Not too impressed

photovoyager · Aug 11, 2003

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very impressed.

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which seems to deliver BETTER images.

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let it down.

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it. What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts (Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

Regards,
photovoyager

Charles Bandes · Aug 11, 2003

Wow, I haven't been this disappointed since the first batch of 14n samples. (And those at least demonstrated crazy-high resolution.)

I was just gaga over the ad campaign Olympus is running - their piece in Rangefinder was great, their website is impressive, the 4/3 concept is fantastic - but if the resolution isn't there and if the images are as noisy as those previews (800 on E1 was imho worse than 1600 on the S2) then it's a no-brainer to steer clear, especially at the $2200 price point. (And double-especially if the rumors of a $3k D2H pricepoint are true)

Who will buy it? Probably not too many people, but if Olympus has a huge investment in lens design and if they really make the lens mount an open standard maybe someone else will come out with a body that's up to the challenge and save this (very promising) format

photovoyager said:
I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

Regards,
photovoyager

--
Charles Bandes
http://www.bandesphoto.com

Matti J · Aug 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

Jono Slack · Aug 11, 2003

Seems a little premature!

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look even better.

kind regards
jono slack

Matti J said:
photovoyager said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Click to expand...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

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

Brad Morris · Aug 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

photovoyager said:
Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

photovoyager said:
So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Agreed shame they made some stupid marketing decisions

photovoyager said:
Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse. Because of the Physics of Optics, the resolution will be reduced compared to a 1.5 crop as well. The digital sensor while limiting the Feild of View, doesnt magically reduce the circles of confusion that limit the resolution that a lens can produce. The lens design can hepl somewhat but there are limits

The Oly is a 35mm type camera with a small digital sensor (Compared to the D100 et al). The only reason that the bulk of people havent realised that yet is because of the Marketing spin and the fact that Oly doesnt have a current 35mm camera that they have based their design on.

Nikon and now Pentax have released DX type lenses that are comparable, the E1 is only unique in its lens mount system at this time.

photovoyager said:
Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

They should have done that first with a price point of about $800. that might have ensured the critical mass for something like the 4/3 system to become a standard.

Regards

photovoyager said:
Regards,
photovoyager

--

DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 , http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

hcho · Aug 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

I don't know what people were expecting. For me, the surprise would have been if the E-1 sensor outperformed Canon/Nikon/Fuji. With the smaller sensor and photosites, it was only natural that their noise performance would be poorer. If Kodak had a new technology up their sleeve that yieled better SNR performance to today's sensors, we would likely have heard about it before this.

photovoyager said:
So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

4/3 brilliant? Perhaps on paper, but we have yet to see any real evidence. The key point to 4/3 was the parafocal lens design. However, Nikon's DX lenses have the same feature. Who needs 4/3?

Also, 1Ds users seem to have few problems with CA using most existing WA lenses. CA issues seem to stem more from micro-lenses on the sensor than the actual lens, itself. The whole parafocal design issue seems like a bit of a marketing gimmick.

photovoyager said:
Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

You are mistaken if you think 4/3 has no crop factor issues. True, their lens lineup features some moderately wide-angle lenses that are possible because of the reduced image circle requirements. However, WA will still be limited to about 22mm (35mm equivalent) with the announced lenses. Meanwhile, full-frame users can get 15mm coverage easily with existing lenses.

Furthermore, there is more to the crop factor than just WA issues. 4/3's 2x crop factor will affect DOF. The DOF on the E-1 will be similar to that of stopping down 2 stops on a full frame camera. DOF control is one of the major reasons for going DSLR. It's bad enough losing 1 stop with the current non-full frame DSLR's; 2 stops is even worse.

Finally, haf-baked or full-baked, the proof is in the pudding. The results from the E-1 don't do a very good job of showcasing 4/3's purported superiority to 35mm format.

photovoyager said:
Regards,
photovoyager

I agree with you main point: the E-1 is not a very attractive camera in terms of image quality, perfomance, or price. It offers a few novel features, but none that are compelling. I think Olympus will have a tough time selling to any other than die-hard Olympus fans.

