Olympus E-1

[David Mantripp]

The E-1 seems to be quietly gathering quite a cult following.  For me it's the only DSLR that has quietly whisperered "buy me" when I picked it up.  The others just seem absurd to me.  BUT, and a big but, printing at A3 or A3+, in my opinion, and based on samples I've downloaded (JPGs of course) is on the limit. And that 5MP sensor is probably adequate if you want to print at A3 and you have good technique - BUT...there is no latitude at all for cropping.

[BJL]

I have recently traded in my D1x for an E-1 system and have no regrets.

Pierluigi,
   that is an interesting transition; many people have compared the E-1 to high speed pro APS format DSLR's like the 1D, D1H and new D2H, but those are very different tools, and the D1X is a somewhat closer to the E-1 in specifications, in particular the more normal pixel count/frame rate trade-off.

    Have you come to any specific comparisons of print quality available from the D1x and E-1?

[BJL]

I have not run a specific test. However, I have images taken under similar conditions of the same subject and those from the E-1 are as good if not better than the images taken with the D1x.

Mille Grazie Pierluigi!

    having decided that technical measurements in reviews only allow the broad identification of serious underperformance not hairsplitting over small numerical differences, I seek information from reviews mostly about ergonomics, features and above all, the image quality available when one makes an appropriate effort to optimise workflow: camera settings and post-processing.

   Michael's style of reviewing appeals to me therefore, but one thing can be missing when he reviews cameras that he does not own and is not assessing for possible purchase; the perspective of someone who has developed a good workflow for that particular camera.

   So comments from serious, established users are always greatly appreciated!


BJL

[silvereye]

Michael:
I read your review on the E-1 with some interest, and then
had a play with one at the local agent's here in
Christchurch, new Zealand. my reason for wanting to find a
digicam is because I am in the process of
writing/photographing a book on New Zealand, which will
contain a mixture iio landscape and documentary/portrait
images. I will be travelling the country on and off for the
next year. until now I have been using film, and my
projected budget for the rest of the project sees it at
about $NZ 8000 for film and processing. I run a Canon
rig(1v, 2.8L lenses) but there all the obvious reasons for
going digital..
What has held me out is the quality of the colour from the
canon digi's. it lacks the clarity and intensity of the
results from film. the 1Ds is too expensive, and the colour
from the 10D has a veiled quality that looks to my eye to be
quite muddy, and a little flat, (plus the saturation
controls are crude!)
I like the camera. It is small, lightweight, and handles
intuitively. the shutter response is superb, it focuses like
a dream. The viewfinder rocks. A digital Leica? I would love
to think so...And the Studio software offers a myriad of
controls for RAW conversion. Way better than Fuji's Hyper
utility software. I like it.
But, and here is the point, will it meet my needs? I can Rip
the images up for exhibition. No problemo. For publication
however, will it be good enough for an A3 double spread?
does it have the tonal subleties for high-quality
publication?
it would be neat if you could devote an article to the
question of what is required for this. there seems to be a
lot of assumed knowledge tht is rarely ever published about
this. A lot of prejudice as well.
Help those of us sitting on the fence, who want to make the
change but have yet to be convinced
Many thanks for your help

[Pierluigi]

I have recently traded in my D1x for an E-1 system and have no regrets. The camera feels great and the performance is flawless. High quality images out of the camera and magnified to A3 plus look great. Technical tests as those reported in dpreview may very well be unbiased, but irrelevant because they are performed inevitably using different standards (i.e., different lenses and chip combinations). Often a different lens of the same maker can produce entirely different results than another on the same camera. One additional consideration: the effective available pixel surface of the CCD on the D100 is 3.65 cm2, the CMOS of the EOS 1D is 8.52 and that of the E-1 is 2.43 (as from specifications in dpreview). That equates to over 2 million pixels per  cm2 for the E-1 versus 1.6 for the D100 and about 1.3 for the EOS 1D. This shuold indicate that pixel density is if anything higher in the E-1.  Since the resolution of the 4/3 lenses should mach the smaller format, I suppose the results should equate or be better than that obtained with the other DSLR, although pixel counts are not the only factors involved. Given that enlargements by Genuine Fractals give prints up to A3 plus with no visible difference from the original sizes generated by  5-6 megapixel cameras, the difference in resolution if any exists is negligible and will not be visible if not at very high enlargements.

Have fun!

Pierluigi

 :)

[Pierluigi]

I have not run a specific test. However, I have images taken under similar conditions of the same subject and those from the E-1 are as good if not better than the images taken with the D1x. In particular colour balance is perfect and very pleasant. E-1 images need little postprocessing under normal conditons an while I shoot JPEG with the E-1 I used the RAW format on the D1x. I do also have a D100 and have used for sometime a Fuji S2 with several Nikon lenses. The results are in general quite similar between all these cameras.E-1 images look more natural to me and respond very well to moderate sharpening.  I respect all the DSLR tests, but I tend to trust images taken in real life more than bench values. Digital outback has an interesting comment: Most of our portfolio images could have been taken with the E-1. Besides there are several other tests run by specialiswd magazines (see Amateur Photography in the UK) that are enthusiastic about the camera for the same reasons I am. I do use a 12-24 on the D100, which gives excellent images but the build quality of the lens is poor when comapred to classical 35 mm lenses from Nikon. The lenses for the E-1 feel and look more solid than the new G lenses, which are  designed for D cameras to overcome the problem of the probelm posed by the digital format. I have no experience with 35 mmm- size chips, but I believe again differences are minimal.  Overall, the quality and convenience of the E-1  are excellent for my needs. On the Nikon/Canon side there are vast photographic systems. Hopefully, the E system will grow.

Cheers!

Pierluigi

[drew]

Silvereye, I must say I am a bit puzzled by this. You have a Canon rig with L lenses, but you have ruled out the 10D because the images lack colour and the saturation controls are 'crude'. My advice would be to get the 10D and learn how to do proper RAW file conversions and how to edit images in Photoshop. If you do not like the Canon RAW file converter, then I would suggest either Adobe CR or Capture One. I can get very saturated images in 16-bit from the converter even before working on it in Photoshop. If you are a bit intimidated by PS's complexity, you could always try a plug-in like icorrect editlab which does quite a good job of automating colour management (as well as offering good manual controls). With digital, good colour is at least as much about software as it is about hardware.