Olympus E-3

[SecondFocus]

Just to repeat what I have said earlier. I am a working photographer and a busy one at that. What I have given you is my first hand impression of actually using these systems. The results have convinced me and I have just given you my opinion. I am not selling anything, you can do what you want.

I am just not going to be shooting these cameras side by side at certain apertures with specific lenses to convince you guys. I am also not one of those guys that runs into camera stores and wants to shoot a series of lenses at newspapers across the room. I am also not going to be posting photos from shoots just for forum argument fodder. And I am certainly not going to be sending out actual images from client shoots in full resolution.

My use of the E-3 shows me that it is superior to the 5D in image quality and usability, especially for me. Now if you are interested in actually buying something my suggestion is that you really look at it and if you are so inclined, do your own comparisons.

So make of it what you will folks, I was only trying to be of help. But again I see why my time is best spent elsewhere. Very tiresome guys.

[Ray]

My use of the E-3 shows me that it is superior to the 5D in image quality and usability, especially for me. Now if you are interested in actually buying something my suggestion is that you really look at it and if you are so inclined, do your own comparisons.

So make of it what you will folks, I was only trying to be of help. But again I see why my time is best spent elsewhere. Very tiresome guys.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We're all busy, Secondfocus. Despite not owning a D3 and despite the fact that they're as scarce as hen's teeth here in Bangkok, I did take the trouble to visit the main Nikon agent and do some comparisons with my 5D.

The fact is, I can't check every statement about camera quality I read on the internet. For someone who actually owns both cameras, it's much easier.

If you are not able to do this, it's a pity. If your statements were true at a fundamental level, that is, not just a quirk of the DoF differences and the way you are using the camera with regard to certain types of shooting conditions, then such news "The E-3 produces much better photos that the 5D period" would generate a great deal of interest. It would be headline news and we'd have hundreds of comparisons available on the internet.

When there's a lack of comparisons available, it's a fair indication that differences are not nearly as great as some folks like to make out.

[SecondFocus]

Like I said I am done with this. If you want to see photos you will have to wait as they are published and then I usually put the photos and article on my blog and on my website.

I stand by what I said, in my opinion the E-3 puts out a better image than the 5D as I went over in my much earlier post. If you don't want my opinion, that's fine. But I am not responsible for carrying on this silliness.

If I tell you that I like one restaurant more than another, I am not responsible for taking you to each. However some of you guys would then get every restaurant review from the places and still give your expert opinion. It reminds me of an old woman that I knew who knew exactly which was the best airline to fly on to certain places. But she never once had flown anywhere is her life.

Bye-Bye

[Ray]

I stand by what I said, in my opinion the E-3 puts out a better image than the 5D as I went over in my much earlier post. If you don't want my opinion, that's fine. But I am not responsible for carrying on this silliness.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing. Anyone can form an opinion as to the tastiness of a meal in a restaurant or whether they like a particular painting or photo. If you happen to like the E-3 images better than the 5D images but are unable to offer any analysis or indication as to the cause of this preference, then we can only speculate as to the reasons. If you say the E-3 images are sharper and we don't know if the reason is perhaps because the Zuiko lens you use is sharper than your Canon equivalent to a greater degree than is required by the smaller sensor, or if the DoF in the E3 images is greater and parts of the 5D image at the same f stop are always OoF, or if the Olympus RAW converter does a better conversion than ACR, or if the default settings in the converter produce a more pleasing result....if we don't know these factors, then your opinion is of limited usefulness.

Nevertheless, thanks for your opinion   . I should not like to discourage anyone from offering an opinion.

[Streetshooter]

Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing. Anyone can form an opinion as to the tastiness of a meal in a restaurant or whether they like a particular painting or photo. If you happen to like the E-3 images better than the 5D images but are unable to offer any analysis or indication as to the cause of this preference, then we can only speculate as to the reasons. If you say the E-3 images are sharper and we don't know if the reason is perhaps because the Zuiko lens you use is sharper than your Canon equivalent to a greater degree than is required by the smaller sensor, or if the DoF in the E3 images is greater and parts of the 5D image at the same f stop are always OoF, or if the Olympus RAW converter does a better conversion than ACR, or if the default settings in the converter produce a more pleasing result....if we don't know these factors, then your opinion is of limited usefulness.

Nevertheless, thanks for your opinion   . I should not like to discourage anyone from offering an opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, here you go again !  I know you love your 5D but..... You seem very adept at p...ing people off when they express an opinion that puts the Canon 5D second best. I know it's a great camera but there are better out there !

Pete

[Ray]

Ray, here you go again !  I know you love your 5D but..... You seem very adept at p...ing people off when they express an opinion that puts the Canon 5D second best. I know it's a great camera but there are better out there !

