Olympus E-1 Digital

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

  1. Clyde Torres

    Steven Wandy Guest

    4/3rds is passable today - but will it be a year from now?
    Passable???? By whose criteria? Most people (whether amateurs, advanced
    amateurs or pros) who have used the camera are very happy and satisfied with
    the results from the camera.
    Steven Wandy, Aug 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Clyde Torres

    Steven Wandy Guest

    So .. lots of wedding photographers used
    But would they have continued with the Olympus line if they (1) were unhappy
    with the cameras or (2) their clients were unhappy with the resulting
    Steven Wandy, Aug 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Why should they be unhappy?

    All three are good cameras.

    Roland Karlsson, Aug 19, 2004
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 19, 2004
  5. Clyde Torres

    Steven Wandy Guest

    I agree (having previously owned the E10 and now the E1). I was responding
    to an earlier poster who was trying to explain that wedding photographers
    ran to the E series because they were relatively inexpensive DSLR's.
    Steven Wandy, Aug 19, 2004
  6. That sounds... PASSABLE!
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
  7. Which still don't give you absurdly huge FOV. If you want your existing
    wide angles to be wide, you need full frame.
    Of course, the Kodak DCS 14n is full frame in the Nikon mount. It also
    isn't appropriate to the type of shooting my cousin does. It isn't
    built as well as a pro body should be and it has some annoying quirks
    that make it difficult to justify ditching film for it.
    He'd gladly pay $8000 to Nikon if they got their act together. What
    part of that don't you understand?
    Why bother using low-end DX lenses which tend no to be ultrafast pro
    quality lenses when you've ALREADY got perfectly good wide angles zooms
    and primes sitting around from when you bought them ten years ago?
    And still not get 35mm quality? Pass.
    But the 300D and 10D aren't "pro" cameras. They are consumer cameras
    targeted at a less discriminating buyers. The 1D Mark II is acceptable
    to many because the 1.3x crop factor is less egregious to them than the
    1.6x factor on the 10D and 300D.
    Well, can the E-1 because of the limited nature of the lens mount and
    I'd agree with you.
    I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, Canon certainly
    is putting much more emphasis on innovation, and the 1Ds and 1D Mark II
    are evidence of this. Since technology does tend to, if I may borrow a
    cliche, "trickle down", Canon's future consumer models are likely to
    continue the tradition of being ahead of the game. If full frame WILL
    be achieved at an affordable price point, it certainly won't be from the
    company that writes it off entirely - Nikon.
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 19, 2004
  8. Nope. But it is the "standard zoom" for either. Now that canon has
    annouced some more effective we shall see. Note: I hate the distortion of
    the 17-40L, tried it, hated. But, I am kinda picky, and some people rave
    about it. The big problem is, FoV, there is no comparable canon lens
    currently out.
    Robert Meyers, Aug 20, 2004
  9. That I disagree with, as you know. I have used both.
    You are correct, the 28-70L was not, and that was an assumption. Very few
    lenses by canon are.
    Robert Meyers, Aug 20, 2004
  10. I gotta find a postage scale, the darn things don't seem to weigh much of
    The funny part of this is, the second lens you listed is being released for
    the four thirds (E-1) standard as well. The Tamron, I just sold to my
    Cousin (along with my Elan 7). It is very nice.
    Here is where you get a trick played. Take a comparative shot from each.
    Shoot the E-1 at 400 and the *IstD at 800. Use shadow / highlight recovery.
    They will end out about the same. You can pull a little more shadow
    recovery from the E-1 than it's contemporaries, but it is really just range.
    This gives an illussion. Either camera though, I would noise filter
    anything above 100 ISO (always do), just because, and the end results the
    same from just about every camera on the market.
    CA, USA? Maybe?
    Oddly, I checked out every camera on that list save the 1D2, Kodaks and SD10
    prior to buying my E-1. Could not afford the 1Ds, but it is neat to play
    with... and the buffer was not acceptable for my use. The only one I
    actually, totally disliked was the D2H. It seemed slow. At everything.
    Weird. Figure something was probably off... but not a good demo. I was
    ready to put the money down on it. The next day I dropped a little more on
    a full E-1 kit. One thing though, every photo I have seen in an ad for the
    SD10 looked artificial. Yuck. Now my dream is a full frame Contax G
    digital (MM would be ok, but just).
    Robert Meyers, Aug 20, 2004
  11. I was similarly surprised when I picked up the Sigma 170-500 - it just
    doesn't seem to weigh as much as the scales say!

