E-1 ...the real deal??

[Dave Oddie]

mlmphoto wrote:
Basically, if you want the most capable system it's not a close
choice. If you need to get a body for very little money or need to
have the level of water sealing the Olympus has then go with the
E-1. Either camera will produce stunning images.

I have been following this thread with interest and your post was a really fair and unbiased one I thought and so most useful.

I have finally been propmted to eBay my OM4 35mm gear due to the low prices an E-1 can be had for at the moment.

For me "If you need to get a body for very little money" sums up my situation.

At the moment if my gear sells I will be able to fund an entry into the d-slr world with an e-1 (if there are any keft!) that was not open to me previously. I don't need weather sealing but I do value good build quality and that 100% viewfinder is a big plus for me.

A Nikon D200 is way out of my price league at the moment but I am useless at making decisions on things like this so it is still not a total no-brain-er to get the E-1. My doubts are centred around the availability of lenses.

Getting an E-1 with 14-45 would be OK to start me off and I was thinking of saving for the Leica standard zoom due to the IS later.

The 40-150 or even a Sigma tele zoom would probably do me at the long end as that is not my priority.

What bothers me though is the availability of lenses at the really wide end.

The 11-22 is still not cheap and the 11 not that wide. The Sigma 10-20 is over £200 cheaper but not available for 4/3. The 7-14 is out of the question for me.

So despite the bargain price if an e-1 being a way in to d-slr ownership I am wary of buying into a system that gives me limited lens choice at prices I can afford.

Dave

 

[mlmphoto]

Fabulous images Seth!!........and thanks for your tips!
--
MLM ]

 

[mlmphoto]

Bill..........

Good point.........perhaps I am being overly "picky" when it comes to the whole weather-sealing issue...........I'll have to think a little more on this to decide what is best for me. Also, what exactly does "sensor cleaning" entail? Thanks......

P.S..... Congrats on the 4 figure sale of your photo with the E-1!
--
MLM ]

 

[mlmphoto]

Dave............yes, I suppose I will really have to consider the lens availability factor (as well as prices).........I think for some reason I am really caught up on getting a camera body that is completely sealed and one that offers protection from the elements, etc............(as such a system will last a long time........and seeing how I am one that appreciates durability, etc.). And like yourself.......it's not a total "no brainer" choice for me.........regardless of lens issues, megapixel counts, etc. etc..........which is why I fully appreciate everyone's opinions on this forum
--
MLM ]

 

[Tim the Grey]

Adam-T posts here, and I think he has them both. If it turns wet and horrible, out comes the E-1.

I have shot in downpours, I don't think there is ANYTHING out there quite like it.

Yes, it only has 5MP, and is now considered SLOoooooooowwwwww, compared to the likes of say a 30D/D200, but it STILL gives superb images out of the camera.

No one else has a camera on the market with a dustbuster. Sony will have something on the Alpha, Panasonic will have the same SSWF as Olympus, as they share technology.

Nikon and Canon have thousands of users putting sticky/wet pads and blowers into the mirror box instead.

Several folk have also commented how Oly seem to have thought about the lens ranges, and brought out something for everyone, covering a WIDE range. I have 3 lenses, and can go from 11 to 200mm, 280 if I add the converter. that's 22 to 560 in 35mm speak.
All sealed, like the body, all f2.8 at the short end, and all top quality.

Nikon DO have thousands of legacy lenses out there, and double the MP count, and a sharp clean design, but how many E-1 could I buy for the price of ONE D200 or D2X?

It's your money, buy what suits you. I got E-1 because that suits me.

Good luck, and choose wisely!

Tim
--
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

 

[Tim the Grey]

You can of course take LOTS of images, and stitch them...



That's rough and ready, but go to the ORIGINAL image, and start exploring it... It's not the worlds best stitch, but the detail is wonderful.
From memory, this is something like 20 images added together.
100MPish landscapes anyone?

8^)

Tim
--
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi There
Like Bill, I have a Nikon system and an Olympus system.

I can't really disagree with much that he's said - although I do find the focusing on the Olympus much more predictable than for the Nikon, especially with small objects reasonably close up.

