E-20 review: Olympus dropped the ball

Jono Slack said:

After all - 35mm was designed as the optimum size of film to
produce a useable compact camera - everything else followed from
this.

Click to expand...

Well, Jono ... not to split hairs, but that is not exactly the way it happened. 35mm film was designed as a movie film and was around for years before the 35mm still camera was invented. The fim dates back to the late 1800s ... Oskar Barnack producted the first useable 35mm still camera in 1925. We must be extremely careful to be extremely accurate here in the forum! God forbid any bulllshit be posted here!!! HAA!

Randall said:

Why would a "pro" need a larger buffer? I have earned my living
(meger at times) as pro since 1972 and have no prssing need for a
larger buffer. It depends on your shooting style and what you
shoot. The E10 has been a plus for business and the E20 will add a
little more. It seems many people or wanting at $7000 camera for
$2000 and then would gripe because it cost more then a thousand.
Yes the E20, and any other digital camera has limits, but for I
plsn to use it for it fits my needs. If does not work for you buy a
different camera.

Randall

Click to expand...

Chill out Randall, I'm just pointing out comon knowledge, you are entitled to disagree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that most pros need larger buffer, and faster write times. Another severe limitation for the e10/20 is that you have to wait for all the files in the buffer to be written to the card before you can access the menu or make any changes, or view previews. This is frustrating when trying to keep up with action and you need to check your work or make changes quickly. Eventually you will have to wait for the camera to finish its writing. Luckily I do not have to rely on the e10/20 for pro work as I also have a d1x and d1h. I use the e10 for recreational stuff so its not a big problem but can still be frustrating at times. While its true every camera has limits, these are very cruscial and very basic, and if Oly seriously wanted to place the e20 in a true pro group could have imporved on this. I am not slamming the E series, just calling as it is. If these limitations do not interere with your work, then your lucky. Obviously you have never experienced the joy of a top of the line DSLR. The difference is nite and day. As for pro's prior to digitals, as you say you were since 1972. You didn't need a buffer back then. There was only film no digital, your only limitations was how fast the camera (or you) could advance to the next shot. Even with a full manual everything camera. It would be faster then waiting for a small buffer, and slow writing DSL. Even then pro's opted for motorized film winders to speed. Things really improved with AF and faster lenses, and program modes. All resulting in less missed shots. The D1's and Kodak DCS's are all as fast as top of the line 35mm cameras. The d30 has been critisied for being too slow, yet its twice as fast as the e10 except for its AF, the 10 wins there.

So you don't have to advise pros that if the 10/20 isn't for them they should get another camera. They already know that.

Regards,
Jim K

randall lewter said:

Jim K said:

Sorry for the double posts, damn "Microsoft VBScript runtime "
occurred and I lost the page. I didn't realize the first post went
through.

JK

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

poster said:

Well, Jono ... not to split hairs, but that is not exactly the way
it happened. 35mm film was designed as a movie film and was around
for years before the 35mm still camera was invented.

Click to expand...

------------------------------------------
True . . .

And this supports Jono's point. 35mm film was first and the ideal camera to take advantage of it was developed.

4/3 inch sensor was first and the ideal camera to take advantage of it is being developed.

Bill

Hi Dave

Try this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0104/01042701newolykodakslr.asp

should give you some more info

kind regards
jono slack

DMillier said:

Jono

I keep hearing references to this joint project on this forum but
is there an official announcement or futher details on the web
anywhere?

ta

Dave

Click to expand...

Oh though great splitter of hairs

I apologise - from inaccuracy is the bane of us all

grovel grovel

But I'd still maintain that it took off as the defacto standard for small cameras as it was the right size.

So I think my point stands

don't you?



jono

poster said:

Jono Slack said:

After all - 35mm was designed as the optimum size of film to
produce a useable compact camera - everything else followed from
this.

Click to expand...

Well, Jono ... not to split hairs, but that is not exactly the way
it happened. 35mm film was designed as a movie film and was around
for years before the 35mm still camera was invented. The fim dates
back to the late 1800s ... Oskar Barnack producted the first
useable 35mm still camera in 1925. We must be extremely careful to
be extremely accurate here in the forum! God forbid any bulllshit
be posted here!!! HAA!

Click to expand...

I get a good few E10 shots with CA. Usually more easily seen on objects on the left or right side of an image - eg edges of chimneys. It seems to be due to how light reflects off rounded edges and hits the lens/CCD. I note too the the type of day seems to affect it as does the Sun's position. I wonder, does where one lives affect this?

Sometimes, I can see quite bad CA in the vf before takling the shot and then when viewing the shot on screen it is not there! Weird. I have also noticed that on very rare occasions, I get a shot in whch the full left side of the image (about 3cm wide) has a purplish cast - CA. I noticed this on another E10 I tried and returned.

On this seeing and not seeing, I tried a Canon teleconverter. In the vf the converter showed minimal vignetting and the shots looked focused. However, when viewed onscreen, the vignetting was absolutely awful and the shots were completely out of focus. I am puzzled. Is not SLR wysiwyg? This then is not so...

I must add that overall there is very little CA on the E10. I tried a G1 beofre the E10 and it was riddled with it. It seemed to take every opportunity to show it.

The difference in CA between the E10 an E20 can be seen in Phil's CA test shots. In those there IS more on the E20 than E10. But as we know it does not appear in all shots.

I reckon more pixels in the same size CCD leads to more CA (more pixels affected by any CA present) and a softening of the image - since it goes beyond the lens' resolution which we were so often told was designed for 4MP CCD.

Blokey

Dr. Gonzo said:

DMillier said:

Agree with most of this - E20 looks like a stop gap.

One point thoough: Had my E10 for just over 3 weeks now and I took
one shot which was a well lit landscape with the bare branches of a
dead tree pushing down from the top of the frame sillouetted
agianst the sky. When I printed it to 10*8 i noticed that close
around the sharp edges of the branches was a purplish 'glow' or
ghosting. I assume this is the chromatic abberration and if so it
was very obvious in the shot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jono Slack said:

But I'd still maintain that it took off as the defacto standard for
small cameras as it was the right size.

So I think my point stands

don't you?

Click to expand...

Yep ... I can buy that. The film was not "developed" as the standard but became the standard because it was the film of choice for the camera. Damn ... I knew I would work it out eventually!

koo22 said:

Owen, you are taking this one person's comment as gospel. Please
keep reading...there are many threads here with links to albums of
photos that we have posted in the last few days. Look at those
images and examine for yourself. We now know Phil's review left
out a number of positive things about the E20. On my Photopoint
album there is one shot with CA. I will let you find it.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1331074&a=13930556

Click to expand...

I still say the photo of the Robotussin bottle shows a focus problem. The front is fuzzy the sides are sharper

Errol

HI Errol - I certainly agree with you about the focus point

But whether it represents a focus problem - only Koo can know - but it does say it's handheld, and I've had that problem - do your focusing - sway forwards a little as you press the shutter and voila (especially if you've drunk some of the stuff first)



kind regards
jono slack

Errol M. Gibbs said:

koo22 said:

Owen, you are taking this one person's comment as gospel. Please
keep reading...there are many threads here with links to albums of
photos that we have posted in the last few days. Look at those
images and examine for yourself. We now know Phil's review left
out a number of positive things about the E20. On my Photopoint
album there is one shot with CA. I will let you find it.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1331074&a=13930556

Click to expand...

I still say the photo of the Robotussin bottle shows a focus
problem. The front is fuzzy the sides are sharper

Errol

Click to expand...

Thanks Jono.

I canceled my order from Dell, but mainly because they changed the ship date from 11/2 to 11/28, as expected acording to numerous posts, so I have my old boss sending me one out Monday at a great price. I'll go for it. I believe (and will find out soon enough if I'm right) that it will be the best camera value/per $ for now, to hold me over until Canon releases their next camera after the 1D with 6 MP geared less for photojournalists/sports shooter and more for studio shooters.
I just can't wait any longer for a "pro' digital, so looks like this is it.

Maybe by the time the Canon I'm dreaming about comes out, I'll be able t afford it too On that note, I can't wait to put this new one to work. I'll have it bfore the end of next week.

