Checked out The New E3

Huh??

stimmer said:

It's still smaller than a D200,etc.

Click to expand...

Weight (inc. batteries)
D200: 920 g (32.5 oz)
E-3: 880 g (20.0 oz)
Dimensions
D200: 147 x 113 x 74 mm (5.8 x 4.5 x 2.9 in)
E-3: 142 x 116 x 75 mm (5.6 x 4.6 x 3 in)

--
If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?

Joe B T said:

“I got in 3 and you’re holding the last one.”

Click to expand...

I got the first one and I love it!

I'm not sure if you spoke to Dave, the owner, but he was going to take the E3 with the new 50-200, as well as the D300 with his fast (300 maybe?) Nikon lens to shoot the football game last night. He normally uses a D2X so I am interested to find out how he likes the E3.

He was actually hoping for rain to really show it off.

short backstory:

I picked up an E-330 with the 11-22 for real estate photography based on lurking on this forum. Thanks by the way, it's been great and I use live view all the time.

The only other lens I had was a 40-150 refurb (it was getting frustrating trying to shoot the 4 fox cubs in the yard last spring with the 11-22).

The articulating LCD (and cost) was the clincher when deciding to stay with Olympus or another brand. I only wish it was 3" but that will probably be on the next model. It would help to check for straight verticals.

So I'm sticking with Olympus and getting more glass. The reason the 35 was on the one in the store is because I took the 50 f2 macro on Wednesday (that's great fun). I'm getting the 12-60 when they come in next week.

Next I will finally get the 7-14 for real estate, and one day probably the 50-200.

ljclark said:

Huh??

Click to expand...

certainly is - it's the same as an E1 bar the pentaprism:

ljclark said:

stimmer said:

It's still smaller than a D200,etc.

Click to expand...

Weight (inc. batteries)
D200: 920 g (32.5 oz)
E-3: 880 g (20.0 oz)
Dimensions
D200: 147 x 113 x 74 mm (5.8 x 4.5 x 2.9 in)
E-3: 142 x 116 x 75 mm (5.6 x 4.6 x 3 in)

Click to expand...

E-1: 141 x 104 x 81 ( (5.6 x 4.1 x 3.2 in)

and the extra height is all in the pentaprism - the shoulder of the E1 is actually higher than that of the E-3

So, you could say that it's the same size as the D200, but you'd have to say it was the same size as the E1 as well!
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

ljclark said:

When you look at the market, you see a lot of constant aperture zooms
out there with wider apertures than the others -- although at 3x to
4x the cost. On the superwide end I think there are some real
challenges -- which is why we see f/4 for Nikon's 12-24 and for the
7-14. However, Tokina is coming out with a Nikon and Canon mount
11-16 f/2.8.

Besides being able to use a hand-held meter and not do mental
gymnastics (something that was more of an issue with film), I have
looked at the constant aperture as a sign of a manufacturer's
commitment to quality. It usually signals major league design aimed
at users who have to put meals on the table.

Click to expand...

I quite agree with this, it's almost more a badge than anything - and as a result one feels that the mid-range, variable aperture zooms are not serious designs . . . . and experience bears this out with both Nikon and Canon . . . . but not, I think with Olympus. One of the Olympus attractions are a set of really very good mid range zoom lenses, which work well from edge to edge, from wide open to their very modestly smaller aperture:

11-22
14-54
12-60
50-200

They certainly feel like Olympus is committed to quality.

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Have you handled an E3 yet? I just did a few days ago in a local store. Its very tempting.......v e r y ..... lol. I suggest you don't if you haven't !

;-)

Bootstrap said:

Thanks for your input.
While I think that, based on what I've read here and at other places,
the E-3 is a good camera, I'm sticking with what I have.

--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/rise_n_shine

Click to expand...

--
'The greatest joy there is in life is creating. Splurge on it!' LRH

Fortunately, for me, there are no stores in a 100 mile radius of where I am that carry Olympus cameras, other than Ritz/Wolf, and they don't have the E-3.

When I was using my E-10s I was in the same position and swore to myself that if I picked up an E-1 I knew I'd have to own one. I did, and I do...
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/rise_n_shine

I did miss the top knob right off....... seemed odd at first, but the I realize 90% of the time I leave the E-1 on A.
--
'The greatest joy there is in life is creating. Splurge on it!' LRH

about the 35 and E3. I just my 35 on my E3 and honestly I'm amazed how much quicker it is than with the E1! It does hesitate for a short bit and then snap it's there, even in low light.

Comparing it with the 12-60 in the same environment the main difference is the lack of that initial short pause. Even when focusing on my hand and then something across the room I think the 35 is pretty quick.

I was using just the center focus point, I think my default setting or as received had the center group selected and I wonder if this wasn't "holding" up your trials a tad...also was it in C-AF mode. Without a button it's tough to tell just looking at a glance.

I agree about the button layout to a bit too. I'm especially wondering why the review button is so recessed. You really have to stick your finger in there to get it to come up!

I'm not seeing or should I say feeling a big weight increase with the E3 but then again my E1's always had the grip on them and I don't have a grip for the E3 yet. I may not get one either...just as easy to carry a spare battery in my pocket.

Dan

I think they may be opening up the aperture on the long end by adding objective glass, which might not allow a wider aperture on the short end without sacrificing quality. Otherwise, it would be lame to have an artificial restriction. Lens design is FM anyway.
--
Pete

Joe B T said:

The 14-35 would be perfect for my style f shooting. Is it available yet?

Click to expand...

I could hear the forum twitch, you know. : )

The 14-35 having suffered uncomfortable delays aside, thank you for a honest and level-headed post about the E-3. You said it was both nice and still quite normal, which is a combination of messages fans and haters alike have a hard time with (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the E-3 either, note).

If you will post about your experience with the 12-60 later on I will look forward to it. Making it a separate thread could be a good idea so that it doesn't drown in the flood.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/iskender

Oly was just slightly out of step in the OM era too. They were conservative in their zoom ratios, and didn't seem to be obsessed with high-speed lenses to the same extent as other manufacturers.

For those of you who came into this after auto-focus, fast lenses were a big deal because you needed as much light as possible on the focusing screen. The OM series cameras were notable for their bright viewfinders so Oly may have not felt the same pressure. Also, size often won out over lens speed in the designer's priorities. Keep the zoom ratio modest and the aperture too, and the design problems are reduced. And that's not to ignore some nice fast Oly lenses like the 100mm f/2 (I still have a soft spot for that lens), the 180 f/2.8 (had one briefly -- lovely), and the still-legendary 180 f/2.

The E-series Zuiko lens DO show that constant aperture is not the sole criteria of quality, but then why are the constant aperture Zuiko's so highly praised -- and high priced? Perhaps Oly is just a notch above the other folks generally.

Nikon and Canon expect you to accept on faith that any lens with their brand on it, no matter the actual qualities, is a better lens. My experience doesn't support that, but it is surprising how those perceptions persists. I did an evening job once shooting "couples pictures" at an industry dinner for a pro in the area. Brought my camera and asked him which mid-range zoom he preferred that I use -- A Tokina or a Nikon. I knew that the Tokina was better lens, but he wanted me to use the Nikon. No argument -- he was paying.

Jono Slack said:

ljclark said:

When you look at the market, you see a lot of constant aperture zooms
out there with wider apertures than the others -- although at 3x to
4x the cost. On the superwide end I think there are some real
challenges -- which is why we see f/4 for Nikon's 12-24 and for the
7-14. However, Tokina is coming out with a Nikon and Canon mount
11-16 f/2.8.

Besides being able to use a hand-held meter and not do mental
gymnastics (something that was more of an issue with film), I have
looked at the constant aperture as a sign of a manufacturer's
commitment to quality. It usually signals major league design aimed
at users who have to put meals on the table.

Click to expand...

I quite agree with this, it's almost more a badge than anything - and
as a result one feels that the mid-range, variable aperture zooms are
not serious designs . . . . and experience bears this out with both
Nikon and Canon . . . . but not, I think with Olympus. One of the
Olympus attractions are a set of really very good mid range zoom
lenses, which work well from edge to edge, from wide open to their
very modestly smaller aperture:

11-22
14-54
12-60
50-200

They certainly feel like Olympus is committed to quality.

Click to expand...

--
If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?

I'm no lens designer either, but I can say this much

Louis_Dobson said:

that the f number is a ratio of the front element to the focal
length.

Click to expand...

Not the front element. The entry pupil, which is the iris the way it looks
when you look into the lens from the front. How deep inside the lens
the entry pupil appears to be, and the FOV, decide how
big the front element needs to be, minimum.

When you zoom, the entry pupil will tend to change size, the iris stays
the same but the different position of the lens groups in front of it
will affect its apparent magnification. On a constant aperture lens, there
will be a lot of magnification when you zoom towards tele.

So you are right that the front element will seem not to be used fully
at the wide end of the zoom, but the inner lens elements are probably
fully used so you can't open up the iris any more, and you'd have to change
the whole optical formula of the lens to make the entry pupil bigger.

Would be great with input from a lens guru here.

I guess constant aperture zooms are good for people using light meters
or studio flashes, but personally I think it's better to consider what the lens
will be used for and what apertures one will need at different focal lengths.
The variable aperture zoom probably is less constrained in other design
goals which may make it a better choice.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

When posting photos for comment, please give basic settings and/or leave EXIF intact.

