E-1: Thump, clunk, duhhh...dud...

Sorry Cliff but Digital Liquidators is not a good place to get a price quote.
They have low reliabilty. IF the prices you quote are from B&H then it's good.

So I guess the Canon 10D or Nikon D100 are not as cheap you quote!

Cliff. Johnston said:

Cliff. Johnston said:

--
Cliff. Johnston

Well, if Phil's image test results are indicative of what the new
E-1 will produce then count me out as a purchaser. For some dumb
reason I expected much better. If anything, Phil's report tuned me
into the Fujifilm S2 which I really hadn't considered much before!

The 4/3rds. concept certainly sounds good, but to charge twice as
much for a camera the produces images that are not as sharp as
competitors' cameras costing approximately 1/2 as much - COME ON
OLY!!! It's a short trip into oblivion.

Cliff.

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

OK, for those of you who don't want to look for the ads...the
prices that I quoted were from the same magazine but different
advertisements - not all B&H as some thought.

Popular Photography & Imaging magazine, September, 2003 issue.

Digital Liquidators has the majority of the low-ball prices posted
on page 104: Nikon D-100 @ $1,179.99, Canon EOS 10D @ $1,109.99,
and Fuji Finepix S-2 @ $1,299.99. I don't know how this outfit
stacks up with regards to reliability, etc.. Their phone numbers
are listed as (800) 954-4562 and 718-338-3624.
B&H Photo has posted on page 135 in the upper right-hand corner of
the page the Sigma SD-9 with 2 lenses @$1,399.95. I don't know
much about the lenses - just what it says. The ad. states: Kit
includes Body, 24-70/3.5-5.06 Aspherical HF lens, 70-300/4.5-5.6 DL
Macro Super Lens, and Case. That is in the magazine, not on their
web site. From what I know, B&H is very reputable. It is always
best to call them and haggle on price. Don't be nervous about
going for lower prices. It works if you do it right. Their phone
numbers are listed as (800) 947-9006 and 212-444-6680.

I trust that this will answer some of the questions out there.

Click to expand...

Cliff. Johnston said:

Jón Ragnarsson said:

Cliff. Johnston said:

--
Cliff. Johnston

Well, if Phil's image test results are indicative of what the new
E-1 will produce then count me out as a purchaser. For some dumb
reason I expected much better. If anything, Phil's report tuned me
into the Fujifilm S2 which I really hadn't considered much before!

The 4/3rds. concept certainly sounds good, but to charge twice as
much for a camera the produces images that are not as sharp as
competitors' cameras costing approximately 1/2 as much - COME ON
OLY!!! It's a short trip into oblivion.

Cliff.

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Jon,

Not much of an exaggeration on the prices! The MSRP for the E-1 is
$2,199, street price??? Right now I'm looking at the following
prices:
Nikon D-100 @ $1,179.99, Canon EOS 10D @ $1,109.99, & Sigma SD-9
with 2 lenses @ $1,399.95. The Fuji S-2 Pro is the only one still
in rarified air ca. $2,000.

Click to expand...

The D-100 and 10D prices you are listing are from world-known bait-n-switch shops like Broadway Photo. Shos like B&H, Adorama and J&R are the places to look for benchmark prices.
The Sigma SD9 price is on par. Without the lenses the SD9 is at $1099 or less.
Fuji S2 has fallen under $1900.

Cliff. Johnston said:

Sooo, you may eat your words at your own convenience.

Click to expand...

Making statements like that can backfire.

Cliff. Johnston said:

Cliff.

Click to expand...

Jono Slack said:

Hi Roland
LOL - don't worry, I'm not being hard on myself, but I would
prefer to be a graceful loser!

I'd seen some great samples, and, to be honest, I think that the
samples in Phil's gallery are pretty good - resolution charts
aren't necessarily perfect reflections of image quality.

