Olympus E-3

[eronald]

I think Oly will eventually make some bijou-cameras again - descendants of the OM series, if you will. They're not there yet. The E3 is an interesting concept, it'll slug it out with the rest of the ruggedized crowd (Canon 40D, D300), but I think the real differentiation will wait until  the next generation.
 
Edmund

[Er1kksen]

I think Oly will eventually make some bijou-cameras again - descendants of the OM series, if you will. They're not there yet. The E3 is an interesting concept, it'll slug it out with the rest of the ruggedized crowd (Canon 40D, D300), but I think the real differentiation will wait until  the next generation.
 
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps an E-410 sized body with E-3 ruggedness and functionality (rather than the more consumer-oriented interface of the actual E-410)?

[Ray]

I think Oly will eventually make some bijou-cameras again - descendants of the OM series, if you will. They're not there yet. The E3 is an interesting concept, it'll slug it out with the rest of the ruggedized crowd (Canon 40D, D300), but I think the real differentiation will wait until  the next generation.
 
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A major problem for the 4/3rds system as I see it is the competition from the Nikon and Canon cropped formats. Ideally for Olympus, these cropped formats should disappear with the two major companies concentrating on full frame 35mm.

The 4/3rds sytem could then reasonably take the place of old-fashioned 35mm film in the new hierarchy of digital formats. The difference in format size between the 4/3rds format and the Nikon and Canon cropped formats is too small, but not so small that it doesn't give the slightly larger format the quality edge, either in resolution or noise.

What Olympus needs to do is equal the image quality in every respect of the D300 and 40D and then claim, on average, a substantial saving in weight and bulk for equal performance, albeit at an additional cost. One expects to pay a premium for miniaturisation when quality is not compromised.

[Quentin]

The difference in format size between the 4/3rds format and the Nikon and Canon cropped formats is too small, but not so small that it doesn't give the slightly larger format the quality edge, either in resolution or noise.

Wrong!  The point of 4/3 is it was designed from the outset as a digital specific format, not a rehash of a legacy film format, and that includes telecentric lenses.  

What Olympus needs to do is equal the image quality in every respect of the D300 and 40D and then claim, on average, a substantial saving in weight and bulk for equal performance, albeit at an additional cost. One expects to pay a premium for miniaturisation when quality is not compromised.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Arguably, from what I have seen they already have.

Ray, your comments are just a rehash of the usual received newsgroup wisdom.  The  E-3 image quality is first rate.  I'm no 4/3 apologist, as I use other systems, and likely will get a D3x as and when it is produced.

Quentin

[250swb]

One expects to pay a premium for miniaturisation when quality is not compromised.

Does one?

OK the facts, on purely like for like (nearest Canon can get at least) weather sealed pro lens basis.

An Oly prime 300mm f2.8 (600mm equiv) weighs 3290gm and is 281mm long. Now Canon can't make an f2.8, so take their 600mm f4 as a nearest comparison, it weighs 5300gm and is 450mm long. The Canon costs at rip off UK price £5478, and the Oly £4770. What it is that makes the Oly more expensive, larger, heavier, or slower?

Take two. The Oly 50-200mm (100- 400) f2.8-f3.5 weighs 1070gm and is 157mm long and costs £699. Now, Canon can't make an f2.8, so take the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 as the nearest they can get. It weighs 1380gm and is 189mm long and costs £999. Are you seeing a pattern develop?

What is more, 'if' Canon can make a faster lens, what would that then weigh, measure, and cost! It doesn't bear thinking about.

It is one thing talking about the pluses and minuses of camera systems, but this shouldn't include perpetuating obvious myths, never mind the less obvious ones concerning 'quaility'.

[Ray]

Wrong!  The point of 4/3 is it was designed from the outset as a digital specific format, not a rehash of a legacy film format, and that includes telecentric lenses. 
Arguably, from what I have seen they already have.

Ray, your comments are just a rehash of the usual received newsgroup wisdom.  The  E-3 image quality is first rate.  I'm no 4/3 apologist, as I use other systems, and likely will get a D3x as and when it is produced.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't read newsgroups much, Quentin. I refer to dpreview tests of cameras a lot, though, and every test of an Olympus 4/3rds format seems to come out slightly worse than the nearest priced Canon cropped format, so far, in terms of resolution, high ISO noise and DR.

