Olympus E-1 Digital

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

  1. I don't own an E-1, but I do own two other Olympus cameras (C-2100UZ, D-40Z).
    One reason that I've heard some pros like the E1 is they feel it needs less
    manipulation out of the box to get good shots (auto white balance & WB
    adjustments, sharpening, etc.). This can help speed up the workflow which is
    important if you are taking lots and lots of pictures. I have an inkling of
    this since I've been taking pictures at a weekend event, and have been
    struggling to process or delete 500+ pictures or so in a weeks time while still
    doing my normal day job.

    The other reason usually mentioned is the weight, which can become important if
    you are carrying a camera for 5-6 hours....
     
    Michael Meissner, Aug 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Too bad we haven't seen this benefit in any production cameras with a
    smaller frame size - yet.
    Which hasn't been realized with 4/3rds due to the fact they don't make
    many. When a serious switch does occur, I'm sure we'll see a price
    difference and a weight savings. The 35mm format might very well still
    exist in the niche currently occupied by medium format if image quality
    keeps increasing as it has.
    No question there. I don't think 4/3rds will succeed because the
    technology needed to make it competitive doesn't exist and people don't
    seem to be clamoring for lighter cameras just yet.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Of course, you can tweak the image settings on any decent dSLR to match
    the sharpness, color tone, contrast and saturation you desire. It
    wouldn't be hard to set up a 10D, 300D or D70 to mimic what the Oly E-1
    does.
    Yet the Oly E-1 isn't any lighter.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
  4. Clyde Torres

    Steve Hix Guest

    It's a different format. No cropping is involved.
    It's a different format. It carries advantages, it has some
    disadvantages. Just like every format ever implemented.
    Usually. There will be some subjects that are more or less easy to do
    with 35mm that would be unreasonably difficult or expensive for medium
    format.

    They're different. It's not a zero-sum game, either, where a win by one
    is necessarily a loss for the other.
     
    Steve Hix, Aug 19, 2004
  5. Clyde Torres

    Steve Hix Guest

    And end up with a worse image, perhaps.
    And give up the advantages of interchangable lenses.

    OK for some, deal killer for others.
     
    Steve Hix, Aug 19, 2004
  6. Clyde Torres

    Steve Hix Guest

    You're still stuck with the extra weight. Kewl.

    Why are you so bothered that some people might choose something other
    than you would?

    You seem to be awfully defensive about all this.
     
    Steve Hix, Aug 19, 2004
  7. Clyde Torres

    Steve Hix Guest

    Actually, the question was "how many", but whether the number was finite
    or not; in other words, just a way to frame a discussion as to whether
    or not angels were material or nonmaterial in nature.

    Not quite like asking how many bison could dance on the rim of the Grand
    Canyon.
     
    Steve Hix, Aug 19, 2004
  8. Yuck. I do not lke your taste in bookeh. On the other hand, it is taste.
    Also, I don't entirely care for the bookeh from th e14-54mm or 11-22mm
    Zukio. They are neat, and the distortion is nearly down to Contax CZ
    levels... but then, I mainly shoot the camera with Contax lenses anyways.
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 19, 2004
  9. Actually it is. Every digital I have seen can only be manipulated so far in
    settings. With the E-1, most users shoot RAW+JPG, and only need to play
    with the RAW when the JPG is not good enough.
    Umm. Actually, yes, at the same FoV it is. Lenses and body. Go look at
    the weights for cameras one step below and one step above.

    10D (one step below)
    790g
    149.7 x 107.5 x 75.0mm

    E-1
    660g
    141 x 104 x 81 mm

    1DII (one step above)
    1220g
    156 x 157.6 x 79.9mm

    Standard pro lens.

    Canon 24-70L (not weather sealed)
    950g
    83.2mm x 123.5mm

    Oly 14-54mm (weather sealed)
    435g
    73.5 x 87.5mm

    Hmm... seems you can save some weight now doesn't it?
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 19, 2004
  10. Clyde Torres

    andrew29 Guest

    Well, that's an opinion. However, you contend that Nikon don't use a
    full-frame sensor because they are unable to do so competitively.
    This is at variance with Nikon's stated reason. That doesn't mean
    you're wrong, of course.

    I do not believe that Nikon could not produce a full-frame camera if
    they wished to. However, it might not be profitable: I wonder if the
    1Ds is something of a loss leader for Canon.

    In any case, I suspect that the 1Ds is a small part of Canon's pro
    sales, and the question of full frame is not hugely imprtant to pro
    sales in general.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Aug 19, 2004
  11. 735g including batteries
    Lots, actually. Let's face it, the Canon 10D is the heaviest camera in
    its class: the Nikon D100 is lighter. But the real star is:

    Pentax *ist D: 650g INCLUDING BATTERIES, 129x95x60mm

    Sigma 18-50 EX DC f2.8: 445g, 74.1x84.1mm

    Of course, the users of the E-1 seem willing to put up with higher noise
    than the Pentax - if I run it at the same noise level as the E-1 (say one
    ISO stop) then I can use a still smaller, lighter lens.

