Testing the E10 - a favor, please.

[Ed Oliver]

No movement on scale from AF to MF.
Firmware 1.20
SN 1801xxx

Repeated test 4 times. Relies upon having enough detail in the
target to really determine sharp focus in the viewfinder; I keyed
in on a thin wisp from the pen mark to judge ultimate focus.

Great - you have a camera that is performing as it was intended to. Want to swap for one that won't.

Ed O

 

[Ed Oliver]

Jimmy and all who took the time to do the test.

I really appreciate your time and effort and I think that it shows that there is a continuing problem that Olympus is not paying attention to (E20's with same problem). Apparently there is no adjustment that will fix this as those that have reported repairs have mentioned that the lens was replaced and from looking at the diagram of the camera and picture of the camera with the top removed it appears that the whole optical (including the CCD) system is a sealed unit and no fixes are possible.

Apparently the firmware and production date (serial number) has nothing to do with the problem. It appears to me that there is a misalignment (vertical placement) of the focus point in the viewfinder (focus screen) and apparently they are not testing the cameras for manual focus*.

I hope that the camera on the way solves my problem and if it does I will let you know.

Thanks again and keep the tests coming.

Ed O

If they are they are just looking through the viewfinder and not checking with actual prints of the image off the CCD and even then if they are using short focal length or small apertures they won't find the problem.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

All of it that attempts to get the focus by anyother method than
suggested by Olympus. Get the screen sharp and then focus as sharp
as you can get at this point. That is the way the camera was
designed and that is the way it should work.

And where exactly did I suggest something other than that? I have heard others say to adjust diopter based on the focused image rather than the AF marks, but I don't believe I wrote that anywhere on my page..

Now that's as lame an excuse as I have heard.

This was in response as to your asking statement about people using DOF as a crutch because manual focus doesn't work. I disagree with that, even if MF works perfectly well, the majority of E users don't use it. Clearly, since I speak of MF working perfectly well, it's not an excuse. Sorry if you didn't understand that.

If it don't work ,
it don't work and if you bought the camera because it was a TTL
that was touted as having full manual mode focusing and when part
won't work then what.

Even Phil's review mentions that the viewscreen can be tricky, so if you bought it before understanding this, you know who you can blame ...

I personally use (or wish I could) manual
mode because of the type of images I am trying to capture the auto
focus won't do the job.

I'm interested to know what you use it for that AF does not do the job? I've done all kinds of different types of photography with my E and have never run into a situation where the AF doesn't work.

Well let's think a little bit about exactly how the camera is
arriving at its distance conclusion ... hint ... it's the same way
your eye does it. Problem is, some people's eyes seem to have
trouble with the type of focusing screen the E-series uses. My
technique is a way to limit the variance in what the eye sees and
what the CCD sees. Nothing more. If it helps you achieve a
successful focus, the rest is academic. If not, then look elsewhere.

See response at top of page - it works or it don't. Mickey mouse
is not the answer.

Convenient response, but it totally misses the point. The problem is often with the eye's ability to discern fine detail, not the hardware, and my technique is meant to help people for whom that is a problem. And yes, either it works or it doesn't. If you use my technique and it works for you, then great. If not, then look elsewhere.

The problem is that in manual focus there is no way you can get
sharp results with out using depth of field (assuming your camera
is one of the many that has this problem).

When I first did your test, I came up with a variance and I was a little puzzled. Then I picked out a finer area of detail and scrutinized it a little closer, and the variance went away. There is room for error in technique, don't be so quick to blame the hardware.

My point is that the camera should focus easily and accurately in
both AF and MF and one should not have to reply on depth of field
or fudging the distance to accomplish this.

It does, and you don't have to.

My camera (and many others) does not.

Now .... do you have something constructive to share?

I am sharing it and if you read the responses you will see that I
am not the only one experiencing this problem and the test verifies
the ones that have the problem. If your happy making do with a
work around on a $1000. plus camera be my guest. I need a camera
that will perform as advertised and so far this has not been it. I
like the camera and the results in AF are very good but I need a
reliable manual focus and so far the cameras I have had access to
don't do the job.