Matti J · Aug 11, 2003

Jono Slack said:
Seems a little premature!

Nothing to shout about ;-)

Jono Slack said:
as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

You see, I just reacted what was said in the previous post: "... we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon...".

Just the fact alone, that my Canon EOS lenses are FF compatible, makes me feel good i.e. my EOS lenses are 1Ds compatible.

I feel your pain, Jono,
Matti J.

Jono Slack said:
Matti J said:

photovoyager said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Click to expand...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

Click to expand...

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

Anders Karlsson · Aug 11, 2003

Brad Morris said:
photovoyager said:

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

Click to expand...

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

Brad Morris said:

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Click to expand...

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

True, assuming all other factors are the same and using the same technology. But I'd say it's a bit premature to write of sensor developments altogether. I don't see smaller sensor = more noise a good rule. It is only true if you compare two sensors being produced the same way and using the same technology. And not even in that case are we guaranteed that this rule will stick.

Brad Morris said:
Brad Morris said:

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Click to expand...

Agreed shame they made some stupid marketing decisions

Brad Morris said:

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

Click to expand...

What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are
marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with
a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x
crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse. Because
of the Physics of Optics, the resolution will be reduced compared
to a 1.5 crop as well. The digital sensor while limiting the Feild
of View, doesnt magically reduce the circles of confusion that
limit the resolution that a lens can produce. The lens design can
hepl somewhat but there are limits

The Oly is a 35mm type camera with a small digital sensor (Compared
to the D100 et al). The only reason that the bulk of people havent
realised that yet is because of the Marketing spin and the fact
that Oly doesnt have a current 35mm camera that they have based
their design on.

Nikon and now Pentax have released DX type lenses that are
comparable, the E1 is only unique in its lens mount system at this
time.

Brad Morris said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

Click to expand...

They should have done that first with a price point of about $800.
that might have ensured the critical mass for something like the
4/3 system to become a standard.

Regards

Brad Morris said:

Regards,
photovoyager

Click to expand...

--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

photovoyager · Aug 11, 2003

Matti J said:
Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor.

Well, those who don't want to spend $8k on a camera are.

Aside from pros or rich (or fiscally irresponsible) amateurs, a full-frame camera really isn't affordable.

You are very confident that Canon can afford to make a full-frame consumer camera, I say, I'll believe it when I see it. Note that while for years the number of pixels on a sensor has been going up in ALL categories, the SIZE of the sensor isn't. This has been talked about over and over, lots of people have faith that Canon will come up with some new technology that essentially does the impossible, while others (like me) just don't see how it could be done. What is needd is a technology that would make it MUCH easier to produce silicon wafers without major imperfections, even gigantic (24x36) ones. Without that, no company could make a full-frame D-SLR at a prosumer-level price point.

Sure the 1Ds is overpriced, but even the awful Kodak 14n is far more expensive.

Regards,
photovoyager

photovoyager · Aug 11, 2003

Brad Morris said:
What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are
marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with
a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x
crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse.

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. 35mm sensors have a crop factor compared with 120 film for instance, and that has a crop factor when compared to large format. EVERYTHING has a crop factor when compared to SOMETHING.

What I'm referring to here is that the focal length of the lenses are designed for the size of sensor in that camera. Nikon and Canon have zoom lenses with focal lengths that are fantastic to use on a 35mm camera, but stick a 28-70mm lens on a 10D and you've got an awfully awkward focal legnth range that would require another ultrawide zoom just to get a range similar to what Oly has put in one lens.

So, yes, this IS a smaller sensor than the others, but that isn't the point, the point is that the focal lengths of the lenses are useful with this sensor... Whereas on a 10D or an SD9 the sensor size throws the focal length equivalent all out of whack.

Bottom line, the E1 looks like a fine camera, but it simply CAN'T be MORE expensive than the competition while delivering LESS. It doesn't make any sense.

Regards,
photovoyager

Jono Slack · Aug 11, 2003

HI Matti

I have no pain - I've got a perfectly serviceable D1x with fabulous 'out of the camera' shots and no smeary noise reduction. Added to which I have a nice 12-24mm DX lens that gives me real wide angle, a good work flow, great Nikon software and some new bodies to be announced soon.

Pain?

I was just hoping for something special from the E1, and it looks a little doubtful now.

kind regards
jono slack

Matti J said:
Jono Slack said:

Seems a little premature!

Click to expand...

Nothing to shout about ;-)

Matti J said:

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

Click to expand...

You see, I just reacted what was said in the previous post: "...
we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon...".

Just the fact alone, that my Canon EOS lenses are FF compatible,
makes me feel good i.e. my EOS lenses are 1Ds compatible.

I feel your pain, Jono,
Matti J.

Matti J said:

Matti J said:

photovoyager said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Click to expand...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

photovoyager · Aug 11, 2003

hcho said:
I don't know what people were expecting. For me, the surprise would
have been if the E-1 sensor outperformed Canon/Nikon/Fuji.

I wouldn't say Fuji, because their SuperCCD nonsense makes it almost impossible to compare. The point is, at this price point, it should at least be AS GOOD AS the others, and it isn't.

I suppose I just assumed that they wouldn't be so stupid as to price their camera right out of its market and beyond.

hcho said:
4/3 brilliant? Perhaps on paper, but we have yet to see any real
evidence.

The reason it's brilliant to me is that it accepts that 24x36mm image sensors are going to be very expensive for the forseeable future and so designs a new lens mount around a smaller sensor size. THAT is what is brilliant about it. The only reason so many people hitched their hopes on 4/3 is that it is the ONLY system out there that is designed around the realities of smaller sensors.

hcho said:
However, Nikon's DX lenses have the same feature.

There also aren't many of them, and they're excruciatingly expensive; more so than Oly's lenses. (Actually, the lens prices don't bother me, it's the camera body's price point that seems incredibly unrealistic.)

hcho said:
You are mistaken if you think 4/3 has no crop factor issues. True,
their lens lineup features some moderately wide-angle lenses that
are possible because of the reduced image circle requirements.
However, WA will still be limited to about 22mm (35mm equivalent)
with the announced lenses. Meanwhile, full-frame users can get 15mm
coverage easily with existing lenses.

But comparing full-frame D-SLRs to the 4/3 cameras is comparing apples to oranges. Compare to a 10D, D100, *ist D, S2, or SD9 and suddenly the crop factor issues of the E1 are negligible. Worst offenders are Canon and Sigma who seem to completely ignore the issue, assuming that people who "only" spend between $1000 and $2000 on a camera will have no problem with awkward focal lengths.

Again there is the assumption that in the future full-frame cameras will become commonplace at all price points. I doubt this because:

1. Nobody has explained how it could be done other than "they'll come up with a way" and

2. Seeing as nobody has the faintest idea of how to do it, if it were to happen it would have to be a long time down the road and people are fed up with waiting

hcho said:
Finally, haf-baked or full-baked, the proof is in the pudding. The
results from the E-1 don't do a very good job of showcasing 4/3's
purported superiority to 35mm format.

Again, I don't believe that it would be superior... That's BS to me. No way this camera stood a chance of being superior to a hugely expensive, full-frame D-SLR. What I expected, perhaps, was that it would EQUAL the competition, or close to it, and that the high price was a "novelty surcharge" that would soon disappear. Unfortunately unless the street price is a LOT lower - I mean in the $1000-$1400 range - I just don't see how anyone could justify buying this camera, even if you're someone like me who can't STAND the crop factors of the current crop of cameras (no pun intended).

Regards,
photovoyager

photovoyager · Aug 11, 2003

Jono - your subject line says it all. The present D-SLRs with their crop factors are great - and the ones where there is less of a crop factor, like the 1D even give a chance of decent, usable, only slightly "off" focal lengths - but the problem, and not just with wide-angle lenses, is that you wind up carrying lots of lenses and changing lenses very often because the focal lengths of zooms (and lets face it most of us depend on zooms, optically inferior or not) are all out of whack. With the E1 that isn't the case and that's what hade ME, at least, jumping for joy with the announcement. At least someone was ACKNOWLEDGING what a pain in the a** crop factors can be!

