Dpreview's review of Olympus E-300

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

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    Personally I'm tired of having to carry a case full of prime lenses to get
    decent results YMMV.
     
    Stacey, Jan 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    You're correct all canon products are send down from the heavens.

    Where do I kneel? Of COURSE it was something I did wrong....
     
    Stacey, Jan 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bill Tuthill

    Crownfield Guest

    I agree. personally i think that you should be able to get almost
    perfect results with the bottom of a coke bottle.

    so far, no luck.
     
    Crownfield, Jan 17, 2005
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Fred Guest

    Man, are you buys a bunch of whiners! Get lives.

    Fred
     
    Fred, Jan 17, 2005
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Ton Maas Guest

    Probably yes. But there are other issues to be considered. My wife just
    got an *istDS and so we can compare it to my Oly E-1. Just subjectively,
    the Pentax shots need a little more PP work to make them look as
    "natural" as those coming straight from the E-1. More objectively:
    shutter/mirror noise is metallic and LOUD in comparison to the E-1's
    well dampened whisper. This may not be much of a concern to many, but
    whereas I take a lot of shots during concerts, using the *istDS would
    make me very awkward.

    Ton
     
    Ton Maas, Jan 17, 2005
  6. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    Obviously you've never used a GOOD modern zoom if you think you HAVE to
    still use prime lenses.
     
    Stacey, Jan 17, 2005
  7. Bill Tuthill

    Crownfield Guest

    sorry stacey, I thought it was so obvious
    that I left out the smiley face.

    :) :)
     
    Crownfield, Jan 17, 2005
  8. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    My OP was a troll (less pejorativeily, an attempt to start discussion)
    not a negative personal reaction against the E-300.
    Minolta SLR, various film P&S, Fuji digicam.

    Stacey's reaction really surprises me. Is (s)he an Olympus salesperson?
    It's my money I'd be spending on an SLR, so the real question for me is:
    do I want to spend almost $1000 on an E-300? No. I prefer 3/2 over 4/3,
    require high ISO to replace film SLR, and suspect Olympus is a dead-end.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 17, 2005
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Which flash features work with a generic Vivitar or Metz speedlight?
    Could you please point me to further information about this issue?
    I googled and found nothing.

    The Sigma EF-500, which might currently represent the best value in
    3rd party flash, is not available for Olympus mount.

    The Olympus FL-50 costs $450, choke gag.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 17, 2005
  10. Bill Tuthill

    Dave Guest

    Try the FL-36 - damn near the same power for $200.
     
    Dave, Jan 17, 2005
  11. Bill Tuthill

    Basic Wedge Guest

    I agree Dave. The FL-36 looks awesome. It's probably the best bang for the
    buck in Olympus' (or anyone elses) flash line-up.

    Rob

    ...
     
    Basic Wedge, Jan 17, 2005
  12. Bill Tuthill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I'm using a Metz 32 MZ 3 with an Olympus 8080. Combined with this camera
    the flash offers both (full) manual and TTL controls, it zooms with the
    lens and has an AF illuminator. I almost always set it to automatic mode
    (TTL).

    No idea how it works with the E300 but I'd guess that all the above
    features are also available.

    By the way, for me resolution is very important, while I don't need high
    ISOs, so the E300 looks interesting (more interesting than the current
    crop of 6MP DLSRs). But before switching to a DSLR I will wait until
    there is one with live preview and live histogram.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jan 17, 2005
  13. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    And this is a surprise to anyone... I don't like the canon Dslrs but I'm not
    going to "troll" posting all the problems they have. Instead of trolling
    with your list of negative coments, why not ask what people who have used
    one think?
    Why? Because a bunch of people yourself included are posting opinions about
    a camera they have neither seen or used themselves? Some of these
    complaints are absurd:

    Like the one about opening the CF door losing the image, like what do you
    think would happen if you yanked the card out during a write? And why would
    anyone be in such a rush to pull the card out that they couldn't wait a
    second for the light to stop blinking?

    Or no "reasonable" tele lens, like the 55-200 sigma (which ends up being a
    110-400) for $130 is too much for ya? And they are now shipping a new
    slower OM tele that is more reasonable than the 50-200 (which ends up being
    a 100-400 F2.8).

    Or "untested" flash? $200 too much for you to pay for a dedicated flash that
    syncs at any speed?

    And maybe -you think- the kit lens isn't any good but people who are using
    it to take actual photographs think it's a REALLY good performer.
    No, just someone who has actually USED one.
    Then go buy something else. Again you weren't looking for information or a
    discussion, you were TROLLING as you admited you were doing then act
    surprised at what was posted?

    If you prefer 3:2 over 4:3 that's enough right there. Personally I can't
    recall ever making large prints in those odd sizes so didn't see any point
    in wasting those pixels. YMMV

    I also didn't want to be afraid to change lenses in the field (and don't try
    to tell me canon users aren't, most recommend changing bags for this etc)
    or have to deal with cleaning the sensor and possibly ruining a $1000
    camera body etc so for -me- that was more important than ISO 1600
    performance. I looked through the viewfinder of both the 10D and the D70
    and didn't like either one. I also didn't care for the control layout on
    the other Dslr's. Other people might like them better or don't consider the
    control layout or the viewfinder size/screen important?

    I find it comical that people would refuse to even consider a camera by what
    OTHER people say about a camera they themselves have never seen or used but
    I guess it's easier to let someone else think for you? I looked at the
    images the camera produced (actual prints) and decided from that, imagine
    doing something like that!

    So I guess you should join the canon club, then you can troll with the best
    of them.. Bahhhh
     
    Stacey, Jan 17, 2005
  14. Bill Tuthill

    Basic Wedge Guest

    Agreed. I think your posts have been balanced and reasonable.

    I also think it's fundamentally important to expose misinformation and
    counter it with fact, otherwise this, or any other, NG loses its relevance.

    Rob
     
    Basic Wedge, Jan 18, 2005
  15. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    I do admit I'm excited about how well this camera performs for me and I also
    realize it has it's issues. I don't think any product is ever perfect. But
    these "A canon has better image quality at ISO 400 than this one does at
    ISO 100" is absurd canonspeak. Especially coming from someone who is
    looking at a 100X100 pixel 100% crops and never seen an 11X14 print from
    one of these. I personally think the image quality at ISO 100 from this
    camera beats the 20D at any ISO but that's just my subjective opinion.

    I do find it odd everyone is posting anything negative they can dig up
    on-line and ignoring MAJOR pluses like no worries about sensor dust or the
    great focus screen these have.

    Today I was out shooting in the woods and swapped lenses several time
    without needing a changing bag or worrying about what kind of damage I was
    doing to the camera. I wonder how many other Dslr users would skip the shot
    rather than risk changing the lens in the field? What's the point of buying
    a Dslr if you have to be in a clean room the change lenses? :-/

    On the focus screen, it's the only Dslr I tried that has a screen that
    works good when trying to manual focus. The others seem more interested in
    trying to make the screen bright for the slow kit lens than in making it
    contrasty enough to use for manual focusing. For me this is a big plus,
    for others who will never manual focus their camera, the brighter almost
    glass clear canon screen is better.

    There is more to choosing a camera than ISO 1600 noise levels but that seems
    to be all the people on-line care about.
     
    Stacey, Jan 18, 2005
  16. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Do most trolls have real names and reply to follow-ups?

    What is attractive about the Olympus 4:3 system is that the lenses match
    each other in focal length and filter size. Nikon has gotten really bad
    about that. Canon does marginally better, if you're satisfied with the
    slow-AF-ing 75-300/4-5.6 as a telezoom and don't miss 55-75.
    The main reason I prefer 3:2 is that most scenes seem to have more sides
    than tops and bottoms. Theater requires even wider aspect ratio than 3:2.
    Most sporting events look better in widescreen. Full-body portraits are
    easier with a semi-panoramic format.

    The only reason we have 4:3 on television, and thus early computer screens,
    is that it was harder to make CRTs the more they became non-square.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 18, 2005
  17. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    It's a lot closer to the normal 8X10 print size than 3:2 is was the point.
    It's the same that much of a 35mm negative gets thrown away making "normal"
    sized prints, same goes for the 3:2 sensor cameras. A 6MP quickly becomes a
    much smaller number when you crop to normal proportions. Sure you can make
    3:2 prints but then finding frames etc is more of a hassle. The reason 8X10
    etc became common is they are related to 4X5 and 8X10 cameras that were the
    early basis of larger prints. People seem to like these proportions,
    although it appears you don't? I'll accept that you feel "most scenes seem
    to have more sides than tops and bottoms, I don't and shot 6X6 for many
    year printing square. Again is a hassle finding frames but it's easier than
    finding 8X12 ones.
     
    Stacey, Jan 19, 2005
  18. Bill Tuthill

    Paul Wylie Guest

    [...]

    Eh? Most photo labs offer 4x6 as the default print size. That's 3:2 with
    no cropping. It's not at all difficult to find photo frames or albums
    that fit 4x6 photos. The photos that I've had printed at 8x10 didn't
    require an undue amount of cropping, either.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 19, 2005
  19. An 8x10 from a 2:3 aspect ratio image involves cropping away 20% of the
    pixels. That is a lot.

    But, as I've mentioned before, though, those parts of the world that follow
    international standards use the A/B-series paper sizes, which all have a
    1:1.414 aspect ratio. (That's where 13x19 comes from.)

    For those sizes, 2:3 sensors lose 8% and 3:4 sensors lose 6%.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 19, 2005
  20. Bill Tuthill

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Slight nitpick. You're removing 16 square inches worth of material vs. an
    8x12, but the removal comes from teh 8x12, not the 8x10, so the percentage
    is about 17%.

    It may be a lot in terms of raw numbers, but it's still not an undue
    amount. Most people don't fill the entire frame of every shot with
    interesting stuff. Most of what I've had enlarged to 8x10 were photos of
    my son, and I was always able to crop something on one or both ends
    without adversely affecting the picture.
    And in those cases, it's an issue to be dealt with for both sensor
    layouts. In the US, where we still steadfastly refuse to embrace the
    Metric System, 3:2 is actually the more practical layout for the size of
    prints most people use.

    BTW: I generally crop my photos to 4:3 for posting on the web, and once
    again, I can almost always find something I'm willing to lose in the
    process. It probably has something to do with my lack of skill in
    composing a frame.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 19, 2005
    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.