Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charles Schuler, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. Charles Schuler

    Crownfield Guest

    not a lot of noise as far as I can see.
    Crownfield, Jul 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. The E1's noise at ISO 800 is the same as the other dSLRs noise at ISO 1600:
    so by that argument you can't use the E1's ISO 800.

    When you need high ISO to get the image, you take what you can get. That's
    why 35mm types put up with grain: the power of the image forgives the noise.

    But there's always a point where the noise (or noise reduction inflicted
    degradation) is unacceptable for the image. And that point is a full f stop
    higher with the other dSLRs than the E1.

    You've really talked yourself into a corner here: arguing that higher noise
    isn't a problem is really silly.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Alfred Molon
    I just don't understand this logic ... first "the whole point" of the system is
    "compact size and weight". Then, when the inital system fails to live up to
    this standard it's "highly irrelevant". Duh!
    In theory they should be since they only have to cover 28% as much area. In
    practice both the 50 mm macro and the 300 f/2.8 are actually HEAVIER than the
    same focal length lenses for 35 mm.
    The Kodak 14/c is full frame and only weighs about 9 ounces more than the E-1

    Bill Hilton, Jul 19, 2004
  4. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Oh, yeah, they shipped some, I saw one at a camera store. Interesting idea,
    the ultimate in backward compatibility...
    Skip M, Jul 19, 2004
  5. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Yep, it was Contax. (See above posts)
    Skip Middleton
    Skip M, Jul 19, 2004
  6. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    I checked out an E-1 at North County Camera, its construction seems on a par
    with the 10D, better than the 300D/RebelD and D70. Asked about the weather
    proofing, they said it was pretty much on a par with the 10D, maybe a little
    better, but not up to the standards of the 1D mkII and 1Ds. I'm sot sure
    what the shutter cycle expectations are, they may well indeed be longer than
    the 10D. It's a nice feeling camera, subjectively it felt bigger than a
    *ist, marginally smaller than the 10D.
    What something is being marketed as sometimes has little relation to what it
    actually is. The Sigma SD10 is being marketed as a pro level camera, too,
    which it clearly isn't.
    Skip M, Jul 19, 2004
  7. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    What is the duty cycle of the E-1?
    The build quality is certainly similar to that of the 10D, I did find an E-1
    to look at today (Sunday). What do you base your statement that the 10D
    won't stand up to the rain, cold, heat and pounding that a pro camera needs
    to? What makes you think the E-1 will? Only their marketing says so, there
    isn't any specifics that I can find, as far as sealing and ruggedness. The
    reason Canon uses buttons on their 1 series cameras is that they are easier
    to seal than dials. The 10D uses dials, as does the E-1.
    But, in a way, you are accepting my point. The constant comparison is to
    the 300D, 10D and D70. The D70 and 300D have no pretensions of "prodom,"
    actually the 10D doesn't, either. But to compare a $1500 metal/composite
    bodied camera to a sub $1000 plastic bodied camera doesn't really prove
    anything. All I was saying was that the 10D is closer to the E-1 in price,
    and features than the other two cameras, why not compare it to that, or the
    1D mkII (of which you could buy nearly 3 of either the 10D or the E-1.)
    Skip M, Jul 19, 2004
  8. Charles Schuler

    Justin Thyme Guest

    You seem to be caught up in the specifications of the focal length, treating
    the lens as an independent item - the sole purpose of a lens is to be
    connected to a body, so you can take a photo. to take the same photo you
    will need a 300mm Lens on the olympus, 600mm on a 35mm or a 400mm on a 300D.
    Which of those lenses in F2.8 will be the lightest? The olympus of course.
    It is to be expected that a 300mm 4/3 lens will be heavier than a 300mm 35mm
    lens - it has to be made to be able to give a sharper image.
    Justin Thyme, Jul 19, 2004
  9. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Skip M"
    One of the better review sites said it was 150,000 cycles, which is on par with
    the 1Ds, less than the new Mark II and about 3x as many as the 10D class, so
    they did a good job there.
    Bill Hilton, Jul 19, 2004
  10. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Justin Thyme"
    It IS an independent item. If you use several different formats as I do you'd
    realize that a 300 mm lens is a 300 mm lens, it just has varying field-of-views
    depending on how much coverage it offers.
    It's NOT the "same photo" of course ... compared to full frame it's only 28% as

    To see the absurdity of the Oly lens design, which was supposed to be lighter
    because it has to cover such a smaller area, consider what would happen if
    Canon lost their minds and brought out a 4/3 sized sensor (call it the dMick)
    that accepted EF mount lenses, which of course they could easily do (just dumb
    down the sensor size used in the 6 Mpix bodies). Then the 300 f/2.8 L IS would
    offer the exact same image size on the dMick as the Oly gets on the E-1.
    Except the Canon lens is a pound lighter, $3,200 cheaper and offers Image
    Stabilization. This shows how poorly designed the initial 4/3 system is.
    Nonsense, it should be at least 20% lighter with the same image quality (if
    they can get it) since the coverage is only 28% as large as the 35 mm lens.

    You guys are starting to sound like Preddy :)

    Bill Hilton, Jul 19, 2004
  11. Charles Schuler

    Clyde Guest

    That is the point - you have to know your business and fit the tools for
    it. If I lose business because I don't have the right tool, either have
    haven't focused my business properly or I don't have the right tool.

    If I'm a photojournalist, I don't need a EOS 1Ds. It's way overkill for
    the final image. Does that mean I buy and use a 1Ds - just in case I
    want to compete outside my professional area of expertise? If so, I'm
    spending more money and carrying more weight than I need to. That isn't
    very smart.

    An E-1 will work just fine for most photojournalism uses. It weighs less
    (and that is important in PJ) and costs less. I can buy 3 E-1 bodies for
    the price of one EOS 1D MII. Having the backups is way more important
    than having the 3 extra MP that I'll never use.

    Of course, there are other considerations and variations that need to
    come into play. If someone will be letting you use their Canon or Nikon
    lenses, that could be a big issue. If you are shooting for National
    Geographic, you will need more pixels. (I don't shoot for them.)

    There are plenty of other pro careers that can make excellent use of the
    E-1. Certainly not all types of pros would find that the best tool, but
    some would. For example, MY wedding business finds it the ideal tool.
    There may be some weddings businesses that would want the extra pixels
    of the 1Ds. There are plenty of wedding businesses that insist that MF
    film is still the tool that is needed; those people very well might put
    a 20-25 MP back on those MF bodies in the future.

    My point is that your blanket statements that the E-1 is never the right
    tool is closed-minded, ignorant, and/or just plain stupid. Your mostly
    irrelevant and anal technical arguments don't do anything to support it

    The Olympus is a pro tool that will be the best tool for many pro
    photographers. True, it will probably be a minority, but there is
    nothing wrong with that. I'm pretty sure that Olympus has figured all
    that into its market plan.

    Clyde, Jul 19, 2004
  12. Charles Schuler

    Lourens Smak Guest

    The point Olympus tries to make is that you need a shorter focal length
    to get that same shot, not that the same focal length is lighter.

    Lourens Smak, Jul 19, 2004
  13. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Lourens Smak
    The point we skeptics are trying to make is that it isn't the "same shot" since
    the area is only 28% as large as full-frame 35 mm. Instead, it's the same
    field-of-view on a much smaller image area.
    But it SHOULD be lighter and smaller since the area of coverage is so much
    Bill Hilton, Jul 19, 2004
  14. If you're a photojournalist, you'll pack a faster camera - like the 1D
    Mark II. You need the burst.
    Of course, it's burst mode is lame and chances are you *could* miss that
    Pulitzer shot because you were stuck waiting for it to write to the CF
    card. The E-1 is slower than the 10D, D70 and 300D in terms of burst
    and write speed. This is unacceptable for a pro camera.
    I never said that. I've said it's a fine camera, but it doesn't perform
    as well as cheaper cameras and it doesn't deliver on the promises of the
    4/3 standard. Anything else you have imagined.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 19, 2004
  15. Aha! But there is no reason for those lenses to be heavier. Have you
    compared the coverage of a 4/3 sensor to a 1.6x cropped 35mm? Hardly a
    big difference. If all you're doing is moving the backfocus, it
    shouldn't weigh more.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 19, 2004
    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.