This is a very old argument and it has been hashed over probably hundreds of times before. Basically what we have concluded is that the focusing problems are indeed in the minority despite their being posted about often, and that some people will have trouble focusing even with a perfectly aligned camera. I offered to test peoples' cameras free of charge, since I can eliminate technique error and physiological inability on my end, but no one has yet taken up my offer. It still stands. Email me if you'd like me to test your camera.

--- Dr. G.E-10 FAQ: http://www.tokenasians.com/articles/e10faq.html

 

[Frank B]

I would think that Olympus would have an accurate way of measuring whether focus is correct in manual mode, even without your test. The fact that cameras are being returned which still have manual focus problems would indicate that their standard for acceptance is low or that they do not know what they are doing. For me the simple test is whenter when I use manual forcus I get pictures that are sharp ... just as sharp as with auto focus. I realize, however, that Olympus may think that the owner is at fault, rather than the camera, and your test seems a good one too demonstrate to Olympus that it is the camera and not the owner.

Frank B

What is Olympus saying?

My original E10 was sent in Nov 2001 for this problem (with a
cover letter explaining how to check by testing as iterated here
and a series of photos showing the problem) and was returned with
notation "adjusted focus" but the only adjustment apparent was
they turned the diopeter setting to maximum negative so I couldn't
see anything in the finder. This camera was returned immediately
(received by them on Dec 26, 2001) with photos and again told of
the test. After repeated calls (weekly) to service and letter's to
the service manager (again explaining the test and results) they
finally sent me a refurbished (received 2/7/02) that was worse than
the original. I immediately complained and they are supposed to be
shipping a NEW camera. Will see what happens, supposed to be here
next couple days.

My feeling is that this is a widespread problem, hence my request
for information. Maybe if enough people realize that their camera
is not right they will demand a camera that is operating as it
should and Olympus will correct this problem.

By the way, my camera went to the NY address but similar experience
reported on West Coast.

Ed

 

[Ed Oliver]

Gonzy,
This is quoted from your FAQ

"The manual focus mode, due to the lack of a focusing screen, has a "range"of focus notches where it appears to be in focus in the view finder. This ise specially true at shorter focal lengths. I have always assumed that the correct focus is in the MIDDLE of this range. But after some putzing

around and experimenting, I noticed that it is not at the middle of this range, it is at one of the ENDS of that range."

Two things wrong - the camera has a focusing point (or screen) and that is the one where the circle and square are. Any place else you try to focus is not where the manufacturer intended. Second - there is no "range of focus" There is in focus or out of focus. I like your description of the technical way you approached it "putzing". What ever works for you.

Again to quote you

"To find out which, focus using the auto focus, lock with manual, then turn the manual ring. You'll find that it immediately goes out of focus in one

direction, but stays in focus a bit before going out of focus again in the other.Now, when manual focusing, go OOF in the direction you found is closer,then correct in the opposite direction, but shoot AS SOON AS IT GETS CLEAR. Don't try to find the "middle"."

In other words - you are adjusting the manual to the auto so one of them must be wrong.

Apparently your camera is working fine (although I find it curious that you have to kind of focus in manual to make it work) and I am happy for you. However there are many that are not working and your "putzing" fix is not the answer.

You don't have a problem but we do so bug off and let the big kids take care of it.

 

[Frank B]

Hi Gonzo,

I can give you an example of when I want manual focus because autofocus won't work. A hand held close up (which has virtually no depth of field) where my point of focus is not the center of the picture. If I use autofcus and lock focus and then move the camera to compose I can't maintain sharp focus on the point of focus I want. With manual focus I can compose my photo and focus on something outside of the focus circle and not have to move the camera.

Frank B

Dr. Gonzo wrote:
...

I'm interested to know what you use it for that AF does not do the
job? I've done all kinds of different types of photography with my
E and have never run into a situation where the AF doesn't work.