I would prefer to just hit the arrows and have it go to the next focus area in the direction I hit the arrow--no buttons and no wheels.

tchatila said:

How were you trying to move the focus points? While the E-3 does not
have the "Nintendo joy pad" you may now select from the 11 focus
points by pressing the focus point selector (no need to hold it any
longer) and using the UDLR arrow keys. Of course, you have to be in
the single auto-focus point or the group auto focus modes. I'm
wondering if you were referring to selecting the focus point using
just the two control wheels. I agree that is a little cumbersome
unless all you want to do is move back and forth across the middle 5
points.

--
Tarek

Click to expand...

--

SIGNATURE: This is a picture I did not take of a tall, greying man with crooked teeth whom I've encountered three times while photographing downtown, and each time, he's approached me quickly from the front, with a long stride, and each time he's leaned toward me and said the exact same thing 'OLD ONES ARE BETTER' while palming his ancient brass Leica, opening his hand enough to show me what's there, but not enough really showing-off!' (An Unknown Leica Street Photographer)

Yes, It was Dave I spoke to. I just left the store a few minutes ago, and he said he shot the game with the D300 and 300mm f/2.8

He said the D300 really impresses him. I didn't know that he used to work for Olympus too. We spoke a bit about Olympus and their standings between Canon and Nikon. I basically agreed with his assessment.

malcolmw said:

malcolmw said:

“I got in 3 and you’re holding the last one.”

Click to expand...

I got the first one and I love it!

I'm not sure if you spoke to Dave, the owner, but he was going to
take the E3 with the new 50-200, as well as the D300 with his fast
(300 maybe?) Nikon lens to shoot the football game last night. He
normally uses a D2X so I am interested to find out how he likes the
E3.

He was actually hoping for rain to really show it off.

short backstory:

I picked up an E-330 with the 11-22 for real estate photography based
on lurking on this forum. Thanks by the way, it's been great and I
use live view all the time.

The only other lens I had was a 40-150 refurb (it was getting
frustrating trying to shoot the 4 fox cubs in the yard last spring
with the 11-22).

The articulating LCD (and cost) was the clincher when deciding to
stay with Olympus or another brand. I only wish it was 3" but that
will probably be on the next model. It would help to check for
straight verticals.

So I'm sticking with Olympus and getting more glass. The reason the
35 was on the one in the store is because I took the 50 f2 macro on
Wednesday (that's great fun). I'm getting the 12-60 when they come
in next week.

Next I will finally get the 7-14 for real estate, and one day
probably the 50-200.

Click to expand...

--

SIGNATURE: This is a picture I did not take of a tall, greying man with crooked teeth whom I've encountered three times while photographing downtown, and each time, he's approached me quickly from the front, with a long stride, and each time he's leaned toward me and said the exact same thing 'OLD ONES ARE BETTER' while palming his ancient brass Leica, opening his hand enough to show me what's there, but not enough really showing-off!' (An Unknown Leica Street Photographer)

Once I tried the Nikon method of choosing the focus points, it was so simple that I couldn't shake it. This having to push down one or more buttons and then moving a second wheel in order to move the AF points...is well, too much of a hassle. And even with the D40, Nikon spaced the 3 AF points far apart (which actually makes them useful), and then just to be able to push the arrow keys...well, that's the icing on the cake. But I guess it's what you get used to. I've grown accustomed to the Olympus method, but it is refreshing everytime I pick up the D80 or D40...just being able to move the focus point using the arrow keys.
--

Lol. Nice one.

... my opinion of the camera after a week of using it. The buttons are a complete disaster. It's as if Olympus fired everyone associated with the E-1's ergonomics, or they all left the company in disgust. With regard to the focus point selection, did they consult with anyone who actually uses changes focus points often? I really don't understand what happened here.

The E-3's AF system is faster, but the tracking logic so far seems as antiquated as the system in all the other E-system cameras I've used. It's not comparable in smarts to Canon 30D's AF, let alone the big two's pro cameras.

My dad shoots Nikon. As with many other things he's said, I should have listened.
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle_jones/

Kyle Jones said:

... my opinion of the camera after a week of using it. The buttons
are a complete disaster. It's as if Olympus fired everyone
associated with the E-1's ergonomics, or they all left the company in
disgust.

Click to expand...

Kyle,

I really want to say you're talking through your butt and there is no way you could possibly be correct on this....... however I have this sinking feeling you're absolutely right.

I need more time to play with the camera. So much about it is fantastic. But my fingers ... those buttons .... sticky out bits in the way..... can't press the Fn button easily with my thumb..... nooooooooo........

Its not that its particularly bad, just the E1 was so ... well ergonomically perfect :-(

with the E3 you hit the button ONCE and then use the pad. I'd prefer NOT to have the pad live actually.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

I never used the E1 often enough for it to become second nature, and I can't say I found the button layout gave me the horn.

Can't comment on the E3 yet.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam