Olympus EVOLT E-300

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by leo, Dec 11, 2004.

  1. leo

    leo Guest

    This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
    newsgroup? The new Kodak CCD needs no micromirrors and price at $999.
     
    leo, Dec 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I had it in my hands today...
     
    Darrell Larose, Dec 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The 4/3 sensor doesn't appear to be going anywhere. The E1 has a little too
    much noise and a little too little sharpness. Olympus has already abandoned
    one format - 35mm SLR - orphaning a lot of Olympus OM / Zuiko users. Maybe
    they'll do it again?

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Dec 11, 2004
    #3
  4. This 8MP DSLR camera is about to be released. Why is it so muted in this
    It would be nice to like it, but for a few little things like-

    *Apparently lacks useful high-ISO capability. It seems to be more similar to
    a non-DSLR in this regard.

    *Limited lens choices (partly due to new format, partly due to small
    installed user base).

    *Lack of sales momentum. Its predecessor, the E1, wasn't exactly an
    overwhelming success.

    In a way, the E-300 looks like a DSLR version of a decent standard (non-SLR)
    camera, while what I think would set the market on fire would be a non-SLR
    camera with features usually found only in DSLRs (longer battery life,
    higher ISO with low noise, faster shot-to-shot times, better autofocus etc).

    Dang I'd love to add an E-300 to my Olympus collection; I've had great
    success with a D220, D340, D450Z, 3000, D40 and 5050. But I just don't see
    it happening; I need something that will do a better job in shooting sports
    (specifically bicycle racing) and there's no way to get around useful higher
    ISO and IS lenses. The Canon D20 still looks like the one to beat.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
    Mike Jacoubowsky, Dec 11, 2004
    #4
  5. leo

    TAFKAB Guest

    Some still doubt the market viability of the 4/3 system, and are waiting to
    see if the system get marketplace "traction." Right now, there's only one
    manufacturer of cameras, and two manufacturers (Oly and Sigma) for lenses.
    Also, the Oly cameras are always compared to the sub-frame (APS size sensor)
    offerings from Nikon, Canon, etc, and may not compare well.

    Personally, I hope the system succeeds. It is the only system designed for
    digital from the ground up, and has none of the shortcomings of the
    sub-frame cameras, like limited wide angle choices, etc. It may take some
    time to succeed, but my fingers are crossed.

    I was at Hunts (Melrose, MA, USA) today and got a look at the E-Volt, and it
    looked a little bigger than I expected. I'll be back there on Monday to try
    some test shots.
     
    TAFKAB, Dec 11, 2004
    #5
  6. leo

    Steve King Guest

    From our point of view, it's image stabilization. Now that the Monolta
    digital SLR has been released, the Olympus SLRs are the only big name
    cameras without it. Since we primarily do sports type shooting, we really
    have to go with the competition's image stabilized offerings, as much as
    we'd like to consider the E-1 and E-300. With the added cost of the Canon
    and Nikon stabilized lenses, we'll probably go Minolta, with its built-in
    image stabilization.

    Steve . . .
     
    Steve King, Dec 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Well I don't know how big of a name they have in the digital world, but Pentex
    is another DSLR vendor without image stabalization.

    Just to be sure we are the same page, image stabalization doesn't help in a lot
    of sports shooting at all, since it only deals with camera shake. You still
    need a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action, and until you get to the
    large focal lengths, such a speed will mean camera shake won't be as much of an
    issue.
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 11, 2004
    #7

  8. Yes. If you're using a shutter speed typical for an action sports shot, then
    image stabilization does nothing for you.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Dec 11, 2004
    #8
  9. leo

    Tony Guest

    Because the sensor is too small, the camera uses a completely new and
    therefore pointless lens mount so no one migrating to digital has any reason
    to even look at it, and it doesn't yet exist. Nobody cares about vapourware.
    They really don't care about vapourware that needs all new lenses. The yawn
    factor of a smaller than normal sensor is right up there even with interest
    in VCRs.

    --
    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 "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
     
    Tony, Dec 11, 2004
    #9
  10. leo

    TAFKAB Guest

    Uh, it's on the market at Hunt's in Melrose Massachusetts. It may or may not
    be a good camera, but it does exist.
     
    TAFKAB, Dec 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Because the sensor is too small, the camera uses a completely new and
    If you could make a smaller high-quality sensor (with similar performance to
    a full-size version), there ought to be advantages from downsizing the glass
    as well. Seems to me that would make for smaller, lighter lenses with
    similar equivalent focal lengths. But that could just show my ignorance of
    optics.

