Help! E-1 or 10d for first DSLR?

[Joo]

I'm surprised to read this repeated comment about the AWB on the 10D... Granted, it could be better indoors, but I find the AWB to be quite good with flash indoors. Otherwise, I'd recommend a custom white balance from a grey card which is not that difficult to do and provides very good color. I've found the AWB to be quite good outdoors to the point I almost never use a grey card anymore (used to all the time with the D30). I think its misleading to say that the 10D's AWB is "poor". I do not find it to be so in the majority of situations. Not saying its perfect in all situations, but then I'd be wary of people who claim perfection in all situations.

Joo

I would still have a couple of questions to ask of experianced
users in both camps.

Does the E-1s sensor cleaner really solve the dirty sensor
problem?

Yes, it does. There are about 125 E-1 owners in the Olympus SLR
Talk forum, and none have reported any dust specks in their images
yet. However, if one would happen to get something on the sensor
which can't be shaken off - the procedures for manually cleaning
the sensor are exactly the same as for the Canon 10D, and are well
explained in the owner's manual.

Are the lenses really well sealed?Superior to competative
consumer lenses?

When Olympus USA gives a product demonstration for the E-1, they
begin by pouring a glass of water all over the camera and lens.
And I wanted to recount an anecdote about an E-1 user who claims he
was shooting at the beach and got saltwater spray all over his
camera. When he got back home, he simply took the camera into the
shower with him, and hosed it down. Now I'm not recommending any
of this, but just suggesting what other people have done with the
camera.

While Canon does not yet offer a quality zoom lens that matches the
range of the Oly 14-54,third party makers like Sigma and Tamron are
working on this.Are their lenses a good option?

Third party lenses often provide excellent optical quality at a
lower price than the camera manufacturer, but sometimes the
construction quality is not as high. However, I would discourage
any new Canon 10D owner from buying a 3rd party lens until after
they are thoroughly familiar with the camera. The 10D can display
autofocusing inaccuracies, which are related to the calibration of
the camera body matching up with the calibration of the lens. When
this occurs, the camera body and lenses must be sent in to a Canon
service center for recalibration. The problem is, they won't do
repair work on 3rd party lenses.

For an interesting case history of this type of problem, read these
2 postings by the same fellow at these links:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=7225859

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=7391965

It is a good idea to try out both the Canon 10D and Olympus E-1 at
a camera store. But some of the things which will affect how much
you enjoy using the camera on a day to day basis are not easily
detected during a brief period of handling in a camera store. The
accuracy of the Auto White Balance is very important, and it
affects how muc post-processing is required for every image you
shoot. I also suggest you test which camera is easier to manually
focus. Even though you may plan to use autofocusing most of the
time, the clarity and contrast of the focusing screen is the first
indication of autofocusing accuracy. The Canon 10D not only
suffers from autofocusing inaccuracies, but it is also nearly
impossible to manually focus accurately due to its poor focusing
screen. The E-1 not only has more accurate autofocusing, but it is
also much easier to manually focus because of the superior constast
and clarity of its focusing screen.

Gene Windell

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.

http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.pbase.com/jchung/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

 

[Stan]

..but neither Canon nor Olympus can match HP's P&S Auto-WB!!!

See the crops here, E1 does look better:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page19.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page16.asp

Stan

 

[Gary Reich]

I bought the 300D which you have dismissed. Just thought I'd add
some of my insights.

The "cheap" feel -- I consider "light". And it's very nice to have
a lighter camera.

You are right in "the whole system cost" kinda mitgates the price
difference between the 300D and the 10D. After all, I already have
almost $2000 in lenses in flashes for my 300D.

However, technology is changing very rapidly in camera bodies.
Since my 300D gives me the same quality pictures as the 10D -- I
figure I'll buy in at the lower price and upgrade later.

Lens technology is not changing at the same rapid pace and so I
feel comfortable sinking more money into them.

A good quality lens is every bit as useful on a 300D as it is on a
10D.

As for the Oly -- that's a "manufacturer's" choice. Which
manufacturer do you want to be tied into is probably a MORE
important question than your first camera body from that
manufacturer.

Canon has won me over from Nikon. I simply think they are more on
the ball -- while realizing that companies will continue to meet
the competition and leap frog each other.

Ditto - I took this exact same route.

When I am ready for a "better" body - I have all the lenses for it already.

