E-300: Ugly Step-Sister or Princess In Disguise?

I recently purchased a demo Olympus E-300 with battery/grip and remote for less than $250 from a local Olympus dealer. It was an impulse buy to satisfy a curiousity I always had about Olympus cameras. I didn't expect much. I am very surprised at how capable it is! Also, the level of control and features Olympus builds into its lowest priced cameras is amazing. She may be one ugly camera but the results produced are gems! Here are a couple of recent shots with the kit lens.

When I am ready to upgrade I am giving Olympus a much closer look!

I thought it was a beautiful princess when I bought one four years ago. I think the glass slipper still fits.

I think it's a princess in disguise, being similar to the E-500. I bought a used E-500 for $215 (USD) last December with low shutter activations after purchasing the E-510. I was surprised how nice it was for so little money. In fact, I'm still discovering what a great camera it is. It still takes me some time to adjust to the way I take the pictures with it, because I'm used to the E-510 with the sensor-shift image stabilization. I want sharp photos, so I work at keeping the cameras steady.

... disguised as a lowly beggar.

Ralph

... that can't take a good picture in broad daylight. Only the compacts manage to screw that up, with their noise at ISO 100 and cramped dynamic range. As long as you're happy with a five year old sensor when it comes to shooting in less bright conditions, and with the E-300's Cro-Magnon auto-focus system, have fun. I've got Olympus cameras from that era and if you keep them in their comfort zone you can make some fine photos with them.
--
Street: http://www.wonderworks.com/streetphotographydigest.html
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle_jones/

I like the photos you took: lighting, composition, post processing and subject matter.

I don't have an E-300, but do have an E-500 which I occasionally still use and when the ambient ligh is less challening and subject isn't moving unpredictably, it does a great job even with the 2 kit lenses!

Two years ago when I bhought it was the least expensive dSLR kit - I didn't know it would be a money pit though.

design7 said:

I recently purchased a demo Olympus E-300 with battery/grip and
remote for less than $250 from a local Olympus dealer.

Click to expand...

I've been an early E-300 user (since I didn't like the bulk, size, and weight of the E-1), and I still use it as my main camera...although a few months ago I bought the E-330 for use in teaching portrait photography with its (mode A) live view that doesn't require holding the shutter open, the E-300 is still my favourite, especially with its grip.

To be honest these styles are my favourites of the entire line, although I admit that if the E-4xx series was available since day one I would have bought it as it was most like the size and style of the SLR I used for 20 years.

design7 said:

She may be one ugly camera but the
results produced are gems!

Click to expand...

Specifically the E-300 (and later E-330) got the ugly reputation because it was missing the (ugly) hump that SLRs feature, and reviewers felt that the E-300's sleek, sexy styling was too beautiful for them, and since it wasn't a Nikon or Canon they had to put down the camera.

Oly has always made great cameras and even better optics.

If you want even more fun, track down an Olympus Pen F and some accessories; a 35 mm half frame film SLR camera from the late 1960's that was absolutely tiny. A great idea, but the quality of film stock in those days just couldn't support enlargements bigger than snapshot size. (Too grainy). I've often wondered how those cameras would have done with the later fine grained emulsions of the late 1990s.

Be prepared to spend some money though. They are pretty much collector's items now. Who knows, your recent purchase may have helped finance a semester of your kid's college education!
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/

I think at least some of the 'specialness' of the early 4/3 cameras comes from those Kodak sensors. Yes they are noisy over ISO 400, but the image quality at the lower iso settings are excellent, and the DR is pretty good, considering. the Panasonic sensors are better technically, but I am curious to see what a more modern Kodak sensor could do.

I'm still using my E500 as my primary DSLR. I don't think for landscapes, it can be beat. Certainly not for the cost/value ratio.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/

I have one too.

It may be old in many many ways, but it was still wonderful enough to get my son to buy an E420 after he borrowed it for a family vacation. He was looking to go Canon because ...well, you know the answer there.

To me it is a very capable dslr, and I actually love it's look and feel. Always when I walk into a room with it people will look. After all, it is different.

Different is good, right?
--
'We all have it, but how do we use it?'

I took both the E-1 and E-300 on a big vacation... wound up using the E-300 exclusively.

Of course, with its poor low light performance, poor AF, and lack of image stabilization, this image was impossible:

Glen Barrington said:

I think at least some of the 'specialness' of the early 4/3 cameras
comes from those Kodak sensors. Yes they are noisy over ISO 400, but
the image quality at the lower iso settings are excellent, and the DR
is pretty good, considering. the Panasonic sensors are better
technically, but I am curious to see what a more modern Kodak sensor
could do.

Click to expand...

I made that observation in a post a spell back.

The 300 was made to show what Oly planned to do with the 330. Both were a shape designed to use that 'extra' smaller sensor to do live view.

If the 300/330 shape had been accepted, could we have an even better live view today, with a better primary sensor to actually do the picture taking?

--
'We all have it, but how do we use it?'

Impossible? Well, it sure looks pretty good to my eyes.
--
'We all have it, but how do we use it?'

On the one hand, it was my first dslr, and I will probably always keep it. It never got in the way of taking good pictures. It was built like an armored personnel carrier (not a tank- that would be the E-1), had nice buttons. Was capable of taking superb images. Deep blue skies to die for. Very reliable. I've never had a problem with mine in over 4 years.

On the other hand, when I pull it out of the bag every now and then to dust it off, it just looks old, almost 1990's old. The lcd monitor is tiny. The shape (I know, you either love it or hate it) is just weird. White balance in outdoors situations with lots of green foliage (cross country meets, football games) was horrid. It simply wouldn't focus in low light situations. Oh, and the price? I was thrilled to get my 2 lens kit for "only" $1,000. By today's prices, though, that was ridiculous. (I suppose it's like that for any newer technology, though).

I don't know. I was really proud of mine when I got it. It served me well for a couple or three years. Built really nice, but looks weird. Like I said, love/hate. I cant' decide. I'm keeping mine, though.

Pretty much all Olys are feature packed for the price, have sharp lenses and great jpgs.

--
Stu
D40x, E510, TZ4
.

someone else can confirm if the E-300 has a Kodak sensor and a less clackety-sounding live-view implementation....that is what I have read, not heard.

--
'Photos are what remain when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

E-300 has Kodak sensor. E-330 has Pany sensor, and the best live view of any dslr to date.

Angular Mo said:

someone else can confirm if the E-300 has a Kodak sensor

Click to expand...

That's the E-300...as well the E-1, E-500, and E-400 all had Kodak sensors, but none of them had any form of live view.

Angular Mo said:

and a less clackety-sounding live-view implementation....

Click to expand...

That's the E-330...it has a second sensor (CCD) that's placed near the viewfinder so it sees what you do, so you can use it as a normal camera without the extra shutter activations in its ModeA Live View. However it can also use the main sensor (NMOS) for Live View like today's LV cameras for specialty shooting like macro but it required manual focusing and its ModeB Live View uses up extra shutter activations.

Angular Mo said:

that is what I have read, not heard.

Click to expand...

You were just probably confusing the two cameras since they looked similar and had similar model numbers.