The D200 (and the D2x) are much faster altogether - especially with respect to reviewing images. But I do have a few other points.

1. Build quality - the E1 has it in every respect (except for the nice rubber wheels on the D200), I wouldn't trust the weather sealing on the D200 (or the D2x) to anything like the extent of the E1.

2. Lenses - here I do disagree - as Bill said, there is a much greater range available for Nikon, and they're probably 25% cheaper for an equivalent lens. But I much prefer the mid range Olympus lenses, they seem to have an excellent price/performance ratio, but more importantly they have little or no distortion, and you can shoot them wide open with no issues. For ultra wides - I agree, the sigma 10-20 is a lovely lens, small, cheap and good quality - and I would think it's likely to be available for the Olympus at some point. With some exceptions I'm not a great fan of the cheaper 35mm lenses, and if you're going to pay for the pro lenses . . .

3. VR - I used to think it was a must, but the quiter (much much much qieter) shutter on the E1 seems to allow me to shoot at much slower shutter speeds than the Nikon, without worries about edge quality which VR causes, and (IMHO) unpredictable focusing results at normal shutter speeds if you've left VR on. If you're planning to use a tripod, maybe the Nikon is better, but if you're planning on hand holding, I'd go for the Olympus every time.

4. The future: Well, I don't think there is much doubt that there will be a new professional level Olympus during the next 12 months (even if it isn't announced at photokina). The professional quality lenses are there if you want (and can afford them).

5. The intangible: The E1 is wonderful to use, despite being slow and old fashioned and with limited resolution, it's just a joy to work with, and the results just make me say 'yes' the colours are always 'right'. I use it more than the Nikon gear, because I just like using it. . . . . and as a result, I take better pictures with it too.

6. resolution: Well, 10 is better than 5, no question IMHO 12-16 is about the 'right' resolution with good lenses. However, although it matters for landscapes, I don't think it's nearly as important for most other shooting (certainly the Olympus shines for close up and macro shots where the extra depth of field is a real bonus).

7. sensor cleaning. I never found it a problem, and anyway, the D200 doesn't seem to be very susceptible to dust - I've taken 10,000 with mine, and never done more than give it a puff with a blower brush. Mind you, it IS irritating having to remove a dust spec from 50 shots!

So, in a nutshell, If what you shoot needs speed, then the E1 probably isn't the answer, but if you want a compact system with incredible build quality and 'lovability' factor, the E1 has a lot going for it.

If you do decide to go for the E1, use some of the money you save to get the 14-54 rather than the (excellent but not weathersealed) 14-45. The 14-54 also has less distortion at the wide end, and focuses so close it almost doubles as a macro lens!

Bottom line - if someone said to me:

You HAVE to decide NOW is it to be Olympus or Nikon . . . . . . . I'd go for the Olympus.

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

 

[Jono Slack]

Just a couple of points
1. isn't this a nice civilised thread

2. I mostly shoot 'macro' (close up really) and landscape, and although the E1 does leave a little to be desired in the resolution stakes, you should never forget the option of stitching shots together to get you more resolution (the sky becomes the limit!)
kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[windsprite]

I have never used a Nikon, but I have the E-500 and recently got the E-1.

Here's one more way to look at your question: if you read the photography forums, you will surely develop a lust for a backup camera. If cost is a consideration, you could get an E-1 now while the prices are low, then if you feel you need more MP for landscapes, you can get an E-500 at 8 MP later as backup.

I like having both and using them for different situations; E-500 when I want a more lightweight setup (no HLD grip necessary; built-in flash available for snapshots) or more detail for cropping; I use the E-1 when I want weatherproofing, better high-ISO performance, or need to do manual focus. There's also an appeal to putting a different lens on each camera and carrying both so that you can switch lenses immediately. Some people like to have a backup that is the same model as the main squeeze, but the menus on E-500 and E-1 are almost identical, so I find it easy going back and forth.

I'm still exploring the E-1, but I think the two cameras produce very similar pictures. You just have to be a little more careful not to blow the highlights with the E-500. Although some E-1 fans say the E-500 feels plasticky and flimsy, I feel that is like a BMW owner complaining about the build of a Honda Accord. A Honda is not a BMW, but it is still a very decent car!