Thanks again.

Regards

Owen

Jono Slack said:

I think the early blasting was as a response to Phil's review
(which isn't that bad if you read it carefully). Phil compared the
noise with the D30 rather than competing D7 and F707 - which didn't
look good, he also failed to discuss a lot of new features and
concentrated on the fact that OLY hadn't upped the size of the
buffer and the write speeds (which is relevant if you do lots of
sport).

The new ps mode with fast shutter speeds and a larger buffer looks
tacky if you zoomin on screen (jaggies) - but I've done some A4
prints from these very samples, and they look pretty good to me.

There are two points at which it is worse than the E10

1. CA - it would appear that there is more CA under some
circumstances - but in most cases there doesn't seem to be any at
all. I was worried about this to start with, but I've seen enough
shots with no CA to be reasonably happy.

2. Disc write times are slower (due to larger file sizes) this
means that if you have taken 4 shots in quick succession you'll
have to wait longer before taking the next one. Personally I
couldn't care less, but this depends on what you're doing (you can
always use ps where you get 7 shots).

advantages include
1. better resolution
2. faster review times
3. better P mode in flash
4. Pixel mapping
5. better focusing (some say)

there's more - can't remember

Me - I'm certainly keeping my order in - it looks like a great
digicam to me.

hope this helps - if you're worried look at the samples by:
Koo22
David Weikel
Brian Mackey

good luck
kind regards
jono slack

Owen West said:

If this latest feedback proves true, I will cancel and then be
really dissapointed. I need a good digital, but can't quite spend
the $6000 on the new Canon EOS 1D, and have a hard time justifying
the price of their D30 for the megapixel size. WHat now???

Jake said:

Dr. Gonzo said:

Chromatic aberrations -- I don't know if this is a CCD issue or a
lens issue (what's the story with that lens anyway, Phil says it is
the identical lens, however the E-20 lens pulls more resolution

Click to expand...

The E-20 produces CA in almost every picture that I inspected,
but some pictures are nearly unusable, because of it.
I think it must be the lens, since the DiMAGE 7 has the same sensor,
and the pictures it produces are better than the E-20 pictures.
The E-20s vissible stepping in edges are likely the result of
out-of-date image processing technique, not the lens.

Jake.

Jono Slack said:

--
(A disappointed, but not surprised) Dr. G.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm feeling better and awaiting anxiously again. (see post further down)

Jim K said:

Owen West said:

Could those of you blasting the E20 who have real knowledge please
clarify, what is changed about the E20 that makes it WORSE THAN the
E10? I ordered my E20, but I can still cancel, so this naturally
concerns me. "CA in almost every picture" is scary, and I agree
unacceptable, but why would the E20 have this where the E10
doesn't? Is the CCD completely different, as in from a different
manufacturer??? What else?

Click to expand...

I believe its mostly disappointmet. We had hoped for more
improvements.
Larger buffer, faster write times, less noise, better focusing
screen, faster shutter speeds.

Oly did give us faster shutter speeds but only in progressive scan
which is in reduced resolution. And they did provide a really good
quality 5MP camera.

It seems there is some bayering (stair steping, jaggies) in some
instances, not present on the e10, and apperently more CA (chromic
Abrasions) also known as purple flairing in some highlights.

I just got the e20 tonite and have done very little comparisons
with my e10, and have no definate opinions on the bayering or CA as
of yet. I did notice that the resolution is noticably better on the
e20, also it seems the dynamic range is better. I did notice a
little bit of CA at close examination, however it was also present
on my e10 shots too. I did notice 1 example of bayering but at 200%
magnification, and only in one example so far. I plan on taking
some outside pictures tomorrow.

Another interesting observation I made was I think the AF is faster
and more accurate then the e10, and ISO 160 seems to be more usable
on the e20.

I wouldn't be affraid of getting the e20. There definately isn't
any big surprises or show stoppers here. Alot of it is critical,
and common knowledge (slow write speeds, etc). Most of it is
basically disappointment that Oly didn't give us more of what we
hoped for.

Take Care,
Jim K

Jim K53618 said:

If this latest feedback proves true, I will cancel and then be
really dissapointed. I need a good digital, but can't quite spend
the $6000 on the new Canon EOS 1D, and have a hard time justifying
the price of their D30 for the megapixel size. WHat now???

Jake said:

Dr. Gonzo said:

Chromatic aberrations -- I don't know if this is a CCD issue or a
lens issue (what's the story with that lens anyway, Phil says it is
the identical lens, however the E-20 lens pulls more resolution

Click to expand...

The E-20 produces CA in almost every picture that I inspected,
but some pictures are nearly unusable, because of it.
I think it must be the lens, since the DiMAGE 7 has the same sensor,
and the pictures it produces are better than the E-20 pictures.
The E-20s vissible stepping in edges are likely the result of
out-of-date image processing technique, not the lens.

Jake.

Jim K53618 said:

--
(A disappointed, but not surprised) Dr. G.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Gonzo for more good info. If you see my other responses, I was probaly just haveing initial shock/paranoia after ordering and then seeing negativity, and have one on it's way (not from Dell though).

Dr. Gonzo said:

Owen West said:

Could those of you blasting the E20 who have real knowledge please
clarify, what is changed about the E20 that makes it WORSE THAN the
E10? I ordered my E20, but I can still cancel, so this naturally
concerns me. "CA in almost every picture" is scary, and I agree
unacceptable, but why would the E20 have this where the E10
doesn't?

Click to expand...

Good question. The other question is whether that changed any
between preproduction and production cameras. Personally I don't
think so, but on the plus side in most photos the CA doesn't seem
to be a big problem. However in the ones that have it, the E-20 CA
is something awful. But then, too, the E-20 has 25% more pixels
than the E-10, so a 8-pixel wide patch of CA in the E-10 would
print at about the same size as a 10-pixel wide patch in the E-20.

Dr. Gonzo said:

Is the CCD completely different, as in from a different
manufacturer???

Click to expand...

I am fairly sure it is. The E-20 CCD seems to be a Sony. No one has
yet figured out what is in the E-10, but it seems likely that if it
were a company in the consumer market (i.e. the non-full-pro SLR
market) it would have released its own 4 MP model shortly after
(for example, the way Sony released its 707 after the D7). Thus my
suspicions are that it was made by Kodak or perhaps Olympus itself.

Dr. Gonzo said:

What else?

Click to expand...

Don't know. There have been several other changes, but the
information was not in Phil's review, and Olympus isn't that
forthcoming.

Dr. Gonzo said:

If this latest feedback proves true, I will cancel and then be
really dissapointed. I need a good digital, but can't quite spend
the $6000 on the new Canon EOS 1D, and have a hard time justifying
the price of their D30 for the megapixel size. WHat now???

Click to expand...

If the cost issue is a big deal to you, and the E-20 seems like a
risky investment, now is a GREAT time to get an E-10. I CAN vouch
for the quality of images (e.g. nearly CA-free) of the E-10.

But do yourself a favor and browse the images people have been
posting from their E-20s. It does seem to have subtantially bettery
detail resolution.

Dr G.

Click to expand...

I usually know to try and "read between the lines". Missed this though.

I'll post some shots soon which I think might help.

William C said:

Did anyone click on Jake name to find out how
long he has been on this forum.

Why not just point to Owen that this is the first time
Jake every posted anything here and you doubt
very much has an E-20. If he has one then he might
not know how to used it.

Or better yet experts!!!!!

"He might have just posted this to tweak us E-10/E-20 user."

No, the real experts have to go down the path to give a
informative explanation for the 10th time on the same thing.

Just adds to the confusion because I believe Jake is not an
expert on any camera here!!!

My two cents.

Bill

Click to expand...

Speaking of needs, I can't wait to use my new E20 in the studio as a "Polaroid" test, even when I still shoot film. It's no wonder Polaroid is in Bankruptcy. I refused to get a Polaroid back fro quite a while because I was anticipating having a digital to do the same hjob.

Randall said:

Randall

Jim K said:

Sorry for the double posts, damn "Microsoft VBScript runtime "
occurred and I lost the page. I didn't realize the first post went
through.

JK

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Scream!

Jason Busch said:

Dr. Gonzo,

That's what it feels like anyway.
My toes are throbbing.

Jason Busch

Click to expand...

like i said all along........i'll wait for the next generation and keep my e-10
heck i kept my om2 for 20 years!

Jim K said:

Gonzo I agree with you here. Unfortunately this upgrade was pretty
much a quickie to get a 5MP on the shelves in time for sake of
keeping up with the pack. Unlike the E10, it seems very little
real thought went in to the design on the E20. The only thought I
can see is, "now how can we produce a 5MP version of the e10 and
cut our production costs at the same time?", in which case oly was
successful in their goal.

Dr. Gonzo said:

It's not like we didn't half see this coming, but Olympus really
did blow something good with the E-20. Folks, get your E-10 orders
in now because there is going to be a major run on them very soon.
My random ramblings:

I am starting to think that Sony CCD just sucks. At 5 megapixels in
a 2/3 package, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that it does.

Click to expand...

I agree, but can't help feeling it could be a little better then
this one. The noise here is about the same as the d7!

Jim K53618 said:

Lack of a larger buffer is totally inexcusable. Something HAD to be
done about the write times on the E-20 to keep its edge; of all the
options available the buffer bump might have been the cheapest
"solution". In fact, a buffer bump can really smooth over a lot of
other taller engineering hurdles. No camera ever suffers from a
larger buffer.

Click to expand...

This was sinply a quick upgrade at the lowest cost for OLY!!!

Jim K53618 said:

The reduced LCD coverage -- my GOD, what are they thinking? When
you're dealing with the LCD, that 100% frame view if nothing else
is going to help you minimize the frustration Phil encountered in
slow shot-to-shot ... and they reduce it TO 87% ?!?!?!?

Click to expand...

This was sinply a quick upgrade at the lowest cost for OLY!!!

Jim K53618 said:

Chromatic aberrations -- I don't know if this is a CCD issue or a
lens issue (what's the story with that lens anyway, Phil says it is
the identical lens, however the E-20 lens pulls more resolution
than the E-10 lens [so he seems to suggest]) Anyway CA SUCKS ...
and will really diminish the quality of the TCON-300, let alone the
TCON-314 combo IMHO. And certain types of shots will definitely
suffer. Image 15 and 19 are ATROCIOUS. Image 18 isn't so hot
either. The E-10 has virtually no CA!

Click to expand...

I believe the extra 1MP on the same chip had some to do with
this, still I can't help feeling that very little R&D was done on
the e20, and it could have been a lot better then this!

Jim K53618 said:

I think the progressive mode "skipped field" explanation Phil
offered is inaccurate... however the truth, if I understand it
correctly, is much uglier. Bottom line is that the progressive mode
is hardly accpetable, and I don't think I'd consider it usable.

Click to expand...

This could be the only saving grace for the e20, and if this fails,
well...

Jim K53618 said:

The E-20 is a lateral move from the E-10, no other real way to put
it. The review is based on a pre-production camera (and seems to
have a little bit of an identity crisis, calling itself a REview at
times and a PREview at others), but I don't expect that most of
these major glitches can be ironed out before production. I suppose
one could hope.

Click to expand...

I don't think Oly will change much.

Jim K53618 said:

Olympus really seems to have shot their wad with the E-10, in terms
of this type of camera. Perhaps the Kodympus SLR is receiving more
attention than we know about. The fact that the E-20 cannot clearly
be classed as "better than the E-10" is a major failure on Oly's
part, IMO.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. This was a quick lets get a 5MP model out there as
fast and cheap as we can with next to zero R&D.

The E10 is definitely the one to get! Stock up people, they will be
in high demand!

Jim K.

Jim K53618 said:

--
(A disappointed, but not surprised) Dr. G.

P.S. FL-40 flash listing -- I saw it both in the E-10 and E-20
listed as "coming with hand-grip bracket" or something. What
exactly does that mean? My retail-box FL-40 didn't come with
anything but a wide-angle lens add-on.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...