Olympus E-3 professional -- A700 semiprofessional???

It seems strange that the Olympus E-3 is described as a professional camera while the A700 that outperforms the E-3 on several areas is called a semiprofessional camera. The E-3 looks more rugged, but is it really? Or do most professional need a heavy duty body more than the extra speed and quality that the A700 do offer?

I think cameras like the D40, A700 and D300 (and top models from Pentax/Panasonic) should me named pro cameras. Lots of pro journalists and photographers do use cameras like these. The highest end Nikon and Canon (and Sony) cameras could be labelled top pro cameras.

"The E-3 looks more rugged" - i saw a review where E3 was covered with dust (serious dust) and poured with glass of water - E3 survived both test.

http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Gear/Search-Results/Entertainment/Olympus-E3/?&R=EPI-1341

But it is not a PRO camera according to the review.

Nordstjernen said:

It seems strange that the Olympus E-3 is described as a professional
camera while the A700 that outperforms the E-3 on several areas is
called a semiprofessional camera. The E-3 looks more rugged, but is
it really? Or do most professional need a heavy duty body more than
the extra speed and quality that the A700 do offer?

I think cameras like the D40, A700 and D300 (and top models from
Pentax/Panasonic) should me named pro cameras. Lots of pro
journalists and photographers do use cameras like these. The highest
end Nikon and Canon (and Sony) cameras could be labelled top pro
cameras.

Click to expand...

--
My 2007 Sony Alpha Showcase
http://www.bercasio.com/photos/2007/Showcase/

'It is between me, my Alpha and the world out there. It is quite therapeutic.'
'Quality than quantity.'

Here is part of your answer:



I think because the E-3 is the best camera in the FourThirds system, it is the pro model, and that's why the term is used. All APS-C cameras are thought of as semipro.

David

--

Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com), dPhotoexpert.com and Master Photo Digital - currently writing tests for f2 and the BJP

What's more impressive to me is that photo was taken at ISO 3200!

headofdestiny said:

What's more impressive to me is that photo was taken at ISO 3200!

Click to expand...

On the Nikon D3. I have another picture taken of the Nikon D3 in the same state of waterlogged survival, taken of course, on the E-3:



This was taken at ISO 800 because - a) E-3 has the depth of field b) E-3 has stabilisation

David

--

Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com), dPhotoexpert.com and Master Photo Digital - currently writing tests for f2 and the BJP

Cool. You know what's interesting is that a poster on another forum talked about using his A700 in the rain. He said it was raining hard enough that the front dial looked like a water wheel! Amazingly, he had no issues with moisture. Now, I'm not saying I'd risk it like he did, but it's good to know that the A700 does relatively well in this situation (even if it isn't up to E-3 levels.)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157603750893955/?search=weather

But is anyone willing to test its Beerproofness?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26270825

D

--
ださかわ

is the only real weakness of the A700 IMHO. If Sony would just go a little further with that for about the same price as current the A700 would definitley be THE CAMERA. I'll still get one as soon as I can convince the wife--but better weatherproofing would be the closer.

To me, the oddest thing is that in the E3 review, they say the E3 has "average if not stunning transfer rates ins mass storage device mode" at 5.5MB/s.

5.5????

And about the buffer:

"You cannot shoot indefinitely at the highest JPEG quality setting, but if you drop down to the 'N' (normal) setting you can."

But of course the E3 is "Pro".

and then for the A700 it's 21.6 MB/s!!!

That's 4X faster!!!! To me, that's a HUGE issue on the E3 if I'm out in the field and need to quickly dump images to my laptop!!!

And then the E3 is still highly rated??? Eh???

Currently, E-3 is highest spec on FourThirds.
Which is average(or lower) spec on APS-C sized semipro DSLR.
The term pro,semipro is just a marketing thing.
So, I don't care what they call

Nordstjernen said:

It seems strange that the Olympus E-3 is described as a professional
camera while the A700 that outperforms the E-3 on several areas is
called a semiprofessional camera. The E-3 looks more rugged, but is
it really? Or do most professional need a heavy duty body more than
the extra speed and quality that the A700 do offer?

I think cameras like the D40, A700 and D300 (and top models from
Pentax/Panasonic) should me named pro cameras. Lots of pro
journalists and photographers do use cameras like these. The highest
end Nikon and Canon (and Sony) cameras could be labelled top pro
cameras.

Click to expand...

Sony isn't calling their "flagship" camera a "professional" camera! Go figure... it's just a marketing term.

Ok, I am trying to figure how the champagne got inside my front dial if his camera survived the rain. I tried to use contact cleaner again and again, the dial looks like the water wheel as well but the stubborn champagne won't come off.

headofdestiny said:

Cool. You know what's interesting is that a poster on another forum
talked about using his A700 in the rain. He said it was raining hard
enough that the front dial looked like a water wheel! Amazingly, he
had no issues with moisture. Now, I'm not saying I'd risk it like he
did, but it's good to know that the A700 does relatively well in this
situation (even if it isn't up to E-3 levels.)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157603750893955/?search=weather

Click to expand...

--
My 2007 Sony Alpha Showcase
http://www.bercasio.com/photos/2007/Showcase/

'It is between me, my Alpha and the world out there. It is quite therapeutic.'
'Quality than quantity.'

That would look very "Pro".
What ever camera you are holding o your hand. LOL

The water streamed in and out of the front dial cavity of that guy's camera without penetrating the body behind the dial. No matter what camera you use, getting champagne in the camera crevices is gonna be difficult to deal with. Water doesn't leave a sticky residue, and I doubt many cameras are champagne proof.

nbercasio said:

headofdestiny said:

Cool. You know what's interesting is that a poster on another forum
talked about using his A700 in the rain. He said it was raining hard
enough that the front dial looked like a water wheel! Amazingly, he
had no issues with moisture. Now, I'm not saying I'd risk it like he
did, but it's good to know that the A700 does relatively well in this
situation (even if it isn't up to E-3 levels.)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157603750893955/?search=weather

Click to expand...

--
My 2007 Sony Alpha Showcase
http://www.bercasio.com/photos/2007/Showcase/

'It is between me, my Alpha and the world out there. It is quite
therapeutic.'
'Quality than quantity.'

Click to expand...

Sony is being careful with words for now.

The flagship is a "camera a pro could use".

Part of it is they don't have the full pro Support system in place or a full line of pro lenses. No point in calling it Pro till they get there.

The E3 is Oly's top camera, there won't be a camera above it. It's the camera they offer for pro's, even if it is more like a semi-pro to other brands.

Isn't the body - although the battery compartment and the card compartment lack gaskets - but the lenses. Most Sony/Minolta Lenses aren't weatherproof, and while the A700 could stand some rain, I'm not sure about the lenses. Recently i photographed some pictures in the rain and snow, and while nothing happend, it was scary - after each shot i put the camera under my raincoat and dried it with my shirt to the best possible extent.

(The following pic was taken in a Jewish cemetry in the rain, with a 16-80. Two raindrops on the front of the lens are visible:



P.S. switched from my Hoya HMC UV filter to a Sigma EX filter for the Zeiss -the differences are dramatic; the hoya is much 'fatter' and caused vignetting in almost every focal length; the sigma causes almost none.

Formerly YGH.

My Alamy Gallery: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/36740224-D459-43E2-8265-8E5C0E39AF87/1/Yagil%20Henkin.html
My Dreamstime Gallery: http://www.dreamstime.com/Yagilhenkin_info

... the A700 is perfectly applicable for pro usage. These labels are mostly marketing-driven and fail to take the diversity of the pro community into account.

For instance, when I shoot news or sports alongside the boys (and girls from Reuters, UPI, Getty Images, Canadian Press, etc. the ratio of top pro to next tier cameras (mainly 40D & D300's) is still about 50/50, even with those organizations providing lens support and camera bodies.

But when you look at other fields - weddings, commercial advertising, product, etc. - that ratio probably skews to more like 70/30 in favour of 2nd tier cameras.

Based on past experience, for the upcoming L'Oreal Fashion Week there will be a solid majority of semi-pro cameras in the photographers area.

As to weather-proofing, the World Cup games I've done in the rain would seem to contradict the emphasis on sealed cameras in that, although the majority of the 100 or so pros covering the matches were using top end 1 series or D series cameras, everyone (and I mean everyone) used weather covers or plastic sheeting to shield their cameras. If you've ever owned a house with a skylight you know exactly how much faith to put in weather-proof cameras. Water has a way of getting into everything, and only a fool (or someone who risks nothing if the camera fails) would use a camera with no protection in a rain storm for extended periods of time.

My 70-200mm lens hood wears a thick red elastic band around it year-round, and there's a clear blue recycling bag with a hole cut out for the lens in my camera bag always. That's my weather-proofing.

However, if you lived in a very damp climate (UK, West Coast of Canada) I suppose you might apreciate a camera with this feature built in a bit more.

Doug B
Torontowide.com

I wonder...does a hammer with a steel handle, or a composite handle, stand above one whose handle is made entirely of wood and thus would bear the adjective "professional" in the light of day?

If Roger Clemens wore a pair of Crocs, does that make them professional baseball shoes or simply shoes that have been injected with the air of professionalism?

For those that fish....I suspect a Zebco 33 could be called a "pro reel" if someone had a picture of Bill Dance using it.

It's a word....anyone ever heard an airline say....."We use Boeing's "Pro" model or the AirBus "Pro 88"? I mean...who in there right mind would get on a jet if it wasn't the "pro model", unless; nomenclature was meaningless and always yields to results!

I'm not a professional photographer so in my hands no camera I will ever own would be a "pro model".

Hmmmm.....a fashion model turned prostitute would be a "pro model", right guys?

The manufacturer makes the designation of "pro" or not.

Canon - 1D series is pro, 5D/40D is not
Nikon - Dx series is pro, and the D300 (but nbot the D200)
Oly - E-3, and the E-1 before that
Sony - Nothing, not even the flagship, as per Sony.
Pentax - Nothing

This is not an idication of performance, but an idication of where the manufacturer places the camera in the market, and the level of support they intiend to give the camera. A pro shooter is going to be much more demanding of support than a non-pro shooter. They should be, if a camera goes down, they aint makin' no money off of it.

There are lot of opinions on what "pro" means, but in the end, it is defined by each manufacturer individually.

OTOH, nobody is prevented from making money off of a camera that is not defined as "pro".

chad

--
That's a really nice pen. You must be a great writer.

nbercasio said:

Ok, I am trying to figure how the champagne got inside my front dial
if his camera survived the rain. I tried to use contact cleaner again
and again, the dial looks like the water wheel as well but the
stubborn champagne won't come off.

Click to expand...

NB, It's been two weeks already, you could have already sent the camera into SONY for repair and got it back already... Don't waste anymore time with the Contact cleaner and just send it in...

--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69