    --Mike Jacoubowsky
    Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReaction.com
    IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
     
    Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles, Dec 12, 2004
    #11
  12. leo

    Tony Guest

    Ther is no way you are going to improve upon the quality of the lenses
    enough to make up for the fact that as you approach a pinhole sharpness
    suffers, and the smaller the sensor (be it film or digital) the more
    enlargement necessary to have a viewable picture. There are systems on the
    market with more res AND larger sensors. Why pick something delibretly
    crippled.
    Olympus and Kodak are really into small - this is corporate idiocy (See
    the Disk camera and other Kodak disasters and the fabulous Pen F Olympus
    that did everything a full size 35mm did --- except produce a big enough
    negative. There have been other similar failures.
    --
    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 "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
     
    Tony, Dec 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
    []
    Yes, something sized between the top-end P&S sensors and the expensive
    "35mm" legacy-sized sensors would be welcome. However, the comments I've
    seen so far about the 4/3 system suggest that the sort of size, weight and
    bulk savings we both hope to see haven't yet been achieved.

    I do hope it succeeds, though, and brings about the financial benefits of
    a common lens mount.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 12, 2004
    #13
  14. leo

    Matti Vuori Guest

    Where do you need the comments? Just compare yourself the total bulk of the
    Olympus with the 200 mm lens and full size system with a lens giving the
    same view angle, that is, a 400 mm lens. Doesn't require a genius to figure
    out the difference.
     
    Matti Vuori, Dec 12, 2004
    #14
  15. I must confess to two things:

    - I haven't sat down and done the comparison myself, I am relying on the
    comments I have seen here.

    - I am including cost in my comparison, but I forgot to mention that.

    How does the 4/3 system compare in cost and weight with a DSLR using
    something like the following criteria:

    - 24 - 400mm (35mm equivalent) lens coverage (one or more lenses)
    - f/3.5 or better aperture throughout the range
    - image stabilisation (or VR) over the range 100 - 400mm
    - 6+ MP

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 12, 2004
    #15
  16. That's the wrong comparison. The 4/3 isn't competing with full-frame
    cameras, it's competing with APS-C sensor cameras. Anyone who wants a
    full-frame camera wants it for the image quality, and wouldn't bother
    thinking twice about a 4/3 camera.

    The 4/3 sensor is 18.0 x 13.5 mm as opposed to the 20D's 22.5 x 15 mm
    sensor. That's somewhere between a 1.111x and a 1.25x crop factor. Call it
    1.2x.

    So the 200 on the 4/3 camera is equivalent to a 240 on the 20D.

    That's not enough of an advantage to get all hot and bothered about.
    Basically, Olympus and their fans are lying about the crop factor.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 12, 2004
    #16
  17. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    Eh? There is /no/ crop factor on the 4/3 system. The 18 x 13.5mm is the
    full frame, and lenses are designed for that from scratch. It should
    /not/ be a case of using existing 35mm lenses at all.

    Unless I'm missing something?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 12, 2004
    #17
  18. I used the term "crop factor" instead of "focal length multiplier" (which I
    prefer) to avoid getting flamed by folks who object to the latter.

    Bad decision, I guess<g>.

    Whichever you prefer, the difference between the 1.6x and the 4/3 cameras is
    a lot smaller than the 4/3 fans claim.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 12, 2004
    #18
  19. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    David, there is /no/ crop factor. There is /no/ focal length multiplier.

    Unless I'm understanding it wrongly, lens for the 4/3 system are designed
    from scratch, and are not simply last century's 35mm lenses with a
    different mount. If they are, then they will not be taking advantages of
    the opportunities for size and weight savings offered by the 4/3 system.

    Yes, of course people do talk in terms of 35mm equivalent focal length
    because they are familiar with 50mm etc. However any terms which imply
    that the lenses were originally designed for a different format is, I
    think, misleading.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 12, 2004
    #19
  20. leo

    Tony Guest

    However it gives you an exact equivalent if you are coming from 35mm.
    The Olympus 24mm lens is equivalent to a 50mm normal etc. The math is simple
    and effective for anyone who started with 35mm. Although I doubt many 35mm
    users save for OM addicts are even interested in the 4/3rds system. It is
    literally too little too late.

    --
    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 "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

     
    Tony, Dec 12, 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.