Digital Rebel XT vs. E-300 - need opinions, sooner better than later :>

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rev. J. Toad, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. Rev. J. Toad

    Rev. J. Toad Guest

    Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's
    slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.

    I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the
    DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in
    a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.

    In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's
    just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me,
    so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but
    I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should
    worry about.

    It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    can the same be said for the E-300?

    Any opinions from people more experienced than me are much
    appreciated, and speed is also appreciated, since that open box deal
    could go anytime. It's a VERY good deal. :>



    "(You) go out to fucking Wyoming and go in a bar and mention the
    word poetry, and you'll get a gun stuck up your ass. That's the
    way America is. Whereas even guys who work in the street
    collecting garbage in Paris love nineteenth-century painting. I
    don't know, am I supposed to put on a false voice and say, 'Here
    are the rare exceptions, and we should be like them?'"

    -Jim Jarmusch
    Rev. J. Toad, Oct 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rev. J. Toad

    Tony Guest

    The sensor in the E-300 is tiny and they have designed the system around it.
    I doubt the 4/3rds system will still exist in another 2 years.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Rev. J. Toad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's
    > slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
    >
    > I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the
    > DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in
    > a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
    >
    > In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's
    > just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me,
    > so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but
    > I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should
    > worry about.
    >
    > It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    > around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    > can the same be said for the E-300?
    >
    > Any opinions from people more experienced than me are much
    > appreciated, and speed is also appreciated, since that open box deal
    > could go anytime. It's a VERY good deal. :>
    >
    >
    >
    > "(You) go out to fucking Wyoming and go in a bar and mention the
    > word poetry, and you'll get a gun stuck up your ass. That's the
    > way America is. Whereas even guys who work in the street
    > collecting garbage in Paris love nineteenth-century painting. I
    > don't know, am I supposed to put on a false voice and say, 'Here
    > are the rare exceptions, and we should be like them?'"
    >
    > -Jim Jarmusch
    Tony, Oct 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rev. J. Toad

    Jim Guest

    On 2005-10-06 19:25:49 -0400, Rev. J. Toad <> said:

    >
    > It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    > around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    > can the same be said for the E-300?
    >
    >
    > I


    And at the rate of development of digital photography, I expect any
    camera made today will be obsolete in 2 years. Which is the exact
    reason I haven't plunged down 1000US's for a "Pro" camera. So your
    choice in the sub $1000US market is a good one I bought a Nikon D70s
    but I expect in two years time to either replace it or revert to film
    to keep up with future digitals. It used to be an expensive camera
    was am investment. My Nikon F takes every bit as goof a photograph as a
    any new 35mm film camera. Now digital cameras are a quickly
    depreciating asset. Digital photography is an expensive hobby!
    --
    Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
    Jim, Oct 7, 2005
    #3
  4. It's a widespread myth that the Four Thirds sensor is 'tiny'. For a start,
    it's five times the area of the 1/1.8 inch sensor of the C-5050Z,
    guaranteeing significantly lower noise and better dynamic range, plus more
    selectable depth of field. So Jim Jarmusch is on the nail when he says: "In
    terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's just the
    lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, so I have no
    doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine."

    Next, although a Canon APS sensor, as used in the cheaper Canon EOS models,
    is 41% greater in area (itself not a critical difference), you have to
    factor in the Canon sensor's wider 3:2 aspect ratio. When cropping images,
    it's the sides that often get chopped. The vertical dimension of the Four
    Thirds sensor is only 21% less than Canon's sensor.

    To summarise, the Four Thirds sensor size is gargantuan compared to all
    point and shoot compact digital cameras and even larger ones. The Four
    Thirds sensor is the smallest DSLR sensor, but the best way of regarding
    this is that the other 'smaller sensor' DSLRs have sensors that are
    marginally larger.

    Have a look here for a visual comparison of all the main sensor sizes and
    you will see what I mean:

    http://www.pbase.com/crea7or/image/39907611/original

    The Olympus Evolt E-300 will do practically everything the C-5050Z does a
    lot better. The only thing to watch out for is that the Olympus FL40 flash
    that works with the C-5050Z flash won't work in TTL mode with the E-300,
    even though it does with the E-1. There are some very good E-1 deals at the
    moment by the way...