My 300D takes great shots - "light" doesn't make a difference.

http://homepage.mac.com/garybooberry/PhotoAlbum2.html

 

[Marc Young]

That sounds good in theory, but in the 9 months that I owned a 10D
I was never able to manual focus it accurately. The problem is
that the focusing screen lacks sufficient clarity and contrast for
determining whether or not the image is in focus. This problem is
compounded by the fact that Canon lenses do not provide enough
rotational throw on the focusing collar to allow fine adjustments
in manual focusing. With many Canon lenses, turning the focusing
collar just 1mm changes the point of focus from 3 meters to
infinity.

I agree the focusing control is twitchy as hell. It takes a fine hand to twist the collar so that when the shutter is halfway down, the red focusing square(s) blink(s) exactly where you want it too. On a money shoot, I recommend that the user take several shots each focused at a different spot. (This only works when your assignment is something that stands stilll, like a building). Canon should have implemented a bracket focus (only kidding). This is one reason why I will be upgrading the camera in 6 months, but not to an Olympus. In the meantime, I will get $700 worth of use out of it, and sell it for half the street price when the time comes.

 

[Frank B]

I used 35mm film for years and had no trouble getting 8x12 prints made. I now have a 10D and an ink jet printer and print 8x12. The only "bother" is I need to purchase larger paper and cut it to size and set the printer to "Legal Size". When I need to crop I have the option of cropping to 8x10 and I still have resolution that is a bit better than the E-1. I prefer the 3:2 format and 8x12 prints both from an aesthetic point of view and as they appear more impressive on the wall without taking up too much additional space.

Frank B

Gene Windell wrote:
...

The 3:2 aspect ratio, which is used by all dSLRs except the Olympus
E-1, doesn't conform to any print size (in the US) except 4X6 and
wallet size. If printing to 4X5, 8X10, 11X14 or 16X20 - nearly 20%
of the imaging area must be cropped out when the 3:2 aspect ratio
is used. When composing for the 8X10 print size at the time of
shooting, it must be estimated how much of the image is going to be
lost so you can frame the image accordingly. Because the 4:3
aspect ratio is equivalent to the 6x4.5 film format, it corresponds
almost exactly with the most common print enlargement sizes. This
fact, when combined with the Olympus E-1's 100% viewfinder
coverage, make image composition at the time you are shooting much
quicker and fewer pixels are wasted.

...

Gene Windell

 

[Joo]

Lets not forget that 20x30 prints aren't exactly rare either, which is perfect for 3:2 aspect ratio DSLRs.

Joo

Frank B

Gene Windell wrote:
...

The 3:2 aspect ratio, which is used by all dSLRs except the Olympus
E-1, doesn't conform to any print size (in the US) except 4X6 and
wallet size. If printing to 4X5, 8X10, 11X14 or 16X20 - nearly 20%
of the imaging area must be cropped out when the 3:2 aspect ratio
is used. When composing for the 8X10 print size at the time of
shooting, it must be estimated how much of the image is going to be
lost so you can frame the image accordingly. Because the 4:3
aspect ratio is equivalent to the 6x4.5 film format, it corresponds
almost exactly with the most common print enlargement sizes. This
fact, when combined with the Olympus E-1's 100% viewfinder
coverage, make image composition at the time you are shooting much
quicker and fewer pixels are wasted.

...

Gene Windell

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.

http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.pbase.com/jchung/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

 

[John Duesterhoeft]

Gene, what is your take on Phil's review of the E-1?

Someone looking at that review will see problems with noise, jpeg artifacting, and vignetting (somthing which you have accused 35mm frames of causing)...

Don't you feel you that you might be a bit narrow and extreme on your view? Why no mention of Nikon or any of the other 35mm based systems? Why do you focus on pointing out Canon problems? My 550EX flash works fine when I use it for wedding photography. My 10D focuses fine too. To bash an entire system simply because you got a bad sample or didn't feel like adapting to it is bad style.

 

[Frank B]

I have not used the E-1 and own the 10D (the E-1 was not available when I bought my 10D), so my comments do not reflect hands on use of the E-1.

1. The E1 does not have a built in flash. so if you use fill flash outdoors you must carry a separate flash.

2. Once you buy into the E-1 you are limited to the 4/3 sized sensor. The 10D sensor is 41% larger so if Canon keeps that format there is more room in the future for additional resolution with less of an issue from increased noise. Even, now at 5MP the E-1 has more noise than the 10D. You also currently, have the option (at considerable expense and weight) of "upgrading" to a Canon full frame or 1.3x body. Also, Canon has the option of offering successors to the 10D with larger sensors. If Olympus adopts a larger sensor size in the future your lenses will not work.

3. The E-1 does not currently offer image stabilization (IS) and has not said it will in the future. IS is a valuable feature when no tripod is available, especially when using longer lenses or needing a smaller aperture (and thus a slower shutter speed) for DOF when you don't have a tripod.

