Nice, but I think that the 4/3 thing never really took off in the first place and with Nikon and Canon offering full-frame cameras and excellent lens systems, why bother? Olympus is running far behind the others in this race.....
I think I'd much rather have a Nikon D300 over that turd.
Clix Pix is 100% right.
I don't want to sound stuck up, but you have really boosted your credibility by using the word "turd" and the expression "100% right" in one single post. Bravo.
As to the substance, the D300 and E3 are more or less in the same category. If I were buying into a DSLR system right now, it would have been a tough choice.
The D300 has 2 extra megapixels and especially that awesome VGA screen going for it. It can also focus in Live View mode without flipping the mirror (albeit it is still slow). With a judicious choice of lenses, there is now a "full frame" upgrade path. Of the irrelevant (but nice to have) things, the D300 has more focusing points, and faster burst rate.
The E3 has a swiveling (but lower resolution) screen, in-body IS, and an actual working dust elimination system. It has weather/dust seals throughout the body, the lens mount is also sealed - and every pro-grade Zuiko has the same seals. Last but not the least, the ZD lens lineup looks more attractive than Nikon's current offerings. Don't get me wrong - you can shoot any assignment with D300 and Nikkors. But Nikon's DX-dedicated lens lineup can not even begin to compare to Zuikos, and "full frame" Nikkors are huge and don't come in "crop sensor-friendly" focal lenghts. Of the irrelevant (but nice to have) things, E3 can control Oly's dedicated flashes wirelessly.
I know that Nikon also has an anti-dust system in D300 - however, it partially relies on dust mapping and software... Which means it is not as good at actually removing the dust as Oly's SSWF. One thing that I really, really, really hate is seeing dust in my photos... So this (and seals on all lenses and the body) are important factors for me.
The D300 is certainly a *very* nice camera. But to each his own. I will be buying the E3 body as soon as it will actually become available...
*If you need the highest resolution money can buy. Canon has been consistently producing cameras with the highest resolution around in their 1D family.
You are 100% right, I'm sorry I was being a turd.
Wireless flash, that must be a new feature, cause I certainly cant do that with my Nikon setup, oh wait I can. Again like Clix said, oly is Behind the times. And the really need to get off their 4/3rd pedestal.
I beg to disagree.
So-called "full frame" cameras are, indeed, great for certain applications - but not so great for others.
The same can be said about 4/3 and APS-format cameras: sometimes they are preferable to "full frame", sometimes they are not.
A 4/3 camera system (body+lenses) will generally be smaller and lighter than the equivalent 135-format system. In fact, dramatically so. I can carry my E1 body, the 14-54 and 50-200 lenses in a small shoulder bag without breaking a sweat. I shudder at the thought of carrying a Canon 5D, a 28-70, and whatever Canon glass I need to cover the 100-400 mm. I will probably need a dedicated beast of burden to carry that (otherwise awesome) 135-format system with me.
A smaller sensor also equates to larger DOF at equivalent field of view. My Zuiko Digital 50 mm macro has the same FOV as a 100 mm 135 lens, yet the same DOF as you would expect from a 50 mm. It makes my macro photography somewhat easier than with 135-format equipment.
Finally, it is easier and cheaper to design lenses for a smaller sensor. Some of the Olympus lenses (7-14 and 14-54 come to mind) simply have no direct Canon or Nikon analogs (Nikon makes an excellent DX-format "normal zoom" - I think the 17-55, but it is 2.5x the price of Oly's 14-54 and has no technical advantages over 14-54). As far as image quality goes, I will take Oly's 7-14 over ANY Canon's UWA lens offering for "full frame".
135-format cameras shine in four main areas:
*If you already own a large collection of older or legacy Canikon glass. A very common situation, actually. If you get an APS-format body, all that nice glass will still work - but not really, not quite.
*If you do a lot of architectural photography, and absolutely need a shift lens. There are none designed (or announced) for 4/3. 135-format shifts will work with 4/3 or APS cameras, but a 70 or 56 mm equivalent focal length for architecture is uninspiring. Typical shifts come in 35mm and 28mm flavors.
*If you absolutely, positively need acceptable photos at an ISO setting of 3200. Now, let me make it clear... A "full-frame" sensor that has 2x the area of a 4/3 sensor will NOT be 1/2 as noisy. The laws of physics dictate that if the two sensors are built from identical substrate, the larger sensor will have an ~1.4 times better signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. you will only gain an extra 40% in sensitivity by doubling the chip size). If your "full-frame" camera has an acceptable ISO 3200, an identical 4/3 camera will have an acceptable ISO of 2300. At ISO 100 or 200, where both cameras are virtually noiseless, there will be NO perceivable difference.
*If you need the highest resolution money can buy. Canon has been consistently producing cameras with the highest resolution around in their 1D family. If you need to shoot 22-megapixel frames - the Mark III is pretty much the only choice out there. It will take a while until we see 20mp 4/3 or APS sensors (if they will ever be made). But that kind of resolution is firmly in the medium format ballpark... I.e. it is a specialist application (just like that ISO 3200).
I think Kodak, Leaf, Hasselblad, Aptus, BetterLight, Mamiya, et al. will take exception with that statement. If you're going to argue with statements about format, it makes sense to take other formats into account.
The Nikon D300 does NOT have a wireless TTL flash controller built in. The E3 does.
I know that you *can* do wireless TTL with Nikon bodies and Speedlights (I think you could even do it back in the film days). However, it will require an external controller that costs on the order of $150 or so.
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com
I was talking about "35mm-like" equipment.
But you are absolutely right - MF backs will always "outmegapixel" any new 1D Mark X. And this is precisely the reason I would not buy that new Mark...
Instead, I am building my second SLR system around a Mamiya RZ67. Right now I only have a film back, but I hope to get a digital one as soon as I can afford it!
The Nikon D300 does NOT have a wireless TTL flash controller built in. The E3 does.
I know that you *can* do wireless TTL with Nikon bodies and Speedlights (I think you could even do it back in the film days). However, it will require an external controller that costs on the order of $150 or so.
1. LOL, I do not consider ISO 3200 a 'specialist' application.
What the heck are you talking about? My D80 can do wireless TTL, I'm pretty dang sure the D300 can. And for a matter of fact I was just using it today.
EDIT: it's 1am, I was using it yesterday
If it is indeed so - I stand corrected.
I do not use TTL flash anyway... And do not own any of Oly FL's either.
Have you considered 4x5? BetterLight seems to have *relatively* reasonable pricing compared to any of the MF vendors. If I thought I could sell a higher volume of landscape prints, I'd so have one of their backs.
Having shot a fair amount of MF and LF film, I consider MF "35mm-like" equipment, if you ain't got that swing...
Wireless flash is awesome, if you do indeed get yourself the E3, by all means get yourself a good flash.
What would I need a flash for?
I do have a studio lighting system (3 Elinchrom monolights) for shooting still lifes and models... But it stays in the studio, and I rarely use it.
I don't like working with a flash.
I do have a studio lighting system (3 Elinchrom monolights) for shooting still lifes and models... But it stays in the studio, and I rarely use it.
Funny how dust reduction and live view were just a dream to most other mid range system users until just the other day...
You're correct about the former, but I strongly disagree on the latter: dust reduction is just being introduced by the Big Two and essential for dslrs -- especially when you change lenses a lot.It's also funny that Live View and dust reduction are things that don't make a good SLR either.