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
    Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.html


    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:Lap1f.92374$...
    > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny and they have designed the system around
    > it.
    > I doubt the 4/3rds system will still exist in another 2 years.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    >
    > "Rev. J. Toad" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's
    >> slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
    >>
    >> I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the
    >> DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in
    >> a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
    >>
    >> In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's
    >> just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me,
    >> so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but
    >> I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should
    >> worry about.
    >>
    >> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    >> around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    >> can the same be said for the E-300?
    >>
    >> Any opinions from people more experienced than me are much
    >> appreciated, and speed is also appreciated, since that open box deal
    >> could go anytime. It's a VERY good deal. :>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "(You) go out to fucking Wyoming and go in a bar and mention the
    >> word poetry, and you'll get a gun stuck up your ass. That's the
    >> way America is. Whereas even guys who work in the street
    >> collecting garbage in Paris love nineteenth-century painting. I
    >> don't know, am I supposed to put on a false voice and say, 'Here
    >> are the rare exceptions, and we should be like them?'"
    >>
    >> -Jim Jarmusch

    >
    >
    Digital Photography Now, Oct 7, 2005
    #4
  5. In one sense you are right, but in a more important sense, your are
    definitely wrong.

    A colleague of mine has a five year old Nikon D1, Nikon's first 100%
    in-house developed DSLR. It boasted all of 2.7MP resolution and yet he's
    successfully sold images from this camera to stock agencies who require 50MB
    image files - and still does.

    There are plenty of cameras that produced excellent images 2-3 years ago -
    are you implying that these cameras no longer produce excellent images?

    These cameras may not have all the latest features and it might need a bit
    more work to get the best out of them, but I disagree that the use of the
    term
    'obsolescence' in this respect means that these old cameras don't take good
    pictures any more.



    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
    Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.html


    <Jim> wrote in message news:2005100704415175249%@newsgroups.comcast.net...
    > On 2005-10-06 19:25:49 -0400, Rev. J. Toad <>
    > said:
    >
    >>
    >> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    >> around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    >> can the same be said for the E-300?
    >>
    >>
    >> I

    >
    > And at the rate of development of digital photography, I expect any camera
    > made today will be obsolete in 2 years. Which is the exact reason I
    > haven't plunged down 1000US's for a "Pro" camera. So your choice in the
    > sub $1000US market is a good one I bought a Nikon D70s but I expect in
    > two years time to either replace it or revert to film to keep up with
    > future digitals. It used to be an expensive camera was am investment. My
    > Nikon F takes every bit as goof a photograph as a any new 35mm film
    > camera. Now digital cameras are a quickly depreciating asset.
    > Digital photography is an expensive hobby!
    > --
    > Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
    Digital Photography Now, Oct 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Rev. J. Toad

    Stacey Guest

    Tony wrote:

    > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny


    So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the
    difference between tiny and large?


    > and they have designed the system around
    > it.


    Instead of using old optics designed for film use.

    > I doubt the 4/3rds system will still exist in another 2 years.
    >


    Why? Are they all going to self distruct?

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Oct 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Rev. J. Toad

    Stacey Guest

    Rev. J. Toad wrote:

    > Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's
    > slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
    >
    > I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the
    > DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in
    > a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
    >
    > In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's
    > just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me,
    > so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but
    > I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should
    > worry about.


    I always figured image quality should be your main concern? Unless you need
    really high ISO's (1600), the E300 makes nice images.. If you need to
    shoot in low light without a flash, DON'T buy the olympus over then Canon.
    Both have theire good point so YOU have to decide which features you like.
    The dust buster on the E300 is what swayed me as I don't need ISO 800+ very
    often if at all. Plus the E300 kit lens is better than the canon one.

    >
    > It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    > around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    > can the same be said for the E-300?



    How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Oct 9, 2005
    #7
  8. "Stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rev. J. Toad wrote:
    >
    >> Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's
    >> slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
    >>
    >> I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the
    >> DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in
    >> a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
    >>
    >> In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's
    >> just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me,
    >> so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but
    >> I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should
    >> worry about.