4. The 10D has 27.8% more pixels than the E-1. I print at 8x12 on my ink jet printer and find these prints more "impressive" looking than 8x10. I use a larger size paper and cut it down, set my printer to "legal size" and then print 8x12 and trim. If I need to crop I have the option of printing at 8x10 and still have slightly more resolution than with the E-1.

5. The 10D has less noise than the E-1 at all ISOs. When I want to bring out shadow detail low noise is very important to me. Also, having higher ISOs available to me with less noise than the E1 is a bonus when I need that extra shutter speed to avoid camera shake.

6. The Canon system is far more complete than the Olympus system and there are many different lenses available from third party manufacturers. This may not mean much to you now, but in allows you to grow.

7. I won't comment on the relative merits of the flash systems as I seldom use an external flash.

8. I don't know how the 10D compares with the E-1 with respect to the "dust problem", but the 10D has had less of a problem with dust than other DSLRs. I have had mine since last May and have not had to clean it yet.

As I see it, the advantages of the E-1 are its lighter weight when combined with fast lenses and weather proofing.

For me, I think that if I were buying today I would still buy the 10D due the Canon system and the fact that we don't yet know where DSL technology is going and Canon has "an oar" in everywhere.

Frank B

Karaya wrote:

 

[Nabal]

Don't you feel you that you might be a bit narrow and extreme on
your view? Why no mention of Nikon or any of the other 35mm based
systems? Why do you focus on pointing out Canon problems?

The original poster indicated he was considering purchase of no other cameras except the Canon 10D and the Olympus E-1, so throwing anything else into the mix would be off-topic and cloud the issue. I point out the problems with the Canon 10D because I feel people shopping for their first dSLR are entitled to know about them, and people who already own the 10D are inclined not to reveal these issues, and instead treat them as dirty little secrets.

Gene, what is your take on Phil's review of the E-1?

I was already a Canon 10D owner before I had even heard of the 4/3 format, but because of my general interest in technology it took an interest in it. By the time Phil's review of the E-1 came out, I had already become so dissatisfied by the 10D's autofocusing performance that I had bought a 1D simply because my work often required reliable autofocusing. But while the 1D solved my autofocusing problems, I found that its Auto White Balance indoors was no more accurate than the 10D - and its E-TTL flash metering was even more troublesome.

When I read Phils review of the E-1, I was very disappointed and I promptly dismissed it from consideration - as I assume many other people have done, and several months passed before I gave the E-1 another thought. What brought my interest back was that I had seen some on-camera TTL flash pictures posted on the internet, which a lady had taken the first time she tried using the E-1. These flash pictures were better than anything I had been able to accomplish with my 10D and 550EX after 9 months of working with it, and I'm a pro photographer who should have been able to do better.

To make a long story short, I bought an Olympus E-1 outfit and tried using it side-by-side with the Canon 10D for about a week. To summarize, I found the autofocusing speed of the E-1 equivalent to the 10D, but always accurate and reliable like the 1D. The Auto White Balance accuracy has them both beat by a wide margin, and produces files which need no color correction about 95% of the time. No blown-out highlights like the 10D had me struggling with, and the TTL flash metering of the E-1 is what every Canon 10D owner hopes for in their wildest dreams.

I had no idea how much the 10D was punishing me, until I got a chance to try using something which is so much better. So in short order, I disposed of the 10D and awhile later the 1D also went to find a new home. My only regret is that I didn't switch to the E-1 sooner, which would have saved me a lot of misery.

Some people may claim that I'm simply not smart enough to learn how to use a Canon 10D, and I wouldn't dispute that at all. Instead, I will suggest that the Olympus E-1 is an excellent alternative for people who are not smart enough to use the 10D.

Someone looking at that review will see problems with noise, jpeg
artifacting, and vignetting (somthing which you have accused 35mm
frames of causing)...

Those noise charts in Phil's tests are black and white and highly magnified. So I suppose if one only wanted to photograph black and white test charts and make the images into 20x30 inch prints - then the Canon 10D will produce more pleasing results. But in real-world color photography, the E-1's image noise is not visible until you get up to ISO 800. And at that level, the grain takes on the coloration of the image so it looks like film grain. In other words, and E-1 image shot at ISO 800 and printed on paper looks like it was shot on ISO 800 Kodak Portra film. Not 35mm Portra film, but medium format ISO 800 Portra film. The absense of grain in Canon 10D images can sometimes make people's faces look like plastic mannequin faces, whereas any grain that may be visible in a print from the E-1 help to give a more film-like quality.