    I was real keen on the idea of the E-1 - smaller sensor, lighter lenses,
    lighter camera. But I ended up with Pentax. I can (and have) buy it 50mm
    f1.4 and 35mm f2 lenses which are far more useful than the "standard pro
    lens" and which further reduce the weight. And it hasn't rained on a
    wedding or theatre shot in 16,500 pictures.

    --Sophie
     
    Sophie Wilson, Aug 19, 2004
  12. Point of note here, all weigts are listed without batteries. Where are you
    getting that weight? Just seems a little high there.
    The *ist D is a winner in this, and would have been listed as one level
    down... but Pentax has always done small and light, and like Oly, ends up
    being listed as a second tier manufacturer. I actually considered it:)
    How does it compare to Pentax standard zooms?
    It is slightly higher noise (not sure a full stop), I do not the range in
    shadows the E-1 pulls is an extra stop though. Depends on where you shoot.
    The Pentax is a nice camera.
    And every race I have been at has had mud and clay on my camera.
    Personally, the only wedding I am worried about is my own (gotta find a
    photog... and too picky). I expect some primes to be released within the
    year... as those Oly lenses are now the only zooms I own. That I do not
    like. I much prefer primes and withthe auto sensor cleaning, it would seem
    the perfect combination.

    In the end, all of the DSLRs currently in prouction are very effective...
     
    Robert Meyers, Aug 19, 2004
  13. Yet the E-1 isn't any lighter!
    He really isn't. It's just frustrating when people cite these great
    "features" of the 4/3rds format when, from a technology and usage
    perspective, they're utter crap.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
  14. Again, this is from your misunderstanding of the issue. I can take my
    10D, tweak the settings, shoot RAW+Extra Fine JPEG and do exactly what
    you say only the E-1 can do.
    Comparing apples and oranges again? Too bad the E-1 doesn't match the
    image quality of the 10D or the 1D Mark II.

    The 24-70L does have full environmental seals when used with the 1D Mark
    II, BTW.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
  15. Well, seeing as many pro's bitch about the crop factor on ALL dSLRs,
    it's odd Nikon would choose to alienate the wide-angle shooters - which
    comprise more of their clients than Canon's telephoto base would.
    With what they are charging, and what Kodak is charging for their
    competing product, I seriously doubt it's a loss leader.
    Actually, full frame is the largest reason my cousin (a Nikon shooter
    for 30 years) hasn't made the jump to digital. All of his lenses give
    him the expected field of view on his film camera, and he's got a decent
    enough scanner to get the results his clients need. He'd upgrade to
    digital for the cost savings, but Nikon doesn't offer a full-frame body.
    He's too stubborn and too close to retiring to switch to Canon, but
    would he buy a full-frame Nikon pro dSLR? He would and so would
    thousands of other photographers still shooting primarily 35mm film.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
  16. Please answer my question. Do yo think it would be better
    if I called the "different format" smaller?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 19, 2004
  17. ? --- I think we are in agreement.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 19, 2004
  18. Anyone can choose whatever he wish.

    The only thing I say is that the 4/3 format has no
    substantial advantage over a DSLR with a APS size
    sensor. The shorter distance from mounting to sensor
    gives you some small extra choice when designing
    lenses. Thats all.

    On the other hand it is the other way around. The 4/3
    formt has no substantial disadvantages either, other
    than excluding larger sensors.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 19, 2004
  19. That is not the same fov.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 19, 2004
  20. E-1 weight inc batteries from dpreview - I think its right: and of course
    its the weight that counts: noone will operate these things without
    batteries. Actually, insisting on all up weight puts the *ist D at a
    slight disadvantage since its AA batteries weigh more than LiIon cells.
    Very well indeed - as does the Sigma 18-50 DC f3.5-5.6 and 55-200 DC f4-
    5.6, Pentax DA 16-45 and Pentax DA 14. The point being that smaller and
    lighter high quality lenses for the 24x16mm sensor can be made just as
    easily as for the 18x13.5mm sensor. [Mind you, the Tamron 28-75 XR Di
    f2.8 is really nice too...]
    I'm pretty sure its at least full stop of extra noise - I looked
    extremely carefully at E-1 ISO800 and ISO1600 pictures before I bought
    the *ist D: they're like *ist D ISO400 and ISO800 pictures. [below ISO400
    who cares about the noise...]
    I don't suppose we're even on the same continent - but I'll do it if you
    want (with the *ist D!).
    Mmmmm. The full frame Kodaks and the Sigma SD10 are on my dubious list.
    The 300D/D70/D100/10D/S2/*ist D are virtually identical in quality and
    have a fairly close feature set. The E-1 is a little down (one stop -
    that's as small as photographers measure!) in quality due to the smaller
    sensor but has a different feature set. The D2H is in a little world of
    its own and the 1DMkII and 1Ds rule the roost but are far too heavy.

    --Sophie
     
    Sophie Wilson, Aug 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.