Olympus E-3

[juicy]

It depends on the application.

There are applications for which handholding is a must, and that is basically impossible with the Canon.

There are also applications for which weight and space are critical (bird photography in remote places that can only be reached by trekking for instance), and the Olympus offers tremendous value here also.

We do now know yet how good the sensor is, but my guess is that it is pretty good.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed.
There are many situations where it's more important to get the shot than think about the ultimate image quality. In most situations where the images will be reproduced in newspapers or magazines, 10 mpix is enough (I'm not thinking about large prints and fine-art applications when talking about PJ-cameras like E-3, D-1/2/3 or 1D-series).

Zuiko 150mm f2  weighs 1.6 kg, that is 1 kg less than Canon 300mm f2.8. Further, when extra reach is needed, 150mm f2 + 1.4x extender gives the same speed and reach (although most probably not the same quality) as EF 400mm f 2.8 with 5D but with 1/3 lens weight - HUGE! And it still saves that 1 kg compared to 1Dmk3 + 300mm f2.8. Those are quite considerable differences when carrying all the equipment in your neck or back all day. And there are not that many 180-500mm f2.8 zooms on the market for FF-systems.

When it comes to WA, I don't think Zuiko 7-14mm zoom will be much inferior to EF 14mm prime (don't know about mk2 but the original is so bad that I would not call it 14mm, it's more like 18mm when the mush has been cropped off). There is no use in putting that lens to a 21 mp camera when the lens resolution is suitable only for 2.1 mp camera   .

To be speculated ad infinitum...
Cheers,
J

[Ray]

To be speculated ad infinitum...
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Precisely! Where are the comparisons? It's all very well rationalising to oneself that my Zuiko lens is lighter than the equivalent Canon lens and that I'm so happy I don't have to exrecise my muscles carrying the extra weight. I can go even further in that direction by carrying my Sony T30 which weighs just a fraction of any Olympus 4/3rds camera. But I know there's a huge compromise in image quality.

This issue is all about balancing various trade-offs; price, weight and image quality.

If an Olympus system is what you require in terms of weight, don't kid yourself you're going to get 35mm quality. In fact, for the reduction in weight you might even have to pay a premium without getting equal quality.

[juicy]

Precisely! Where are the comparisons? It's all very well rationalising to oneself that my Zuiko lens is lighter than the equivalent Canon lens and that I'm so happy I don't have to exrecise my muscles carrying the extra weight. I can go even further in that direction by carrying my Sony T30 which weighs just a fraction of any Olympus 4/3rds camera. But I know there's a huge compromise in image quality.

This issue is all about balancing various trade-offs; price, weight and image quality.

If an Olympus system is what you require in terms of weight, don't kid yourself you're going to get 35mm quality. In fact, for the reduction in weight you might even have to pay a premium without getting equal quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi!

Everything is a compromise in some way and everybody needs to find their own set of parameters to solve their own equations.

It would be interesting to compare all of these systems side-by-side in real world shooting situation. Btw, I don't believe E-3 IQ is gonna be any worse than 1Dmk2 which has produced millions of accepted action photos all over the world since it's introduction. I would not compare these systems to a camera-phone although the latter is significantly lighter. Also I don't try to imply that E-3 would be the ideal system for every use®. My original thought was that finally Olympus has reached the resolution needed for good quality A-4 print and a decent A-3. Thus I don't want to pass on it without seeing for myself what it's capable of.  

Cheers,
J

[BernardLanguillier]

If an Olympus system is what you require in terms of weight, don't kid yourself you're going to get 35mm quality. In fact, for the reduction in weight you might even have to pay a premium without getting equal quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering the progress in sensor technology in 5 years, my guess is that the E3 is probably in the same ball park as the original Canon 1ds qualitywise, if not better.

The Canon 1ds was considered by most people here as the ultimate fine art camera for high resolution fine art prints. People were selling fine are prints to fine art prints buyers and were claiming that every body was happy about the quality produced. Were these claims plain lies said to please Canon or generate some hype? I don't believe so.

My view is that we have reached a level of quality where the 4/3 system is today a very interesting option.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

Considering the progress in sensor technology in 5 years, my guess is that the E3 is probably in the same ball park as the original Canon 1ds qualitywise, if not better.

The Canon 1ds was considered by most people here as the ultimate fine art camera for high resolution fine art prints. People were selling fine are prints to fine art prints buyers and were claiming that every body was happy about the quality produced. Were these claims plain lies said to please Canon or generate some hype? I don't believe so.

My view is that we have reached a level of quality where the 4/3 system is today a very interesting option.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
I agree it is an interesting option, but every time I start making hypothetical comparisons between a 4/3rds body/lens combination and what Canon has to offer, I always seem to come up with a better system from the various Canon options, either better in price or better in terms of absolute image quality.

If I'm prepared to trade-off image quality for price and weight, I'll get a cheaper and lighter system from Canon. For example the EF 400/5.6 prime plus 40D. It has a slightly greater reach than an E-3 plus 300/2.8, is less than half the price and considerably lighter.

The 40D sensor is probably better with its larger pixels and 14 bit processing. On the other hand the Zuiko 300/2.8 should be a sharper lens and is certainly faster and therefore more versatile. Would absolute image quality from the Canon be much worse in ideal lighting conditions? I'd like to see a comparison?

Supposing we compare systems of roughly equal price and weight with a view to getting maximum telephoto reach. Again, Canon provides greater telephoto reach  (and therefore better image quality) at a lower cost. I'm thinking here of the 40D plus EF 500/4 IS. The lens is one stop slower than the Zuiko 300/2.8, but that is easily compensated for by the superior high ISO performance of the 40D.

Amazon.com is selling the EF 500/4 IS for $5552, considerably cheaper than the $7000 of the Zuiko and is only marginally heavier (well, 1/2 a Kg).

From my perspective, an extra $1500 in my pocket plus an effective 35mm reach of 800mm as opposed to the 600mm of the Zuiko, is worth having in place of that  500gms of additional weight.

[image66]

While a nice alternative the E3 looks quite dated in design.

Huh?  Oh, please tell me how the design looks dated.  This, I've got to hear.

[Ray]

Zuiko 150mm f2  weighs 1.6 kg, that is 1 kg less than Canon 300mm f2.8. Further, when extra reach is needed, 150mm f2 + 1.4x extender gives the same speed and reach (although most probably not the same quality) as EF 400mm f 2.8 with 5D but with 1/3 lens weight - HUGE! And it still saves that 1 kg compared to 1Dmk3 + 300mm f2.8. Those are quite considerable differences when carrying all the equipment in your neck or back all day. And there are not that many 180-500mm f2.8 zooms on the market for FF-systems.

When it comes to WA, I don't think Zuiko 7-14mm zoom will be much inferior to EF 14mm prime (don't know about mk2 but the original is so bad that I would not call it 14mm, it's more like 18mm when the mush has been cropped off). There is no use in putting that lens to a 21 mp camera when the lens resolution is suitable only for 2.1 mp camera   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem is, whenever you make a comparison such as that between the Zuiko 150/2 and the Canon 300/2.8 and come up with a huge weight saving, there's either a compromise in image quality (due to the fact you're comparing it with a FF 35mm body with more pixels) or there's a cheaper and lighter Canon alternative using one of their cropped format cameras such as the 400D or 40D.

For example, a 400D with Canon EF 180 f3.5 will give you pretty close to 300mm equivalent 35mm reach with a definite saving in weight and a probable saving in cost, compared with the Zuiko 150/2. A 400D with the Canon 70-400 F4 IS will give you slightly greater than 300mm reach and will also cost less and weigh less.

The Zuiko lens has the advantage of being faster. On the other hand it appears to be a fact that the Canon sensors are sharper and less noisy at high ISO. They also have better dynamic range at all ISOs.

The Zuiko 7-14mm is an interesting lens but quite heavy and rather expensive. Still, it's wider than the Canon 10-22 on a 400D and one would expect it to be sharper, at least at ISO's up to 400. On the other hand, an E-410 with 7-14 is going to be slightly heavier and definitely more expensive than a 400D with 10-22 lens.

[BJL]

One more time! I will ignore any "brand war" comparisons like Olympus vs Canon 40D in an only slightly larger format, and also skip any speculations about possible future products, and return to the question raised by the release of the E-3:

Under what circumstances is there an advantage to using one of the new smaller DSLR formats like 4/3 (or 'APS-C') instead of the substantially larger 35mm format, based on comparisons of actual bodies and lenses?


And one simple point is with telephotos: the substantially higher absolute resolution in l/mm offered by the closer pixel spacing of smaller format sensors allows one to get equally detailed images of the same subject from the same distance with distinctly smaller lenses. When extremes of high speed/low light handling are not needed (which is more often than ever when the body stabilizes every lens attached to it and ISO 1600 is quite usable in the smaller formats), this can make for a substantially smaller, lighter, and less expensive body and lens kit.

In comparison of the current 4/3 models to the 5D, the focal length ratio needed to get equal pixel counts at equal subject distance is about 1.7x, so matching the 220g 40-150/3.5-5.6 requires a zoom lens reaching abut 250mm, and matching my favorite telephoto, the 50-200/2.8-3.5 requires about a zoom reaching about 340mm. Any suitable 35mm format lens choices I know give a substantial bulkier and more expensive kit. Moreso if one compares the E-510 to the 5D: after all, the 5D lacks a few of the E-3's so called "professional" touches, like build quality, 100% VF coverage, and a higher frame rate.

The focal length ratio is about the same with E-3 vs D3, but drops to about 1.43x for E-3 vs 1DsMkIII, so about 200mm vs 300mm, or what one achieves by adding a 1.4x TC. But going beyond the 5D, the cost and weight advantages of the smaller format should be clear.


By the way, the D300 and A700 offer about a 1.5x focal length factor compared to the 5D, again offering quite substantial reduction in telephoto lens bulk, and the 40D and 400D are just slightly behind at 1.44x.


For the most part, the format size differences between 4/3 and 'APS-C' are rather small: factors of around 1.2x in focal length and 1/2 stop in ISO speed. maybe 4/3 offers a notable weight advantage with low-end combinations of the E-410 and E-510 with f/5.6 zoom lenses.

[Ray]

One more time! I will ignore any "brand war" comparisons like Olympus vs Canon 40D in an only slightly larger format, and also skip any speculations about possible future products, and return to the question raised by the release of the E-3:

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is not a brand war from my perspective, BJL. I'm strictly a best-tool-for-the-job type of person. All the advantages of the smaller format are clear in principle, which you've repeated once more in the above post.

However, the range of Canon options with its two formats and huge range of lenses, makes it difficult to find any specific advantage that any particular combination of Olympus body and Zuiko lens might have which is not offset by a disadvantage in terms of one or more of the 3 significant factors of weight, cost and absolute image quality.

Since one usually has to pay a premium for miniaturisation, it might be reasonable to expect there might be some combination of Zuiko prime lens or zoom lens and Olympus body which equals in image quality in all respects the Canon nearest equivalent, but which is significantly lighter although more expensive. I'd like to see what combinations would fit the bill.

I don't think it's appropriate to compare the E-3 with the 2 year old 5D. The comparison should be with the 40D or the 5D's successor, in which case the 5D MkII will always provide superior image quality. If weight is the primary concern, one might make the comparison with the 400D.

[alert_bri]

I'd be interested in user experiences of the E3.

Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Edmund,

we were able to do a unique style of multi-user hands-on field review, and persuaded John Foster to host it on his independent website here :
[a href=\"http://www.biofos.com/esystem/e_3ult.html]Many Hands On The E-3[/url]

I'd appreciate your thoughts?

Kind Regards

Brian

[Ray]

Just for the record, it should be mentioned that the E-3 body is no lighter, no more compact and no cheaper than the Canon 40D.

In fact, the 40D seems to have the edge in all 3 of these factors. However, the E-3 would appear to have greater water resistance than the 40D. On the other hand the 40D does have a bigger LCD screen (3" as opposed to the E-3's 2.5").

I'd be very interested to see the quality of images at ISO 800 and above and how they compare with the same from the 40D. If Olympus can match Canon's low noise achievement at high ISO then the choice of fast Zuiko lenses could provide the customer with a tangible benefit compared to the Canon alternative.

The hands-on review referred to above appears to me to consist of very subjective impressions from the already converted.

[alert_bri]

Hello Ray,

The hands-on review referred to above appears to me to consist of very subjective impressions from the already converted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

if, by the 'already converted' you mean highly satisfied Olympus camera users - considering whether to upgrade to the E-3 when it comes out, then yes - they were already converted... although I'd describe it as 'already informed'

I would like to point out, because it's central to the nature of the review... that these were actual, independent users - offering their evaluations from an honest, totally personal perspective - you can get a sense of balance by checking the background of each photographer who contributed freely to the review..

I think it's impossibly difficult for any individual to come up with an unbiased, uninfluenced review of a camera in a real world - real user sense. What I'm most excited about, is that this unique approach gives you the personal, biased opinions *in context*

imho, what you end up with is fair, honest, open and relevant. If you don't spot a measurebator in there... it's because measurebators don't buy cameras - they argue about them online! lol

Kind Regards

Brian

[Ray]

if, by the 'already converted' you mean highly satisfied Olympus camera users - considering whether to upgrade to the E-3 when it comes out, then yes - they were already converted... although I'd describe it as 'already informed'........

imho, what you end up with is fair, honest, open and relevant. If you don't spot a measurebator in there... it's because measurebators don't buy cameras - they argue about them online! lol
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Brian,
There were essentially 4 points about the E-3 I picked up from those very subjective impressions.

(1) It feels nice in the hands.

(2) It's very waterproof.

(3) The images are tack sharp.

(4) Images at ISO 800 have acceptable noise of a film-like nature.

Those who already own a few Zuiko lenses and an Olympus body will no doubt be comparing image sharpness, high ISO performance and other features with the earlier 4/3rds models.

Those who have already bought into another system might be curious as to the advantages that the Olypus 4/3rds system can offer with their latest and best camera body. To get an idea of that, someone has to do some controlled comparisons.

"Whoopee! This feels great in the hands. I think I'll buy one of these!", is not enough for the discerning buyer   .

[alert_bri]

Hi Ray,

all good points, except that, as a discerning buyer I do my research across as many sources as possible... and give considerable weight to the opinions of forum members and friends I've grown to know and trust over a number of years. It is their real world, real user perspective, unpaid and unsponsored opinions I respect *in context* with knowing what they use their camera for.

I agree, the standard reviews, with shots of monochrome resolution targets and coke bottles are useful to a degree, but personally, I'm left a bit cold... I want to be inspired and excited by the kit to go out there and use it!

Hope that makes sense, no disrespect to the people who are fascinated and absorbed by the technical specs... one thing I love about Michael's reviews is that he's open and honest about his biased (i.e. personal experience shaped) opinions... that's better than trying to be an expert technician in your review methodology (which as I said, leaves me cold).

Kind Regards

Brian

[Rob C]

Brian - forgive me if I´m wrong, but in essence, what you seem to be implying is that you want to be convinced by people who are already in your boat; might be a hugely comforting experience, but hardly critical analysis.

Ciao - Rob C

[alert_bri]

Brian - forgive me if I´m wrong, but in essence, what you seem to be implying is that you want to be convinced by people who are already in your boat; might be a hugely comforting experience, but hardly critical analysis.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Rob,

no, I don't think I said, or implied that at all... it's amazing how easy it is to misinterpret simple text. isn't it? I certainly wouldn't consider Michael as being 'in my boat'! lol

I tend to do my own critical analysis, based on my own needs, and all sources of information. I'm sure you do the same... I don't need convincing, I need informing... the wider the variety of viewpoints and impressions I can compare, the better for that purpose.

Kind Regards

Brian

[Ray]

Ah! I get it now, Brian. Most members of that group waxing lyrical about the Olympus 4/3rds system started off in photography with either 35mm film or Olympus and/or Nikon P&S cameras. Upgrading to the smallest of the DSLRs would have been a natural progression and a real thrill   .

I'd really like to see how much sharper and better images are from the considerably more expensive and heavier E-3 with 7-14mm lens, compared with the lightweight 40D plus 10-22mm lens.

[alert_bri]

Ah! I get it now, Brian. Most members of that group waxing lyrical about the Olympus 4/3rds system started off in photography with either 35mm film or Olympus and/or Nikon P&S cameras. Upgrading to the smallest of the DSLRs would have been a natural progression and a real thrill   .

I'd really like to see how much sharper and better images are from the considerably more expensive and heavier E-3 with 7-14mm lens, compared with the lightweight 40D plus 10-22mm lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray, did you really read the backgrounds? here are a couple of things you maybe missed?

John Farrell... "moved to a Canon 350D which after a succession of lenses left me frustrated so now I have upgraded to a (Olympus E-) 510"

Denis Ong... "My dad had just bought a Canon 350D for himself, and I had a play with it and a friend's 20D as well. I decided that neither was for me."