Regards,
photovoyager

David Martin · Aug 11, 2003

Anders Karlsson said:
Brad Morris said:

photovoyager said:

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

Click to expand...

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

Anders Karlsson said:

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Click to expand...

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

Click to expand...

True, assuming all other factors are the same and using the same
technology. But I'd say it's a bit premature to write of sensor
developments altogether. I don't see smaller sensor = more noise a
good rule. It is only true if you compare two sensors being
produced the same way and using the same technology. And not even
in that case are we guaranteed that this rule will stick.

In practise, however, we seem to have reached something of a plateau. Current best practise seems to give around the level on the 10D for a CMOS sensor, and the S2 for a CCD.

Maybe that can be gradually be pushed up, but it sems to be fairly difficult, and there are real limits of pixel size with the number of photons hitting the area at least on the not-too-far horizon.

It will be interesting to see what Sony do with their new 8MP consumer chip - if it's anything like the processing on the 717, then maybe we are looking at a pretty plasticky image.

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

David Martin · Aug 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
hcho said:

I don't know what people were expecting. For me, the surprise would
have been if the E-1 sensor outperformed Canon/Nikon/Fuji.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Fuji, because their SuperCCD nonsense makes it
almost impossible to compare. The point is, at this price point, it
should at least be AS GOOD AS the others, and it isn't.

I suppose I just assumed that they wouldn't be so stupid as to
price their camera right out of its market and beyond.

photovoyager said:

4/3 brilliant? Perhaps on paper, but we have yet to see any real
evidence.

Click to expand...

The reason it's brilliant to me is that it accepts that 24x36mm
image sensors are going to be very expensive for the forseeable
future and so designs a new lens mount around a smaller sensor
size. THAT is what is brilliant about it. The only reason so many
people hitched their hopes on 4/3 is that it is the ONLY system out
there that is designed around the realities of smaller sensors.

photovoyager said:

However, Nikon's DX lenses have the same feature.

Click to expand...

There also aren't many of them, and they're excruciatingly
expensive; more so than Oly's lenses. (Actually, the lens prices
don't bother me, it's the camera body's price point that seems
incredibly unrealistic.)

photovoyager said:

You are mistaken if you think 4/3 has no crop factor issues. True,
their lens lineup features some moderately wide-angle lenses that
are possible because of the reduced image circle requirements.
However, WA will still be limited to about 22mm (35mm equivalent)
with the announced lenses. Meanwhile, full-frame users can get 15mm
coverage easily with existing lenses.

Click to expand...

But comparing full-frame D-SLRs to the 4/3 cameras is comparing
apples to oranges. Compare to a 10D, D100, *ist D, S2, or SD9 and
suddenly the crop factor issues of the E1 are negligible. Worst
offenders are Canon and Sigma who seem to completely ignore the
issue, assuming that people who "only" spend between $1000 and
$2000 on a camera will have no problem with awkward focal lengths.

Again there is the assumption that in the future full-frame cameras
will become commonplace at all price points. I doubt this because:
1. Nobody has explained how it could be done other than "they'll
come up with a way" and
2. Seeing as nobody has the faintest idea of how to do it, if it
were to happen it would have to be a long time down the road and
people are fed up with waiting

photovoyager said:

Finally, haf-baked or full-baked, the proof is in the pudding. The
results from the E-1 don't do a very good job of showcasing 4/3's
purported superiority to 35mm format.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't believe that it would be superior... That's BS to
me. No way this camera stood a chance of being superior to a hugely
expensive, full-frame D-SLR. What I expected, perhaps, was that it
would EQUAL the competition, or close to it, and that the high
price was a "novelty surcharge" that would soon disappear.
Unfortunately unless the street price is a LOT lower - I mean in
the $1000-$1400 range - I just don't see how anyone could justify
buying this camera, even if you're someone like me who can't STAND
the crop factors of the current crop of cameras (no pun intended).