Pete
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not at all. I've got no great love for what is after all just a material object, a tool. I own very few DSLRs; the D60, the 20D and the 5D. Each was bought after careful consideration as to their performance. I skipped the first Canon DSLR, the D30 because I reckoned it just wasn't good enough compared with the best that 35mm film had to offer. The D60 with double the pixel count and a lower price seemed more attractive and less of a compromise on 35mm film. The 20D was a huge improvement in the noise department and the 5D a modest improvement in resolution but a substantial improvement in wide angle capability.

Having recently compared some Nikon D3 images with my 5D, I've gained new respect for the low noise capability of the 5D. There's a review on the internet which claims even the new 1Ds3 cannot beat the 5D at ISO 3200. But this is not just an opinion but the result of careful testing, and the reviewer shows the results.

It's just too easy to make a subjective opinion that camera A produces better images than camera B and not show any results. Opinions also tend to spread like rumours. A few professionals make the claim that the D3 is about 2 stops less noisy than any other camera at high ISO, and everyone starts believing it, because after all, they are professionals and must therefore know what they are talking about.

[Streetshooter]

It's just too easy to make a subjective opinion that camera A produces better images than camera B and not show any results. Opinions also tend to spread like rumours. A few professionals make the claim that the D3 is about 2 stops less noisy than any other camera at high ISO, and everyone starts believing it, because after all, they are professionals and must therefore know what they are talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, in my opinion they do know what they're talking about when they've been doing it for a good few years and have their work on show on their website. I value their opinion, take note of their comments and try the gear for myself. Almost always they are correct in their opinions.

I ignore pixel peepers and armchair experts.  There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions.

Pete

[250swb]

Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing. Anyone can form an opinion as to the tastiness of a meal in a restaurant or whether they like a particular painting or photo. If you happen to like the E-3 images better than the 5D images but are unable to offer any analysis or indication as to the cause of this preference, then we can only speculate as to the reasons. If you say the E-3 images are sharper and we don't know if the reason is perhaps because the Zuiko lens you use is sharper than your Canon equivalent to a greater degree than is required by the smaller sensor, or if the DoF in the E3 images is greater and parts of the 5D image at the same f stop are always OoF, or if the Olympus RAW converter does a better conversion than ACR, or if the default settings in the converter produce a more pleasing result....if we don't know these factors, then your opinion is of limited usefulness.

Nevertheless, thanks for your opinion   . I should not like to discourage anyone from offering an opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Far be it from me to join in a playground spat, but 'prove it' (or  "Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing.") would have most professional photographers laughing their socks off. Because most professional photographers know what works and what doesn't and use the camera as a tool for a job, not as some sort of competition between each other. And neither do they pixel peep very much or join in these forums.

Now I'm not going to show back to back tests either, but I was so underwhelmed by the Canon 5D that I sold it and all my Canon 'L' lenses after a brief spell playing with a consumer grade Olympus. I could see where the future lay, and so it transpired that without any pixel peeping I can say there is a quality to the E3 image that surpasses the 5D by a good margin, and the lenses are invariably sharper even at the 'consumer' end of the range. All in all the marginal benefit of better high ISO performance for the Canon doesn't outweigh the day to day superior quality of the E3 output. Bragging about high ISO performance is like putting bull bars on a truck, then never going near a cow. In other words if it isn't needed the option is irrelevant. So if you want to compare camera's I'd have thought it would be more realistic to compare their common points where they should both be comfortable. So no water dunks for the 5D, and no 6400 ISO tests for the E3..........Wouldn't that be fair?

[Ray]

Well, in my opinion they do know what they're talking about when they've been doing it for a good few years and have their work on show on their website. I value their opinion, take note of their comments and try the gear for myself. Almost always they are correct in their opinions.

Which presumably must mean, they almost always agree. Experts agree? I don't think you'll find any field where the experts always agree.

Of course you should take note of what they say, but sometimes you need more information from them in order to determine if what they are saying is relevant to your own needs and situation. The more we move away from objective testing, the more disagreement there is and the more confusion. The whole purpose of objective testing is to provide certainty so consumers do not have to go through the rigmarole of testing cameras themselves.

I ignore pixel peepers and armchair experts.  There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions.

So you ignore all the reviews at Dpreview, which are very much at the pixel-peeping level, and you ignore all lens review sites which provide resolution and vignetting tests at various F stops?

I'm no armchair expert. I've taken over 20,000 photos in the past 4 months, which might be less than many a professional photography would take, but at least I don't have to impress clients with the gear I'm using or justify why I might be using a small format E-3 instead of a larger format 5D, 1Ds3 or ZD whatever. Nor am I seeking sponsorship from any camera company to advertise their products.

I think I'm probably in a position to be more impartial than most professionals.

[Ray]

Far be it from me to join in a playground spat, but 'prove it' (or  "Well, if you think that providing objective data is silly, then of course there's no point in continuing.") would have most professional photographers laughing their socks off. Because most professional photographers know what works and what doesn't and use the camera as a tool for a job, not as some sort of competition between each other. And neither do they pixel peep very much or join in these forums.

Now I'm not going to show back to back tests either, but I was so underwhelmed by the Canon 5D that I sold it and all my Canon 'L' lenses after a brief spell playing with a consumer grade Olympus. I could see where the future lay, and so it transpired that without any pixel peeping I can say there is a quality to the E3 image that surpasses the 5D by a good margin, and the lenses are invariably sharper even at the 'consumer' end of the range. All in all the marginal benefit of better high ISO performance for the Canon doesn't outweigh the day to day superior quality of the E3 output. Bragging about high ISO performance is like putting bull bars on a truck, then never going near a cow. In other words if it isn't needed the option is irrelevant. So if you want to compare camera's I'd have thought it would be more realistic to compare their common points where they should both be comfortable. So no water dunks for the 5D, and no 6400 ISO tests for the E3..........Wouldn't that be fair?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm having great trouble following your reasoning. Even if you are a professional photographer, I'm not going to buy one of your pictures without seeing it first.

Likewise, if a professional photographer passes an opinion on the image quality of two competing cameras, I'm not going to necessarily 'buy' that opinion if it is unsupported by any visual evidence and particularly if such opinion is contrary to what one might expect.

In the words of one very famous professional photographer, "Seeing is believing".

[Ray]

Bragging about high ISO performance is like putting bull bars on a truck, then never going near a cow. In other words if it isn't needed the option is irrelevant. So if you want to compare camera's I'd have thought it would be more realistic to compare their common points where they should both be comfortable. So no water dunks for the 5D, and no 6400 ISO tests for the E3..........Wouldn't that be fair?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now I can follow your reasoning on this point although to some extent you seem to be arguing against yourself.

If high ISO performance is of little interest to you, then of course you would discount this attribute in choosing a camera. It really would be silly to buy a camera on the basis it had stellar high ISO performance when you knew you were not interested in shooting in low light without a flash.

On the other hand, if you are interested in the different effects you can get shooting street scenes at night without flash, for example, and/or you are a professional journalist photographer where such camera attributes would be very useful in a professional context, then you need some comparison shots is order to assess whether or not the advantages in that one respect of noise outweigh possible advantages of the other camera in other respects.

In the absence of such direct, pixel-peeping comparisons, one just can't be sure. From what I gather, the 5D has about a one stop (high ISO) noise advantage over the 40D. The 40D has about a one stop noise advantage over the E-3. So the 5D has about a 2 stop noise advantage over the E-3. That's very significant in my opinion, if it's true.

[bavanor]

second focus,

Thank you for posting your thoughts and experience with the olympus E-3.  I have been curious about this camera and your comments plus finally being able to handle one has helped me make an informed purchasing decision.

I hope to read more about your experience with the camera in the future, either on this website or your web blog.  Don't let one person ruin your experience on this website.

Aaron

[SecondFocus]

Thanks for all the e-mails and kind words guys!

But like I said I am done with this, at least for now. I did post my own observations from my use of the E-3 on my blog a while back. There are some photos there too. Just go to my website and click on "blog". Scroll back, there have been a few posts since then. My website is listed here on my profile, it has been there since I signed up here, as well as my e-mail address.

And if I can answer any questions just send me a note.

Thanks Again!

[toddbee]

hey guys i just stumbled across this thread and wanted to put in my experience so far.  i had an e1 years back and loved it.  prior to that i had a canon d30.  after waiting for the e1 successor i sold the e1 and went for the canon d60 then to the 5d.  i liked the 5d alot, but always felt the canon images had a kind of plastic look to them which my e1 did not have.  I also felt i had some suspicious focusing issues with the canons.  I sometimes would find some of my images to not be as sharp as i thought they should be.  almost a slight out of focus feel.  anyways to wrap this up i picked up an e3 in early december and have to say it is great.  i purchased the 12-60 lense with it.  my prints are primarily 17x22 inchs.  i cant tell the difference between the 5d prints at that size or the e3 prints up to 800 iso which i rarely shoot anyways. at that print size the 4x3 aspect ratio fills more of the 17x22 paper then the non 4x3 files.   i find the e3 files need alot less post processing then the canon files.  alsos at higher iso's the e3 files tend to be sharper where the 5d files tend to be slightly smeary possibly from the NR.  I turn the NR off on the e3.  just thought i'd chime it,
thanks

[Ray]

I'm afraid I don't really know how to respond to subjective opinions unsupported by hard evidence. But I see this happening all the time, particularly on forums such as dpreview.

It's rather ironic that dpreview is one of the few sites that provides in-depth technical reviews of equipment, yet their forums seem to be full of mindless bickering on mattters obscured by ego.

There are some who are happy to accept the opinion of any 'so-called' expert, probably because they are not confident in their ability to understand the issues.

This doesn't only apply to the choice of cameras. It's a wide-spread phenomenon that advertising companies thrive on. When Pat Cash retired from tennis, he got a bit short of cash and was persuaded to advertise underpants. The company selling the underpants obviously figured there was a large number of people out there who would be influenced by Pat Cash's choice of underwear. (If this underwear is good enough for Pat Cash, then it's good enough for me. It might even improve my tennis.)

A similar situation has now occurred in this thread. A professional photographer (SecondFocus) has claimed that the E-3 produces better images than the 5D. There's an implication that any opinion from a prefessional must be gospel and no evidence is required. Now that's completley ludicrous in my opinion.

At the same time, I recognise that there are lots of people in this world who are prepared to accept without question any opinion from an 'expert', whether such expert is a professional photographer, a doctor, a scientist or a priest. (Or a CIA agent).

However, I'm not one of them.

[Quentin]

Ray,  the problem is you are just as "guilty".  It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions.  You haven't his experience of both the 5D and E-3 but with respect it seems that brand loyalty is clouding your views, not his.

All opinions on these issues are subjective.  There is little hard evidence; its all a matter of interpretation.  Second Focus is indisputably right when he says "There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions." - quite possibly the most sensible remark in this entire thread.

Quentin

[Ray]

Ray,  the problem is you are just as "guilty".  It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions.  You haven't his experience of both the 5D and E-3 but with respect it seems that brand loyalty is clouding your views, not his.

All opinions on these issues are subjective.  There is little hard evidence; its all a matter of interpretation.  Second Focus is indisputably right when he says "There's no substitute for trying the gear out over a period of time under professional conditions." - quite possibly the most sensible remark in this entire thread.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It seems you don't like SecondFocus' opinion because it does not fit with your preconceptions.

No, Quentin. It's not a matter of like with me. Some people believe what they like. Not me. I believe what the evidence suggests whether I like it or not. I'm conditioned by education and upbringing to lay emphasis on the evidence.

I have no antagonism whatsoever towards the 4/3rds system. I'm just really disappointed that I can find no thorough comparisons on the net between the E-3 and other systems, executed with sound methodology.

If an E-3 shot appears to one person as sharper than a 5D shot, I want to know if that's because the lens on the E-3 is simply better (to a degree greater than what's required for the smaller sensor), or perhaps if the lens on the 5D was just a mediocre lens, or if the E-3 shot was simply focussed better.

This issue with cameras is perhaps very trivial. But there's a wider issue I see here. There's a fundamental principle which cuts across all human activity. I'm dismayed that people accept things without question.

[Quentin]

Then, Ray, the only answer is to do the tests yourself, because there will always be so many variables that "invalidate" any opinion no matter how supposedly scientific the test.  However, those variables are not grounds to criticize  anyone else's conclusions.  Seems that SecondFocus is an accomplished and knowledgeable photographer whose views are worth giving some weight to.

Quentin

[Ray]

Seems that SecondFocus is an accomplished and knowledgeable photographer whose views are worth giving some weight to.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169709\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed! I agree! Some weight! But how much weight? That is the question.

PS. I'm currently in Udon Thani, Northern Thailand. (the poorest part of the country, but hey! I've got free internet in my $15 a day hotel room   ).  No opportunity to test the E-3, but I was previously in Bangkok where I could have tested it, I guess, but chose instead to test the D3.

I'm very willing to test cameras if the opportunity arises. But I think it's a great pity if people who don't have the opportunity to test cameras have to rely upon people who do have the opportunity, because they own the cameras in question, but who refuse to provide the test results for whatever reason.

[DarkPenguin]

I'd take an 8x10....

Actually there is a rumor going around that Oly are working on a medium format back using stitched 4/3 sensors.  Might be real, might be nonsense, but it is sort of logical.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Came accross this again while searching the posts for something else and just had a vivid mental image of Oly releasing a MFDB with a lone 4/3 chip in the middle of it.  Just struck me as funny for some reason.  (Normally my vivid mental images are of broads.)

Anywho, back to my search.