Olympus E-1 Digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Clyde Torres, Aug 16, 2004.

  1. Clyde Torres

    Clyde Torres Guest

    Anyone here have any experience with the Olympus E-1 camera with the 14-54mm
    f2.8 lens? A guy had one running around taking pictures of the devastation
    of Hurricane Charley in Orlando and said it was the best digital camera
    made. I looked at it briefly and decided that it might be as good or
    slightly better than my Nikon D70. Is this just envy on my part or is the
    Olympus E-1 really that much better? Steve's Camera says it is the first
    100% all-digital interchangeable lens SLR system, whatever that means.

    Clyde Torres
     
    Clyde Torres, Aug 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The E1 is a 4/3 format camera which means it matches the aspect ratio of a
    PC monitor (or TV). The format was chosen to be a dSLR from day one with
    only 4/3 system lenses designed for it, also from day one. The down side
    IMHO is the Kodak made 18 x 13.5 mm (5 MP) which is 35% smaller than the
    APC-C sized 6+ MP sensors in Nikon, Pentax and Canon. Or about 50% of a 35mm
    format. This when Canon's 20D is expected to have an 8 MP sensor. The camera
    (E!) is well made, and has some great features, like the self cleaning
    sensor. But I feel it's too little, too late.
     
    Darrell Larose, Aug 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Clyde Torres

    Steven Wandy Guest

    I have been using the E-1 since around September (upgrade from the E-10).
    I won't compare it to your Nikon - no experience with Nikon digitals except
    the
    5700 - but I love the E-1. Good feel, easy controls, very little
    post-processing needed,
    great quality lenses (not discussing the prices of them). Overall very happy
    with it.

    The reason Steve's makes an issue of the "all-digital" SLR camera is that
    all the other DSLR's (atleast the ones I know of) use lenses that were
    designed for their film cameras.
    Supposedly - again I don't have any of the others to make a direct
    comparison - since the lenses for the E-1 were designed for its CCD sensor,
    it gives you a sharper image from edge to edge. Again, I can't compare to
    other DSLRs, but I am very happy with the E-1.
    From what I have read many pros are very happy using it but they mainly
    shoot weddings/portraits/studio/etc. I would guess that most
    news/sports/etc. photographers are sticking with Canon and Nikon because of
    their faster shooting speeds and especially with the Canon IS lenses.
     
    Steven Wandy, Aug 16, 2004
    #3
  4. I suspect that the Oly E-1 will be a dead-end. A large chip has room to
    improve as technology improves. A small chip can not...at least not as far.
    Bummer as I have only owned Olys since the OM-1 first came out in the 70's
    and disloyal of me since Oly is currently moving their US headquarters to my
    region. I shoot the E-10 now and it will likely be my last Oly.
     
    Gene Palmiter, Aug 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Clyde Torres

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    It means Steve's camera has one in stock they would like to get rid of.
    THE Olympus is too little too late for too much money. The sensor is half
    the area of 35mm film in a industry where APS size or larger is now standard
    for SLRs. IT is more expensive than other cameras with bigger sensors and
    FULL lines of lenses available. Don't buy a dead end.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Have a look at the Oly SLR forum on www.dpreview.com.

    Cheers!

    Hans
     
    Hans H. Siegrist, Aug 16, 2004
    #6
  7. This is a love hate camera. I have noted that people who were stung by an
    old film change hate it. Others, who give it a chance love it. For what it
    is, it is about the cheapest thing you can buy. It is a pro designed
    camera. Nothing in the price range competes. The images are top rate, but
    there are some issues with ISO over 800. However here is where you get some
    interesting exceptions. In a lot of ways it is like shooting NPZ where as
    you are shooting basic 800 speed whatever with other DSLRs on the market.
    The thing picks out an extra stop worth of data from the shadows, unlike
    others. So... like NPZ, treat it's 800 as 1600, and you will be happy.
    Also, noise reduction software makes 3200 speed useable without a problem.

    As for lens line up? I have 8 lenses in my bag for it, using 2 adapters.
    No problem. Shoot what you want. Oh, and two more bodies are on the way,
    as are more lenses.

    Lastly, 5 MP vs, 6 or 8. I crop and get very nice 12 x 18 prints. I don't
    need more, so never tried. Pretty much the end all for me.

    Good luck!
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 16, 2004
    #7
  8. He' talking about a this website, you Canon snob.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/e1.html

    FYI: They review cameras - they don't sell them - and their review
    of the Oly E-1 was rather negative.
    You're comparing a apples and oranges. The E-1 is a pro body
    with environmental seals, etc. The Canon's you compare it to
    (300D and 10D) are not manufactured to the same standards. The
    Canon EOS 1D cameras are, but they are also much more expensive.
    The E-1 is made for a specific group: Pros that shoot portraits and
    weddings and need good ergonomics and fast and reliable operation.
    It is a very popular camera in that segment - maybe that's the only
    DSLR segment Olympus wants to be in.

    Whether there ever will be a 4/3rds camera targeted for those buying
    300D, 10D and D70 today, remains to be seen.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Oddly enough there is an adapter to mount Olympus Zuiko (OM series) lenses
    on the E1. After raving about how superior the 4/3 system is.
     
    Darrell Larose, Aug 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Kodak was the prime mover of the 4/3 system, as they were for the APS film
    system. Kodak is not the company that should spearhead any new series.
     
    Darrell Larose, Aug 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Clyde Torres

    Dave Guest


    Oh no, the Spaz Spadaro is gonna hafta killfile you now.

    Dave
     
    Dave, Aug 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Clyde Torres

    Lourens Smak Guest

    In fact there are several adapters including Leica-R, Nikon, and Contax
    (Zeiss). Funnily the E-1 is more compatible with old Nikkors than the
    D70 or D100. Using the adapter will usually show the E-1 advantage
    pretty clearly, and with a future higher-MP body the difference will be
    even bigger. 5MP is already a challenge with some 35mm lenses, but
    getting 10MP of detail from the center part of a 35mm lens image will be
    impossible.

    Lourens
     
    Lourens Smak, Aug 16, 2004
    #12
  13. Clyde Torres

    Clyde Guest

    <snip>

    That the same argument that was used when the industry went from large
    format sheet film to 6cm roll film. We again heard it when we went from
    that 2 1/4" stuff to the small 35mm. Frankly, it wasn't an argument that
    worked then and probably won't now.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Aug 16, 2004
    #13
  14. Clyde Torres

    Tom Scales Guest

    But that's a horrible analogy. It's not like the E-1 provides a 'standard'
    that has been embraced. A better analogy would the the Disc film cameras.
    One company went off on their own.

    There is no bigger OM proponent than me. Up until about a year ago, I had a
    huge OM collection. Still didn't keep me in the fold.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Aug 16, 2004
    #14
  15. Clyde Torres

    Bill Hilton Guest

    We also heard the same argument against APS, that it was too small, and APS
    seems to be pretty much dead in the water.

    Time will tell whether 4/3 is the digital APS, a dead end due to the tiny
    sensor (I calculate it at 28% the area of full frame 35mm, not 50% as some have
    said). The promise was lighter lenses and bodies but they failed at that too,
    plus the prices on some of the kit are ridiculous.

    I'm with Gene on this one, a nice bit of technology but likely a dead end given
    the large numbers of legacy lenses and accessories all us 35 mm migrants
    already own. The tiny sensor just doesn't cut it for me. But then my main
    digital camera is a 1Ds and my backup is a 1D Mark II :)

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 16, 2004
    #15
  16. Actually, the environmental seals on the E-1 compare about the same as
    the ones on the 10D. Neither camera is as robust as the 1D Mark II - a
    true pro-level camera.

    Even then, I'm sure you can buy a 300D and use the plastic bag they put
    the box in and still get decent results. You might look like a doofus,
    but only SLIGHTLY less so than someone using a E-1.
    Too bad those pros are already using the lower cost Nikon and Canon
    bodies with the better lens choices, low light performance and
    resolution. The ones who can afford to (or need the extra quality) are
    shooting with the 1D Mark II and the 1Ds.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 16, 2004
    #16
  17. Where do you get this crap? The 14 megapixel Kodaks and the 11
    megapixel Canon 1Ds have no problem getting outstanding resolution
    (greater than film in many cases) from 35 mm format lenses.

    The greater the sensor area, the greater the potential resolution. Why
    4/3rds ignores this is beyond me, but Oly will pay the price in the end.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 16, 2004
    #17
  18. Irrelevant. Those film types segregated themselves into different
    levels within the industry. 35 mm was able to achieve high enough
    quality for newspapers, hobbyists and some art photographers - it still
    doesn't cut it for some types of photography, most notably product
    photography and landscape photography.

    When larger digital sensors capture more detail with less noise, and the
    ultimate goal of digital is to exceed the quality of film, it doesn't
    make a lot of sense to shrink your sensor area UNTIL you achieve your
    primary goal. I'm sure we'll see a new, smaller digital SLR format in
    the future - but it certainly won't be 4/3rds.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 16, 2004
    #18
  19. Damn you! ;)
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 16, 2004
    #19
  20. Clyde Torres

    Tero Kapanen Guest

    The width and the height of the 4/3 sensor is roughly 50% of the 35mm full
    frame width and height therefore the area is roughly 25% of the 35mm full
    frame. When calculating area, it is important to realize that area is
    proportional to the square of the linear dimension...

    - tero
     
    Tero Kapanen, Aug 16, 2004
    #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.