At this point Doug I think it's impossible to deny that yes, Olympus did build a camera that in many sold copies would have severe auto focus issues (e-3). So severe that Olympus own full spread advertisement with a shot taken by their National Photography Olympus visionarie (keep forgetting his name but I think you know who I refer to), was back focused and then on top of that they tried to hide-that a
couple months down the line in post.
I think it's possible that some units malfunction to varying degrees. How wide-spread is the problem? In this forum, and internet forums by their nature tend to attract more negative comment than positive, there are very few examples of people experiencing problems with the 35-100mm f2 or E5.
Well I am specifically talking for example, for the E-3. I think there's enough data points that indicate there more than a "small amount" of E-3's with AF problems. I am not saying all do it but sure seems a sizable number. Moreover, I pointed out that Olympus' own commercial showed the problem. You would never think, that a company would make such a mistake, ever. But they did.
My E-3- like many here was sent to Olympus and it returned far worse than it was. The last time I sent it to NYC,
maybe it was finally fixed, but I will never know now for certain. But my point is, I think it's a bit denialist to think the E-3 line was without issues. As for the 14-35 the problem is almost every single copy of it if not 100% all them- hardly an isolated issue.
Wanna see a ton of problems? Try searching on the 24-70mm 2.8 in the Canon forum.
Just because Canon has issues doesn't make Olympus ok. Finding many hits about that lens doesn't prove much to me as far as the E-3 specifically goes. Note that I am mentioning the E-3.
It looks like the E-5 may share some of the issues because
apparently they are based off the same module but I don't know. It does seem that the 35-100 may have some problems wide open, as it seems like Olympus always had an issue with lenses wide open. But I don't know.
The E-3 though is a different matter.
As for the famous ad, you can see less than terrific photo samples in every brand, you can see fashion photography that's technically awful, you can see art photography that makes one wonder if the person had ever in their life used a camera prior to shooting whatever is on the wall.
I am not talking about "less than terrific photos samples" - I am talking about a photograph shot for pro magazine commercial shot by a top pro in the field. It showed the problem rather well. Then Olympus went on to
cover it up in post which doesn't inspire confidence in the brand at all on that end.
So what? This makes the E3 a problem camera? You are reading way too much into Olympus's agency having one bad day.
No I am not. If you read again, I gave you the commercial as yet one more instance of the E-3 back focus issue, not as the main set of data accumulated for it.
I think that the camera must be defective for James to report a hit rate of just 4 perfectly focused pictures out of 20 with this lens. Even Sigma rarely hits that low a percentage.
I agree with you on that one. Keep in mind I was specifically talking about the E-3.
In fact I was so surprised to read that it spurred me to get my E5 + 35-100mm out and test it in a large open concept loft room in very dim light. From near to far, at the wide, medium and tele settings the only thing I could find that gave it problems was a flat black microphone stand where the camera hesitated before focusing (I actually like this because with all the concerts I shoot the idea of a camera that has trouble focusing on mic stands has some appeal
You won't hear an issue on that end from me
I know better.
This photo was done at 3200 ISO with a shutter speed of just 1/20th of a sec. (to give you an idea of the light conditions), tele end of the focal length, and is pefectly sharp (thank-you IS) because after a short hestation the lens did finally focus .
Over 50 photos not one problem.
James, I gotta ask. What the h*ll are you trying to focus on in your tests that is giving the E5 such fits?
I noticed you missed one key question I asked you point blank:
How did you get those Olympus cameras? Did you buy them off a regular retailer or did you get them directly from Olympus? Did miss the question? I ask because it wouldn't be too surprising that
if you got them from Olympus directly, they made darn double plus sure that your cameras were on a "certifiably good batch."
So let me ask again so there are no misinterpretations:
Did you buy your E-3 from a regular retailer? Did you buy your 35-100 from a regular retailer? Did you buy your E-30 from a regular retailer? Did you buy the E-5 from a regular retailer? Or was any of those directly from Olympus? Was any of those from Olympus at a discount or free even?
There shouldn't be a problem with being fully disclosed. PC video cards for example for years were given to reviewers in particular models that "ran hot" - i..e. they had surprisingly over clocking capability beyond the normal. It's the same mechanic, potentially if you get them from Olympus which would explain your discrepancy from many user experiences out there vs yours.
--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