Pete Monk: "I am a university science researcher who uses microscopes, high-end CCD cameras and image analysis software on a regular basis (Nikon, Olympus, Hamamatsu et al)".... "I have also used a Canon 20D and a Sony A100 for short periods."

Richard Simpson... "After a brief flirtation with Fuji S2 and S3 returned to Olympus"

Brian Mosley... "I've been shooting digital since 1997 for pleasure and business, from the first Olympus C-800L through the Nikon D1, D1x"

Would you like to expand on your own shooting experience, what equipment inspires you? I'd be interested to know where you're coming from... I've never even considered Canon kit, having seriously enjoyed my Pro level Nikon DSLR's... that is, before upgrading to my Olympus E-1 very recently.

Kind Regards

Brian

[Ray]

Hi Ray, did you really read the backgrounds? here are a couple of things you maybe missed?

John Farrell... "moved to a Canon 350D which after a succession of lenses left me frustrated so now I have upgraded to a (Olympus E-) 510"

Denis Ong... "My dad had just bought a Canon 350D for himself, and I had a play with it and a friend's 20D as well. I decided that neither was for me."

Pete Monk: "I am a university science researcher who uses microscopes, high-end CCD cameras and image analysis software on a regular basis (Nikon, Olympus, Hamamatsu et al)".... "I have also used a Canon 20D and a Sony A100 for short periods."

Richard Simpson... "After a brief flirtation with Fuji S2 and S3 returned to Olympus"

Brian Mosley... "I've been shooting digital since 1997 for pleasure and business, from the first Olympus C-800L through the Nikon D1, D1x"

Would you like to expand on your own shooting experience, what equipment inspires you? I'd be interested to know where you're coming from... I've never even considered Canon kit, having seriously enjoyed my Pro level Nikon DSLR's... that is, before upgrading to my Olympus E-1 very recently.

Kind Regards

Brian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Brian,
I didn't miss those comments, but I don't think a brief dalliance with other DSLRs counts. I'm also a bit skeptical when people make comments like, 'I had a play with it and decided it wasn't for me' without offering any good reason. Such comments lead me to think that considerations are focussed on superficial and minor ergonomic issues.

I once asked my father, who was a life-long amateur photographer, if he'd ever experimented with large format. He replied he had and had owned and used a 6x8" format camera for a while but had found it so cumbersome and inconvenient and such a hassle to use, he eventually dumped it in a rubbish bin, no doubt in a fit of exasperation.

As for my shooting experience, my first SLR was a Pentax Spotmatic bought in the early 1960's which I used for a few years in Thailand, Nepal and India. I eventually sold it when short of money. Some years later I bought a Russian Zenite-E with 70-200 Tamron lens for a ridiculously low price in Singapore. I used that for a few years in Australia before selling it and then gave photography a rest for a while until my interest was renewed with the introduction by Minolta of the first autofocus SLR, the Maxxum 7000 which I bought on the way to China in the mid 1980's.

When I got my first digital darkroom set up with Nikon LS2000 scanner and was able to exercise more control over my images, I became a bit dissatisfied with the limitations of my Minolta system, the requirement to use grainy high speed film with telephoto lenses and usually a tripod with my favourite film, Royal Gold ISO 25. I looked with envy at Canon's image stabilisation system and their 100-400mm IS zoom which seemed reasonable quality, excellent value and the sort of lens I would find very useful. I was very disappointed with my Sigma 400/5.6 prime which showed strong vignetting with the Minolta at f5.6 and f8 and disappointed that only the top-of-the-range Minolta camera bodies featured mirror lock-up.

For these reasons I switched to Canon about 8 years ago. I considered Nikon but decided Canon was the more innovative company and had a wider choice of IS lenses and also more tilt & shift lenses. I've never regretted that decision although I now think I might prefer Nikon's latest D300 to Canon's D40.

Before getting my first DSLR, the Canon D60, I bought a couple of MF cameras that were being off-loaded cheap by professional moving into digital. I used them very infrequently after getting the D60 and now not at all although I have an MF scanner, the Nikon 8000ED.

Okay. That's where I'm coming from   .

[alert_bri]

Thanks Ray, your opinions make much more sense when we can see where you are coming from... a perfect example of why the review works so well for people who understand that principle.

Kind Regards

Brian