The .jpeg artifacting which shows in Phil's tests is apparently related to imperfections in the Olympus RAW conversion software. When Phil did a later test using the Photoshop CS RAW converter, the .jpeg artifacting disappeared. But again, that is sort of academic. I've never seen .jpeg artifacting in my E-1 files, and I suspect you would have to go up to the 20X30 print size to see it if it is there.

There are at least 10 formal reviews of the E-1 on the Internet, and all except Phil's say the image quality of the E-1 is as good or better than any other 5 or 6 megapixel camera. The thorough review of the E-1 by George Schaub in the current edition of Shutterbug Magazine compliments the E-1 on its low noise/high ISO performance, and overall image quality.

But instead of relying on test reports, ask the people who actually own and use the E-1. There are about 125 of them over in the Olympus SLR Talk forum, and they are delighted with the E-1's image quality. In fact, I think you'll find that Olympus E-1 owners have fewer complaints about their camera than any other dSLR on the market. Indeed, the only people complaining about the E-1 are those who have never used one.

Gene Windell

 

[Philip Lengden]

As a professional I took the decision to purchase an E-1 very seriously. However, I did not have any legacy system to which I was tied. Stepping into a DSLR system (and for that matter an SLR system) it made sense to me that a digital system designed from the ground up that wasn't tied to any "transitional" 35mm system just worked!

So far the system has been great - still getting used to things but it feels great in the hands. Printed a 13x19 inch print the other day (Super A3), shot at 400 ISO with an on camera FL-50 flash. Image looks great! Grain looks more like film then noise which I like - I was afraid my images were going to look too clean going to digital. Unfortunately I did the RAW conversion in Photoshop CS so the reds seem to have gone funny - I read about this problem after the fact (causes by PS not E-1), which is good because at first glance I thought my colour management workflow was off (which it wasn't).

I'll be posting some images as soon as I can - unfortunately I can't run my work until the magazines are off the shelf.

For now here's a good old 4x5 portrait of William H. Macy for you all

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-01-15/cover_story.php

 

[Kev - UK South Coast]

When users comment on the better focussing of the E1, I don' t beleive its comparing like with like. I have no trouble with my 10d using apertures of 4 and smaller. I presume that is the same for the E1 users.

It's only the big apertures on canons lenses (1.4, 1.8, and 2.8 on 100mm upwards - all with narrow DOF) that ever cause me an issue. And it's no different to what i experienced on film, it's not enough of a problem to make me worry about it, in fact i was happy to invest in a 2nd 10d. On the whole the 10d auto focus is fine, I do however aspire to a pro body with all it's advantages (and the weight issue).

For AWB, a camera manufacturer can give you stronger and weaker (better or worse) effect, to go for that pure white, you can do the same in PS. However, it's not always what you want. Sometimes it's nice to keep the ambience. I therefore suggest the E1 is just a stronger effect than the 10d. And it's easy to set PS, to automatically give you the AWB balance you want. Use an adjustment layer to apply a custom auto levels, which enhances individual channel contrast (but set to maintain 0.1%), and then make that adj. layer transparent to say 25%, 50% or 75% depending on what you want. For 99% of my shots 33% is the best option for me. For me this fits in with shooting 1/2 stop under, and applying a simple shadow biased curve to the file, along with a auto custome level that sets black and white to 0.1% first, and some custome contrast curves to squash higlight and shadow and open midtones. That's all I do to most of my files, before i can show them to a client. The orders than get some USM.

Regards,
Kev

Hello all.I hope that someone with more experiance can help me make
up my mind.I have been researching DSLRs for many months now.I have
been to my local dealer to examine the Canon 300d and 10d,as well
as the Olympus E-1.The 300d is aimed at people like me,someone who
wants to make the jump from digital point and shoots to a DSLR
without breaking the bank,but it looks and feels 'cheap' to me.It
may be a good value for the money but by the time you build a 'kit'
around it you will still have spent thousands of dollars while
being stuck with a 'cheap'feeling camera.This leaves the E-1 and
10d,both of wich feel right in my hands(I have big hands)and seem
to be well built.Allow me to explain where I am at and what I want
to do:
What I have; Kodak DC-290 2MP bought new in '99,wife just bought
Canon A-80 4MP, Dell 8250 2.4 pent4,20" fp2000 lcd,HP 882c
printer,using Microsoft picture it premium photo edition.XP home.

