Cephalotus
Senior Member
PS : please ignore my spelling errors, I forgot to read that posting before hitting the enter button...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Resolution and Survey
- Thread starter ALFREDUYB
- Start date
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Most people don't even KNOW the advantages to bigger sensors , what would have made the E1 popular would have been a sensible launch price, far less Ripoff accessories such as the ridiculous powergrip (no more functional than a £100 Canon BG-ED3, less well made and takes alien batteries), vastly overpriced TCs and Ext Tubes, remotes, Macro flashes etc only the FL36 is a bargain, the FL50 is merely average priced, the rest is laughable .. Personally I think the 14-54, 11-22 and 50-200 are very well priced but need Ultrasonic motors, the 50 macro needs to be a lot cheaper (UK)
Basically, it was the initial price and the continuing Oly trad of rip off accessories which stopped the E1 selling - it's the UZI all over again - a superb camera which is only gaining interest in at fire sale prices .
At the Consumer end, The E300 was too late and looks weird, it should have been out a year previously (even with a 6Mp CCD) and looked like the IST-DS at Current E300 prices I feel.. Most Consumers aren't interested in lens bases as they generally only ever used the Kit lens and they're unaware of sensor sizes too, they DO want a camea which looks nice and costs as little as possible, a big number on the front in Mp always helps, the E300 has only the latter. Basically the E300 was too damn ugly, too well made (which kept the initial price higher) and not widely available compared to the others . the E500 should sort all that !
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Jim Attfield
Senior Member
Jay Siegel quoted:
Jim
... I have been enjoying Erwin's take on this subject but throwaway lines like this one make me question his whole approach.
Jim
ALFREDUYB
Leading Member
If Oly go for APS-C sized sensor(which is only a bit bigger than 4/3) then it's lenses will have to be substantially bigger and more expensive if made to conform to telentricity.
According to Erwin Puts excellent article, telentricity require larger lenses. Oly lenses are large considering it has the smallest sized sensor for interchangeable lens dslr.
The biggest advantage of large sensor for now is the potential for higher signal to noise ratio which equate to lower noise at high iso. In time ( hopefully not too long though ) sensor technology will mature make it possible to have high signal to noise ratio from small sensor. While bigger sensor using the same technology will have an advantage, if we could get satisfactory result at iso 3200 with a small sensor who needs a bigger sensor even if it is a stop or two better.On second thought, perhaps a few will.
I feel Oly did a good job with the 4/3 system concept. It's just too original that even reviewes don't fully understand the concept. Original idea coming from a non market leader with poor marketing, there will surely be resistance.
According to Erwin Puts excellent article, telentricity require larger lenses. Oly lenses are large considering it has the smallest sized sensor for interchangeable lens dslr.
The biggest advantage of large sensor for now is the potential for higher signal to noise ratio which equate to lower noise at high iso. In time ( hopefully not too long though ) sensor technology will mature make it possible to have high signal to noise ratio from small sensor. While bigger sensor using the same technology will have an advantage, if we could get satisfactory result at iso 3200 with a small sensor who needs a bigger sensor even if it is a stop or two better.On second thought, perhaps a few will.
I feel Oly did a good job with the 4/3 system concept. It's just too original that even reviewes don't fully understand the concept. Original idea coming from a non market leader with poor marketing, there will surely be resistance.
ALFREDUYB
Leading Member
For low high iso noise, a good sensor must have a equally good image processing engine.
The most important reason people want a 36 x 24 sized sensor is to allow the use of their legacy lenses ( most can't accept or just in denial that their exotic and expensive wides has image quality issues with 36 x 24 sized sensor) the way it was meant to. Low high iso noise is secondary as you can get that now from a 20D or S2.
The most important reason people want a 36 x 24 sized sensor is to allow the use of their legacy lenses ( most can't accept or just in denial that their exotic and expensive wides has image quality issues with 36 x 24 sized sensor) the way it was meant to. Low high iso noise is secondary as you can get that now from a 20D or S2.
ALFREDUYB
Leading Member
agree with you. E1 at iso 400 is fine.
