won out over
    function. BTW I think it looks kinda cool, like a modern Pen F?

    http://www.cameraquest.com/olypenf.htm
     
    Stacey, Nov 24, 2005
    #9
  10. Chuck Chunder

    Tony Polson Guest


    The Pen F didn't sell well. Olympus only started selling substantial
    numbers of cameras with the introduction of the more conventional
    OM-1. Small, yes, but otherwise conventional.
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 24, 2005
    #10
  11. Chuck Chunder

    Paul Furman Guest

    pics of both:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Chuck Chunder

    burnsdavidj Guest

    Assuming that the 'plastic brick' design doesn't have any usability
    faults, you're right -- appearance should only be a decision point when
    comparing devices of the same functionality.

    That said, I don't see alot of variety in DSLR camera bodies. Any
    colour you want, as long as its silver or black -- and don't pick Nikon
    and Silver at the same time.

    PS My _plastic_ 350D camera body is coming to get you Rich! BOOGA
    BOOGA!!!!! ;)
     
    burnsdavidj, Nov 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Chuck Chunder

    Frank ess Guest

    Rich hasn't got a chance if you've opted for the CamoCam scheme from
    TwinkleInMyEye Productions. He'll never know what hit him.
     
    Frank ess, Nov 24, 2005
    #13
  14. I bought one last May, and I like the way it looks. My last camera was a
    Minolta Vectis S-1 which has pretty much the same styling anyway. I
    finally sprung for the FL-36 flash, and got it yesterday (the day
    *after* my birthday :), but I didn't want to spend 20 bucks on 2nd day
    air). I've been experimenting with various combos of built-in flash,
    accessorie, bounce, using the "wide-angle" diffuser, etc.
     
    Brion K. Lienhart, Nov 24, 2005
    #14
  15. Chuck Chunder

    Rich Guest

    Only some parts of these cameras scare me. Like the switch that
    circles the shutter button on the Sony R1. Looks like it would break
    off in your hand.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 24, 2005
    #15
  16. Chuck Chunder

    Rich Guest

    IMHO, there is NOTHNG cheezier or uglier than the silver coated Rebel
    or Rebel XT. Once that silver paint starts to wear in spots down to
    the yellowish plastic, you'll loose your lunch everytime you have
    to look at the camera. Thank goodness they take nice pictures.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 24, 2005
    #16
  17. Chuck Chunder

    Skip M Guest

    Just as a point of info, the plastic is black, not yellow.
     
    Skip M, Nov 25, 2005
    #17
  18. Chuck Chunder

    Stacey Guest

    Tony Polson wrote:

    It was a half frame camera, that was it's main problem.
     
    Stacey, Nov 25, 2005
    #18
  19. Chuck Chunder

    Tony Polson Guest


    True, but the poor optical quality of the lenses did not help.

    Olympus started making good camera lenses with the OM System.
    They were known for making excellent microscopes.
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 25, 2005
    #19
  20. Thanks Paul, much appreciated
     
    Chuck Chunder, Nov 29, 2005
    #20
    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.