Perhaps the E-3 has changed the balance somewhat, but from the comparisons I've seen so far, noise at high ISO is still a stop less than the 40D. This fact alone tends to take the gloss off the apparent advantage of faster Zuiko lenses.

[Ray]

An Oly prime 300mm f2.8 (600mm equiv) weighs 3290gm and is 281mm long. Now Canon can't make an f2.8, so take their 600mm f4 as a nearest comparison, it weighs 5300gm and is 450mm long. The Canon costs at rip off UK price £5478, and the Oly £4770. What it is that makes the Oly more expensive, larger, heavier, or slower?

You're just confirming my point. If you make the comparison with FF 35mm, then the above quote is relevant. The Olympus system is definitely much lighter and cheaper in this example, but you can't expect the E-3 to compete quality-wise with a 1Ds3 image.

Like-wise, if you put that heavier and more expensive 600/4 on a 40D you get an effective focal length of 960mm. You're not suggesting an E-3 with Zuiko 300/2.8 will match the quality of a Canon 960mm lens are you?

A more realistic comparison and the nearest Canon equivalent to the E-3 with Zuiko 300/2.8 would be the 40D with Canon 400/4 DO IS. This lens is considerably lighter than the Zuiko 300/2.8 and, on the 40D has a slightly longer reach. I believe the lens is also less expensive, if you search for the best price.

Would image quality be similar? I've not seen any comparisons, but the 4/3rds sytem is clearly much heavier in this example.

Take two. The Oly 50-200mm (100- 400) f2.8-f3.5 weighs 1070gm and is 157mm long and costs £699. Now, Canon can't make an f2.8, so take the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 as the nearest they can get. It weighs 1380gm and is 189mm long and costs £999. Are you seeing a pattern develop?

Same situation again. You're not suggesting a 50-200 zoom with effective 35mm focal lengths of 100-400 can compete with a 35mm 100-400 zoom which has effective focal lengths of 160-640mm on a 40D, are you? It's true the Zuiko 50-200mm is faster, but it needs to be to overcome that additional noise at high ISO.

Are you beginning to see another type of pattern develop?

If you search hard enough, I believe you will find some combinations of 4/3rds format lenses and E-3 which will have some advantage over the available alternative Canon combinations, but it's not clear what they are and how image quality compares.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Ray,

My wife just got an E3 and 12-60 and actually let me play with it for a few days. I have to say that it definitely beats my 40D in resolution and sharpness and is no worse in noise at high ISO. The autofocus with the 12-60 is better than any of my Canons (D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II, 40D) and faster and more accurate than my D2XS. Image quality is excellent, color accuracy is excellent, body build and weather proofing are superb. The in-body stabilization is a real treat and the articulated Live View really works well. So far I'm not seeing anything to not like about it.

Best regards,


Lin

I don't read newsgroups much, Quentin. I refer to dpreview tests of cameras a lot, though, and every test of an Olympus 4/3rds format seems to come out slightly worse than the nearest priced Canon cropped format, so far, in terms of resolution, high ISO noise and DR.

Perhaps the E-3 has changed the balance somewhat, but from the comparisons I've seen so far, noise at high ISO is still a stop less than the 40D. This fact alone tends to take the gloss off the apparent advantage of faster Zuiko lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

Hi Ray,

My wife just got an E3 and 12-60 and actually let me play with it for a few days. I have to say that it definitely beats my 40D in resolution and sharpness and is no worse in noise at high ISO. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Lin,
The E-3 and 12-60 beats the 40D with which lens? The nearest EF-S equivalent to the Zuiko 12-60 would be the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This lens is slightly faster than the 12-60 and according to Photozone tests is actually sharper than the Canon 50/1.8 prime in the centre, although it does suffer from a bit of vignetting.

As regards noise, I can only go by what I see. Imaging-Resource's comparator shows clearly that the E-3 has more noise than the 40D at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.

I estimate it to be a one stop difference.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Ray,

So far I've compared it with my Canon 50mm F1.8, and Canon 70-200 F2.8 which is about as close a match lens wise as I have. Of course resolution really isn't affected a great deal but speed of autofocus can be compared.