    >
    > I always figured image quality should be your main concern? Unless you
    > need
    > really high ISO's (1600), the E300 makes nice images.. If you need to
    > shoot in low light without a flash, DON'T buy the olympus over then Canon.
    > Both have theire good point so YOU have to decide which features you like.
    > The dust buster on the E300 is what swayed me as I don't need ISO 800+
    > very
    > often if at all. Plus the E300 kit lens is better than the canon one.
    >
    >>
    >> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be
    >> around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime -
    >> can the same be said for the E-300?

    >
    >
    > How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?


    For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of camera.
    It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Oct 9, 2005
    #8
  9. Rev. J. Toad

    Brian Baird Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > Tony wrote:
    >
    > > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny

    >
    > So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the
    > difference between tiny and large?


    That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare
    areas since its the area of the sensor, not its vertical dimension, that
    determines photosite size.

    The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365
    square millimeters, depending on the model.

    The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.

    That's a difference of 38-50%, certainly enough to make a difference.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    Brian Baird, Oct 9, 2005
    #9
  10. Rev. J. Toad

    Stacey Guest

    Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:

    > "Stacey" <> wrote in message


    >>
    >> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?

    >
    > For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of camera.
    > It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby


    Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a
    cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a
    system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control
    lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or
    not?

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Oct 10, 2005
    #10
  11. Rev. J. Toad

    Stacey Guest

    Brian Baird wrote:

    > In article <>, says...
    >> Tony wrote:
    >>
    >> > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny

    >>
    >> So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the
    >> difference between tiny and large?

    >
    > That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare
    > areas since its the area of the sensor,


    Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints so
    the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it will
    just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so
    comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and
    anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.

    >
    > The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365
    > square millimeters, depending on the model.
    >
    > The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.
    >


    And the nice thing is almost 100% of this sensor ends up in the print
    instead of 20% being cropped out of every shot. This way all 8MP I paid for
    are used rather than only 6 or so.

    Different strokes I suppose, then again all you can see is "Canon rules,
    bash anything else" as ussual. I just find these "tiny sensor" coments just
    more ignorant bash anything other than Canon crap you guys continually post
    here.

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Oct 10, 2005
    #11
  12. "Stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brian Baird wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, says...
    >>> Tony wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny
    >>>
    >>> So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the
    >>> difference between tiny and large?

    >>
    >> That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare
    >> areas since its the area of the sensor,

    >
    > Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints
    > so
    > the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it
    > will
    > just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so
    > comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and
    > anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.


    People making A4 and super A3 prints have to crop less from 3:2.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Rev. J. Toad

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:36:39 -0400, Stacey <> wrote:

    >Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >
    >> "Stacey" <> wrote in message

    >
    >>>
    >>> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?

    >>
    >> For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of camera.
    >> It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby

    >
    >Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a
    >cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a
    >system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control
    >lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or
    >not?


    Off the top of my head, it indicates (n a sense) the power and deapth
    of their design and production teams, as well as the desire to meet
    the needs of their customers.
    Personally, if I had the choice of Johns Hopkins or a small community
    clinic, I know which I'd choose. :)

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Oct 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Rev. J. Toad

    Brian Baird Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > > That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare
    > > areas since its the area of the sensor,

    >
    > Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints so


    It's smarter because you're actually calculating sensor well as a
    function of the AREA, not the vertical dimension, dingbat.

    > the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it will
    > just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so
    > comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and
    > anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.


    Too bad the pixels are smaller and thus noisier. Yeah, yeah, not an
    issue for you, but considering even ISO 400 from the E-300 lacks it is a
    valid point.

    > > The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365
    > > square millimeters, depending on the model.
    > >
    > > The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.


    > And the nice thing is almost 100% of this sensor ends up in the print
    > instead of 20% being cropped out of every shot. This way all 8MP I paid for
    > are used rather than only 6 or so.


    Not really.

    > Different strokes I suppose, then again all you can see is "Canon rules,
    > bash anything else" as ussual. I just find these "tiny sensor" coments just
    > more ignorant bash anything other than Canon crap you guys continually post
    > here.


    Oh shut up with the "Canon" crap, because Nikon kicks Oly's ass around
    quite a bit too.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    Brian Baird, Oct 10, 2005
    #14
  15. There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise can
    do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when upsizing
    them. Blotchy chrominance noise is another matter, but the E-300 isn't bad
    in this respect.