I'll be interested to see what Phil's conclusions are, but it's
true - my hopes of great noise results at high ISO are pretty much
out of the window. :-(

Worse luck for all of us.

kind regards
jono slack

Click to expand...

gone for the day and came here first after seeing that Phil has done a review--even before reading the review. Doesn't look like a lot of happy Oly folks here. I was hoping that it would be 'the' thing.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Jón Ragnarsson said:

Cliff. Johnston said:

Jon,

September issue of Popular Photography & Imaging magazine is where
I got those prices - the Sigma SD-9 deal is on page 135, upper
right-hand corner of the page - B&H (big name outfit, not a
fly-by-nighter).

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check that out.

Member said:

You sound as if you are in the same situation that I'm in. I just
buried my old Miranda Sensorex (RIP, sniff, sniff) and am limping
along on a newer Minolta that I just hate while looking to make the
big jump into digital.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am jumping over to SLR after years of all kinds of digital
cameras. My list is getting longer, not shorter :
SD9/10D/S2/D100/E-1/*ist D
Like the whole concept of the 4/3 system, maybe I'll put my money
where my mouth is. And just love the handling of the E cameras.
Like the sharpness and price of the SD9, and lens prices.
10D, three letters: L IS (But no spot meter!)
S2, great colours straight out of camera.
D100, a alternative to S2
*ist D, compact with very good glass...
What to choose, what to choose... I had the same dilemma 17 years
ago, ended up buying the OM-2, with Super-A close second.

J.
--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

Click to expand...

Hang on, Jon!

There should be a big truck along shortly, the digital EOS 3, maybe 8-9MP and 1.3 crop.

Makes me wish I hadn't already got my DSLR - should be the bee's knees, at perhaps $2500
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

danny,

Don't be sorry - I did say that I wasn't sure about how good they were - now I know. Thanks.

I just happened to have looked through some of the prices immediately before seeing the particular thread that I responded to. It was a knee-jerk reaction only. I do know from personal experience that B&H is outstanding.

Cliff.

danny de dios said:

So I guess the Canon 10D or Nikon D100 are not as cheap you quote!

Cliff. Johnston said:

Cliff. Johnston said:

--
Cliff. Johnston

Well, if Phil's image test results are indicative of what the new
E-1 will produce then count me out as a purchaser. For some dumb
reason I expected much better. If anything, Phil's report tuned me
into the Fujifilm S2 which I really hadn't considered much before!

The 4/3rds. concept certainly sounds good, but to charge twice as
much for a camera the produces images that are not as sharp as
competitors' cameras costing approximately 1/2 as much - COME ON
OLY!!! It's a short trip into oblivion.

Cliff.

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

OK, for those of you who don't want to look for the ads...the
prices that I quoted were from the same magazine but different
advertisements - not all B&H as some thought.

Popular Photography & Imaging magazine, September, 2003 issue.

Digital Liquidators has the majority of the low-ball prices posted
on page 104: Nikon D-100 @ $1,179.99, Canon EOS 10D @ $1,109.99,
and Fuji Finepix S-2 @ $1,299.99. I don't know how this outfit
stacks up with regards to reliability, etc.. Their phone numbers
are listed as (800) 954-4562 and 718-338-3624.
B&H Photo has posted on page 135 in the upper right-hand corner of
the page the Sigma SD-9 with 2 lenses @$1,399.95. I don't know
much about the lenses - just what it says. The ad. states: Kit
includes Body, 24-70/3.5-5.06 Aspherical HF lens, 70-300/4.5-5.6 DL
Macro Super Lens, and Case. That is in the magazine, not on their
web site. From what I know, B&H is very reputable. It is always
best to call them and haggle on price. Don't be nervous about
going for lower prices. It works if you do it right. Their phone
numbers are listed as (800) 947-9006 and 212-444-6680.

I trust that this will answer some of the questions out there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Cliff:

I lived in the Big Smoke many years ago, then London and Stratford; still think of Stratford as "home". I'm now across the lake in Rochester, but longing to move back to the True North. Fancy a place around Bancroft; not as over-priced and crowded as Muskoka, but still canoe country.

Good day, eh!

Canoeman

Cliff. Johnston said:

Right on the button you are with your comments. That's exactly my
feelings on the matter.

Are you up in Hog Town? I was born there (many years ago).

Cliff.

Canoeman said:

Perfect Sound Forever (Sony/Phillips, the CD in 1980)
NT won't crash
Win2000 is the most secure OS

I pegged Olympus for a bit more integrity.

Somethings a bit wrong here, though. Phil's camera was a
production version, but what if, just what if, there are still some
bug fixes to come? It still doesn't look good on Olympus to
release a "production sample" to review, but it would be some small
comfort.

Canoeman

Doug Brown said:

Cliff. Johnston said:

late they found that out? Just as late as Kodak found out
about their 14n maybe.

Click to expand...

Totally. Take a look at the Pro Forum on this site. Not one post on
the E1. Olympus is simply not a player in that market segment. Why
they thought this camera would do it for them is beyond me.(Why
they would chase such a small market segment to begin with is even
stranger)
Maybe the development costs got out of hand and they had to dress
it up as a 'Pro" camera to justify what they needed to charge for
it? A year ago perhaps that made sense, but the way prices have
plunged with the intro of the 10D that whole strategy is doomed.
As someone else put it, it'll be a nice $1000 camera. When this
camera hits the bargain levels recently seen with the E-10, it'll
be very popular.

Regards,

Doug B
Torontowide.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you didn't get your E-1 MSRP from the same magazine. The EOS 10D is (was) typically sold at $1499. Your magazine marks it $390 lower - nothing wrong with that, but a discounted 10D doesn't make an E-1 more expensive. A more valid comparison would be E-1 ($2199) versus 10D ($1499). Which is no where near double the price.

Not in defense of the E-1 - I like the 10D better - but I'm just pointing out that 2x is an exaggeration. Nobody needs to eat his words here.

Cliff. Johnston said:

Not much of an exaggeration on the prices! The MSRP for the E-1 is
$2,199, street price??? Right now I'm looking at the following
prices:
Nikon D-100 @ $1,179.99, Canon EOS 10D @ $1,109.99, & Sigma SD-9
with 2 lenses @ $1,399.95. The Fuji S-2 Pro is the only one still
in rarified air ca. $2,000.

Sooo, you may eat your words at your own convenience.

Cliff.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.soaringcapture.tk/
What's a 'lense'?

Canoeman,

Yeah, I was born in TO - lived for a year in London too, plus many other places. My favorite area was the Haliburton Highlands - great smallmouth bass fishing - pound for pound the fightingest fish alive. Loved it.

Eh too,

Cliff.

Canoeman said:

I lived in the Big Smoke many years ago, then London and Stratford;
still think of Stratford as "home". I'm now across the lake in
Rochester, but longing to move back to the True North. Fancy a
place around Bancroft; not as over-priced and crowded as Muskoka,
but still canoe country.

Good day, eh!

Canoeman

Cliff. Johnston said:

Right on the button you are with your comments. That's exactly my
feelings on the matter.

Are you up in Hog Town? I was born there (many years ago).

Cliff.

Canoeman said:

Perfect Sound Forever (Sony/Phillips, the CD in 1980)
NT won't crash
Win2000 is the most secure OS

I pegged Olympus for a bit more integrity.

Somethings a bit wrong here, though. Phil's camera was a
production version, but what if, just what if, there are still some
bug fixes to come? It still doesn't look good on Olympus to
release a "production sample" to review, but it would be some small
comfort.

Canoeman

Doug Brown said:

Canoeman said:

late they found that out? Just as late as Kodak found out
about their 14n maybe.

Click to expand...

Totally. Take a look at the Pro Forum on this site. Not one post on
the E1. Olympus is simply not a player in that market segment. Why
they thought this camera would do it for them is beyond me.(Why
they would chase such a small market segment to begin with is even
stranger)
Maybe the development costs got out of hand and they had to dress
it up as a 'Pro" camera to justify what they needed to charge for
it? A year ago perhaps that made sense, but the way prices have
plunged with the intro of the 10D that whole strategy is doomed.
As someone else put it, it'll be a nice $1000 camera. When this
camera hits the bargain levels recently seen with the E-10, it'll
be very popular.

Regards,

Doug B
Torontowide.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Capital Man wrote:
[snip]

Capital Man said:

But, alas, definitely less resolution and a whole EV of more noise
(ISO 400 on Oly like ISO 800 on Nikon/Canon/Fuji).

On the other hand, maybe the F2.8-3.5 zoom lens makes up for the
noise, because the equivalent F2.8 lens for the Canon is a
humongous and expensive "L" lens.

Click to expand...

OTOH, you can get equally bright or brighter lenses for less. The wider lens selection allows you to choose your trade-offs:

For example:

Fantastic optics, at least a stop more brightness, but no zoom:

Canon 35/2 -- ca $220
Canon 50/1.8 -- ca $70
Sigma 20/1.8 -- ca $350
Sigma 24/1.8 -- ca $300
Sigma 28/1.8 -- ca $250

OK to very good optics, bright, zoom:

Sigma 24-70/2.8 -- ca $380 (bulky)
Tamron 28-75/2.8 -- ca $330 (compact)

You're stacking the deck if you insist on exact equivalence. Different cameras do the job differently. IMO the E-1 has very little advantage in the brightness/weight/optical quality department.

In fact, I think the contrary is true: f/2.8 and ISO400 is simply not enough for hand-held available-light situational shooting. You need a fairly short lens (50 mm equiv. or less), and light-gathering power of f/1.4 and ISO400 at that focal length; less for shorter lenses.

Which is not to say a bright, normal-range zoom wouldn't be nice.

[snip]

Capital Man said:

I STILL believe Oly's hype about the superior lenses, I believe
that it's the sensor that's failing us, not the lens.

Click to expand...

You're probably quite right about the sensor. However, I'm very skeptical about Oly's claims about their superior optics -- lenses are lenses, and I simply can't believe they've found some holy grail with which they can make dramatically better ones from anyone else. For example, the higher lp/mm figures are simply silly -- shrink the image by half, and of course you'll get double the lp/mm.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Definetly not! There's a lot of difference between quality of lenses !

Geir Ove

Petteri Sulonen said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

But, alas, definitely less resolution and a whole EV of more noise
(ISO 400 on Oly like ISO 800 on Nikon/Canon/Fuji).

On the other hand, maybe the F2.8-3.5 zoom lens makes up for the
noise, because the equivalent F2.8 lens for the Canon is a
humongous and expensive "L" lens.

Click to expand...

OTOH, you can get equally bright or brighter lenses for less. The
wider lens selection allows you to choose your trade-offs:

For example:

Fantastic optics, at least a stop more brightness, but no zoom:

Canon 35/2 -- ca $220
Canon 50/1.8 -- ca $70
Sigma 20/1.8 -- ca $350
Sigma 24/1.8 -- ca $300
Sigma 28/1.8 -- ca $250

OK to very good optics, bright, zoom:

Sigma 24-70/2.8 -- ca $380 (bulky)
Tamron 28-75/2.8 -- ca $330 (compact)

You're stacking the deck if you insist on exact equivalence.
Different cameras do the job differently. IMO the E-1 has very
little advantage in the brightness/weight/optical quality
department.

In fact, I think the contrary is true: f/2.8 and ISO400 is simply
not enough for hand-held available-light situational shooting. You
need a fairly short lens (50 mm equiv. or less), and
light-gathering power of f/1.4 and ISO400 at that focal length;
less for shorter lenses.

Which is not to say a bright, normal-range zoom wouldn't be nice.

[snip]

Petteri Sulonen said:

I STILL believe Oly's hype about the superior lenses, I believe
that it's the sensor that's failing us, not the lens.

Click to expand...

You're probably quite right about the sensor. However, I'm very
skeptical about Oly's claims about their superior optics -- lenses
are lenses, and I simply can't believe they've found some holy
grail with which they can make dramatically better ones from anyone
else. For example, the higher lp/mm figures are simply silly --
shrink the image by half, and of course you'll get double the
lp/mm.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Click to expand...

Geir Ove said:

Definetly not! There's a lot of difference between quality of lenses !

Click to expand...

Which they have proven with the outstanding glass they designed
for the E-10. For a 35-140mm zoomlens, the E-10's glass is
exceptionally bright, fast and sharp. They know their stuff about
lens design.

Bram

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
http://www.pbase.com/brambos

Hi Diane
How the devil are you? Well I hope.

The noise and resolution does not look as good as we'd been led to believe, does it?

Still, there's time for them to sort it I guess.

Personally, it maybe just makes it easier for me to decide to stay with Nikon (the DX lenses are rather pushing me in that direction anyway).

kind regards
jono slack

Diane B said:

Jono Slack said:

Hi Roland
LOL - don't worry, I'm not being hard on myself, but I would
prefer to be a graceful loser!

I'd seen some great samples, and, to be honest, I think that the
samples in Phil's gallery are pretty good - resolution charts
aren't necessarily perfect reflections of image quality.

I'll be interested to see what Phil's conclusions are, but it's
true - my hopes of great noise results at high ISO are pretty much
out of the window. :-(

Worse luck for all of us.

kind regards
jono slack

Click to expand...

gone for the day and came here first after seeing that Phil has
done a review--even before reading the review. Doesn't look like a
lot of happy Oly folks here. I was hoping that it would be 'the'
thing.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Click to expand...

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

HI Tony
thanks for thanking me!

Tan is a slightly different kettle of fish - he has personal experience, and so his opinion can be based on more than Phil's poor showing.

Still, personally it rather clarifies my position.

kind regards
jono slack

Tony Ku said:

Now where's that Tan guy? Probably hiding....

I'll admit I was surprised that they actually have a camera that
can compete against 10D -- Kudos Olympus. They just have to lower
the price a bit, and it'll be a real competition against the 10D.
I also think that the chromatic aberattion thing is impressive (or
lack thereof). But as far as the detail resolving part, it's not
up to what they claimed to be, though it's hard to tell with 5
megapixels sensor.

Jono Slack said:

(I did say I would be!).

kind regards
jono slack

Tony Ku said:

Gee, doesn't seem to be better than 10D or D100 now, does it?
(other than the chromatic abberation or lack thereof)

Cliff. Johnston said:

--
Cliff. Johnston

Well, if Phil's image test results are indicative of what the new
E-1 will produce then count me out as a purchaser. For some dumb
reason I expected much better. If anything, Phil's report tuned me
into the Fujifilm S2 which I really hadn't considered much before!

The 4/3rds. concept certainly sounds good, but to charge twice as
much for a camera the produces images that are not as sharp as
competitors' cameras costing approximately 1/2 as much - COME ON
OLY!!! It's a short trip into oblivion.

Cliff.

Click to expand...

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

Click to expand...

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

Bram Bos said:

Bram Bos said:

Definetly not! There's a lot of difference between quality of lenses !

Click to expand...

Which they have proven with the outstanding glass they designed
for the E-10. For a 35-140mm zoomlens, the E-10's glass is
exceptionally bright, fast and sharp. They know their stuff about
lens design.

Bram

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
http://www.pbase.com/brambos

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Bram,

This argument has been around longer than I care to remember. You are absolutely correct.

I can recall similar comments about all glass being basically the same, and it was made by some Nikon purists whom I knew back in the 1960's. Then for a very few years Miranda cameras were available in the U.S.. The difference was obvious to all but the blind. Miranda glass produced higher quality images. I bought one. Whenever my pro photog friends from the newspapers would come over, and we'd compare photos, the Miranda images were easy to pick out of a pile. There was an unquestionable, noticeable difference. Unfortunately the Miranda had a weak shutter and film advance system. I probably spent more on repairs for it than I'd like to admit, but it had great glass!

So whenever, I hear someone say that glass design has maxed out or can't get any better or all glass is glass - hmmm, I just chalk it up to inexperience.

Cliff.