Olympus E-1 Digital

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

  1. And their reasoning is perfect? Hardly.

    It's safe to say Nikon blew the pro market in digital about a year ago.
    Unless they play catch-up fast, they'll lose it entirely.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. I don't know. I have used a 10D, and was not really impressed. I do not
    compare a 4/3 to a 35mm Full Frame (which I plan to buy). I compare it to
    APS derivitives in the digital world. In all truth, I have prefered the
    color renditions I have gotten from the E-1 to every camera I have compared
    it to (although the EOS 1D when it worked, was a little better). I really
    like the short work flow. I like the fact that I can recover from shadows a
    full stop (regularly, unlike it's competitors). Quality compared to others
    in it's field is right up to snuff. Hell, I can have a slightly noisy (very
    sight) 800 ISO, expose it as if it was being taken at 1600 ISO and readily
    compare it to 10D 1600 ISO. It works for me. It has good enough quality
    that untill we really get to the same numbers as film, I will probably not
    be looking to replace it.
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not really. If you can;t use a search engine, or go and see what the pros
    actually using the cameras are... I will not waste my time.

    The E-10, E-20 were both well known as Wedding Cameras. Now the E-1 is
    getting a pretty good name for it as well. Good luck on searching, if you
    really are interested in facts.
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 18, 2004
  4. You don't get enough quality, as you know. Hell, if I wanted to do that I
    pull 41 MP and crop from a 135mm NPZ shot... I can get even closer. But,
    digital has it's advantages.
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 18, 2004
  5. That'll work in court!

    "Your honor, if you can't Lexis Nexus the relevant precedents for this
    case, I shouldn't even bother wasting my time being here."
    Even a search on google is not likely to bring "facts" into this
    discussion.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 18, 2004
  6. Yes - I do know.

    What puzzles me though is that some think that 4/3 has some
    kind of theoretical advantage over other DSLR at the same time
    at is has some kind of theoretical advantage over smaller
    sensors. That is weird physics to me. Sounds more like superstition
    than anything else.

    NOTE - this have nothing to to with the fact whether the E-1
    is better or worse than a 10D. That can any way.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 18, 2004
  7. You do know you can tweak the 10D, 300D and D70 settings to match your
    personal preference for contrast, sharpness, saturation and color tone?
    I bet that, under controlled conditions, I could make a profile to make
    any of those cameras match the E-1's native output.
    I can do that with my 10D in RAW mode. Isn't THAT big of a deal,
    really.
    The 10D's ISO 1600 *is* 800 underexposed a stop. It just saves you from
    having to adjust things later. You know, short work flow and such.

    Do note I don't think the E-1 is that bad of a camera. I just dispute
    the claims that it is somehow superior (or advantageous to use) compared
    to the current crop of dSLRs available from Canon and Nikon. It isn't
    superior - just different.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 18, 2004
  8. This sounds weird. Wedding cameras? Why?

    Is there some kind of brand loyalty to Olympus among wedding photographers?



    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 18, 2004
  9. They're married to 'em!

    Har har har, oh wait... no. You may beat me now.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 18, 2004
  10. I just am disputing the comment inferior:)
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 18, 2004
  11. photographers?

    It appears so. Not so odd really. How many sports photogs stick to Canon?
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 18, 2004
  12. You are mistakeing something. You are the one bringing the charge... you
    would be the one to prove it. I am on the defense team here. You are the
    prosecuter it seems:)

    Good luck.
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 18, 2004
  13. Clyde Torres

    Alex Guest



    Why do people feel that a digital sensor, matching the dimensions of
    35mm film, will ultimately be the preferred size for the
    professional/prosumer market?

    35mm film equipment was overwhelmingly popular for a number of
    different reasons. It produced images which satisfied the quality
    requirements of the majority of photographers while using equipment
    that was reasonably light and portable.

    Why was 35mm so much more popular than larger film formats? A big
    factor was that 35mm cameras and lenses were smaller and lighter to
    carry.

    But with the introduction of digital photography manufacturers can
    establish new standards.

    Doesn't it make sense that the most popular digital sensor size will
    use the smallest and lightest designs capable of producing images
    satisfying most discriminating photographers?

    I realize that because most of today's pros and serious amateurs have
    a substantial investment in 35mm lenses and accessories there's a
    strong market for digital SLRs that leverage that investment. But
    won't the market eventually prefer the smallest and lightest equipment
    that will do the job?

    Even if the technology is not quite there yet, isn't it likely that
    smaller sensors, like the ones used in the Olympus E-1, Canon
    300D/10D, and Nikon D70, will be more than good enough? And a new
    generation of digital lenses covering the smaller sensor size will
    always be substantially smaller and more powerful than their 35mm
    cousins.

    Viewing the current crop of digital SLRs as merely a temporary
    solution, to eventually be replaced by a full frame sensor, would be a
    mistake. Even with today's sensor technology I believe that most
    photographers will prefer to use camera systems that are as small and
    light as possible while still delivering image quality on a par with
    35mm. And for those photographers that need even more quality, such
    as those that currently rely on medium format or larger film
    technology, digital cameras with larger sensors will be available.

    ---Alex
     
    Alex, Aug 18, 2004
  14. Clyde Torres

    Steven Wandy Guest

    I just am disputing the comment inferior:)I agree with Robert here. I have never stated that the E-1 is better than
    the others out there. It suite my needs with regard to quality and size -
    and apparantly a lot of others who have bothered to try the camera. The
    problem is whenever the camera is brought up in an open forum like this one,
    E-1 owners have to defend their decision to others who have absolutely no
    idea of what the camera is like.
     
    Steven Wandy, Aug 18, 2004
  15. Clyde Torres

    Charlie Self Guest

    Steven Wandy comments:
    Yes, well, we must remember, it hasn't been THAT long since knowledgeable (said
    with a sneer) people argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a
    pin.

    Charlie Self
    "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
    Devil's Dictionary
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 18, 2004
  16. We don't.

    However, there are a large amount of existing 35mm lenses owned by
    professionals and amateurs alike. These lenses range from poor to
    great. No sense throwing out perfectly good lenses until the technology
    warrants it.
    Yes - but at this moment smaller is NOT better - both in terms of
    resolution and noise, two of the biggest concerns with digital
    photography.
    Smaller, but not more powerful.
    I think you'll see the 35mm format sticking around for some years to
    come, at least in Nikon and Canon mounts. Other manufacturers may
    abandon their old mounts (at their own risk), but I don't think Canon or
    Nikon will completely abandon their 35mm legacy - the 35mm mount will
    just service a different market.

    I'm sure you'll see smaller, lighter and more capable dSLRs in a new
    format sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. However, they more than
    likely won't be based on the 4/3rds standard as it stands today.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 18, 2004
  17. Well, most of us taking the other side are really just disputing the
    4/3rds format, not necessarily the E-1 itself. But when buying the E-1,
    you have to take the format into consideration. 4/3rds is passable
    today - but will it be a year from now?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 18, 2004
  18. How very different views can be.

    According to my view, lots of people try to claim that the
    4/3 format has some kind of theoretical advantage; something
    that other format lacks. And also according to my view, that
    is very hard to do and be beleived. There is nothing in the 4/3
    format that is anything spectacular different from a DSLR with
    an APS sized sensor, e.g. Canon 10D. They are very similar.

    According to my view some people also try to claim that Olympus
    is way better than any other manufacturer in making lenses. They
    have some kind of arcane knowledge that the rest of the world does
    not. The zuiko lenses are better than anything else. Now, they
    might be good at making lenses, but ... the art of making good
    lenses is no secret art. They may also price the lenses very
    competitive. But thats all folks. As a matter of fact it has
    been shown that the bookeh (i.e. the quality of out of focus
    areas) is not all that good on the first released E-1 lenses.
    A good bookeh has more light in the core than at the edges for
    unfocussed dots; it shall not be small rings, it shall be
    smooth unsharp dots.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 18, 2004
  19. Clyde Torres

    Alex Guest

    Yes, smaller sensors are not better. But the marginal improved
    quality delivered by the larger sensor is significantly offset by the
    much larger and heavier lenses (and camera) required.

    More powerful from the standpoint that a zoom lens with a more
    powerful range can be designed more easily and cheaply.
    No argument there. My point was that the digital revolution will
    introduce a new standard. Maybe the 4/3rds will succeed, maybe not.
    But a smaller standard than full frame 35mm will be the ultimate
    champion.
     
    Alex, Aug 18, 2004
  20. Hmmm ... lets me guess. E-10 was the first DSLR that was competitive
    priced. Wedding photograpers has a huge need of the digital look and
    also a good view finder. Therefore, they were among the first to
    adopt DSLR photography. And, when the E-10 was released, there
    was really no competition. So .. lots of wedding photographers used
    E-10. And when you have bought one, you go on an buy the next (E-20)
    and then when E-1 arrived, they bought that to.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 18, 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.