    There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but lots
    of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300. And certainly at
    ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an issue.

    The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images in
    the hands of a good photographer.

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
    Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.html


    "Brian Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, says...
    >> > That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare
    >> > areas since its the area of the sensor,

    >>
    >> Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints
    >> so

    >
    > It's smarter because you're actually calculating sensor well as a
    > function of the AREA, not the vertical dimension, dingbat.
    >
    >> the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it
    >> will
    >> just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so
    >> comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and
    >> anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.

    >
    > Too bad the pixels are smaller and thus noisier. Yeah, yeah, not an
    > issue for you, but considering even ISO 400 from the E-300 lacks it is a
    > valid point.
    >
    >> > The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365
    >> > square millimeters, depending on the model.
    >> >
    >> > The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.

    >
    >> And the nice thing is almost 100% of this sensor ends up in the print
    >> instead of 20% being cropped out of every shot. This way all 8MP I paid
    >> for
    >> are used rather than only 6 or so.

    >
    > Not really.
    >
    >> Different strokes I suppose, then again all you can see is "Canon rules,
    >> bash anything else" as ussual. I just find these "tiny sensor" coments
    >> just
    >> more ignorant bash anything other than Canon crap you guys continually
    >> post
    >> here.

    >
    > Oh shut up with the "Canon" crap, because Nikon kicks Oly's ass around
    > quite a bit too.
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    Digital Photography Now, Oct 10, 2005
    #15
  16. "Digital Photography Now" <> wrote:
    > There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise
    > can do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when
    > upsizing them.


    Even if you sometimes want a particular noise pattern in some of your final
    prints, you don't want the same noise in every image all the time.
    Personally, replacing smooth surfaces with artificial textures is something
    that strikes me as totally bogus and unacceptable (I don't shoot 35mm). But
    there's no accounting for taste.

    > There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but lots
    > of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300.


    While the exact definitions differ slightly from context to context, dynamic
    range (the ability to record a large range of levels) and signal-to-noise
    ratio (i.e. the 'noise') are almost exactly the same thing. Dynamic range is
    usually (max signal)/(noise floor), whereas SNR is sometimes exactly that,
    sometimes (rms signal level)/(noise floor), sometimes (actual signal
    level)/(actual noise) for a measured signal.

    What that means is that the claim that the E300 has bad noise but good
    dynamic range is a physical and logical impossibility.

    Oh, yes. Color.

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E300/E30IMATEST.HTM

    "Overall, the Olympus eVolt E-300's color management was a bit less accurate
    than average, particularly in the blue part of the spectrum. Cyans are
    shifted toward blue (generally a good thing, as it tends to make sky colors
    look better, but blues were also shifted toward purple, and yellows and
    greens were somewhat undersaturated. In the real-world photos, I saw some of
    the tendency to render blues with purple tints, but other colors looked
    better than what the plot above might indicate. On average, color saturation
    of swatches on the MacBeth ColorChecker(tm) chart are 107.1% of their ideal
    values. (An average oversaturation of 7.1%, resulting from the
    oversaturation of blues and bright reds.) Average "delta-E" color error is
    6.98, a bit higher than average, but not terrible. The variance in the
    delta-E was rather high at 8.71 though."

    Weak yellows and greens, oversaturated reds and blues, less accurate hues.
    OK, I give up. What is there to prefer???

    Oh, yes. What does the XT do with colors???

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EXT/EXTIMATEST.HTM

    "Color is obviously a key factor in digital cameras, and for the most part,
    I prefer to let readers arrive at their own conclusions, based on test shots
    and "gallery" photos we take. It's safe to say though, that the Canon
    Digital Rebel XT has excellent color rendition. Like most "prosumer" digital
    cameras, it does over-saturate some colors a bit, particularly those that
    are highly saturated in the subjects in the first place. The amount of its
    over-saturation is slightly less than that of the original Rebel though, and
    the Rebel XT also offers slightly greater hue accuracy as well. Most Canon
    cameras that I test tend to shift cyans slightly toward richer blues, a
    tendency that I suspect is a deliberate choice made to enhance sky colors.
    (Rich blues are also typically shifted slightly towards purples, which is a
    bit more problematic in my experience.) In the case of the Rebel XT, this
    cyan-to-blue shift is noticeably reduced, as is the blue-to-purple shift
    other colors are likewise somewhat more accurate as well."

