Dpreview's review of Olympus E-300

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Tuthill, Jan 14, 2005.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    We discussed the noise issue before on this forum, but to me it's all the
    other problems that make the E-300 unattractive. Such as:

    1. unpredictable underexposure problems

    2. Adobe RGB not at all color accurate (see Macbeth chart)

    3. vignetting and barrel distortion bad for an unambitious $300 lens

    4. can lose images if CF compartment door is opened during write

    5. long zooms and telephotos are not a good value for money

    6. proprietary (untested) flash accessories

    7. only 3 AF points (perhaps more important to others than to me)

    Probably Olympus can easily fix #2 with a firmware update, and perhaps #1
    also, though #1 probably indicates poor implementation of matrix metering.
    I believe all remaining problems are insoluble until the next model.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Tuthill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Somebody in the E300 users group actually complained that the E300 was
    overexposing.
    Just shoot RAW.
    No idea here, but I heard that the kit lens which comes with the 300D is
    not good.
    Then don't open it.
    I heard different opinions here. But anyway prices will come down when
    the standard spreads. Panasonic will launch a 4/3 DSLR next year.
    It comes with a standard flash socket, so you can use any flash.
    By the way, why do you feel the need to bash the E300 ?
     
    Alfred Molon, Jan 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. If you read the article you find even more:

    8. Only ISO 100-400 usable.

    9. Demosaicing artefacts.

    10. Not as crisp, per pixel sharpness, as other DSLR.

    11. Ugly noise.

    12. Very bad result when you try to correct under exposed
    pictures, i.e. very bad dark areas.

    13. Small viewfinder.



    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #3
  4. C'mon Alfred. The review at dpreviews is not good, not at all.
    OK - it was supposed to be a cheaper camera than the E1. But
    all other manufacturer that has released a cheaper DSLR has
    preserved the image quality. Not so Olympus - if the review
    not is wrong of course. This does not look to be any competition
    to anything, except meybe Sigma.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Yeah, that is a bit bizarre.
    Not too much of an issue if you shoot RAW and use 3rd party software.
    But how likely is that if you're buying a "budget" dSLR? Well, still
    pretty likely, I suppose.
    That's more an issue with the mount than the camera, but the two are
    pretty much linked due to the poor selection of 4/3rds lenses.
    To be fair, this pretty much happens on all dSLRs from Canon.
    Yeah. No image stabilization doesn't help.
    Enh. I don't use the flash that much, so less of an issue to me.
    I've got 7 AF points on the 10D and I only use the center one, all the
    others are less sensitive and tend to be flaky. The 20D is supposed to
    be better, but I have yet to try it out.

    I was actually impressed with the image quality of the E-300. Maybe
    it's because I set my expectations so low with the noise. Compared with
    the 20D it's not great, but for $500 less it's not doing too bad. The
    biggest deal breaker is the lens mount. Not that great of a selection
    and not that much savings over a traditional mount.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jan 14, 2005
    #5
  6. But it was less sharp, so it might be better to compare
    to 6 Mpixel thingies. And they are not $500 more expensive.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill

    Dutch Flyer Guest

    You would have to be insane to buy this camera, especially since the
    300D and D70 can be found cheaper.
     
    Dutch Flyer, Jan 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Bill Tuthill

    Dave Guest

    By the way, why do you feel the need to bash the E300?

    Same reason little guys drive around in big Ford trucks with "Piss on
    Chevy" emblems (and visa versa) - that ugly brew of ignorance,
    confusion of brand=lifestyle, overcompensation, lack of self-esteem,
    and us versus them thinking.

    There are a whole lot of current cameras - digital and otherwise -
    whose performance I find lacking. But I don't make it a habit of
    randomly pointing that out, however.

    Dave
     
    Dave, Jan 14, 2005
    #8
  9. BTW - why do you feel the urge to bash the post?

    The E-300 got a bad review. Get over it.
    You just did.



    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Yeah, I would say image quality - sharpness wise - is only slightly
    better than the 6 megapixel dSLRs. And when you factor in the noise and
    lens selection... well...
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jan 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Bill Tuthill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Maybe try it with a different lens. Or shoot RAW in case the internal
    camera processing is the culprit.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jan 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Bill Tuthill

    Dave Guest

    Bash the post? Nope. The poster? Maybe. Mostly just the motive behind
    it - I'm not a big fan of the E-300 (at least at this point) either,
    but I don't see the need to harp on that, or to get into this Canon vs
    Nikon vs Whatever (AKA - mine is longer than yours) debate.
    Brand loyalty - it ain't a pretty sight.
     
    Dave, Jan 14, 2005
    #12
  13. Bill Tuthill

    Dutch Flyer Guest

    Get a life, the poster is pointing out some serious flaws of the E-300.
    That is perfectly fine and within the guidelines of this newgroup.
    He didn't troll with subjective remarks and I did not detect any brand
    loyalty in his post.
    The fact is, there are serious issues and design shortcomings with this
    camera, and only some *loyal* to Olympus would consider it over
    the D70 or 300D. Someone in this thread compared the E-300 to
    the 20D which is laughable. This camera is a 300D/D70 competitor,
    in theory that is.
     
    Dutch Flyer, Jan 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Yepp - a better lens may help. There are not all that many
    cheap and good lenses to buy though. The test with the 50 mm
    macro lens shows that it is not the camera that is unsharp,
    it is the lenses.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #14
  15. You guessed the motive. I dare say you guessed wrong.
    If a camera gives bad results in a test, then it is not
    any brand loyalty to tell that here.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Bill Tuthill

    Dave Guest

    No - mine's longer ;)
     
    Dave, Jan 14, 2005
    #16
  17. You are rather single minded - are you not :)



    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #17
  18. Bill Tuthill

    Dave Guest

    8===============================================================D ;)
     
    Dave, Jan 14, 2005
    #18
  19. OK - we get it :)


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 14, 2005
    #19
  20. Bill Tuthill

    Dave Guest

    :)
     
    Dave, Jan 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.