Having said all that, if cost is not such a factor, I think you would be wise to choose your new system for the lenses rather than the body. I bought into Oly because I could cover the range I need with only two lenses, the 14-54 and 50-200. They are good sharp pieces of glass, and weather-proof to boot. I didn't find what I wanted in Nikon and Canon, and I also didn't care for the colors I saw from either camp.

 

[Larry Lynch]

Bill..........

Good point.........perhaps I am being overly "picky" when it comes
to the whole weather-sealing issue...........I'll have to think a
little more on this to decide what is best for me. Also, what
exactly does "sensor cleaning" entail? Thanks......

Sensor cleaning is fairly tedious, but not too challenging.

It means you need to go to a place that is fairly "dust free" and remove the lens from the camera.

Put the camera in "cleaning mode" (this lifts the mirror out of the way and gives you an easy reach to the sensor surface).

The next step is done with either a "blower" type device, A static charged brush, or a wet type cleaning pad, depending on your choice.

1. The blower is easiest, but the least sure method (it sometimes doesnt work for some dirt).

You simply face the camera with the lens mount facing DOWN and blow a few "puffs" of air across it to dislodge the dirt/dust.

2. The static charged brush:

this is my method of choice.. I use 1/4 inch wide, angle cut, synthetic bristle makeup brushes, available at the local Druggist in the "makeup aisle" for $2.00 (US) apiece (and sold on-line for $20 (US).

After using boiling water, and many rinses to washe the "sizing" out of the brush, and testing it on an old UV filter to make sure it isnt damp and leaving streaks, I build up a "static" chacharge in the brush by holding the tip in a stream of air from some "canned air" (at a distance to prevent propellant from contaminatig the brush) and then simply brush the sensor to pick up the dust/dirt with the brush, where the dirt will stay because of the static charge.

NOTE:::: The synthetic fibers are the most important thing.. Real "Sable Hair" or other natural bristle will have "oils" on them that dont easily wash away, and they wont build the "static charge" as quickly or hold it long enough to be usefull.

3. The "wet system":

This uses a "Wiper" that has been moistened with a non-streaking cleaning fluid, and you "wipe" the sensor clean with it.

I find this method to be the most tedious, and give the best chance to scratch the sensor, as it may drag some bit of "grit" across the sensor.

The brush method, though it moves the dirt around, requires no "pressure" directly on the brush tip, so the chance to scratch the sensor is minimized.

Most of my "event" shooting is done in a VERY dusty atmosphere, and my Canon DSLR requires cleaning at least once a day, if I use it.

I have shot about 30 days worth of event shooting so far this season with the E-300 and E-500, and I've not needed to clean them yet.

Doing away with this piece of tedium has been a benefit to me, AND has saved me from missing important shots while cleaning the camera.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[mlmphoto]

Tim......hey thanks a lot for your input........from what you and others have said, it sounds like the E-1 still has some "get-up-and-go" left in it (despite the fact that some profess that it's "ancient" in terms of technology, etc.)> ........
--
MLM ]

 

[mlmphoto]

Jono.....thanks so much for all of your advice.......and after the inputs from others, I think "my heart" is really leaning towards the E-1.........and in truth it probably has been favoring the E-1 to begin with.........(I guess I just needed some extra confirmation from others about its qualities, etc.). Anyway, thanks for all the good points (and hey......thanks to all the others who offered their honest opinions.........I really appreciate it!). If anyone has more to say on this issue I'll still be checking the thread........hope everyone has a great weekend......
--
MLM ]

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi There

I think you can hardly lose - there are lots of deals, my suspicion is that they'll go up a little after all the current stock has gone.

Enjoy, whatever your decision is.

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

 

[venice]

Hi There
Like Bill, I have a Nikon system and an Olympus system.

I can't really disagree with much that he's said - although I do
find the focusing on the Olympus much more predictable than for the
Nikon, especially with small objects reasonably close up.