    > And certainly at ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an issue.


    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page17.asp

    The E-300 at ISO 100 is getting close to the 20D and D70 at ISO 400 (see the
    bar graph at the bottom of the above page). That will be an issue if you try
    to pull up shadow detail, or underexpose to record more highlight detail.

    > The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images
    > in the hands of a good photographer.


    Holgas and pinholes and lensbabies produce great images in the hands of
    good photographers quite regularly. That doesn't mean they are good cameras.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 10, 2005
    #16
  17. Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read lab
    test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to interpret
    these findings and to decide whether or not any of these findings really
    adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging Resource use Imatest -
    which produces almost unintelligible data. I use DxO Analyzer, which I think
    produces more easily absorbed data, but still far from perfect.

    But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good pictures
    in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab tests, I
    mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a normal fashion,
    by ordinary people?

    I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few
    that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors any
    more. There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation,
    design and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in
    the quality of images produced that most people will notice or be bothered
    about.

    If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D is
    not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the images and
    their colour. Others have related similar observations. It's possible that
    my film days have left a lasting influence on my perception of image quality
    and that may put us on the opposite ends of a scale of perception, who
    knows?! Which is more correct than the other - cinema, TV, HDTV? They all
    have their strengths and weaknesses and they are all very different.

    But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a perfectly
    good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they are going for
    now.

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
    Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.htmlI



    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:didng7$ii$...
    > "Digital Photography Now" <> wrote:
    >> There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise
    >> can do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when
    >> upsizing them.

    >
    > Even if you sometimes want a particular noise pattern in some of your
    > final
    > prints, you don't want the same noise in every image all the time.
    > Personally, replacing smooth surfaces with artificial textures is
    > something
    > that strikes me as totally bogus and unacceptable (I don't shoot 35mm).
    > But
    > there's no accounting for taste.
    >
    >> There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but
    >> lots
    >> of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300.

    >
    > While the exact definitions differ slightly from context to context,
    > dynamic
    > range (the ability to record a large range of levels) and signal-to-noise
    > ratio (i.e. the 'noise') are almost exactly the same thing. Dynamic range
    > is
    > usually (max signal)/(noise floor), whereas SNR is sometimes exactly that,
    > sometimes (rms signal level)/(noise floor), sometimes (actual signal
    > level)/(actual noise) for a measured signal.
    >
    > What that means is that the claim that the E300 has bad noise but good
    > dynamic range is a physical and logical impossibility.
    >
    > Oh, yes. Color.
    >
    > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E300/E30IMATEST.HTM
    >
    > "Overall, the Olympus eVolt E-300's color management was a bit less
    > accurate
    > than average, particularly in the blue part of the spectrum. Cyans are
    > shifted toward blue (generally a good thing, as it tends to make sky
    > colors
    > look better, but blues were also shifted toward purple, and yellows and
    > greens were somewhat undersaturated. In the real-world photos, I saw some
    > of
    > the tendency to render blues with purple tints, but other colors looked
    > better than what the plot above might indicate. On average, color
    > saturation
    > of swatches on the MacBeth ColorChecker(tm) chart are 107.1% of their
    > ideal
    > values. (An average oversaturation of 7.1%, resulting from the
    > oversaturation of blues and bright reds.) Average "delta-E" color error is
    > 6.98, a bit higher than average, but not terrible. The variance in the
    > delta-E was rather high at 8.71 though."
    >
    > Weak yellows and greens, oversaturated reds and blues, less accurate hues.
    > OK, I give up. What is there to prefer???
    >
    > Oh, yes. What does the XT do with colors???
    >
    > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EXT/EXTIMATEST.HTM
    >
    > "Color is obviously a key factor in digital cameras, and for the most
    > part, I prefer to let readers arrive at their own conclusions, based on
    > test shots and "gallery" photos we take. It's safe to say though, that the
    > Canon Digital Rebel XT has excellent color rendition. Like most "prosumer"
    > digital cameras, it does over-saturate some colors a bit, particularly
    > those that are highly saturated in the subjects in the first place. The
    > amount of its over-saturation is slightly less than that of the original
    > Rebel though, and the Rebel XT also offers slightly greater hue accuracy
    > as well. Most Canon cameras that I test tend to shift cyans slightly
    > toward richer blues, a tendency that I suspect is a deliberate choice made
    > to enhance sky colors. (Rich blues are also typically shifted slightly
    > towards purples, which is a bit more problematic in my experience.) In the
    > case of the Rebel XT, this cyan-to-blue shift is noticeably reduced, as is
    > the blue-to-purple shift other colors are likewise somewhat more accurate
    > as well."
    >
    >> And certainly at ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an
    >> issue.

    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page17.asp
    >
    > The E-300 at ISO 100 is getting close to the 20D and D70 at ISO 400 (see
    > the bar graph at the bottom of the above page). That will be an issue if
    > you try to pull up shadow detail, or underexpose to record more highlight
    > detail.
    >
    >> The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images
    >> in the hands of a good photographer.

    >
    > Holgas and pinholes and lensbabies produce great images in the hands of
    > good photographers quite regularly. That doesn't mean they are good
    > cameras.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    Digital Photography Now, Oct 10, 2005
    #17
  18. "Digital Photography Now" <> wrote:
    > Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read lab
    > test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to interpret
    > these findings and to decide whether or not any of these findings really
    > adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging Resource use Imatest -
    > which produces almost unintelligible data. I use DxO Analyzer, which I
    > think produces more easily absorbed data, but still far from perfect.


    Imaging Resource' informal descriptions of the Imatest results were
    perfectly in line with the results.

    > But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good pictures
    > in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab tests, I
    > mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a normal fashion,
    > by ordinary people?


    The E300 has a serious problem that precludes it being recommended to
    ordinary people in ordinary circumstances: the lousy high ISO performance
    and lack of fast primes make it problematic for available light shots.

    > I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few
    > that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors
    > any more.


    Well, you picked one that has a really nasty problem for family snapsots:
    the E300 is the wrong camera to use for low-light work. Now maybe "not every
    need to take low light shots", but my experience is that available light
    shots simply look a lot better than flash.

    This isn't a great discovery: it was well-known when I started photography
    in the '60s.

    If someone buys an E300, figures out this simple well-known truth, they're
    going to be unhappy.

    People who just want to take landscapes (with weak yellows and greens and
    oversaturated reds and blues) will love the E300. Except when they decide
    that maybe they'd like to bring up the shadow detail a bit. Oops.

    > There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation, design
    > and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in the
    > quality of images produced that most people will notice or be bothered
    > about.


    If you assume your user is an idiot and knows nothing about photography,
    maybe. But digital cameras make photography a lot easier to learn, and that
    assumption will be less true for someone interested in a DLSR.

    > If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D
    > is not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the
    > images and their colour. Others have related similar observations.


    The only people who have ever said that are people who find themselves
    emotionally attached to inferior cameras and desperately need a straw to
    cling to. Meanwhile, Canon remains the choice of working pros who don't have
    the option of delivering inferior images.

    > It's possible that my film days have left a lasting influence on my
    > perception of image quality and that may put us on the opposite ends of a
    > scale of perception,


    Guy, I pretty much only shoot film. Mamiya 645, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7, and
    Nikon 8000 are my tools of choice for other than family snapshots.

    But I suspect that by "film" you mean a certain inferior subminiature
    format, and that really does "put us on the opposite ends of a scale of
    perception".

    > But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a perfectly
    > good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they are going for
    > now.


    It sounds like seriously bad advice to me, for the reasons above.

    David J. Littleboy

    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 10, 2005
    #18
  19. I have used both an E-300 and an Rebel XT/350D extensively and apart from
    more noise at higher ISOs, both cameras produced excellent A4 prints with
    good colour and saturation. There is no comparing the results with Jim's old
    C-5050Z - both these cameras are significantly superior.

    By the way, I never tested the E-300 with its original firmware and I
    certainly didn't get results with the colour issues your described. In fact
    my tests show the E-300 has more saturated yellows in un-adjusted JPEGs than
    earlier the E-1, completely opposite to what you say.

    I take issue with you painting a picture of me regarding people as being
    'idiots' - if you need to resort to such tactics in order strengthen your
    argument, it seems a bit desperate.

    Oh well, we just have to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly happy with my
    comments. I have tried and tested these cameras in the lab and on location,
    as well as their peers. Have you?

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
    Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.html

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:diefb1$843$...
    >
    > "Digital Photography Now" <> wrote:
    >> Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read
    >> lab test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to
    >> interpret these findings and to decide whether or not any of these
    >> findings really adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging
    >> Resource use Imatest - which produces almost unintelligible data. I use
    >> DxO Analyzer, which I think produces more easily absorbed data, but still
    >> far from perfect.

    >
    > Imaging Resource' informal descriptions of the Imatest results were
    > perfectly in line with the results.
    >
    >> But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good
    >> pictures in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab
    >> tests, I mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a
    >> normal fashion, by ordinary people?

    >
    > The E300 has a serious problem that precludes it being recommended to
    > ordinary people in ordinary circumstances: the lousy high ISO performance
    > and lack of fast primes make it problematic for available light shots.
    >
    >> I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few
    >> that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors
    >> any more.

    >
    > Well, you picked one that has a really nasty problem for family snapsots:
    > the E300 is the wrong camera to use for low-light work. Now maybe "not
    > every need to take low light shots", but my experience is that available
    > light shots simply look a lot better than flash.
    >
    > This isn't a great discovery: it was well-known when I started photography
    > in the '60s.
    >
    > If someone buys an E300, figures out this simple well-known truth, they're
    > going to be unhappy.
    >
    > People who just want to take landscapes (with weak yellows and greens and
    > oversaturated reds and blues) will love the E300. Except when they decide
    > that maybe they'd like to bring up the shadow detail a bit. Oops.
    >
    >> There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation,
    >> design and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in
    >> the quality of images produced that most people will notice or be
    >> bothered about.

    >
    > If you assume your user is an idiot and knows nothing about photography,
    > maybe. But digital cameras make photography a lot easier to learn, and
    > that assumption will be less true for someone interested in a DLSR.
    >
    >> If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D
    >> is not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the
    >> images and their colour. Others have related similar observations.

    >
    > The only people who have ever said that are people who find themselves
    > emotionally attached to inferior cameras and desperately need a straw to
    > cling to. Meanwhile, Canon remains the choice of working pros who don't
    > have the option of delivering inferior images.
    >
    >> It's possible that my film days have left a lasting influence on my
    >> perception of image quality and that may put us on the opposite ends of a
    >> scale of perception,

    >
    > Guy, I pretty much only shoot film. Mamiya 645, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7, and
    > Nikon 8000 are my tools of choice for other than family snapshots.
    >
    > But I suspect that by "film" you mean a certain inferior subminiature
    > format, and that really does "put us on the opposite ends of a scale of
    > perception".
    >
    >> But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a
    >> perfectly good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they
    >> are going for now.

    >
    > It sounds like seriously bad advice to me, for the reasons above.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    >
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    Digital Photography Now, Oct 11, 2005
    #19
  20. Rev. J. Toad

    Stacey Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:

    > On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:36:39 -0400, Stacey <> wrote:
    >
    >>Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Stacey" <> wrote in message

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?
    >>>
    >>> For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of
    >>> camera. It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby

    >>
    >>Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a
    >>cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a
    >>system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control
    >>lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or
    >>not?

    >
    > Off the top of my head, it indicates (n a sense) the power and deapth
    > of their design and production teams, as well as the desire to meet
    > the needs of their customers.
    >


    Or that they are just continuing to sell designs they came up with decades
    ago in a new package depending on how you look at it I suppose..

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Oct 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike Fletcher

    I had to do it sooner or later

    Mike Fletcher, Aug 12, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    478
    Graham
    Sep 7, 2005
  2. Ian Burley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    Ian Burley
    Aug 5, 2003
  3. DC
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    593
    Plato
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. 7
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    967
    flatfish+++
    Nov 20, 2006
  5. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    462
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page