    But kudos to Canon - the 20D is a lot lighter - weighs less with battery
    than the 10D did without (770g with).
    Yeah - Olympus recognise good lenses when they see them and the Sigma DCs
    are coming the E-1's way.
    Nope. The noise in the shadows on the E-1 at 400 is the same as the *istD
    at 800, the noise in the midtones on the E-1 at 400 is worse than the
    *ist D at 800. And I can shoot at 800 with no noise filtering at all (my
    copy of NeatImage simply doesn't get used!) - the camera basically gets
    left there. ISO1600 noise on the *ist D doesn't show up on 7.5x5" prints.
    And it will do ISO3200...
    Well, I'll be in Palo Alto tomorrow... (without the *ist D - its a
    business trip). But I'm in the UK. Could be tricky!
    I don't know what Nikon are going to do with the D2H: the 1DMkII is a
    daunting competitor.

    And yes, the SD9/SD10 images look wrong. A worse wrongness than Velvia in
    the colours, something very weird in the textures. Can't imagine why
    people buy them!

    Sophie Wilson, Aug 20, 2004
  12. Clyde Torres

    andrew29 Guest

    They may well bitch about it, but people bitch about all kinds of
    things. It doesn't mean that the issue has a huge impact on the
    Perhaps. I'd be interested to know what the volumes are.

    An aside: do you really seriously think that the 14n competes with the
    Well, hold on now. I'm not going to dispute that the full-frame issue
    matters to some people, and it might be in the thousands. But could
    full-frame really be the key to dominance in the pro digital market,
    when only a small proportion of Canon pro digital cameras are

    The only way this can be plausible is that camera manufacturers need
    to have a "flagship" product that few own but whose mere existence
    gives owners of lesser products a warm fuzzy feeling.

    andrew29, Aug 20, 2004
  13. Clyde Torres

    andrew29 Guest

    Well, that depends on how absurd you want to be, I guess. 12mm on a
    1.5 sensor is much the same as 17mm on 35mm. I grant you that f/4
    doesn't do the job, though.
    This is a circular argument. You're assuming your conclusion: that
    full-frame really is desirable and important.

    andrew29, Aug 20, 2004
  14. Clyde Torres

    Chris Brown Guest

    Hey, leave Velvia out of it! Unlike the SD*, you get more than one shade of
    green with Velvia, and anyway, some of us *like* those colours, you know. ;->
    Chris Brown, Aug 20, 2004
  15. I count about 18, all of them the top 'L' glass.
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
  16. Well, considering that most photographers DESIRE full frame but can't
    afford it, that makes it important.
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
  17. Clyde Torres

    Nick C Guest

    I considered getting the 1Ds before the 1D MkII hit the market. But I waited
    until the 1D MkII became available. The difference between paying about
    $7,000 for the 1Ds and about $4,500 for the 1D MkII weighed on me for a
    while but in the end I opt to buy the 1D MkII for $4,100 through my local
    camera store. Primarily because I know pro's who have the MkII and are more
    than happy to have it. At first there were reservations concerning one
    having a full frame sensor and the other having a slightly smaller sensor
    but now that I've taken several hundred pictures with the 1D MkII, the 1.3
    factor of the 1D MkII has become inconsequential.

    There is so much going for the MkII that for the first time, I've become
    impressed with the performance and the usefulness of having a digicam.
    However, I still have my Nikon gear and still scan negs, but I repeat, the
    MkII is indeed a very impressive tool. If one uses a MkII for a days
    shooting, I do think it will have the effect of ... Gotcha. :)

    I recently used the MkII to photograph the ghost town Bodie. I was there a
    couple of days taking pictures of the remnants of the town. For the first
    time, I did not miss not having my Nikon gear.

    Nick C, Aug 21, 2004
  18. Umm... where? Not all the white bodied lenses are. In fact, it seems very
    few of them are. Hell, the 70-200, neither are listed as weather proofed...
    and those are about the most comon lenses I have seen in Canon.
    Robert Meyers, Aug 21, 2004
  19. Ok, it's 10 lenses, but there are THREE 70-200 lenses, the best of which
    is sealed.

    Canon EF 16 - 35 mm F2.8L USM
    Canon EF 17 - 40 mm F4.0L USM
    Canon EF 24 - 70 mm F2.8L USM
    Canon EF 28 - 300 mm F3.5 - F5.6L IS USM
    Canon EF 70 - 200 mm F2.8L IS USM
    Canon EF 300 mm F2.8L IS USM
    Canon EF 400 mm F2.8L IS USM
    Canon EF 400 mm F4.0 DO IS USM
    Canon EF 500 mm F4.0L IS USM
    Canon EF 600 mm F4.0L IS USM

    Add to that the extenders 1.4x and 2x and you are really hard pressed to
    need anything else.
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 21, 2004
  20. And only one under a thousand dollars. Very nice. By the way, you do
    realize that EVERY oly lens is, even though they have yet to release many?
    Oh, and all but one are under a thousand. That always frustrated me, I
    would end up with a baggy over my lens (have an EOS 3).
    Robert Meyers, Aug 22, 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.