Regards,
photovoyager

It will be more expensive, but maybe not hideously so, to go the a 1.3 factor sensor. I agree that FF is going to be pricey for some time.
OTOH, I can handle a !.3 factor, 8-9MP EOS 3 based camera.

The crop factor doesn't seem too bad to me, and the rather larger sensor gives some latitude to cope with noise etc.
Just the way I'm hoping to go.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

digital100 · Aug 11, 2003

I have the money saved up to buy the E-1 but from what i see so far its not worth the money i am very disappointed with the image noise levels i use a d100 now and shoot at 1600 at weddings quite a bit and the E-1 at 1600 is a total dog. I was expecting it to be better then the D100 not very very bad like it looks.

That just about knockes me out of the E-1 game plan in less i see something great from its at 800 to 1600 then the S2 will most likeley be my next camera as i have the glass and flash all ready.

I was wating for the E-1 what a wast of time i could have the s2 allready.
I will wate till the end of the month to see some more info on the E-1.

David Martin said:
photovoyager said:

hcho said:

I don't know what people were expecting. For me, the surprise would
have been if the E-1 sensor outperformed Canon/Nikon/Fuji.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Fuji, because their SuperCCD nonsense makes it
almost impossible to compare. The point is, at this price point, it
should at least be AS GOOD AS the others, and it isn't.

I suppose I just assumed that they wouldn't be so stupid as to
price their camera right out of its market and beyond.

Member said:

4/3 brilliant? Perhaps on paper, but we have yet to see any real
evidence.

Click to expand...

The reason it's brilliant to me is that it accepts that 24x36mm
image sensors are going to be very expensive for the forseeable
future and so designs a new lens mount around a smaller sensor
size. THAT is what is brilliant about it. The only reason so many
people hitched their hopes on 4/3 is that it is the ONLY system out
there that is designed around the realities of smaller sensors.

Member said:

However, Nikon's DX lenses have the same feature.

Click to expand...

There also aren't many of them, and they're excruciatingly
expensive; more so than Oly's lenses. (Actually, the lens prices
don't bother me, it's the camera body's price point that seems
incredibly unrealistic.)

Member said:

You are mistaken if you think 4/3 has no crop factor issues. True,
their lens lineup features some moderately wide-angle lenses that
are possible because of the reduced image circle requirements.
However, WA will still be limited to about 22mm (35mm equivalent)
with the announced lenses. Meanwhile, full-frame users can get 15mm
coverage easily with existing lenses.

Click to expand...

But comparing full-frame D-SLRs to the 4/3 cameras is comparing
apples to oranges. Compare to a 10D, D100, *ist D, S2, or SD9 and
suddenly the crop factor issues of the E1 are negligible. Worst
offenders are Canon and Sigma who seem to completely ignore the
issue, assuming that people who "only" spend between $1000 and
$2000 on a camera will have no problem with awkward focal lengths.

Again there is the assumption that in the future full-frame cameras
will become commonplace at all price points. I doubt this because:
1. Nobody has explained how it could be done other than "they'll
come up with a way" and
2. Seeing as nobody has the faintest idea of how to do it, if it
were to happen it would have to be a long time down the road and
people are fed up with waiting

Member said:

Finally, haf-baked or full-baked, the proof is in the pudding. The
results from the E-1 don't do a very good job of showcasing 4/3's
purported superiority to 35mm format.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't believe that it would be superior... That's BS to
me. No way this camera stood a chance of being superior to a hugely
expensive, full-frame D-SLR. What I expected, perhaps, was that it
would EQUAL the competition, or close to it, and that the high
price was a "novelty surcharge" that would soon disappear.
Unfortunately unless the street price is a LOT lower - I mean in
the $1000-$1400 range - I just don't see how anyone could justify
buying this camera, even if you're someone like me who can't STAND
the crop factors of the current crop of cameras (no pun intended).

Regards,
photovoyager

Click to expand...

It will be more expensive, but maybe not hideously so, to go the a
1.3 factor sensor. I agree that FF is going to be pricey for some
time.
OTOH, I can handle a !.3 factor, 8-9MP EOS 3 based camera.
The crop factor doesn't seem too bad to me, and the rather larger
sensor gives some latitude to cope with noise etc.
Just the way I'm hoping to go.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
D100 user

Joseph S Wisniewski · Aug 11, 2003

photovoyager said:
hcho said:

I don't know what people were expecting. For me, the surprise would
have been if the E-1 sensor outperformed Canon/Nikon/Fuji.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Fuji, because their SuperCCD nonsense makes it
almost impossible to compare.

You could compare a 6MP "processed" Fuji image to the E-1, or even crop that to 5MP. If S2 at 12MP is beating E-1, it's just going to be a bigger gap at 6MP.

photovoyager said:
The point is, at this price point, it
should at least be AS GOOD AS the others, and it isn't.

Exactly.

photovoyager said:
I suppose I just assumed that they wouldn't be so stupid as to
price their camera right out of its market and beyond.

photovoyager said:

4/3 brilliant? Perhaps on paper, but we have yet to see any real
evidence.

Click to expand...

The reason it's brilliant to me is that it accepts that 24x36mm
image sensors are going to be very expensive for the forseeable
future and so designs a new lens mount around a smaller sensor
size.

But they didn't do that. True, it appears to be a new lens mount, but it's a mount with a size and registration distance that makes it virtually identical to all the other "film mounts" like Nikon or Canon or Pentax. There's nothing you can point at and say "that's designed for the smaller sensor, and not for film".

photovoyager said:
THAT is what is brilliant about it. The only reason so many
people hitched their hopes on 4/3 is that it is the ONLY system out
there that is designed around the realities of smaller sensors.

Given that the mount is a film mount, all major camera components (shutter, prism, etc) are film camera components, the only part of the system designed around the smaller sensor are the lenses. And Oly is being stomped on by Nikon in that aspect.

photovoyager said:
photovoyager said:

However, Nikon's DX lenses have the same feature.

Click to expand...

There also aren't many of them,

There's more in the Nikon line than the Oly...

First, there's a 12-24mm shipping already (that's wider on a Nikon "DX" camera than the Oly 11-22mm is on the E-1).

Add to that a 10.5mm 180 degree diagonal fisheye matched to the Nikon DX format.

There's the 17-55mm, which is equivelant to Oly's 14-56. The Oly has an edge on the long end, the Nikon has an edge in speed (constant f2.8), a silent ring motor, and we'll presume optical quality (anyone would expect a 3x zoom to beat a 4x zoom).

The next three lenese aren't billed as "designed for digital". They don't need to be, each of them already meets Oly's definition of a "telecentric lens", being within within 6 degrees of perpendicular to the sensor. And they already have reputations for outstanding sharpness and freedom for aberrations, which makes them favorites among digital SLR shooters.

There's the Nikon 105mm macro. Not as fast as the Oly, but with better working distance, and the ability to go right for 1:1 macro without any extension tubes.

Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 is also telecentric. Again, with less zoom range than the Oly 50-200, we'd expect higher optical quality. And the Nikon gives us a ring motor, and vibration reduction (image stabilization).

300mm f2.8 isn't a serious comparison. The Nikon is well respected for sharpness and freedom from aberrations (so much resolution its hard to tell when you're using a 1.4x teleconverter, and pretty good on a 2x converter). The Nikon is shorter, narrower, 1.6 pounds lighter, and cheaper than the Oly.

Now we've matched Oly, lens for lens, and beaten them by a fisheye. But consider that there's a stable of other Nikon lenses that don't need to be "designed for digital" due to their telecentric designs, sharpness, and freedom from aberrations. Lenses that won't really get any lighter, smaller, or cheaper if redesigned for a reduced image circle. This includes the includes the 24mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 105mm f2.0 DC (defocus control), 135mm f2.0 DC, 17-35mm f2.8, 60mm f2.8 1:1 macro, 105mm f2.8 1:1 macro, 200mm f4 1:1 macro, 85mm f2.8 tilt/shift macro, 300mm f4.0, 400mm f5.6, 400mm 2.8, 500mm f4.0, and 600mm f4.0.

photovoyager said:
and they're excruciatingly
expensive; more so than Oly's lenses.

As I pointed out, the Nikon 12-24mm is shipping now, and wider than the Oly 11-22mm. Oly hasn't announced price or availiablility on that lens.

It's true that the Nikon 17-55 is more expensive (suggested retail) than the Oly 14-56, and the Nikon 70-200 is similarly more expensive than the Oly 50-200. But in both cases, the Nikons are higher end lens (constant f2.8, ring motor instead of gear motor, and vibration reduction for the 70-200).

And we covered the 300mm f2.8. Oly delivers a lens that looks like a 15 year old Nikon design, for a much higher price than Nikon.

photovoyager said:
(Actually, the lens prices
don't bother me, it's the camera body's price point that seems
incredibly unrealistic.)

Very important, since pros typically buy a pair of bodies. And in the E-1's case, there is no other backup except for another E-1. Even pro Nikon shooters often backup a D1X with a lower cost D100.

photovoyager said:
Again, I don't believe that it would be superior... That's BS to
me. No way this camera stood a chance of being superior to a hugely
expensive, full-frame D-SLR. What I expected, perhaps, was that it
would EQUAL the competition, or close to it, and that the high
price was a "novelty surcharge" that would soon disappear.
Unfortunately unless the street price is a LOT lower - I mean in
the $1000-$1400 range - I just don't see how anyone could justify
buying this camera, even if you're someone like me who can't STAND
the crop factors of the current crop of cameras (no pun intended).

Same here. I think there are going to be a few folks who think a dust shaker and some weather seals are worth the high price, but I don't see it selling many of the general population.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Jason Stoller · Aug 11, 2003

Jono, where are we going here? I am glad you are happy with your D1x, but if you were that happy with it then you would not be looking at a possible E-1 now would you? I am glad that they came out with the 12-24 DX lens so you could finally get your wide angle, but how useful is that lens going to be to you if Nikon one day decides to go full frame? On the other hand, the Canon 1Ds is a full frame camera and can take advantage of what already exists. The Great Nikon software you refer to was an added expense and not included with your initial purchase. The Kodak 14n while not the success that we had hoped for, will also let you take advantage of what is already existing. So while the DX lenses are a wonderful asset to the Nikon 1.5 crop factor line, you are sort of tied into fixes like that.

I think that you will recall and agree with me that one of the best things about our E-10 days, was that the lens was matched to the sensor. So I hope we do not drag the Nikon Vs Canon or anything else in here while we are waiting and watching and the E-1 evolves.

Jason

Jono Slack said:
Pain?

I was just hoping for something special from the E1, and it looks a
little doubtful now.

kind regards
jono slack

Matti J said:

Jono Slack said:

Seems a little premature!

Click to expand...

Nothing to shout about ;-)

Jono Slack said:

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

Click to expand...

You see, I just reacted what was said in the previous post: "...
we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon...".

Just the fact alone, that my Canon EOS lenses are FF compatible,
makes me feel good i.e. my EOS lenses are 1Ds compatible.

I feel your pain, Jono,
Matti J.

Jono Slack said:

Matti J said:

photovoyager said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Click to expand...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

eric · Aug 11, 2003

you can buy sub-zero glass door freezer for the price of that 12-24 though. or 2-3 really nice primes. or a 1965 mustang that runs but needs restoration. or 75 yards of concrete. or 4 months of groceries. or 3 car payments on a bmw. or field level season tickets for numerous nfl teams. hehe this is fun.

Jono Slack said:
Pain?

I was just hoping for something special from the E1, and it looks a
little doubtful now.

kind regards
jono slack

Matti J said:

Jono Slack said:

Seems a little premature!

Click to expand...

Nothing to shout about ;-)

Jono Slack said:

as things stand at the moment, the only Canon users who can take
advantage of real wide angle are the 1Ds users (and to a lesser
extent the 1D).

Whereas you can get 18mm NOW for your D100/D2H etc. etc.

and if the 17-55 AFS 2.8 DX nikkor is up to par, then things look
even better.

Click to expand...

You see, I just reacted what was said in the previous post: "...
we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon...".

