Liking the looks of the Olympus E1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Graham, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    The quality is certainly there. I don't think you'd be able to use your
    old lenses on an E1, though... I'm pretty sure the 4/3 mount is different,
    though I don't remember seeing anything that specifically says it's
    The Pentax has a K mount, so even *I* have a couple of lenses that would
    fit it, but my old pentax lenses are junk so I don't count them in the
    thought process. The Pentax *ist D uses the same sensor as the Nikon D100,
    and honestly I consider that to be a drawback. The aspect ratio of that
    sensor annoys me. It's 3008x2000 pixels maximum. A 3:2 ratio is great for
    a 4x6 print, but you've got PLENTY of pixels to crop for a 4x6... when you
    get into 8x10 you don't have the height to make the picture happen without
    cropping the sides and you end up losing pixels until you end up with a
    250dpi print at 8x10. The 4/3 sensor in the E1 maxes out that 1920 pixels
    vertically, so it's *very* close to being the same resolution in an 8x10
    print... it's 240dpi instead of 250dpi for the D100/Pentax which has a whole
    extra megapixel on it. Aspect ratio seems to be a little-mentioned issue in
    the sensors. What's the point of having extra pixels that you just have to
    crop off to make a standard print? Okay, it *does* give you a bit more
    flexibility in deciding just *which* pixels you crop off, but I'd still
    prefer that the sensor was closer to a 5:4 ratio rather than the 3:2 ratio
    that the D100 and Pentax share. The E1 sensor has a 4:3 ratio, of course.
    You still have to crop from the sides of an E1 shot to make an 8x10 print,
    but in the final analysis you end up using 4.6 megapixels from the 5MP
    available in the E1 shot vs. 5 megapixels from the 6.2 availble on the D100
    or Pentax. Not a really big difference... at least, not as much as there
    *should* be. 10dpi difference. So in terms of raw resolution, I'm not too
    worried about the difference there.
    And I'd want it to be a foveon-type, personally.
    I'm not so sure that staying hung-up on the 35mm frame size is such a
    necessity. I know that the 3:2 ratio is the ratio of 35mm film, but the
    real issue is the print sizes we're making. If you want to make an 8x10
    then isn't that the ratio that you really need?

    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' |
    <>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    Mike Graham, Sep 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    I know the eagle hasn't landed yet, but wow it's looking pretty snazzy.
    Looking pretty pricey, though... There's a gushy review in the current
    "Digital Photographer". As somebody with no current collection of lenses it
    looks *really* attractive. I'd like to see the price on the lenses,

    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' |
    <>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    Mike Graham, Sep 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. << There's a gushy review in the current
    "Digital Photographer" >>


    I have a collection of older Olympus film cameras and lenses in addition to the
    C-3040Z. I have the highest regard for Olympus quality. My main complaint
    with the C-3040Z is its shutter lag, which is reported to have been eliminated
    in the new E-1.

    If I didn't already have a high opinion of Olympus, I doubt I would be swayed
    by an article in "Digital Photographer". Just because the magazine is about
    digital photography does not make it unbiased. Do they ever say anything bad
    about a major brand? The majority of their income is from advertisers who
    would definitely be turned off by negative product reviews.

    Personally, I'm torn between Olympus and Pentax. The Pentax *ist has more
    pixels and perhaps a slightly larger matrix, and can be used with older lenses.
    While I'm not a fan of Canon, they seem to be headed the same way, using
    existing lenses.

    I'm convinced that the future includes an economical matrix that is the same
    size as a 35mm negative. When that time comes, Canon and Pentax will require
    little modification to their designs. Olympus may be forced to re-think their
    approach. I wonder if it might include a new heigth-to-width ratio that
    corresponds to the square-root-of-two approach taken by much of the world's
    paper size standards?

    Fred McKenzie, Sep 22, 2003
  4. (a) There's no wide angle yet; where's the beef?
    (b) A lens focuses a _cone_ of light from a point in the subject to the lens
    back to a point on the sensor. There's no way that you can avoid the
    corresponding cone from the lens to the sensor, and that means (1) the only
    way to reduce the incidence angle at the sensor is by smaller exit pupils
    and retrofocus designs (which is what wide angle lenses for dSLRS already
    are) and (2) the diagrams in their advertising with parallel rays hitting
    the sensor are lies.

    Anyway, I'm completely unconvinced by the "lenses designed for digital"
    spiel, and find the claims bordering on snake oil. This is 99% of my reason
    for objecting to the E1. Other than the silly advertising excesses, it looks
    like a nice camera. The 2.0x crop factor puts it in between the dSLRs and
    the consumer cameras, and is something that ought to exist in the market.

    (c) It's a nicely built camera (they're on display in Tokyo)
    (d) The bigger crop factor will make telephotos more fun, if you like that
    sort of thing, which lots of people do.

    (e) as you mentioned, it's expensive. The wide availability of third party
    lenses for the Canon/Nikon mounts means that your lens cost are going to be
    higher, pickings fewer. I suppose there might be adapters made, since the
    mount-to-sensor distance is shorter.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 22, 2003
  5. Mike Graham

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    You could buy a 10D Canon and the 400 IS lens to go with it for less than
    the price of the 300mm lens for the E1. That lens alone lists at 8 grand --
    meaning a street price of over 6 grand AFTER it's been on the market a
    The 10D exists now and the 400 IS lens exists now -- and there ain't no
    IS on the Olympus 300 mm.
    BTW the reason I compare the Canon 400 to the Olympus 300 is because with
    the larger sensor of the Canon those two lenses are closest - a 300 mm Canon
    IS would be considerably less money.

    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 22, 2003
  6. Mike Graham

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Sep 22, 2003
  7. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    An exaggeration at the least, though it should be possible to design a
    lens that will at least partially bend the light back into something
    approximating a parallel stream, but it will need to be pretty aspheric, and
    it would be tough to get it right so that it doesn't distort the image.
    Today, certainly pickings will be fewer, however *if* the 4/3 format takes
    off then you will likely see Tamron, Sigma, etc. all making lenses with 4/3
    mounts, but then they won't be 'designed for digital', now, will they?

    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' |
    <>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    Mike Graham, Sep 22, 2003
    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.