Of course, I don't have the D200. The D2X is far faster, more predictable and more accurate at all ranges than the E-1. The E-1 struggles and hunts quite a lot with the excellent 50mm macro while the D2X locks on far better with the 105mm VR macro. Although, if conditions are challenging, the Nikon will still hunt at times even though it is much, much less often.

1. Build quality - the E1 has it in every respect (except for the
nice rubber wheels on the D200), I wouldn't trust the weather
sealing on the D200 (or the D2x) to anything like the extent of the
E1.

The D2X is a tank. The only reliability problems I've had with either camera are the very occasional lock ups that the E-1 suffers and the rubber peeling off, also on the E-1. In a heavy downpour I would choose the E-1 if I had no way to give extra protection to the D2X.

2. Lenses - here I do disagree - as Bill said, there is a much
greater range available for Nikon, and they're probably 25% cheaper
for an equivalent lens. But I much prefer the mid range Olympus
lenses, they seem to have an excellent price/performance ratio, but
more importantly they have little or no distortion, and you can
shoot them wide open with no issues.

I have nice quality glass for the D2X and routinely shoot wide open with excellent results. I very rarely ever use a tripod so shooting wide open is important. I don't know about the mid range Nikon lenses.

3. VR - I used to think it was a must, but the quiter (much much
much qieter) shutter on the E1 seems to allow me to shoot at much
slower shutter speeds than the Nikon, without worries about edge
quality which VR causes, and (IMHO) unpredictable focusing results
at normal shutter speeds if you've left VR on. If you're planning
to use a tripod, maybe the Nikon is better, but if you're planning
on hand holding, I'd go for the Olympus every time.

Comparing my 150mm f/2 DZ on the E-1 and my 70-200 VR f/2.8 on the D2X it is not even a close call. I can shoot faster, in much lower light and with far more veratility on the Nikon. The focus speed and accuracy is simply in a different league. The VR really works and lets me hand hold at stupid slow shutter speeds that I could never do with the 150.

Having said that, the 150mm is a great lens, shoots wide open without missing a beat and has amazing weather sealing.

And the E-1 does have a wonderfully quiet shutter that lets you be less obtrusive in sensitive situations.

4. The future: Well, I don't think there is much doubt that there
will be a new professional level Olympus during the next 12 months
(even if it isn't announced at photokina). The professional quality
lenses are there if you want (and can afford them).

Once bitten, twice shy. I'll keep my doubts about Olympus for now. The pro lenses are slim pickings and the flash system is so 20th century.

5. The intangible: The E1 is wonderful to use, despite being slow
and old fashioned and with limited resolution, it's just a joy to
work with, and the results just make me say 'yes' the colours are
always 'right'. I use it more than the Nikon gear, because I just
like using it. . . . . and as a result, I take better pictures with
it too.

The Olympus colors are the best. I have to work much harder to get the top colors out of my D2X.

6. resolution: Well, 10 is better than 5, no question IMHO 12-16 is
about the 'right' resolution with good lenses. However, although it
matters for landscapes, I don't think it's nearly as important for
most other shooting (certainly the Olympus shines for close up and
macro shots where the extra depth of field is a real bonus).

The 5 MP's from the E-1 may be the best 5 MP's you can get. The big DOF helps in macro for sure.

7. sensor cleaning. I never found it a problem, and anyway, the
D200 doesn't seem to be very susceptible to dust - I've taken
10,000 with mine, and never done more than give it a puff with a
blower brush. Mind you, it IS irritating having to remove a dust
spec from 50 shots!

The D2X also doesn't seem to gather dust.

So, in a nutshell, If what you shoot needs speed, then the E1
probably isn't the answer, but if you want a compact system with
incredible build quality and 'lovability' factor, the E1 has a lot
going for it.

If you're the kind that likes gear then you can' help but love the E-1. It has a certain charm.

Good Shooting,

Bill

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Bill

Before the D200 I had a D2x, i got rid of it because it always seemed to manage to produce rotten greens - very difficult to get right for landscapes, whether you shot raw or not, whether I used Capture or ACR or Bibble or Capture or Lightroom or Silkypix (I tried them all).

Hi There

Of course, I don't have the D200. The D2X is far faster, more
predictable and more accurate at all ranges than the E-1. The E-1
struggles and hunts quite a lot with the excellent 50mm macro while
the D2X locks on far better with the 105mm VR macro. Although, if
conditions are challenging, the Nikon will still hunt at times even
though it is much, much less often.

Faster, less hunting (especially with the macros - and I've used both of these) but not more predictable and accurate - at least, not with the lenses I used or the bodies I've had.

I certainly agree that the D2x locks on much much faster, and with more conviction, but I KNOW that I get far fewer shots with the E1 where the focusing is wrong.

1. Build quality - the E1 has it in every respect (except for the
nice rubber wheels on the D200), I wouldn't trust the weather
sealing on the D200 (or the D2x) to anything like the extent of the
E1.

The D2X is a tank. The only reliability problems I've had with
either camera are the very occasional lock ups that the E-1 suffers
and the rubber peeling off, also on the E-1. In a heavy downpour I
would choose the E-1 if I had no way to give extra protection to
the D2X.

My second E1 hasn't locked up (but the first one did). The rubber grip peeled off on my D2x - never had the same problem with 2 E1's (also the D1x before it).

But I much prefer the mid range Olympus
lenses, they seem to have an excellent price/performance ratio, but
more importantly they have little or no distortion, and you can
shoot them wide open with no issues.

I have nice quality glass for the D2X and routinely shoot wide open
with excellent results. I very rarely ever use a tripod so
shooting wide open is important. I don't know about the mid range
Nikon lenses.

I have:

70-200 afs vr nikkor
17-55 afs nikkor
18-200 afs vr nikkor
10-20 sigma

I had all with the D2x, and I stick to my point here - only the 70-200 is really good wide open, and it tends to be soft at the corners, especially if you have the VR switched on.

Comparing my 150mm f/2 DZ on the E-1 and my 70-200 VR f/2.8 on the
D2X it is not even a close call. I can shoot faster, in much lower
light and with far more veratility on the Nikon. The focus speed
and accuracy is simply in a different league. The VR really works
and lets me hand hold at stupid slow shutter speeds that I could
never do with the 150.

I never had the 150 f2 Zuiko, but I'm certainly not disputing the focusing speed on the D2x being faster - no question. I don't shoot sport, but I STILL stick to my point about focusing accuracy.

4. The future: Well, I don't think there is much doubt that there
will be a new professional level Olympus during the next 12 months
(even if it isn't announced at photokina). The professional quality
lenses are there if you want (and can afford them).

Once bitten, twice shy. I'll keep my doubts about Olympus for now.
The pro lenses are slim pickings and the flash system is so 20th
century.

I guess you're right about the flash system (don't use flash much myself).

The Olympus colors are the best. I have to work much harder to get
the top colors out of my D2X.

I suppose that this is the real issue - for me, this is more important than anything else.

The D2X also doesn't seem to gather dust.

I do agree, but the D200 is better still - the dust issue is pretty much over hyped - on the other hand, it's still a pill to remove dust specs from skies in a weekends shoot!

If you're the kind that likes gear then you can' help but love the
E-1. It has a certain charm.

Certainly is! But don't get me wrong - I'm not really arguing that the E1 is a better camera as such, but that it does have advantages - I think the only thing we really disagree on is the glass and the focusing (and I would reiterate that I wasn't for a second implying that the E1 was faster OR that it doesn't hunt). On the other hand - shooting handheld with the D2x and the 105 AFS VR is quite a different experience from the E1 with the 50mm! (it must be less than half the weight).

kind regards

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

 

[David B.]

I've got both the E300 and E1, and they are great cameras. But I gained a lot of respect for the D200 when I tested it for a friend earlier this year. See this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17878384

Bottom line...if I had the money, I wouldn't hesitate to invest in the D200.

David B.

 

[venice]

Hi Bill

Before the D200 I had a D2x, i got rid of it because it always
seemed to manage to produce rotten greens -

I also find skin tones to be difficult on occasion.

Faster, less hunting (especially with the macros - and I've used
both of these) but not more predictable and accurate - at least,
not with the lenses I used or the bodies I've had.