Why does a reviewer need to understand "the concept" to evaluate the images produced and the cost/value of the camera? It's probably hard to beat the value of the E-300 with the two-lens kit for $1200 for the two lenses I see discussed most often:
50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 at Beach for US$846
14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 several places for US$400
Which brings us to some of the problems that I see with the 4/3 system:
- Picture quality will always lag behind DSLR's with larger sensors.
- The system (camera + lenses) has to compete mainly on price.
- In general, competing on price dramatically reduces profit margins.
- The current picture quality isn't good enough to drive the majority of buyers into getting more lenses...which also reduces profits.
This nonsense was supposed to be:
It's probably hard to beat the value of the E-300 with the two-lens
kit for
ALFREDUYB
Leading Member
Why does a reviewer need to understand "the concept" to evaluate the images produced and the cost/value of the camera? It's probably hard to beat the value of the E-300 with the two-lens kit for $1200 for the two lenses I see discussed most often:
Because ordinary consumers rely on reviewers ( sometimes blindly) judgement as gospel truth. They do not bother to read the whole review-just the conclution ( best buy, tester choice, 5 stars etc.)
A reviewer that doesn't understand "the concept" will give a product a bad review turning away potential buyers.
A lot of reviewers do not know how to evaluate images is a fact. Most just rely on the specs.
Because ordinary consumers rely on reviewers ( sometimes blindly) judgement as gospel truth. They do not bother to read the whole review-just the conclution ( best buy, tester choice, 5 stars etc.)
A reviewer that doesn't understand "the concept" will give a product a bad review turning away potential buyers.
A lot of reviewers do not know how to evaluate images is a fact. Most just rely on the specs.
Cephalotus
Senior Member
What is "picture quality" ?
Noise ? Absolute resolution ?
That diffenernces you can only/mistly see at 100% view and how often do you enjoy your pictures in 100% view?
If you are a pixelpeeper who wants to create files and not pictures than the 100% view is all that counts, of course.
For me picture quality also belongs to:
- color
- vignetting
- dynamic range (especially handling of highlights)
- corner sharpness
- CAs / purple fringing
- distortion
- accurate focus
- bokeh
- flare
I do not see the noise difference at ISO 400 between a E-1 or a 20D when I look at the picture itself (for example on my projector even ISO 1600 files from my E-1 look amazingly well, a bit grainy, but that doesn't matter for me).
For me(!) those points are also very important for picture quality (for 99% of my shots more important than noise and absolute resolution) and I can not see any advantage of a 36mmx24mm sensor with Canon zoom lenses here over my E-1 with the F2,8-3,5 zooms.
Propably the bokeh could be better with 36x24mm.
kind regards
Do you have a list of links or examples of reviewers that either (1) relied on specs for their conclusions, (2) misevaluated the test images, or (3) gave a bad review because they didn't understand "the concept"? The reviews I've read are mostly favorable, but include the shortcomings of the camera:
DCResource:
The Olympus EVOLT E-300 is a very good digital SLR whose most impressive feature is its price. Okay, maybe the dust removal feature is up there too.....In addition, high ISO performance isn't quite as good as those cameras. But for $999 (with the lens) you get a heck of a camera.
DPReview
...the camera demonstrates good resolution (really pretty close to the EOS 20D), can produce some excellent results especially when shooting RAW, has nice punchy color and tone balance, has a wide range of image processing parameters (so you can get what you prefer). Most importantly it works well as a photographic tool and doesn't hinder your progress in actually capturing a moment....If you're a real stickler for image quality however you may wish to consider other cameras.
Imaging-Resource
The Olympus EVOLT E-300 digital SLR is entering an increasingly crowded d-SLR market, with aggressive price and feature competition among a number of manufacturers. With an 8-megapixel sensor, rugged build quality, and several unique features though, it will offer a good choice for many users.....The E-300's image quality is generally quite good, with pleasing color and image noise matching that of the competition at all but the highest ISO setting. Our biggest complaint about the camera was that its ESP exposure mode over-reacted to strong highlights near the center of the frame....
Steve's Digicams
The Olympus E-300 offers yet another choice for those shopping in the prosumer digicam/ amateur dSLR price range. For under $1200 you can get the E-300 with 14-45mm kit lens and an Olympus 40-150mm zoom, a package that covers an effective focal length range of 28-300mm. Its image quality, flexibility and viewfinder compete favorably with the high-end consumer digicams, and its scene modes offer the ease of use needed by less-experienced photographers. But while the E-300 competes well with the prosumer cameras, its performance lags its amateur dSLR competition, most notably in autofocus performance/flexbility and continuous shooting. What makes the E-300 stand out is its resolution; there's no other amateur dSLR offering 8-megapixels at the time of this review (February 2005).
That looks like a pretty good list....though for me, I couldn't care less about bokeh. While I stand by my original claim, it may be possible for the 4/3 system to develop such that the difference in PQ is not worth discussing. But for now, the 4/3 cameras on the market have some definite shortcomings. In addition to higher ISO performance that is discussed in every review, Imaging-Resource complained about blown highlights.
Bobby J
Veteran Member
After looking at this thread and reading the aforementioned articles and comments by some of the reviewers, I believe that the 4/3 system could go the way of the Pen FT. For pretty much the same reasons.
The Pen was an excellent camera and the lenses equally good, but at the time of its' introduction film technology had not developed to the point where image quality was remotely as good as full frame 35, and 1/2 frame never gained serious consideration by the reviewers, testers and most of all by the pros. I have a friend who has the whole system, still uses it and gets beautiful results with modern film. But he was years in getting film that would give him the results others had been getting for years already. Full frame still gives better results and always will.
I understand that Digital is not exactly like film but many will still think of it in the same way. The fact that no other manufacter has jumped on the 4/3 bandwagon is ominous I believe. If Panasonic should do so as has been implied it might give a huge boost to the format. I hope they do.
I think the market for 4/3 lies somewhere between digicams and "full sized" larger sensor cameras. It should be smaller and less expensive. It should be a low cost alternative to high dollar DSLRs and that is where I think Oly should cast its' bait. It'll be interesting to see what they do, but I don't think they have much time to do it. I love me E-1 and lenses,and I wouldn't part with them, but I don't think Oly can compete in the megabuck camera world with 4/3. I hope I'm wrong.
--
BJM
The Pen was an excellent camera and the lenses equally good, but at the time of its' introduction film technology had not developed to the point where image quality was remotely as good as full frame 35, and 1/2 frame never gained serious consideration by the reviewers, testers and most of all by the pros. I have a friend who has the whole system, still uses it and gets beautiful results with modern film. But he was years in getting film that would give him the results others had been getting for years already. Full frame still gives better results and always will.
I understand that Digital is not exactly like film but many will still think of it in the same way. The fact that no other manufacter has jumped on the 4/3 bandwagon is ominous I believe. If Panasonic should do so as has been implied it might give a huge boost to the format. I hope they do.
I think the market for 4/3 lies somewhere between digicams and "full sized" larger sensor cameras. It should be smaller and less expensive. It should be a low cost alternative to high dollar DSLRs and that is where I think Oly should cast its' bait. It'll be interesting to see what they do, but I don't think they have much time to do it. I love me E-1 and lenses,and I wouldn't part with them, but I don't think Oly can compete in the megabuck camera world with 4/3. I hope I'm wrong.
--
BJM
ALFREDUYB
Leading Member
Do you have a list of links or examples of reviewers that either (1) relied on specs for their conclusions, (2) misevaluated the test images, or (3) gave a bad review because they didn't understand "the concept"? The reviews I've read are mostly favorable, but include the shortcomings of the camera
I will give one example: Popular Photography commented on the lack of built in flash for the E1, but the thing is weather proof. They also mention 4/3 2 x crop factor in their "whats not " while in fact it doesn't apply since they use the entire image circle.
I will give one example: Popular Photography commented on the lack of built in flash for the E1, but the thing is weather proof. They also mention 4/3 2 x crop factor in their "whats not " while in fact it doesn't apply since they use the entire image circle.
DillonJames
Well-known member
See:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
CEvidenatlly you can peg the COC size to te pixel size, if desired. Also, there is a bug I think. So ignore the diffraction box, the Yes , or No, and see whether the Airy Disk diameter is greater than the COC. That's when diffraction sets in.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
CEvidenatlly you can peg the COC size to te pixel size, if desired. Also, there is a bug I think. So ignore the diffraction box, the Yes , or No, and see whether the Airy Disk diameter is greater than the COC. That's when diffraction sets in.
Therefore you must OWN that concept. have you tried selling it to Olympus yet?
I bet they would pay big bucks for this... ;-)
JW PHOTO
Senior Member
AdamT,
I could not have said it better myself! As for their better lenses? They are probably great, but I still don't think anyone should be calling them a bargain. You have to remember that Oly has always marketed their equipment this way and I think it comes from selling all that medical equipment to the medical industry. Those hospitals don't ask questions about price they just want to know if the product will do what they want it to do and buy it. I think Oly uses the same way of thinking with their camera division. The only difference is in the camera division is they have, what is called, competition and that's why you saw the fire sale race on the E300. I see no reason for the over inflated prices on accessories. I saw it on the E10 and E20 also. Over on the Canon forum they talked about Canon selling bodies cheap so we would buy all the accessories(mainly "L" series lenses) as that is where they were going to make their money. I never bought into that line of thinking.
JW
I could not have said it better myself! As for their better lenses? They are probably great, but I still don't think anyone should be calling them a bargain. You have to remember that Oly has always marketed their equipment this way and I think it comes from selling all that medical equipment to the medical industry. Those hospitals don't ask questions about price they just want to know if the product will do what they want it to do and buy it. I think Oly uses the same way of thinking with their camera division. The only difference is in the camera division is they have, what is called, competition and that's why you saw the fire sale race on the E300. I see no reason for the over inflated prices on accessories. I saw it on the E10 and E20 also. Over on the Canon forum they talked about Canon selling bodies cheap so we would buy all the accessories(mainly "L" series lenses) as that is where they were going to make their money. I never bought into that line of thinking.
JW
DillonJames
Well-known member
I don't think anyone agrred with me then.
If Olympus comes out with a Fovean-like sensor at around 6-8MP, with AS, then they'll have a massive hit IMO.
If Olympus comes out with a Fovean-like sensor at around 6-8MP, with AS, then they'll have a massive hit IMO.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
You could have a point there, but you'd think that they'd learn by now that people aren't (mostly) prepared to pay their rip off accessory prices (or the UK prices anyway) and would rather so without or find alternatives.. they MUST be able to see this by the massive number of FL36s they sell (a rare Oly bargain) as opposed to E1 Grips (total ripoff and uses a dedicated battery instead of 2 BLM1s) or stuff like the hideously overpriced extension tube and off shoe cord (canon ones work BTW) etc..
It was more the E1 I was thinking than the E300 regarding the fire sale, the camera was £1700 new when it came out and it can be had with a lens (the 14-45) for £570 now. The UZI was the same, started out at nearly £1000 and was sold off at £250.. The E300 business I feel was more down to pressure from the other budget DSLRs whereas the E1 sale is stock clearance I feel.. I don't care as like the UZI, I bought one at the bargain price and frankly don't care if they release an E3 tomorrow... Unless it's £570 with a lens of course, which is highly unlikely ;-) .
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
JW PHOTO
Senior Member
I took note of the Canon off camera cord when you made the post sometime back. I think most of us camera buffs are being short changed as of late. Back in the mid-60's and up into the 80's we had all kinds of third party vendors willing to sell us what we wanted from the camera manufactures, but couldn't afford. Some of the items were as good as Canon, Nikon, Pentax and some weren't. Now, it seems like the camera companies are making it much harder for the third party companies to make items that are compatible with brand name cameras. Olympus is no exception.
I understand your comments about the E1 pricing, but believe the E300 is a good example of a good camera, just not good enough to compete with the big guys. If Olympus wants to really compete it is going to have to bend over backwards for its customers and try to entice newcomers to climb onboard. Or maybe it just doesn't care, as much as Canon, about it share in the market place.
JW
I understand your comments about the E1 pricing, but believe the E300 is a good example of a good camera, just not good enough to compete with the big guys. If Olympus wants to really compete it is going to have to bend over backwards for its customers and try to entice newcomers to climb onboard. Or maybe it just doesn't care, as much as Canon, about it share in the market place.
JW
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum