Suggestion for Olympus to take a small lead in micro 4/3rds

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    view system worked. Now go implement that same kind of system
    (reflex!!) in a E-PL3 so you DON'T have to stick an EVF (that costs
    $200) onto the camera after the fact. That will END the Panasonic
    GF2 in one shot.
    Rich, Mar 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    >view system worked.



    What an appalling camera that was! It's only saving grace was that
    its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.


    >Now go implement that same kind of system
    >(reflex!!) in a E-PL3 so you DON'T have to stick an EVF (that costs
    >$200) onto the camera after the fact. That will END the Panasonic
    >GF2 in one shot.



    No, it would kill off Olympus.
    Bruce, Mar 6, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >Think about the old E-330.  Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    > >view system worked.  

    >
    > What an appalling camera that was!  It's only saving grace was that
    > its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.
    >

    What was wrong with it?
    Rich, Mar 7, 2011
    #3
  4. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >Think about the old E-330.  Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    >> >view system worked.  

    >>
    >> What an appalling camera that was!  It's only saving grace was that
    >> its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.
    >>

    > What was wrong with it?



    That would be a very long list.

    The E-300 was the beginning of the end for Four Thirds DSLRs. Several
    Four Thirds camera bodies that followed it were much better, but they
    came too late to stop the rot that the E-300 started.
    Bruce, Mar 7, 2011
    #4
  5. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Mar 7, 8:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >> >Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    > >> >view system worked.

    >
    > >> What an appalling camera that was! It's only saving grace was that
    > >> its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.

    >
    > > What was wrong with it?

    >
    > That would be a very long list.  


    2 points then.
    Rich, Mar 7, 2011
    #5
  6. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Mar 7, 8:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >> >Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    >> >> >view system worked.

    >>
    >> >> What an appalling camera that was! It's only saving grace was that
    >> >> its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.

    >>
    >> > What was wrong with it?

    >>
    >> That would be a very long list.  

    >
    >2 points then.



    Dreadful, high noise sensor. Appalling viewfinder.

    I can't believe you find anything to praise in that viewfinder. It
    was like looking down a long, dark tunnel. As your eyes grew
    accustomed to the darkness, you would spot "the light at the end of
    the tunnel", a dimly illuminated patch in the far distance.

    Then you realised ... that dim patch was the viewfinder image!

    Small, dim and not at all clear, it was enough to turn anyone off
    DSLRs and on to anything with an EVF. It really was *that bad*.

    Thank goodness Olympus also made the conventional E-500 that was
    *so much better". Otherwise, people would have stopped buying Four
    Thirds DSLRs, and Olympus would have been in real trouble.
    Bruce, Mar 7, 2011
    #6
  7. Rich

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 7, 12:08 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Mar 7, 8:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >> >On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >> >> >Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    > >> >> >view system worked.

    >
    > >> >> What an appalling camera that was! It's only saving grace was that
    > >> >> its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.

    >
    > >> > What was wrong with it?

    >
    > >> That would be a very long list.

    >
    > >2 points then.

    >
    > Dreadful, high noise sensor.  Appalling viewfinder.
    >
    > I can't believe you find anything to praise in that viewfinder.  It
    > was like looking down a long, dark tunnel.  As your eyes grew
    > accustomed to the darkness, you would spot "the light at the end of
    > the tunnel", a dimly illuminated patch in the far distance.
    >
    > Then you realised ... that dim patch was the viewfinder image!
    >


    I never praised it, I just wanted to know if you had some real
    objections to it. ALL of the Olympus camera save the E-1, E-30, E-3
    and E-5 had TERRIBLE viewfinders, virtually useless for using manual
    lenses in all but the brightest conditions.
    However, the sensor in the E-330 wasn't that bad. In fact, some are
    now comparing its control of noise to the current line of 12-14
    megapixel 4/3rd sensor in a positive way. It was a major step up from
    the Kodak sensors, at least in-terms of noise control.
    This shot show granularity in the sky and there would be noise on the
    shaded parts of the plane's body at 160 ISO, but it is nearly a full-
    sized crop (about 80%).
    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/85053440
    RichA, Mar 7, 2011
    #7
  8. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Mar 7, 12:08 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >On Mar 7, 8:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >> >On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    >> >> >> >view system worked.

    >>
    >> >> >> What an appalling camera that was! It's only saving grace was that
    >> >> >> its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.

    >>
    >> >> > What was wrong with it?

    >>
    >> >> That would be a very long list.

    >>
    >> >2 points then.

    >>
    >> Dreadful, high noise sensor.  Appalling viewfinder.
    >>
    >> I can't believe you find anything to praise in that viewfinder.  It
    >> was like looking down a long, dark tunnel.  As your eyes grew
    >> accustomed to the darkness, you would spot "the light at the end of
    >> the tunnel", a dimly illuminated patch in the far distance.
    >>
    >> Then you realised ... that dim patch was the viewfinder image!
    >>

    >
    >I never praised it, I just wanted to know if you had some real
    >objections to it.



    I thought I had made my objections clear. :)


    >ALL of the Olympus camera save the E-1, E-30, E-3
    >and E-5 had TERRIBLE viewfinders, virtually useless for using manual
    >lenses in all but the brightest conditions.



    None was as bad as the one in the E-300.


    >However, the sensor in the E-330 wasn't that bad.



    I was talking about the Kodak sensor in the E-300. The Panasonic
    sensor in the E-330 was a big improvement. I don't think it is
    overstating the case to say that Panasonic sensors saved the Olympus
    DSLR range from ruin.


    >In fact, some are
    >now comparing its control of noise to the current line of 12-14
    >megapixel 4/3rd sensor in a positive way. It was a major step up from
    >the Kodak sensors, at least in-terms of noise control.
    >This shot show granularity in the sky and there would be noise on the
    >shaded parts of the plane's body at 160 ISO, but it is nearly a full-
    >sized crop (about 80%).
    > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/85053440



    I have a friend who is still very keen on Four Thirds - we both had a
    strong professional relationship with Olympus Europe until the E-300.
    He thinks the best image quality of any Four Thirds DSLR came from the
    Panasonic L10. He uses it with the Leica 14-50mm zoom that was
    originally supplied with the L1 and produces some fine results.

    Meanwhile, I was persuaded to part with a ridiculously small amount of
    money for an E-1 and 14-54mm (first version) the other day. The
    camera and lens are brand new (old stock).

    I have wasted a lot of time looking for a high quality compact or
    Micro Four Thirds camera to carry with me all the time. The
    E-1/14-54mm isn't so large, especially compared with the Nikon D3 or
    Hasselblad I normally use, and as long as I don't need more than 5 MP,
    the results from that wonderful lens on the E-1's Kodak sensor are
    spectacularly good.

    The sensor shares some DNA with the Kodak sensors in my Kodak DCS Pro
    14n full frame DSLR and the Hasselblad. The colour rendition is still
    unbeatable today. It is such a shame that the innovative E-1 was
    effectively a technological dead end, and that Four Thirds DSLR
    production has now stopped.

    Another bargain; one of our first customers to receive a FujiFilm
    FinePix X100 asked if he could return it. I did a deal with him
    personally - I took the X100 in part exchange for my Leica X1 which
    suits him far better - his problem was that he wanted a camera he
    could use always in P (program) mode. He is in his late 70s and found
    the X100's P mode confusing and too easy to mis-set. Some money
    changed hands and we are both very happy indeed!

    You might like it too - it is the nearest thing to an all metal camera
    that isn't a Leica. ;-)
    Bruce, Mar 7, 2011
    #8
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Mar 7, 3:05 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Mar 7, 12:08 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >> >On Mar 7, 8:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >> >> >On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> >Think about the old E-330. Thing about how its viewfinder and live-
    > >> >> >> >view system worked.

    >
    > >> >> >> What an appalling camera that was! It's only saving grace was that
    > >> >> >> its predecessor, the E-300 E-VOLT, was even worse.