 

[jimmy w]

about a week ago , i bought an e10, i started shooting some photos, i down loaded them, and printed a couple to 8x10. I look at them the next day and go WHOA, these are unsharp, they looked terrible(im used to hassy, nikon ,16x20 s) and i might add coolpix 450.

I had been shooting in manual mode as that is what i am used to and there will be times that af is useless like this mornning shooting macro of a hassy focusing ring, the auto focus is so bad ( i will email you sample to the people who say why manual). If you have two objects or people next to each other, one slightly infront of one another with a small depth of field, low light situation,and the person you want in focus is on one side and you need to get the shot quickly, auto focus is useless. If all you do is shoot on sunny days at mountains at say 42 mm , yes autofocus is okay. but if you are using your camera to make money or are real creative or you really want to get the shot, you better be able to focus in manual.When you are shooting in a real dim setting, ie wedding reception, and the wedding couple are doing their first dance, you better be setting that camera to 10 feet focus, at f8 or so, with the lens at 40mmm or so. i doubt autofocus would work as it is awful dim. there are other times manual focus is needed. Besides, paying 1200 or so for a camera that says it will manual focus that doesnt is about like buying a car that has no wheels, itll run but you get nowhere.

cBack to my story, sorry, (oh by the way, the flash sync would fire my studio flashes twice instead of once, i guess thats okay too huh, double the exposure. anyway , thats when i started doing some shearching on this forum and Ed hit it on the head. BAD FOCUS=BAD PHOTOGRAPH.

by the way , my e10 went back today, will get another one i hope that works this time or it will go back. I went back and looked at some of the photos taken with my little coolpix 450, yes 450, and they are razor sharp, but yes they were done on auto focus.

conclusion: there are several of us out there that take photographs, some of us have photographically different needs, a camera company that says its camera will manual focus, had better manual focus. If your camera company said the camera would take a photograph and did NOT , would you complain???????????????? I believe some of you would NOT. so if we take a photo of a red jaguar, and it turns out green thats okay huh, its still a jag isn t it?? lets hope all of us just take better photos from today...thanks for listening. jimmy

 

[Mark38311]

Apparently your camera is working fine (although I find it curious
that you have to kind of focus in manual to make it work) and I am
happy for you. However there are many that are not working and
your "putzing" fix is not the answer.

You don't have a problem but we do so bug off and let the big kids
take care of it.

There seems to be LOTS of people with the "mystery focusing" problem and the Exx. IT IS REAL....

I recently had 2 E10's, The first was producing noise on the level of a $500 digicam shooting at ISO400...it went back. Its replacement came complete with OLYs "mystery focus system"... focused wherever it pleased... NOT in the target area. It too went back.

Dr Gonzos answer seems to ALWAYS be, 'Mine works" "You dont know what your doing" or "you have to learn how to use the Exx". Out of the chute his answer to posts regarding the PROBLEMS associated with the E10/20 are usually answered by him with another of his antagonistic replies.

It does, and you don't have to. Now .... do you have something > constructive to share?

The poor DR, really needs to back off from posts that attempt to get OLY off their @sses and FIX THE PROBLEMS.

EVERYONE would benefit from threads like this......if left unmolested by the Dr. and his defensive tactics. If enough people joined in and reported the problems in forums like these OLY would be FORCED to fix them, and step up the level of their product. In the end, EVERYONE would benefit...EVEN oly in the form of increased sales.

I would think that OLY has someone monitoring forums like this and others in hopes of getting feedback on their product. That someone, might, also run interference when questions and problems arise on a recurring basis/theme, and attack posters using ficticious names in an attempt to discredit the complaining poster.

With the ammount of time Dr Gonzo spends here DEFENDING the Exx, and the personal level that he continually takes in the defense of the Camera, one HAS to wonder just WHAT does he get out of it? Is HIS camera really that perfect? Looking over some of the images he has posted on his site...I Think NOT.

People who have the GUTS to post their concerns in THIS forum,and risk the wrath of Dr Gonzo and HIS attacks in an attempt to get OLY off their @sses should be applauded not chastized.

GO GET EM.... ED!

Never mind the Sesame Street Puppet that keeps popping in and interupting your legitimate test results and concerns. Dont let him take THIS thread and make it a "HOT" one due to personal attacks.

Let Us know the outcome of your dealing with the PEOPLE at OLY.

 

[Blokey Bloggs]

Hi Ed

Read this

http://davidweikel.com/E10_samples/manual_focus/manual_focus.shtml

My own experience with mf and af is that mf is hard to achieve. There seems to be a range of mf ring values which 'look' in focus. Thus attempting to mf then changing to af will often cause the distance scale to 'jump' values. Try it the other way (af then switch to mf) most likely it's value will stay the same.

BTW the mf ring causes a change in distance value with the slightest touch and the distance scale change does lag behnd ring movement - on mine anyway.

I agree, however, that it is not easy to mf and that it should be as easy as for the average SLR. I guess it is to do with the focusing screen being nigh invisible. I recall Phil Askey saying there is not one on the E10 and that he was looking 'through the lens' to focus.

I think I am saying that the mf difficulty is inherent to the design of the E10. I do not doubt that some are faulty an shoudl be fixed. But I also think that some users are misled by the difficulty of using mf. Dr Gonzo's way or some variation of it might work for some - worth a try.

Good luck--Blokey http://www.pbase.com/blokey/galleries

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I think another area people get hung up is on the assumption that the E's autofocus should work like every other digital camera out there. That's just not the case. It's different from just about any other digital camera out there. It's faster than pure CCD focusing systems and cheaper than phase detection systems.

The only analogy I can give is that general consumer cams' focusing is like a typical grocery-getter car such as a Honda Accord -- easy to drive, does predictable things most of the time, but its ultimate performance is limited. A phase detection system such as on a film-body DSLR is like a Corvette -- it's damn fast and its suspension can deal with changing situations (IRS and electronically controlled shock valving) easily while maintaining a high level of performance. But it does come at a price premium.

The E is like a Camaro or Mustang set up for roadracing. The suspension is not as compliant as the Honda, it doesnt go as fast as consistently or as easily as the Corvette. It requires a bit of driver skill to achieve its ultimate performance potential, however it outperforms the Honda (and sometimes approach the Corvette) while costing less than the Corvette. Drive it as carelessly as a Honda and it's going to go off the road. Expect it to perform exactly like a Corvette and you're ignoring the realities of the product's engineering.

I could translate this analogy to other makes, but I hope y'all get the picture.

Hi Ed

Read this

http://davidweikel.com/E10_samples/manual_focus/manual_focus.shtml

My own experience with mf and af is that mf is hard to achieve.
There seems to be a range of mf ring values which 'look' in focus.
Thus attempting to mf then changing to af will often cause the
distance scale to 'jump' values. Try it the other way (af then
switch to mf) most likely it's value will stay the same.

BTW the mf ring causes a change in distance value with the
slightest touch and the distance scale change does lag behnd ring
movement - on mine anyway.

I agree, however, that it is not easy to mf and that it should be
as easy as for the average SLR. I guess it is to do with the
focusing screen being nigh invisible. I recall Phil Askey saying
there is not one on the E10 and that he was looking 'through the
lens' to focus.

I think I am saying that the mf difficulty is inherent to the
design of the E10. I do not doubt that some are faulty an shoudl be
fixed. But I also think that some users are misled by the
difficulty of using mf. Dr Gonzo's way or some variation of it
might work for some - worth a try.

Good luck
--
Blokey
http://www.pbase.com/blokey/galleries

--- Dr. G.E-10 FAQ: http://www.tokenasians.com/articles/e10faq.html

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Great - you have a camera that is performing as it was intended to.
Want to swap for one that won't.

Do note that the level of success I had with your test relied HEAVILY upon how well > I

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

There have been no personal attacks by me in this thread (I challenge you to find one); in fact the only reason I even started posting in it was because Ed denied the validity of a technique that I found to work for me. That's a difficult position to defend.

