-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
E1 Full Review In Amateur Photographer
- Thread starter kevinslegg
- Start date
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
oops, pressed return...
Try again:
Buzz
I'm not really sure what your point is here.
AP gave the E1 a high rating and I've no way of knowing whether they are correct or not so I'm happy to take their verdict at face value (for now).
However...bad journalism is bad journalism and I don't think it should be defended just because the article appeared in a reputable print mag.
There a lot of strange or loose comments in the article that would raise eyebrows if said by a poster here.
For instance: "Olympus has continued, true to form, to explore and invest in its often singular visions" - what IS this?! This eulogy occurs BEFORE the review. At least the reviewer has nailed his colours to the mast I suppose...
Another: "it would be understandable AND QUITE ACCEPTABLE [my emphasis] if Olympus had announced that it intended to concentrate all its efforts on its mju and Camedia camera lines" - good of the reviewer to give oly permission to follow its own strategies!
Another: "Olympus abandoned the production of its film based SLRs many yeaes ago..." - was it really "many" years ago? They introduced a new camera (OM2000) only 5 years ago...
Another: "the resulting image quality [of the Zuiko lenses] is excellent, thanks to the near telecentric design.." - hmmm, maybe or maybe there is actually a lot more to designing a decent lens than this one feature...
Another: "...one slight blemish...the autofocus struggling under low light conditions. This will only affect some people some of the time and will certainly not impede the general use and performance of the camera..." -hmmm, I'll leave it to others to decide whether possible flaws in the AF system need to be examined further or brushed under the carpet...
Try again:
Buzz
I'm not really sure what your point is here.
AP gave the E1 a high rating and I've no way of knowing whether they are correct or not so I'm happy to take their verdict at face value (for now).
However...bad journalism is bad journalism and I don't think it should be defended just because the article appeared in a reputable print mag.
There a lot of strange or loose comments in the article that would raise eyebrows if said by a poster here.
For instance: "Olympus has continued, true to form, to explore and invest in its often singular visions" - what IS this?! This eulogy occurs BEFORE the review. At least the reviewer has nailed his colours to the mast I suppose...
Another: "it would be understandable AND QUITE ACCEPTABLE [my emphasis] if Olympus had announced that it intended to concentrate all its efforts on its mju and Camedia camera lines" - good of the reviewer to give oly permission to follow its own strategies!
Another: "Olympus abandoned the production of its film based SLRs many yeaes ago..." - was it really "many" years ago? They introduced a new camera (OM2000) only 5 years ago...
Another: "the resulting image quality [of the Zuiko lenses] is excellent, thanks to the near telecentric design.." - hmmm, maybe or maybe there is actually a lot more to designing a decent lens than this one feature...
Another: "...one slight blemish...the autofocus struggling under low light conditions. This will only affect some people some of the time and will certainly not impede the general use and performance of the camera..." -hmmm, I'll leave it to others to decide whether possible flaws in the AF system need to be examined further or brushed under the carpet...
G
grc
Guest
We recently had a member of one of the big UK digital photo mags (sister to AP) come along to meet a number of us.
He was explaining about deadlines and how sometimes they had to review 2 cameras and only a day to do it and produce the article.
Says it all!!!!
GRC
He was explaining about deadlines and how sometimes they had to review 2 cameras and only a day to do it and produce the article.
Says it all!!!!
GRC
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Which quite a lot considering the whole paper mag costs £1.95...
E
EJN
Guest
Isn't that reallythe way it should be done - the end-product being to show , without any artificial introductions, just how a camera performs IN LIKE MANNER against any other , particularly leaving it to the reader to assess the cameras of like type that can be compared ..knowing that the results have ALL been obtained on a like basis. If you start introducing post-processing effects, the so-called test results become useless. I really don't like viewing Steves Digicams reviews as I get fed up of looking at mostly the same old pictures...but they ARE the same, so REALLY side-by-side comparisons can mean something to an intelligent reader
--
EJN
Toralf Sandker
Leading Member
Actually, publishing images shot with "default" settings introduces plenty of deliberate choices and post processing, whether the shot were done in RAW format and later converted (to JPG in order to be published) or shot in JPG in the first place.
Either way, the images will be shot and processed with the settings introduced by the manufacturer's engineers. So judging the camera upon shots like these only shows how it will perform with the preferred settings of some wuite capable engineers, and probably test shooters.
The only way to squeeze the jiuce out of a digital camera, is to try different settings to maximize image quality under several conditions and print them. Then you can compare with similar images from other cameras and get an idea of their real potential.
Toralf
--
---
Toralf Sandåker, writer and consultant, Norway
Technique Editor, Fotografi
EJN:
The purpose of any camera is to get the technically best image out of it so that the photographer's purpose/creative vision can be fulfilled. With film cameras, a variable can be eliminated because comparisons between camera/lens combinations can be done using the same film. For digital, it is quite different.
With digital, we have sensor and processing, two variables which can have enormous effect on the image, plus there are many ways to set the in-camera options. Since the "defaults" are deliberate choices by engineers and product managers, in effect any direct comparisons are already affected by someone outside our control.
I think there are only two valid types of reviews for digital cameras. One is by a reviewer or team of reviewers that works through all the permutations (as reasonably possible) to get the absolute best iimage quality out of the camera.
The second is for the prospective buyer to do the same. Having read well done reviews, that task should be a bit easier since the review(s) give(s) a good guide and starting point. But the ultimate choice should be made on trying the camera and being thoroughly critical. For a point-and-shoot it's not such a big deal. But if you're going to spend thousands on a kit, buying solely on someone else's review is a fools game.
Canoeman
The purpose of any camera is to get the technically best image out of it so that the photographer's purpose/creative vision can be fulfilled. With film cameras, a variable can be eliminated because comparisons between camera/lens combinations can be done using the same film. For digital, it is quite different.
With digital, we have sensor and processing, two variables which can have enormous effect on the image, plus there are many ways to set the in-camera options. Since the "defaults" are deliberate choices by engineers and product managers, in effect any direct comparisons are already affected by someone outside our control.
I think there are only two valid types of reviews for digital cameras. One is by a reviewer or team of reviewers that works through all the permutations (as reasonably possible) to get the absolute best iimage quality out of the camera.
The second is for the prospective buyer to do the same. Having read well done reviews, that task should be a bit easier since the review(s) give(s) a good guide and starting point. But the ultimate choice should be made on trying the camera and being thoroughly critical. For a point-and-shoot it's not such a big deal. But if you're going to spend thousands on a kit, buying solely on someone else's review is a fools game.
Canoeman
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
The problem with the review was that the introduction started with "the first new SLR from Olympus for nearly a decade but it is also their first ever digital SLR" after 3 or 4 paragraphs of waffle. The waffle irritated and then saying it was their first ever digital SLR undermined everything. Simply because I have owned and used three or four digital SLR's from Olympus, one dating back to '97.
That is the say: the C-1000L, the C-1400XL, the E-10 and the E-20. Most of us thought they were SLR's and digital.
I though the review was enthusiastic but didn't dig deep enough. One or two points made suggested that the E1 was unique even when the features had appeared in the E-10 and the E-20 and the similarity in appearence to them wasn't even noticed. The net result is that I took the review with a pinch of salt.
Just my 2d worth, David
That is the say: the C-1000L, the C-1400XL, the E-10 and the E-20. Most of us thought they were SLR's and digital.
I though the review was enthusiastic but didn't dig deep enough. One or two points made suggested that the E1 was unique even when the features had appeared in the E-10 and the E-20 and the similarity in appearence to them wasn't even noticed. The net result is that I took the review with a pinch of salt.
Just my 2d worth, David
Marky boy
Senior Member
I thought was interesting and it has been reported by many E-1 owners on here - myself included, is how filmlike the images are in feel (no grain I hasten to add) - they just look less sterile than other DSLR's I have worked with.
Mark
http://www.shadowphotography.co.uk
Mark
http://www.shadowphotography.co.uk
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
I used to be an E10 owner but no longer and I'm certainly not in the market for an E1 so in that respect I have no personal interest in their review findings.
Perhaps I've just become used to the standards set by Phil; but I find myself increasingly irritated by the sloppy reviews put out by the print mags - afterall not only are they funded by advertising but also you have to fork the cover price.
Could do better; should do better is my verdict.
Perhaps I've just become used to the standards set by Phil; but I find myself increasingly irritated by the sloppy reviews put out by the print mags - afterall not only are they funded by advertising but also you have to fork the cover price.
Could do better; should do better is my verdict.
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
I'm afraid I have no idea what this means - sounds a little like the old CD v LP argument!
Personally, if an image is processed properly I doubt if anyone can tell whether it is film or digitally sourves. It's only when excessive film grain or digital noise; excessive noise reduction; excessive tonal adjustments or excessive sharpening is applied that it becomes obvious enough to notice in a print.
Personally, if an image is processed properly I doubt if anyone can tell whether it is film or digitally sourves. It's only when excessive film grain or digital noise; excessive noise reduction; excessive tonal adjustments or excessive sharpening is applied that it becomes obvious enough to notice in a print.
Dave Oddie
Senior Member
I think the simple answer to your question is no, that is not the way it should be done.
If you new the best setting for a particular camera is -1 sharpening for example, why would you want comparisons shot with it at the default 0 setting?
We are talking serious kit here, not P&S cameras and shooting comparison images with all settings at default may sound logical and "fair" but is too simplistic an approach for such cameras. Users are likely to want to tweak the settings to get the best out their camera much more so than people buying P&S cameras.
Therefore at this level I believe a different test protocol is required which means side-by-side comparisions should be comparisions of the best images possible by each camera obtained by adjusting the image paremeters optimally. Not images produced by accepting defaults an engineer chose for you.
The post processing comment was down to AP showing what you might get with an unsharp mask applied for example. That is not to say they don't show you the unaltered iamges because they do. They just prefer to show you the best output they can get from a camera - not what they get leaving everything at default.
Dave
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum