E-1 review historical facts...

Nice review, but when you start your article with a historical statement, please check its accuracy first:

"In the four-odd years between the launch of the Olympus E-1 - the camera that heralded the first all-new SLR system for almost quarter of a century"

Well, I can think of two newer than 20 years SLR systems easily. The first would be the Minolta V system for APS (IX240) film. The second would be the Contax N system. Both even had a DSLR model before they died: the Minolta RD-3000 for the V system and the Contax N Digital for the N system. Simon Joinson has an impressive CV, but apparently history is not his strongpoint or his definition of "all-new SLR system" is unusually strict. Even in the letter case, I cannot think of any reason why the Minolta V and Contax N would not be counted as all-new SLR systems.

SLove said:

Nice review, but when you start your article with a historical
statement, please check its accuracy first:

"In the four-odd years between the launch of the Olympus E-1 - the
camera that heralded the first all-new SLR system for almost quarter
of a century"

Well, I can think of two newer than 20 years SLR systems easily. The
first would be the Minolta V system for APS (IX240) film. The second
would be the Contax N system. Both even had a DSLR model before they
died: the Minolta RD-3000 for the V system and the Contax N Digital
for the N system. Simon Joinson has an impressive CV, but apparently
history is not his strongpoint or his definition of "all-new SLR
system" is unusually strict. Even in the letter case, I cannot think
of any reason why the Minolta V and Contax N would not be counted as
all-new SLR systems.

Click to expand...

Well done.
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

Well, the history of those systems would not seem to bode well for the future of 4:3...

While the new Olympus has the viewfinder that's more centered than its predecessor, there is no DSLR that has a "centered" viewfinder. Just look at a mirror image of any DSLR to easily see just how far off-center the lens mount and finder are. What's more, Olympus really added more camera body on the side opposite the grip; the finder didn't move closer to the center or the grip area would be cramped and the camera width would be smaller.

I also think Olympus isn't held to task strongly enough as it offers up a camera that's on par in size and weight with its competitors. The "designed for digital" 4/3 system's promise of smaller, lighter cameras is empty marketing hype.

--
BJN

So you aren't aware of the world's smallest DSLR? (E400- E410)

Simon Joinson said:

Well done.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Of course that little error in no way diminished the informational value of the review itself. Excellent stuff, as usual.

BJN said:

I also think Olympus isn't held to task strongly enough as it offers
up a camera that's on par in size and weight with its competitors.
The "designed for digital" 4/3 system's promise of smaller, lighter
cameras is empty marketing hype.

Click to expand...

Have you not noticed that cameras can come in different shapes and sizes within the same company? How does a Canon 400D compare to a 1Ds MK III? The benefit of 4/3rds from what I can see is that they have the capability to produce smaller/lighter cameras - the E-400/410 being fine examples of that. Doesn't mean everything has to be matchbox sized. Personally I prefer to grip something a bit heftier, but now it sounds like I'm boasting.

Olympus sometimes has the smallest camera in its class, but that's often not the case.

The E-410 recaptures the smallest/lightest DSLR niche for Olympus, but it's still only a bit smaller and lighter than the D40/D60 or the 450D. There have been several times where Olympus didn't have the smallest DSLR on the market. The E4 shows Oly puts small size and weight as a low priority for its "serious" camera's design.

--
BJN

We should love 4/3 not for the cameras Olympus has produced but for the cameras they could produce.

--
BJN

BJN said:

I also think Olympus isn't held to task strongly enough as it offers
up a camera that's on par in size and weight with its competitors.
The "designed for digital" 4/3 system's promise of smaller, lighter
cameras is empty marketing hype.

Click to expand...

Ahem:





--
--
mumbo jumbo

BJN said:

Olympus sometimes has the smallest camera in its class, but that's
often not the case.

The E-410 recaptures the smallest/lightest DSLR niche for Olympus,
but it's still only a bit smaller and lighter than the D40/D60 or the
450D. There have been several times where Olympus didn't have the
smallest DSLR on the market. The E4 shows Oly puts small size and
weight as a low priority for its "serious" camera's design.

Click to expand...

The E-3 is considerably smaller and lighter than the Nikon D-3 or the Canon EOS-1, which are the only other cameras built to similar standards of toughness.

I will admit, however, that I'm disappointed in Olympus for a) caving in to idiotic aesthetic norms in preference to function and b) not keeping camera weight at around the same level as the E-1. Olympus are also guilty of making many of their lenses inexplicably heavy - eg the 14-35/2 weighs around 50g more than Canon's 28-70/2.8 despite being a smaller aperture design.