What I have been doing; casual family point and shoot stuff and
vacation photologs.On a recent trip to Germany I ran into the
limitations of my old DC-290.In museums shots without a flash were
a challenge even with .5 second exposures.Macro shots of insects
comprimised by lack of close focus,long shots of birds left me
wanting more reach.Despite all this I did bring home a treasure of
nice shots!I mostly like to look at photos on my monitor as
'slideshows',occassianaly print out keepers as 8x10s.I have worked
with jpegs only.Not sure if I want to deal with RAW.

What I want to do;As above.I want a camera that will be easy to use
for the P&S everyday snapshots but will also serve for delving into
more nature photography.Macro and long telephoto-the birds and the
bees.

What I would like to get;A versatile DSLR kit,body,2
lenses,flash,tripod,bag.Upgrade to Adobe photoshop Elements 2 and a
better printer,leaning towards dye thermal,Canon cp-200 or Oly 440.

What I like about the Oly E-10;Sealed body and lenses along with
self cleaning sensor.I treat my cameras with care but when
something costs this much should it not be able to stand up to a
little dust and moisture?Well integrated system,body,lenses,flash
all work and play wll together.Lenses,14-54 and 50-200 covers the
whole range of 28-400 in 35mm eqv. with 2 compact lenses and 2.8
-3.5 apperture!

What I like about the Cannon 10d;Scene modes,seems like a good way
for a neophyte to take good shots while learning the ropes.Huge
selection of lenses,including many IS models.Somewhat less
expensive accessories,grip,flash etc.Pop up flash.Works well with
exra fine jpegs.

What I have for a budget;I am receiving a tax refund of ~$7600 but
I would feel silly blowing it all on a camera at this stage of the
hobby.The less the better.

Options:
Go for broke pro grade Oly system;body 1799,14-54 lens 500,50-200
$1000,FL-50 flash 500,mem card 150,grip 500,tripod 150.bag
100,p-440 printer(8x10 dye thermal) 500.-300 for clunker trade
in=~$4899

Economical Canon 10d system;body 1500,28-135 IS lens 450,550EX
flash 350,mem card 150,grip 350,tripod 150,bag 100,cp-200
printer(4x6 dye thermal) 200=~$3250.

I am getting a sore butt from sitting on the fence.Does anyone
having any insights or wisdom to share to help me decide?I am sure
either camera is way more capable then I will ever be.I like them
both.The oly seems like the more complte system,and more rugged,but
the canon could save me some serious $.Thanks for reading this long
rant and thanks for any advice!

 

[Nabal]

When users comment on the better focussing of the E1, I don' t
beleive its comparing like with like. I have no trouble with my 10d
using apertures of 4 and smaller. I presume that is the same for
the E1 users.

No! It's not the same. The E-1's autofocusing is precisely accurate, and it's precisely accurate every time. The E-1's autofocusing is as precisely accurate as the Canon 1D and 1Ds, but not quite as fast to lock on in dim lighting.

It's only the big apertures on canons lenses (1.4, 1.8, and 2.8 on
100mm upwards - all with narrow DOF) that ever cause me an issue.

This illustrates why the autofocusing inaccuracy of the Canon 10D is not an even bigger scandal than it already is. Some 10D owners don't know their images are out of focus, some simply don't care, and others habitually stop down to small apertures so that depth of field masks the problem. The ability to shoot with the lens wide open and still have the main subject in sharp focus is what defines a camera's autofocusing accuracy, and often as not, the Canon 10D fails the test.

For AWB, a camera manufacturer can give you stronger and weaker
(better or worse) effect, to go for that pure white, you can do the
same in PS. However, it's not always what you want. Sometimes it's
nice to keep the ambience. I therefore suggest the E1 is just a
stronger effect than the 10d. And it's easy to set PS, to
automatically give you the AWB balance you want.

Changing the image colors of an Olympus E-1 file involves the same process as a Canon 10D file. But the benefit of having accurate Auto White Balance is that the colors are accurate right out of the camera, and you don't have to spend time in post-processing making changes if you don't want to. For many people, time is money - and the time you don't spend doing post-processing is time that can be spent doing something else more profitable. Post-processing time should be spent doing "creative" things, not correcting things that the camera shouldn't have screwed up to begin with.

I sincerely believe that believe that any Canon 10D owner who would bring home an Olympus E-1 and try it out for a week would soon realize how much the 10D has been punishing them. While it may be true that all dSLRs are capable of producing excellent image quality, the amount of effort required by the various dSLRs is not the same. Unlike the 10D, the E-1 doesn't have any chronic problems which the photographer must struggle with - and this makes photography all the more enjoyable. Virtually all Canon 10D owners aspire to "upgrading" to a better camera, while Olympus E-1 owners are ecstaticly pleased with their camera just as it is.

Gene Windell

 

[Stan]

And it's easy to set PS, to automatically give you the AWB balance you want.

If you tweak WB and something get's boosted, you just increased the noise at the same time. That's part of why a good WB at capture is better.

Stan

 

[Joo]

First with the E-10/20 vs the Minolta Dimage 7 (different set of people) and now with the E-1 vs 10D? Two data points make a pattern?

Joo

When users comment on the better focussing of the E1, I don' t
beleive its comparing like with like. I have no trouble with my 10d
using apertures of 4 and smaller. I presume that is the same for
the E1 users.

No! It's not the same. The E-1's autofocusing is precisely
accurate, and it's precisely accurate every time. The E-1's
autofocusing is as precisely accurate as the Canon 1D and 1Ds, but
not quite as fast to lock on in dim lighting.

It's only the big apertures on canons lenses (1.4, 1.8, and 2.8 on
100mm upwards - all with narrow DOF) that ever cause me an issue.

This illustrates why the autofocusing inaccuracy of the Canon 10D
is not an even bigger scandal than it already is. Some 10D owners
don't know their images are out of focus, some simply don't care,
and others habitually stop down to small apertures so that depth of
field masks the problem. The ability to shoot with the lens wide
open and still have the main subject in sharp focus is what defines
a camera's autofocusing accuracy, and often as not, the Canon 10D
fails the test.

For AWB, a camera manufacturer can give you stronger and weaker
(better or worse) effect, to go for that pure white, you can do the
same in PS. However, it's not always what you want. Sometimes it's
nice to keep the ambience. I therefore suggest the E1 is just a
stronger effect than the 10d. And it's easy to set PS, to
automatically give you the AWB balance you want.

Changing the image colors of an Olympus E-1 file involves the same
process as a Canon 10D file. But the benefit of having accurate
Auto White Balance is that the colors are accurate right out of the
camera, and you don't have to spend time in post-processing making
changes if you don't want to. For many people, time is money - and
the time you don't spend doing post-processing is time that can be
spent doing something else more profitable. Post-processing time
should be spent doing "creative" things, not correcting things that
the camera shouldn't have screwed up to begin with.

I sincerely believe that believe that any Canon 10D owner who would
bring home an Olympus E-1 and try it out for a week would soon
realize how much the 10D has been punishing them. While it may be
true that all dSLRs are capable of producing excellent image
quality, the amount of effort required by the various dSLRs is not
the same. Unlike the 10D, the E-1 doesn't have any chronic
problems which the photographer must struggle with - and this makes
photography all the more enjoyable. Virtually all Canon 10D owners
aspire to "upgrading" to a better camera, while Olympus E-1 owners
are ecstaticly pleased with their camera just as it is.

Gene Windell

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.

http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.pbase.com/jchung/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

 

[Kev - UK South Coast]

The ability to shoot with the lens wide open and still
have the main subject in sharp focus is what defines
a camera's autofocusing accuracy, and often as not,
the Canon 10D fails the test.

The 5 x 10d's I have tested did not fail this test. I should probably have quantified my thoughts on 10d focus. Mine (and I have two), plus the other 3 I have tested (sent back with hot pixels on long exposures), when focussing on a static subject are bang on, to the millimeter. That's using a Canon 100mm USM 2.8 macro. No auto focus problem. As accurate as I could ever expect.

I don't know for sure if my 100 macro (a160mm effective) with f2.8 depth of field, is a smaller dof than the oly 50 macro (effective 100mm) with it's f2 - but i found this the best way to measure precision accuracy in a quantifiable way (no user error).

When using my 70-200 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 17-40 f4, 50 usm 1.4, 20-35mm, they are very nearly as good as the macro. But they are all within + -3mm at worst.

So I find the scandel to be the number of people who think the camera has a serious problem, because when using 7 lenses and 5 bodies I couldn't find it.

If a user doesn't know and doesn't care that his images are out of focus then the camera is the last thing I would blame.

That's not to say the test was perfect - I did find a problem. That's with my 50 1.8, which was out by over half an inch. However, it was consistent, on each body, it was out by the very same amount. As it's one of the very cheapest lenses, and uses the inferior focus motor I am not too dissapointed with this. As the type of lenses I put on my cameras are at a different level. I would consider it a serious problem, but as it was one lens and it may have been a bad example I am not judging the camera on it - rather the lens is the issue in my test.

What I did find was a focus sensor that operated outside of it's indicated area in the viewfinder. Now that has caused me problems, and it was a revelation when someone explained just how wide an area it looks at, and that explained the few (very few) static subject problems I have had. On wide angle group shot, using the center point to focus on someones head would guarantee me a back focussed image. Not the cameras fault, not the lens fault, more a manual fault in not explaining the sensors capture area - however I suspect this is why the 10d does the better job in low light, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it.

When people start moving, and I wish to keep photographing (which is my style and typical scenario) then the sharpness hit rate drops, especially kids running in circles. However I would suspect this with any camera. The E1 may be better in this regard, for me the solution is a 1dmkii, because i need to make HQ enlargements and I want the high iso performance. I also shoot motorsport and want the ultimate in fast tracking af performance and high fps.

On the processing time out of camera issue - the time I spend is removing the poor images - sorting. Whether its motion blur, poor expression, poor composition, etc. That takes me a lot of time.

Once done the computer does the rest - yes it takes an hour or so, but it's not my time, I can get on with something else. What I like though is that the awb, doesn't netralise a colour cast, and my work flow, lets me neutralise it to the level I want with one setting across all the images I take on a given event. I hate to totally remove any cast, as i find it cold and prefer a little warmth to remain, such as in a church with candels and flourescents.

I would love to try an E1 and would be very interested to see for myself, but as it doesn't fit my requirements it is not something I need to go out and spend time evaluating. It does sound a great camera though if your needs are catered for with it. I need a little more and get something good enough from the 10d - I beleive the 1dmkii will be better than good enough. That perhaps is the biggest reason why I chose canon, they have options and an upgrade path - but I would not stay with canon if the cameras didn't give a professional standard image within my budget and time contraints.

Regards,
Kevin

This illustrates why the autofocusing inaccuracy of the Canon 10D
is not an even bigger scandal than it already is. Some 10D owners
don't know their images are out of focus, some simply don't care,
and others habitually stop down to small apertures so that depth of
field masks the problem. The ability to shoot with the lens wide
open and still have the main subject in sharp focus is what defines
a camera's autofocusing accuracy, and often as not, the Canon 10D
fails the test.

Unlike the 10D, the E-1 doesn't have any chronic

problems which the photographer must struggle with - and this makes
photography all the more enjoyable. Virtually all Canon 10D owners
aspire to "upgrading" to a better camera, while Olympus E-1 owners
are ecstaticly pleased with their camera just as it is.

Gene Windell

 

[Colmar]

Kevin,

Having been quiet for some time, I feel I must respond to your post. On this business of camera choice - it is so difficult to convince someone else of the demerits/merits of one's own choice. It is a little like trying to explain to someone why I chose my particular wife above the 50 others available.

But what I really respect, is when someone articulates his points in a clear, decent way. This is good and needs to be commented on. This is what you have done - it is obvious to me that you think clearly on these issues.

I am an amateur photographer. I owned Olympus equipment before and have decided, when I do get a digital camera, to go for Olympus again. I am not here to convince you to abandon your Canon equipment and go with Olympus - this is not what my intention is, at all. You have an investment in lenses, software etc.

But I liked your clear, decent (British) way of putting across your argument.

Happy Shootings.

ColesKing

 

[Kev - UK South Coast]

Thank-you for the kind words, you are a true gentlemen.

I used to borrow my father's om2's from around 1980 onwards, and was still using them in 2000. I loved em, and still do, their is a quality to olympus, and that era that I don't feel in today's products. I'm sure one day soon I will get to play with an E1 (or I really hope the E2 or E3 in future years). If I hadn't started doing this professionally (only last year) with my own particular equipment needs - then as a demanding hobbiest, I am sure I would chosing an E1, I do beleive its a great package.

Regards,
Kevin

Kevin,

Having been quiet for some time, I feel I must respond to your
post. On this business of camera choice - it is so difficult to
convince someone else of the demerits/merits of one's own choice.
It is a little like trying to explain to someone why I chose my
particular wife above the 50 others available.

But what I really respect, is when someone articulates his points
in a clear, decent way. This is good and needs to be commented on.
This is what you have done - it is obvious to me that you think
clearly on these issues.

I am an amateur photographer. I owned Olympus equipment before and
have decided, when I do get a digital camera, to go for Olympus
again. I am not here to convince you to abandon your Canon
equipment and go with Olympus - this is not what my intention is,
at all. You have an investment in lenses, software etc.

But I liked your clear, decent (British) way of putting across your
argument.

Happy Shootings.

ColesKing

 

[Colmar]

I used to borrow my father's om2's from around 1980 onwards, and
was still using them in 2000. I loved em, and still do, their is a
quality to olympus, and that era that I don't feel in today's
products. I'm sure one day soon I will get to play with an E1 (or I
really hope the E2 or E3 in future years). If I hadn't started
doing this professionally (only last year) with my own particular
equipment needs - then as a demanding hobbiest, I am sure I would
chosing an E1, I do beleive its a great package.

Regards,
Kevin

Kevin,

Having been quiet for some time, I feel I must respond to your
post. On this business of camera choice - it is so difficult to
convince someone else of the demerits/merits of one's own choice.
It is a little like trying to explain to someone why I chose my
particular wife above the 50 others available.

But what I really respect, is when someone articulates his points
in a clear, decent way. This is good and needs to be commented on.
This is what you have done - it is obvious to me that you think
clearly on these issues.

I am an amateur photographer. I owned Olympus equipment before and
have decided, when I do get a digital camera, to go for Olympus
again. I am not here to convince you to abandon your Canon
equipment and go with Olympus - this is not what my intention is,
at all. You have an investment in lenses, software etc.

But I liked your clear, decent (British) way of putting across your
argument.

Happy Shootings.

ColesKing

Kevin,

It is this very same "quality to Olympus" which has attracted me to the E-1. It is still there.

ColesKing

 

[Gselzer]

I may be crazy, but I am about to jump into the DSLR world after shooting with the Nikon 4500 and having been brought up on Nikon N90. I think the D-70 appears to bridge the best of both worlds between the 10d and the E-1.

If I remember correctly Phil didn't love the E-1 because of the sensor performance.

Whatever you do don't buy the 300D. Not for any reason except that your original post said that it felt cheap. That feeling will grow and you will hate your decision.

The E-1, 10d and the D-70 will all do you well. The jury is out on the E-1 so I am going to stay away. We don't know how long the Olympus line will be around, so if you want to build over time you are takiing another risk. The 10D is proven and it's problems are known. I am guessing the D-70 is going to rock and I am waiting.

don't fret too much afterall it's the photographer and the process of shooting that is most critical.

Geoff

 

[Colmar]

I may be crazy, but I am about to jump into the DSLR world after
shooting with the Nikon 4500 and having been brought up on Nikon
N90. I think the D-70 appears to bridge the best of both worlds
between the 10d and the E-1.

If I remember correctly Phil didn't love the E-1 because of the
sensor performance.

Whatever you do don't buy the 300D. Not for any reason except that
your original post said that it felt cheap. That feeling will grow
and you will hate your decision.

The E-1, 10d and the D-70 will all do you well. The jury is out on
the E-1 so I am going to stay away. We don't know how long the
Olympus line will be around, so if you want to build over time you
are takiing another risk. The 10D is proven and it's problems are
known. I am guessing the D-70 is going to rock and I am waiting.

don't fret too much afterall it's the photographer and the process
of shooting that is most critical.

Geoff

Geoff,

One is taking a risk walking out onto the streets tomorrow morning - one may be run down by a bus, you know.

There is this continuous reference to the viability of the 4/3 system. I think one needs to look at the grander picture here. I know, your intent is not to open a whole new argument here and I respect this - I just want to add this to what I have already said.

The biggest single THREAT to the film companies (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa etc. ) is the coming of digital photography. There is still some money for them to be made in printing paper etc., the remnants of the film business for the next ten years or so. But, in essence their existence is at stake. Their commitment, together with Olympus to the 4/3 standard, will ensure its survival.

Had 35mm cameras not "standardized" on the 35mm film format we would not today have the advanced industry (in film cameras, I mean) that we do have. In a sense we do have some of this non-standardization, with different larger formats etc. dealing with specialized markets. But, it is because of standardization on the 35mm film type and development processes that we have the SLR's and other point and shoot cameras to choose from, are able to have our film developed, printed etc.

The film companies (Kodak, Fuji) have moved, or are moving to manufacturing sensors now rather than film. I predict you are likely to see a whole new market created/supported for the 4/3 standard size of imager - Fuji and Kodak will make them (before it was Kodachrome and Fujichrome) and supply them to camera manufacturers - either their own companies or others - Olympus, Chinon (Kodak), Fuji and others we do not know about yet.

An argument which one often sees surfacing here on dpReview is that only Olympus have announced anything around this standard. Rest assured, there is LOTS more going on behind the scenes at these and other companies, than what is being announced on the internet.

Fuji, for example may still be locked (legally) into camera deals with Nikon - sharing of designs etc. for the moment, which prevents them from immediately releasing cameras based on this standard. This is conjecture, on my part, I might add.

This risk of investing into the 4/3 system, I think can be laid to rest.

ColesKIng