The only attacks I see in this thread are from you, but what else is new?--- Dr. G.E-10 FAQ: http://www.tokenasians.com/articles/e10faq.html

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I think the problem has always been (yes, focusing has been discussed since the E came out) that a large number of people's cameras do, indeed, focus just fine in all modes. Mine is such a camera, and while I cannot deny that some cameras have real problems, neither can I allow the case to be made that ALL E's are like this inherently due to design -- that's just false.

conclusion: there are several of us out there that take
photographs, some of us have photographically different needs, a
camera company that says its camera will manual focus, had better
manual focus. If your camera company said the camera would take a
photograph and did NOT , would you complain???????????????? I
believe some of you would NOT. so if we take a photo of a red
jaguar, and it turns out green thats okay huh, its still a jag isn
t it?? lets hope all of us just take better photos from
today...thanks for listening. jimmy

--- Dr. G.E-10 FAQ: http://www.tokenasians.com/articles/e10faq.html

 

[Ed Oliver]

Hi All,

My thanks to Bart, Mark, Ferenc, Mike, Frank, Tommy, Sean, John, Jimmy, Alashi, Alan and Blokey. You all contributed to the forum in the spirit I hoped would happen.

To me it seems an absolute that cameras that can not pass this test will have focus problems, mainly in that the manual focus does not operate in the manner intended.

I will be trying to get the attention of Olympus (if anyone has an address of someone in management that might listen would appreciate the input) to explain our concerns and the fact that currently the service department (in my case anyway) seems to not be able to remedy the situation. As an aside, when I called Olympus service 1/25 I was informed that they had " a bunch" all waiting for the same service but parts were on the way. 2/1 I was informed the parts were in and my camera would be serviced 2/4 or 5 and when I received it on 2/8 it was a "refurbished" (which was filthy with fingerprints of the infrared port, LCD and smack in the middle of the viewfinder eye piece) unit that had greater manual focus problems than the original. As of this time I have not received the promised NEW camera, but I still have hopes.

Again, thanks to all. I will monitor this forum for a few days to see if any new posts.

Ed Oliver

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

hate to be a pessimist but ...

don't get your hopes up. many before you have taken up the mantle and tried to effect change at Olympus with regard to the E-series (and no doubt, many after you may consider it). it hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to.

it is with this knowledge that many of the "older" posters (or those that researched through a lot of old threads) post, so perhaps that clarifies a little of the negativity you see towards your "cause". As far as this forum has learned, you're far better off dealing with it than trying to buck it. But feel free to learn that for yourself ...

don't take my word for it... just do a search on Olympus customer service or Olympus repair... you'll be wiser for it.--- Dr. G.E-10 FAQ: http://www.tokenasians.com/articles/e10faq.html

 

[Mark38311]

Now .... do you have something constructive to share?

While there is no "official "name calling", the tone of your comment above says it all.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

did you find something constructive in the original post? how about any of the followups?

While there is no "official "name calling", the tone of your
comment above says it all.

--- Dr. G.E-10 FAQ: http://www.tokenasians.com/articles/e10faq.html

 

[dgrogers]

I think much of it is diopter adjustment, not focus itself. I have 20/20 vision, yet I had to adjust the diopter back a few notches. The way I did it was autofocus on something, check the distance meter, then manual focus on the same object and check the distance meter again, then adjust the diopter back or forward and see if manual focus distance is closer or further away from what the autofocus says it should be. The problem in adjusting manual focus is the extremely shallow DOF, many distances may look ok in the viewfinder even when the diopter adjustment is not at the best setting for your eye.

 

[Blokey Bloggs]

Hi Ed O

If you can, you should get as many people as you can to try what you tried with your camera and see what the result is. It will still have room for error but the more you try, the more accurate your results will be.--Blokey http://www.pbase.com/blokey/galleries

 

[Blokey Bloggs]

Some find the focus confirmation to be inaccurate at times. Sometimes it will claim focus when clearly it has not done so.--Blokey http://www.pbase.com/blokey/galleries