Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Olympus E-1 replacement previewed
- Thread starter bousozoku
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice, almost makes me wish my last dslr hadn't lasted a bit longer (it has been replaced by a D80 in the meantime).
I certainly base all my camera purchases based on the beauty of the grip.
The I.S. and improved low light capabilities will be useful to me but right now, I couldn't care less about Live View. Apparently, someone feels it's important or there wouldn't have been so many recent announcements from other companies.
I want to see the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens perform. As a top grade lens, it'll be expensive but the usefulness of having f/2.0 available throughout the range will be immense. Still, it's due out in 2008. The 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 looks nice but slow.
The 12-60 looks like it might be a nice replacement for my 14-54 which is an excellent lens. If I buy the E-3 I might have to go ahead and finally buy the 50-200 (The new version of course).
I hope Oly is making great strides in brightening up the viewfinder... I'll need a new 4/3 body next year, weather sealed is good!
If the low light improvements are as dramatic as they were from the E-400 to the E-410, the E-3 should be a huge improvement. The odd thing is that the Olympus OM-1 was defined as the camera with the bright viewfinder and light weight.
I'll still be surprised if the auto focus works in low light. I've come close to using the E-1 as a full manual camera but the metering and auto exposure is sooooo good.
I'll still be surprised if the auto focus works in low light. I've come close to using the E-1 as a full manual camera but the metering and auto exposure is sooooo good.
They might, but cameras with 4/3rds sensors will never be as bright as the brightest viewfinders from other DSLRs. Smaller sensor means smaller lenses, and that translates into less light passing through the viewfinder and to your eyes. You may be able to view 100% of the frame, but compared to 35 mm film or something, you'll never reach the brightness of the viewfinder from one of those cameras. Like a 35 mm film camera, the view through the viewfinder still encompasses the frame (or most of it), but in a 35 mm film camera, or other DSLRs, more light is passing through the lens due to the larger relative size of everything. Make sense?
Flip out LCD! Nice
I am amazed that the Canon cameras don't have this too. Granted Durability is an issue with these things, but my Powershot's never had a problem with this feature. It is nice for seting up pictures at odd or extreme angles, and is also the main reason i kept my Pro 1.
This is complete misinformation. A lens for a medium format camera that has a maximum aperture of 2.8 will let in the same light as a 35mm camera with a max aperture of 2.8 as a 4/3rds with a max aperture of 2.8. The format of camera makes no difference. I can get the same exposure across all three formats by using the same ISO. Thus, the amount of light is the same. It's the viewfinder, not the lens or camera format.
The difference in brightness stems from the different magnifications that are necessary to blow up the image to the same size. Let's take a practical example: the Olympus E-1's viewfinder has a magnification of 1.0 and an eyepoint of 20 mm. A Canon EOS 5D/1Ds II has the same eyepoint but achieves this at a magnification of 0.71, ditto for essentially all other full-frame cameras. So with ideal mirrors (100 %), the viewfinder of fullframe cameras is brighter, because the available light doesn't have to be magnified as much (the incoming amount of light is given by the light per area times the surface area of the sensor).
Then there are other factors that influence the brightness of viewfinders, an important one is how the light was deflected to the eye: (cheaper) Porro mirror-based viewfinders are not as bright as penta prism-based ones. The former is cheaper to make.
Abstract's explanation is half-correct.
Yes, this one is nicer because it twists and folds flat. The LCDs on the E-410 and E-510 don't move, which is more appropriate, considering their price point but the E-330 has the articulated LCD and has come down in price to the $400s.
I suppose it'll be all that much easier to hold it up high to get that shot in the middle of the crowd now.
The flip out LCD is something I wish was in the D300 and D3. Olympus, as usual, thinks things all the way through. Live View is only as useful as the angle the camera is held at. Having a flip-out LCD (I wish it was 2.5" though) would help shooters that hold their bodies at unique angles a lot.
That's kind of what I meant to say.
Um....anyway, the number of photos per unit area (cm^2, sq. inch) is generally lower than on 35 mm film cameras.
The not so odd thing, is that the OM-1 was a 35mm size, so the mirror is going to be larger on that. *sigh*, if only those supposed 4/3rd compact designs were as small as the OM1, if only there was a full frame dSLR the size of the OM1...now that would rock, with tiny 35mm AF lens of the quality and compactness of the old OM1 line! (bousozoku must be an old fart like me to remember the OM1 of our yut
). Those 'other' dSLR's that Abstract refers to 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor are also smaller than full frame so will also have smaller mirrors, smaller lenses designed for that crop size are possible. Btw, the OM1 and small models of their time, had no 'handgrip', hand grips were a function of an add on optional batterpack/motordrive. I never needed it, I would be happy to have a full frame dSLR of the OM1 size. Since there is not film traveling through the body, I don't see why someday, you couldn't make a full frame dSLR much thinner than the OM1. Think of the possibilities of having the Nikon D3 sensor in such a small body, w/ ISO 6400 one could make even slower max f-stop lenses that are even more compact zooms than they could have dreamed in the day of the OM1...with a 50mm prime or 35mm, it could be just thicker than a PnS came that fits in your pocket. Another thing about full frame viewfinders is that they do less magnification than the crop versions and end up being easier to view with glasses (for those like me who don't have perfect vision and sometimes don't use contact lenses).
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcl10/page3.asp
I wish the E-3 had the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 contrast detect Live View AF option implementation which is the best of all announced so far (the rest are cumbersome/slow in that regard, and therefore of lesser value to most). Actually, from spec's and operational point, the Lumix DMC-L10 seems the better camera, and it's coming out now (soon). I do like that Hi-Def LCD on the D3 & D300...every digicam should be that resolution on the LCD
. I dont' know how bad the sensor or firmware revision of the crappy Venus III IP engine on the DMC-L10 is, but if it's like the other Panny's, the images will disappoint.http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcl10/
One thing not so nice about any of the 4/3rd or less than full frame sensor dSLR's is that with some of these bodies, the mirror is small enough such that a PC tilt/shift lens from Canon or Nikon won't work well
IIRC the 400 & maybe 10D, have slightly smaller mirrors than the 20/30D???tilt/shift lenses are awesome (expensive though).
Hehe, just noticed my mis-spelling, thanks MR profanity filter, lol. I meant to type "Shift"
New here, so please understand if I don't get why you say that... but if you refer to noise levels and picture clarity, the L1 - Panny's only dslr - has come a long way (of course the Leica kit lens doesn't hurt any!) I have been shooting in the dark scenes intentionally trying to trigger excessive noise and can't make it happen until boosting ISO to 1600 which is actually ISO 2000. Then I break out the heavy noise reduction Silkypix accomplishes. ISO 1000 (800)
takes beautiful low light pics! Sharp as a tack. My Panny FZ-50 (fuzzy fifty) can generate some noise at 100 ISO, and pictures can be creamy where you want them sharp, so I think I understand your scepticism. The L10 just doesn't offer enough incentive to toss the L1 yet, for me, and they ditched the bounce flash! I expect Olympus to build a dSLR to compete with the features and options of the 'top two' before long, or die trying. Hopefully the E-3 is a sign of good things to come...The not so odd thing, is that the OM-1 was a 35mm size, so the mirror is going to be larger on that. *sigh*, if only those supposed 4/3rd compact designs were as small as the OM1, if only there was a full frame dSLR the size of the OM1...now that would rock, with tiny 35mm AF lens of the quality and compactness of the old OM1 line! (bousozoku must be an old fart like me to remember the OM1 of our yut
Btw, the OM1 and small models of their time, had no 'handgrip', hand grips were a function of an add on optional batterpack/motordrive. I never needed it, I would be happy to have a full frame dSLR of the OM1 size. Since there is not film traveling through the body, I don't see why someday, you couldn't make a full frame dSLR much thinner than the OM1. Think of the possibilities of having the Nikon D3 sensor in such a small body, w/ ISO 6400 one could make even slower max f-stop lenses that are even more compact zooms than they could have dreamed in the day of the OM1...with a 50mm prime or 35mm, it could be just thicker than a PnS came that fits in your pocket. Another thing about full frame viewfinders is that they do less magnification than the crop versions and end up being easier to view with glasses (for those like me who don't have perfect vision and sometimes don't use contact lenses).
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcl10/page3.asp
I wish the E-3 had the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 contrast detect Live View AF option implementation which is the best of all announced so far (the rest are cumbersome/slow in that regard, and therefore of lesser value to most). Actually, from spec's and operational point, the Lumix DMC-L10 seems the better camera, and it's coming out now (soon). I do like that Hi-Def LCD on the D3 & D300...every digicam should be that resolution on the LCD
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcl10/
One thing not so nice about any of the 4/3rd or less than full frame sensor dSLR's is that with some of these bodies, the mirror is small enough such that a PC tilt/shift lens from Canon or Nikon won't work well
tilt/shift lenses are awesome (expensive though).
Hehe, just noticed my mis-spelling, thanks MR profanity filter, lol. I meant to type "Shift"
I guess you're right. I used to sell cameras during the transition to auto exposure, when the only auto focus camera was the Polaroid SX-70. I still regret having to donate my OM-1N to science when it couldn't be repaired inexpensively.
As far as manual focusing problems on the E-1, I haven't had too many. The viewfinder isn't as bright as the OM-1N was (neither was any other brand) but it's of sufficient size. The only thing that has been a problem is indoor lighting in one gym. We still don't know much about the E-3 but the viewfinder is supposed to be better than the E-1 and I would guess so, considering that the E-510 is better than the various others and close to that of the E-1, at least for me.
As for a tiny SLR, that's cute, but I don't want the lens to overwhelm the camera. For instance, the E-1 and the 50-200mm lens are in balance but the E-410 is slightly overwhelmed by the same lens. The replacement SWD 50-200 may be slightly smaller but I doubt it and I appreciate that the body is not so light that my hands are shaking because the lens is pulling it down.