I wouldn't doubt your experience. I've read your posts and seen too many of your photos to do that. My experience is different though. I had a lot of OOF shots with my E-1. Mostly when I was shooting things that move fast. But I had quite a few OOF macros as well. Not using a tripod and shooting in windy conditions probably predisposed me to that problem.

I certainly agree that the D2x locks on much much faster, and with
more conviction, but I KNOW that I get far fewer shots with the E1
where the focusing is wrong.

Not my experience. I suspect we are shooting slightly different things.

My second E1 hasn't locked up (but the first one did). The rubber
grip peeled off on my D2x - never had the same problem with 2 E1's
(also the D1x before it).

Peeling rubber is a pain.

I have:

70-200 afs vr nikkor
17-55 afs nikkor
18-200 afs vr nikkor
10-20 sigma

I had all with the D2x, and I stick to my point here - only the
70-200 is really good wide open, and it tends to be soft at the
corners, especially if you have the VR switched on.

I usually use my 70-200 for action and the corners are not so critical which may be why I haven't noticed that. Most of my landscapes are shot with WA and the Nikon 12-24 is almost as good as the 7-14 DZ.

I never had the 150 f2 Zuiko, but I'm certainly not disputing the
focusing speed on the D2x being faster - no question. I don't shoot
sport, but I STILL stick to my point about focusing accuracy.

I have a feeling this depends on particular subject choice.

Once bitten, twice shy. I'll keep my doubts about Olympus for now.
The pro lenses are slim pickings and the flash system is so 20th
century.

I guess you're right about the flash system (don't use flash much
myself).

I use it more with the Nikon than I did with my E-1 because it works so much better. Generally, I try to avoid it though.

The Olympus colors are the best. I have to work much harder to get
the top colors out of my D2X.

I suppose that this is the real issue - for me, this is more
important than anything else.

This is one of the strong suits of the E-1 and it doesn't get much play because it's so difficult to quantify and is, to some extent, subjective.

On the other hand

• shooting handheld with the D2x and the 105 AFS VR is quite a

different experience from the E1 with the 50mm! (it must be less
than half the weight).

True, the D2X is a beast.

kind regards

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

Good Shooting,

Bill

 

[K Mcgregor]

Well, I was really lusting after the D200 when it was first announced. Sounded like it would be like a 10 megapixel E1 substitute. However, I'm not so thrilled with it now I see what the quality is like. I still kind of want one for the megapixels, but I'm hanging onto the camera I really love (the E1) for as long as I can.

10 megapixels is really nice. It produces an image that is much much bigger than the E1 and hence more detailed. It's not that things are that much sharper, just bigger.

This comparison is totally not scientific, since I can't swear I focussed on the same point it both, but this photo was taken at the same exposure (at slightly different times, hence the sky change), from roughly the same place at the same focal length with the D200 and the E1. It makes me feel a bit sick looking at the detail comparison I made here (argh!! Maybe I should give in and get a D200!) but I think this, being a scene with so much detail, is a worst case scenario for making the E1 look bad. These are 100% crops unsharpened and developed from raw in CS2 at their default white balance, contrast, colour, and so on. That's why they look a bit flat.

You can see 10 megapixel gives you a lot more detail here.



These show the general scene, again these are not really messed with except that I gave them some unsharp mask. I know the sky is blown, I couldn't find the blinking highlights for the D200 and had to do the E1 picture at the same exposure.

From the E1:



General scene D200:



If I was to choose now and didn't already have an E1 I might go for the D200 (E1s are very expensive in the UK), but then lenses are a problem with Nikon and Canon cameras. None of them (that I've heard of) are as good as the 14-54 in terms of zoom range, fastness and cost and especially distortion, plus as others mentioned, the 14-54 can focus really really close (about 5cm at full zoom). I want near-distortion free 28mm and f 2.8 in a lens. With the E1 you also can get a really excellent zoom lens (the 40-150) for an extremely cheap price. I seriously doubt anything for that price for Canon and Nikon would be anywhere near as good.

However if a 'walkaround', distortion free lens like the 14-54 is not important to you, then the D200 would be a more future proof choice.

I think it's probably partly due to the fact that the extra megapixels are harder on the lenses but the Nikon lens I tried the D200 out with was really terrible quality, and it was a £600 lens (I forget what focal length, I think it started at equivelent 35mm). Very dreamy wide open, with odd looking out of focus bits and lots of CA (or whichever is the one that's caused by the lens and makes everything purple edged). It was fine at f 8 though apart from the CA.

Despite what some people say the D200 is really not much less noisy than the E1. I know 10 megapixels means that you don't notice the noise quite as much when it's resized but it still does look pretty bad. I thought that its being twice the megapixels would mean you wouldn't really see E1-like-levels of noise when resized to 5 megapixels but you can still see it, though it is still better than the E1. The D200 also does noise reduction in its jpegs which kills a lot of detail if you're not using raw. I think the smeary noise reduction is what fools some people into thinking the D200 is good at high ISO.

It really depends what you want. The E1 is a camera a lot of people love. It is strangely likeable, and produces especially addictive colour and depth. It's been a really good camera for me, I enjoy using it and it rarely lets me down or disappoints me. It often has the ability to make things like nicer than they really were rather than worse like my old camera. It also has the best feel and layout of any camera I've handled. The D200 feels a bit cheap in comparison and is not that great in the hand, plus the menus etc are really unintuitive and hard to use.

Note that if you have a 4/3 monitor, the E1 carries the advantage that your pictures fill the screen.

Also, the E1 possibly will have more dynamic range. That kind of thing is hard to quantify but some suggest the E1 is one of the best DSLRs for dynamic range (apart from the S3).

 

[mlmphoto]

Hello...........just wanted to thank you for all of your input and opinions regarding the E-1 vs. D200 "dilemma" of mine. Also, offering those images was really nice of you as well.......and from my point of view, I think that after seeing your images that perhaps the E-1 produces much better "color" (ie: the pics from the E-1 seem "richer" in color detail and "warmer", etc.....which I like). Anyway, on Sunday evening I decided to go ahead and purchase the E-1 (instead of the D200). I was a little "nervous" in making the decision.........(as I keep contemplating the whole megapixel issue).........but after reading so many positive comments about the E-1 on this forum as well as in other articles........I decided there must be something to all this "E-1 chatter". I purchased an E-1 body, with a 50-200mm lens........and unfortunately had to settle for the FL-20 flash (not sure if this is any good, etc.....but the company I was ordering from (B&H Photo) was all out of the FL-50).......and am now awaiting the arrival of this new purchase.

Anyhow, thanks again for you input......I really do appreciate it(and also appreciate everyone else's inputs on this thread........it was great to hear all of your opinions!)............and welcome further opinions regarding lens selections and accessories (now that I finally "bit the bullet" and purchased the E-1)...........thanks so much.....

MLM ]

P.S......Why is the E-1 so expensive "overseas"?? (Note: I am from the U.S. and think that I purchased the E-1 for a pretty "cheap" price from what I can tell).

P.P.S......What lens do you prefer the most? It seems that lots of people "rave" about the 14-54mm(why is this).............and how do the 50-200mm and 50mm macro lenses rate in your opinion??

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi There
you've chosen the intangible over the irreproachable!

I hope you're pleased with your choice - you seem to have thought hard about it, and so I think you will be.

The 14-54 lens is probably the only Oly lens where there have been questions about QA (I've had two, and the first one disappointed, but the second one is great). The advantage over the 14-45 is:

1. build quality
2. weatherproofing (Doreen says you can wash it under a tap)
3. close focusing - it almost qualifies as a macro lens

4. speed - the f2.8 gives a great viewfinder and it doesn't get to f3.5 'til near the end.

disadvantage is weight and price.

The 50mm macro is really a classic lens - it's weatherproofed, sharp as a pin, fast, small.

disadvantages is that the focusing is a little cumbersome - can't think of anything else.

Good Luck - I really hope you, too, fall in love with your E1, it's a fabulous camera, and as you shell out your $900 (or whatever) it's worth remembering that it was nearer $3000 when it first came out.

Enjoy

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