--
--
mumbo jumbo

BJN said:

We should love 4/3 not for the cameras Olympus has produced but for
the cameras they could produce.

--
BJN

Click to expand...

That's cool, I like to think the E-410 is a myth too.

BJN said:

The E-410 recaptures the smallest/lightest DSLR niche for Olympus,
but it's still only a bit smaller and lighter than the D40/D60 or the
450D.

Click to expand...

Personally, within reason, I like a little heft to a body and find the E410 tremendously uncomfortable. This is all subjective of course, but I don't like how it feels at all.

I suppose that Simon was thinking of SLR systems that still exist, and forgot those two misguided attempts to launch new film SLR systems during the twilight of film, which were soon scuttled by the digital tidal wave.

D Q E said:

I will admit, however, that I'm disappointed in Olympus for a) caving
in to idiotic aesthetic norms in preference to function and b) not
keeping camera weight at around the same level as the E-1. Olympus
are also guilty of making many of their lenses inexplicably heavy -
eg the 14-35/2 weighs around 50g more than Canon's 28-70/2.8 despite
being a smaller aperture design.

Click to expand...

Just 50 grams more for a whole stop of extra light and you are complaining! Never mind. Your wallet will feel a lot lighter after the purchase!

--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile

http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/

BJL said:

I suppose that Simon was thinking of SLR systems that still exist,
and forgot those two misguided attempts to launch new film SLR
systems during the twilight of film, which were soon scuttled by the
digital tidal wave.

Click to expand...

Actually as a former Advantix (APS) owner, I have to say that APS was in a great position to be the perfect transition from film to digital - APS had on each frame, a backing that recorded digitally the EXIF data we get today for the shot you had just taken.

What happened with that information was that it was put on the back of prints you ordered from most places. But if the companies had played their cards right, they would have come out with cheap film scanners that scanned your film AND read this EXIF data into the scanned film data. Presto, image resolutions like the best DSLR's of today and all of the information we have grown to know and love encoded in each image, all for less than a nice digital camera.

This is not as far fetched as you might imagine - Kodak at the time had come out with a very cheap film scanner built specifically for APS. The only thing it lacked was the ability to read in the digital data along with the scanned image. Fuji had such a reader waiting in the wings but sadly, they never released it and APS died on the vine.

Instead we suffered through many years of agonizing choice between the ease of use of digital and higher real resolution of film. I think we are beyond that point now though.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

The size advantage offered by the 4/3 system is in the lenses.

Any given lens gives twice the reach when used on a 35mm system. Therefore you can use smaller, lighter lenses.

Marketing hype mostly, to be sure. After all, everyone knows the 4/3rds sensors are only a tiny bit tinier than APS-C sensors... ducks and runs

Chris Elliott said:

D Q E said:

I will admit, however, that I'm disappointed in Olympus for a) caving
in to idiotic aesthetic norms in preference to function and b) not
keeping camera weight at around the same level as the E-1. Olympus
are also guilty of making many of their lenses inexplicably heavy -
eg the 14-35/2 weighs around 50g more than Canon's 28-70/2.8 despite
being a smaller aperture design.

Click to expand...

Just 50 grams more for a whole stop of extra light and you are
complaining! Never mind. Your wallet will feel a lot lighter after
the purchase!

Click to expand...

No, 50 grams more for whole one stop LESS light.

One stop higher intensity though.

Timmy Toucan said:

The size advantage offered by the 4/3 system is in the lenses.

Any given lens gives twice the reach when used on a 35mm system.
Therefore you can use smaller, lighter lenses.

Click to expand...

Any given lens gives half the FOV of 35mm system.

Therefore you must use wider, bigger, more weightier lenses to get everything fit in to picture.

It all dependes on what focal lengths you want.

The 4/3 has lens size advantage at > 80(effective)mm, and most(but usually not all) of that advantage is lost if we want really equivalent lens that gives as much light. (ie, as big PHYSICAL aperture, not equal relative aperture-number)

and under "effective 60mm" 4/3 lenses start to be bigger and weightier due more aggressive retrofocal design required. (the long flange distance prevents creating "scaled down models of 35mm lenses)

Smaller sensor could give smaller lenses also on wide end, but not with 38mm flange distance that 4/3rds has.

-----

And no, I'm not any canonist/nikonist, I own an E-510 and I'm very satisfied of it, I just recognize the limits of the system I use.

Hmm... I hear that a lot. And then I think about the kit 14-42mm lens, which is really, really small.

?