The actual amount of noise I'm seeing is very similar between the 40D and E3 with the E3 being cleaner at low ISO and having more apparent shadow noise at ISO 3200. But the noise with the Olympus is more film-like with less chroma. I suspect in actual measurements they would be very close but perhaps Canon might be shifting some of the noise with superior firmware noise reduction. I really like the images from the E3 with noise reduction off and I wouldn't use either one at over ISO 800 for serious work. If you slightly underexpose the 40D there is plenty of noise even at ISO 200 which is perhaps the sweet spot for this camera.

Actually I think noise is pretty much a non-issue for any of the newer cameras. As an old film shooter since the early 50's I'm very happy with just about any of the newer dSLR's as far as noise is concerned. Perhaps if I were interested in event photography or low light action sports I would go with a D3 or if they ever fix the 1D Mark III's focus issues it would be a great one for high ISO, but since I primarily use my cameras the past year since I've retired for wildlife, the E3 may be my next camera too.

I read some of the earlier comments about weight and so on and the primary reason we bought my wife the E3 was weight considerations. With a 300mm F2.8 and 1.4x tele you get about 840mm at F4. The 300mm F2.8 weighs about half what my Canon 400 F2.8 does, with the stabilization can be hand-held and is much smaller as well.

I originally bought my 40D because I thought I could use it with my 100-400L IS and 1.4x teleconverter but was disappointed when I found it wouldn't autofocus with taped pins at F8 like all the rest of my Canon's will. This took the 40D out of my kit for most of my wildlife needs and forced me to decide between a D300 or Sony A700 or staying with my D2XS. The higher ISO and somewhat improved autofocus of the D300 were tempting, but when I read the specs for the E3 I thought it would make a great camera for my wife. I had no idea how much I would like it until I had the chance to play with it and I must admit I'm seriously tempted to get one for myself. The measured resolution is very close to the D300 and A700 - just a chopped-off bit of aspect ratio on the sides. The burst speed isn't nearly as good as the 40D but is quite probably on par with the D300 and A700. Optimally, it's five frames per second on jpgs but only about four frames per second with RAW/jpg in my experience. The number of frames in the burst are not up to the 40D or 300D but the IQ is superb and I can live with a little fewer fps when nearly every frame is a keeper.

In any event I suspect this camera will be a definite "contender" among it's peers.

Best regards,


Lin

Hi Lin,
The E-3 and 12-60 beats the 40D with which lens? The nearest EF-S equivalent to the Zuiko 12-60 would be the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This lens is slightly faster than the 12-60 and according to Photozone tests is actually sharper than the Canon 50/1.8 prime in the centre, although it does suffer from a bit of vignetting.

As regards noise, I can only go by what I see. Imaging-Resource's comparator shows clearly that the E-3 has more noise than the 40D at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.

I estimate it to be a one stop difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[250swb]

Like-wise, if you put that heavier and more expensive 600/4 on a 40D you get an effective focal length of 960mm. You're not suggesting an E-3 with Zuiko 300/2.8 will match the quality of a Canon 960mm lens are you?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you could put the 1.4 converter on the Oly lens and you get a 840mm and loose one stop, so the speed is on a par with the Canon at that. Put a 2x converter on and you get a 1200mm lens and loose two stops. Either way it isn't exactly clear cut that the Canon 40D is oh so superior. The Canon APS-C sensor is only a fraction bigger than the Olympus sensor, and the Olympus lenses and sensors have been designed to work together from the outset, not as legacy work arounds from film days. In either case the Olympus 1.4 or 2x converter setup still comes out smaller and lighter and cheaper. And I haven't yet noticed any bad reviews of Olympus lenses, indeed, their quality is what made me sell my Canon gear when I realised 'L' was for 'Loser'. There are Olympus kit lenses out there in the world sharper and more consistent than the best 'L' glass.

What gets to me though is the assumption one is 'superior' to the other. I'm old enough, (and therefore wise enough) to remember when the word 'photographic quality' was reserved for how good the picture was. If you wanted to explain the technique and what negative or print quality one was looking at you'd say 'this is a 5x4', or 'this is 35mm', and nobody would look up or down on one or the other, it simply wasn't seen as a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of battle. The camera was used to produce the image you wanted in the best way for the you. So unless I had a mule, Sherpas, and photographic assistants I wouldn't have carried a 10x8 up the hill to photograph Half Dome, I'd have carried a Hasselblad. I don't think anybody would have looked on the photograph and called it 'inferior' because it was from a 6x6 neg, but maybe they would if it was a bad photograph.

So I think its about time maturity flowered in digital circles and a new regime was adopted to stop this confusion that 'bigger' is 'better' and that 'quality' isn't garanteed by 'bigger' even as a lowest perception of the idea.

But for the time being, and to join in to the spirit of the discussion as it has developed, I do see the E3 beating the D300, the 40D, and the 5D, for everyday basic image quality in the reviews I have read so far. And two of those cameras you can't even take out in the rain   LOL!

[Ray]

But for the time being, and to join in to the spirit of the discussion as it has developed, I do see the E3 beating the D300, the 40D, and the 5D, for everyday basic image quality in the reviews I have read so far. And two of those cameras you can't even take out in the rain   LOL!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might well be right, but you understand I'm sure, that I would want to see the evidence. In photography seeing is believing. The only competent reviews with a reputation for objectivity that I've seen so far, which compare images of identical scenes, is Imaging Resources. There might be other comparisons around employing flawed methodology of course.

Because I own a Canon system does not mean I automatically assume a Canon system is superior. In fact, when I first saw the specs of the Nikon D300 and a few sample images, I felt sure if Canon had delivered such a camera in place of the 40D I'd be buying it. But it now seems that the low noise at high ISO from the D300 is at the sacrifice of resolution due to heavy in-camera noise reduction, so I'm no longer interested. And the reason I'm no longer interested is not just because I'm obsessed with low noise capability but because there's simply no reason for me to buy more camera equipment unless such equipment can clearly do something I can't already do with the equipment I already have.

If I intended making an assault on Mt Everest or trekking through the Himalayas during the monsoon, I might consider the waterproofing of the E-3 a major advantage, and with careful selection of lenses I might even be able to get a weight saving with either zero or minimal sacrifice of image quality.

Well, you could put the 1.4 converter on the Oly lens and you get a 840mm and loose one stop, so the speed is on a par with the Canon at that. Put a 2x converter on and you get a 1200mm lens and loose two stops. Either way it isn't exactly clear cut that the Canon 40D is oh so superior.

Put a 1.4x converter on the Canon 400/4 DO IS and you get 900mm. I'm not claiming the image quality would be better with the 40D but the Canon system would sure be lighter.  

[Ray]

So far I've compared it with my Canon 50mm F1.8, and Canon 70-200 F2.8 which is about as close a match lens wise as I have. Of course resolution really isn't affected a great deal but speed of autofocus can be compared.

Lin,
I interpret that as meaning the E-3 has the pixel-peeping edge.

The actual amount of noise I'm seeing is very similar between the 40D and E3 with the E3 being cleaner at low ISO and having more apparent shadow noise at ISO 3200.

That's quite remarkable. The E-3 has less noise than the 40D at low ISO? Is this with the 40D noise reduction on or off? As I understand, the 40D has a noise reduction system that does not destroy detail in any discernible way and works at all ISO settings.

I originally bought my 40D because I thought I could use it with my 100-400L IS and 1.4x teleconverter but was disappointed when I found it wouldn't autofocus with taped pins at F8 like all the rest of my Canon's will.

I agree this is a disappointment. If the 40D had included the ability to autofocus at f8 (without taping the pins) that might have been sufficient to persuade me to buy the camera.

In any event I suspect this camera will be a definite "contender" among it's peers.

No doubt about it. The E-3 appears to be a fine piece of engineering. I don't think anyone could go far wrong buying into the system, unless they really wanted the large-print quality of a 1Ds3.  

[Er1kksen]

Lin,
I interpret that as meaning the E-3 has the pixel-peeping edge.
That's quite remarkable. The E-3 has less noise than the 40D at low ISO? Is this with the 40D noise reduction on or off? As I understand, the 40D has a noise reduction system that does not destroy detail in any discernible way and works at all ISO settings.
I agree this is a disappointment. If the 40D had included the ability to autofocus at f8 (without taping the pins) that might have been sufficient to persuade me to buy the camera.
No doubt about it. The E-3 appears to be a fine piece of engineering. I don't think anyone could go far wrong buying into the system, unless they really wanted the large-print quality of a 1Ds3. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course, if they did desire the large print quality for, say, static landscapes, they could always get a decent tripod and learn how to stitch frames...

[Quentin]

Ray,

As I own the E-3, I don't need to rely on reviews, and it seems neither does Lin.  Reviews are always a poor second best to first-hand experience.

Quentin

[Ray]

Ray,

As I own the E-3, I don't need to rely on reviews, and it seems neither does Lin.  Reviews are always a poor second best to first-hand experience.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But Quentin, a review is a first-hand experience, and first-hand experiences like yours and Lin's are a type of review, although not necessarily a systematic review with the constraints of impartiality.

What I often find is that people naturally get excited about their new purchase and tend to overlook its shortcomings and exaggerate the significance of it's good points.

Owners of a 40D, for example, like to kid themselves that its image quality is on a par with the 5D and much better than that of the 20D & 30D.

[Quentin]

Ray,

Not a review, direct day to day experience.  A review is someone else's opinion, whereas I can form my own.  Also there have been several reviews which have reached similar conclusions to my own.

You are right about people kidding themselves sometimes as a sort reinforcement of their buying decision, but as I said, I'm not all dewey-eyed about the E-3, which is one of several photographic tools I own and not the main one.  The E-3 has faults, like all systems.  

Quentin

[Ray]

Ray,

Not a review, direct day to day experience.  A review is someone else's opinion, whereas I can form my own.  Also there have been several reviews which have reached similar conclusions to my own.

You are right about people kidding themselves sometimes as a sort reinforcement of their buying decision, but as I said, I'm not all dewey-eyed about the E-3, which is one of several photographic tools I own and not the main one.  The E-3 has faults, like all systems. 

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's fine Quentin. Don't let me spoil your fun   . We each have our own purposes. I currently use an 8mp and a 12.8mp DSLR and I don't see the need for a third 10mp DSLR unless it has some truly remarkable attributes that I would find really useful. But that's just me probably being careful with my expenditure.

[Rob C]

Being careful is as all we retired chaps must certainly do!

 Even as I write, I hear the no! shouts from the idle rich; but you know what I mean.

Ciao - Rob C

[SecondFocus]

I have been using Canon for some time now. I also shoot Mamiya and with a Leaf back. But in regards to Canon, my choice for now has been the 5D which has been producing excellent files. I am more pleased with it for my uses than the MarkII.

Let me say that I am not much of a gear geek. My choices are based on what produces the results I need for my photography business. I had an interest in the Olympus system early on because of the new features and designs for digital. But I am not one to even try to things out without reason.

With that said, I did have the chance to use an E-3 and 12-60 for a couple of actual feature shoots. I have posted in this thread about that. And to repeat what I have said, it appears to me that the Olympus produced the sharpest files out of the camera that I have seen except maybe for the Mamiya/Leaf. They also have the best color and the best skin tones.

The issue of high iso, while of interest to me, is set aside by having f2 lenses in a very useable physical size and the IS in the body. I would rather have that and be able to shoot under 1600 then have lower noise at 3200 in a Canon. Regardless at 3200 the file is going to be noisy, so slower is better.

And the physical size of the Zuiko lenses is a big plus for me. I fly a lot, so if I can travel with two or 3 physically smaller lenses for a much broader range as compared to the big Canon lenses, that is good. When you are carrying all this gear, trying to get it on planes, then shooting while juggling two bodies and more gear, well.... less is more.

I have a 30D as backup for my 5D, and although a nice value, that little viewfinder is not my favorite. So a 40D comparison is not an issue for me. I really don't want it. The E-3 has a very nice size viewfinder, big and visible. And as far as full frame or sub-frame descriptions about the Olympus... it does not seem to me to be a consequential point. It is just names. For the Olympus system, it is full frame.

I like the 4:3 aspect ratio, gone is cropping for 8x10 and 11x14 which at times can be a problem. And I don't know if it is the aspect ratio or something else, but I see that 3 dimensional kind of look in the photos from the Olympus that I see in medium format.

The Olympus is a joy to use and even better the photos I produced from my shoots are great. I am very pleased. I am sorry to have shipped the camera and lens back. So just into January I will decide on my changes and I would say at this point for the "35mm" size camera system you will see me using Olympus unless I get to try something else out that might offer something new and better.

Also next on my list for tryout will be the Mamiya ZD. It is hard to pass up the possibility of such an inexpensive medium format back.