    >
    > >> >> > What was wrong with it?

    >
    > >> >> That would be a very long list.

    >
    > >> >2 points then.

    >
    > >> Dreadful, high noise sensor. Appalling viewfinder.

    >
    > >> I can't believe you find anything to praise in that viewfinder. It
    > >> was like looking down a long, dark tunnel. As your eyes grew
    > >> accustomed to the darkness, you would spot "the light at the end of
    > >> the tunnel", a dimly illuminated patch in the far distance.

    >
    > >> Then you realised ... that dim patch was the viewfinder image!

    >
    > >I never praised it, I just wanted to know if you had some real
    > >objections to it.  

    >
    > I thought I had made my objections clear.  :)
    >
    > >ALL of the Olympus camera save  the E-1, E-30, E-3
    > >and E-5 had TERRIBLE viewfinders, virtually useless for using manual
    > >lenses in all but the brightest conditions.

    >
    > None was as bad as the one in the E-300.
    >
    > >However, the sensor in the E-330 wasn't that bad.  

    >
    > I was talking about the Kodak sensor in the E-300.  The Panasonic
    > sensor in the E-330 was a big improvement.  I don't think it is
    > overstating the case to say that Panasonic sensors saved the Olympus
    > DSLR range from ruin.
    >


    I still like the story :(mystery) of the E-400 that was produced in
    small numbers and the last of the Kodak sensored Olympus bodies.

    > I have a friend who is still very keen on Four Thirds - we both had a
    > strong professional relationship with Olympus Europe until the E-300.
    > He thinks the best image quality of any Four Thirds DSLR came from the
    > Panasonic L10.  He uses it with the Leica 14-50mm zoom that was
    > originally supplied with the L1 and produces some fine results.


    That was a great lens and a bargain with the body. A tiny bit of
    colour error wide open, but great contrast and colour rendition.

    > Meanwhile, I was persuaded to part with a ridiculously small amount of
    > money for an E-1 and 14-54mm (first version) the other day.  The
    > camera and lens are brand new (old stock).
    >
    > I have wasted a lot of time looking for a high quality compact or
    > Micro Four Thirds camera to carry with me all the time.  The
    > E-1/14-54mm isn't so large, especially compared with the Nikon D3 or
    > Hasselblad I normally use, and as long as I don't need more than 5 MP,
    > the results from that wonderful lens on the E-1's Kodak sensor are
    > spectacularly good.


    I had the E-1 with the grip. I could carry it for hours, just letting
    the deep grip hang off my fingers by gravity.

    > The sensor shares some DNA with the Kodak sensors in my Kodak DCS Pro
    > 14n full frame DSLR and the Hasselblad.  The colour rendition is still
    > unbeatable today.  It is such a shame that the innovative E-1 was
    > effectively a technological dead end, and that Four Thirds DSLR
    > production has now stopped.  


    CCD's are still used in scientific applications because of the tighter
    tolerances when it comes to colour accuracy than CMOS. As for the
    E-1, Olympus threw in the towel and decided to ape the others, hence
    the E-3 which looks really silly with that tiny sensor buried in that
    huge body.

    > Another bargain; one of our first customers to receive a FujiFilm
    > FinePix X100 asked if he could return it.  I did a deal with him
    > personally - I took the X100 in part exchange for my Leica X1 which
    > suits him far better - his problem was that he wanted a camera he
    > could use always in P (program) mode.  He is in his late 70s and found
    > the X100's P mode confusing and too easy to mis-set.  Some money
    > changed hands and we are both very happy indeed!
    >
    > You might like it too - it is the nearest thing to an all metal camera
    > that isn't a Leica.  ;-)
    Rich, Mar 8, 2011
    #9
    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. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    747
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    796
    Better Info
    Jan 19, 2010
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    269
    Ray Fischer
    Feb 15, 2010
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    589
    John Turco
    Mar 29, 2010
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    807
Loading...

Share This Page