Just the fact alone, that my Canon EOS lenses are FF compatible,
makes me feel good i.e. my EOS lenses are 1Ds compatible.

I feel your pain, Jono,
Matti J.

Jono Slack said:

Matti J said:

photovoyager said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) ...

Click to expand...

Canon users are not stuck with any crop factor. Having a selection
of standard Canon SLR EOS system lenses, Canon users of
D30/D60/10D/1D have already the luxury of stepping into full frame
DSRL world if they wish and can afford. And if Canon can produce a
professional FF DSLR (1Ds), they eventually can make a FF DSRL for
prosumers and amateurs as well.

Cheers,
Matti J.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

Brad Morris · Aug 11, 2003

Anders Karlsson said:
Brad Morris said:

photovoyager said:

I must admit, despite having high hopes for the E-1, I'm not very
impressed.

Click to expand...

I have always had to ask myself "what was Olympus thinking?"

Anders Karlsson said:

Noise is higher than the competition. Resolution is lower than the
competition. And the PRICE is higher than the competition which
seems to deliver BETTER images.

Click to expand...

Of course smaller sensor and smaller photo sites = More noise.

Click to expand...

True, assuming all other factors are the same and using the same
technology. But I'd say it's a bit premature to write of sensor
developments altogether. I don't see smaller sensor = more noise a
good rule. It is only true if you compare two sensors being
produced the same way and using the same technology. And not even
in that case are we guaranteed that this rule will stick.

OK you are right to a point. The canon CMOS with a 1.6 FoV crop is cleaner than the 1.5 crop of the D100. think is that smaller photo sites, regardless of what type of sensor struggle with a higher signal to noise ratio than a larger sensor.

Anders Karlsson said:
Anders Karlsson said:

Anders Karlsson said:

So then the question is - who will buy this camera?

I think the 4/3 idea is brilliant. The camera itself looks
gorgeous, and so do the lenses. But the image quality seems to let
it down.

Click to expand...

Agreed shame they made some stupid marketing decisions

Anders Karlsson said:

Perhaps - just perhaps - at around $1,500 or so, I could see why
one might by this camera, because you don't have to deal with that
awful crop factor as on a 10D or D100 or (if it turns out to be
decent) *ist D. But for over $2k this camera is unappealing.

Click to expand...

What are you tallking about? With the Olympus, the lenses are
marked with 35mm Focal lengths and are effectively 35mm units with
a new mount.

You have to deal with a 2x FOV crop instead of a 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 x
crop compared to a full frame sensor - That is even worse. Because
of the Physics of Optics, the resolution will be reduced compared
to a 1.5 crop as well. The digital sensor while limiting the Feild
of View, doesnt magically reduce the circles of confusion that
limit the resolution that a lens can produce. The lens design can
hepl somewhat but there are limits

The Oly is a 35mm type camera with a small digital sensor (Compared
to the D100 et al). The only reason that the bulk of people havent
realised that yet is because of the Marketing spin and the fact
that Oly doesnt have a current 35mm camera that they have based
their design on.

Nikon and now Pentax have released DX type lenses that are
comparable, the E1 is only unique in its lens mount system at this
time.

Anders Karlsson said:

Oly will have to come out with a consumer camera QUICK, OR lower
the price equally quickly, otherwise I fear they may have blown it.
What's worse, if this camera fails, other brands will probably not
enter 4/3, AND it will probably discourage brands thinking of
coming up with their own digital "system" (Minolta?) from doing so
as well. That means we'll likely be stuck with crop factors (Canon
or Sigma) or half-baked digital-only lenses on 35mm lensmounts
(Nikon or Pentax). Not good :-(.

Click to expand...

They should have done that first with a price point of about $800.
that might have ensured the critical mass for something like the
4/3 system to become a standard.

Regards

Anders Karlsson said:

Regards,
photovoyager

Click to expand...

--
DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

Click to expand...

--

DCS-F707, Nikon CP 950, http://www.pbase.com/bmorris65 , http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628

Not too impressed

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

David Martin

Guest

David Martin

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

eric

Guest

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts