The Olympus e-3 is here.

[netdog]

I think the 4/3 idea was great in theory, but for it to have made a significant impact they probably needed the other smaller manufacturers (e.g. Pentax) to buy in - and that didn't happen.

Panasonic / Leica bought in, and not only are the L1 and Digilux 3 extraordinary cameras, but the Leica lenses out so far (14-50, 25, and 14-150) are remarkable.

The Canon/Nikon set just doesn't get how great and different the Digilux 3 is compared to the approach that the mainstream is taking.

When you see someone slag an L1 or Digilux 3, you can bet that they have never actually used one for any prolonged period.

 

[srf4real]

No negative comment on the glass available to 4/3? I believe that the system is about to hit its stride and take over a larger portion of the prosumers out there looking for features that have been deliberately witheld from them by canon and nikon for sake of a lower price point. The e510, e330, e410, blows away either with features and quality of kit glass. How much are you willing and able to spend for in body image stabilization, dust reduction, live view, (I know I never use it) and weather proofing? The e3 only gives the pros another option to the e1 without having to let go of all that killer glass and start over. The next gen will be even better. Unless like valiar said, you have a specific application which another system suits better, or you're in the mindless megapixel race, Oly, Panasonic, Leica, and Sigma will get you some professional quality results second to none.

 

[RevToTheRedline]

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.

Well I hope Olympus can do better with the dust reduction then Canon, because it's anything but impressive, worse then nothing at all in fact.

Dust reduction isn't an end all fix either, you will still eventually get dust that sticks on so good it requires sensor swabbing with liquid.

 

[OreoCookie]

Well I hope Olympus can do better with the dust reduction then Canon, because it's anything but impressive, worse then nothing at all in fact.

Dust reduction isn't an end all fix either, you will still eventually get dust that sticks on so good it requires sensor swabbing with liquid.

Olympus has dust reduction ever since introducing dslrs of their own. They are several generations ahead of Nikon and Canon. Plus, their sensor is smaller, so dust reduction systems (as opposed to removal!) are easier to build. (FF dslrs don't have dust reduction yet!)

It's not a fix, but certainly helps. It might `just' save you a Benjamin for cleaning your sensor by your service partner of choice.

 

[Westside guy]

I think the 4/3 idea was great in theory, but for it to have made a significant impact they probably needed the other smaller manufacturers (e.g. Pentax) to buy in - and that didn't happen. That said, Olympus has historically made cameras that offer a good price-to-features ratio. If you're already a 4/3 shooter, this looks very nice.

Panasonic / Leica bought in, and not only are the L1 and Digilux 3 extraordinary cameras, but the Leica lenses out so far (14-50, 25, and 14-150) are remarkable.

You're arguing at a tangent to what I said. I wasn't saying the 4/3 systems are worse - or better, for that matter - than the 3/2 systems. But while a handful of companies did buy into 4/3, with the exception of Olympus they're all afterthoughts in terms of marketshare. To significantly impact things market-wise, they needed someone else that actually has measurable market share - e.g. Pentax, Fuji, KonicaMinolta - to also offer actual 4/3 bodies and/or lenses (Fuji is a member of the consortium, but that seems to be in name-only since their dSLRs are based on Nikon bodies).

 

[compuwar]

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.

No, cleaning your sensor is essential- a lot of dust removal/reduction systems don't work to the tune of actually making things worse. What we're seeing is marketing feature creep. There are just not a lot of new bells and whistles to list in marketing brochures and these features are market-driven (just like "full frame" 35mm sensors) not necessarily technology-driven.

I shoot mostly with a 35-70 in the studio and a 400 prime in the field. I'll often put a 10-20 on for landscapes or wider studio shots (my studio could stand to be about 8' deeper.) My pictures still sell, despite not having this "essential" technology- so your definition of essential certainly isn't the same as my definition, and I suspect it's not the same as the dictionary definition.

Now, I'm pretty careful about handling and pointing the camera when I do change lenses, but I don't find myself cleaning my sensor an abnormal amount of time.

 

[valiar]

It's also funny that Live View and dust reduction are things that don't make a good SLR either.

I beg to disagree about dust removal.

I used to have a Canon 300D, and dust accumulation was driving me nuts.

The damn thing needed cleaning every two weeks or so with that vodoo stick and some pec-pads. Cloning dust out in the sky is not too bad, but it really sucks in, say, portrait shots.

I have never, ever had to clean my E1's sensor. Ever.

Yes, there IS some dust on it after two years of use. Probably sticky pollen. However, these 3 specks are only visible at F22, on a very, very light background after auto-levels are applied in Photoshop. And they are only slightly visible even then - because this dust sits on the SSWF itself, about 3mm from the sensor - not on the hot mirror or sensor glass. This is a piece of very nice engineering.

It is sometimes funny to watch how people justify it to themselves that dust is somehow "OK". I have even seen an article about it on such an esteemed site as Luminous Landscape. Repeat after me: dust sucks. Dust can ruin your shot.

Oh, and, RevToTheRedline, I would still like to see your work. You know - these awesome pictures you are taking with that powerful flash and dusty (but still teh uber) "N" camera.

By the way, I did pre-order my E-3 today. Wonder when it will actually ship...

No, cleaning your sensor is essential- a lot of dust removal/reduction systems don't work to the tune of actually making things worse. What we're seeing is marketing feature creep.

Precisely!
Check this favorite link of mine out:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

I have not seen a test of Nikon's system yet, but from the specs it looks suspiciously like the system Canon has. Complete with software dust mapping. Which is hardly encouraging...

 

[RevToTheRedline]

Precisely!
Check this favorite link of mine out:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

I have not seen a test of Nikon's system yet, but from the specs it looks suspiciously like the system Canon has. Complete with software dust mapping. Which is hardly encouraging...

That article makes me laugh. Automatic dust removal is such a gimmick to me. This proves it.

 

[valiar]

That article makes me laugh. Automatic dust removal is such a gimmick to me. This proves it.

It is definitely not a gimmick in its Oly incarnation according to the article's authors. It does not remove 100% of the dust (it would have been surprising if it did), but it definitely works - unlike the "marketing checkbox" systems that Sony and Canon have.

 

[wmmk]

Nice camera. If it was faster (8fps) and less pixel-dense (6MP would be nice), I'd seriously consider it. 4/3rd might not be perfect, but honestly, compact(ish) constant f2 zooms at 28-70 and 70-200 FL equivalents would be a pleasure to use. That fastest AF claim is interesting as well...

 

[Lovesong]

While I don't want to start another flame war, and show myself to be ignorant, incapable of understanding or accepting other people's opinions, and utterly stuck in my world views, a la RevToTheRedline, there is one quintessential issue that all 4/3 suffer from, and that is the viewfinder. Perhaps I have been spoiled by my years of film shooting, and my 5D, but I actually need to see what it is I'm taking a picture of. About a year ago I got my dad an e-500 for his birthday, and while I feel that the build and overall image quality of that camera is great (especially for a low-end model), I felt like I was shooting in a tunnel with it. This is a small thing, maybe even a personal preference, but it's a large part why I went with a FF camera.

 

[srf4real]

there is one quintessential issue that all 4/3 suffer from, and that is the viewfinder.

Except for the pentaprisms in e1 and e3, you are right on with that.

e3:• Eye-level TTL Optical Pentaprism
• Field of view approx. 100%
• Magnification 1.15x with a 50mm lens and -1 dioptre
• Dioptre adjustment -3 to +1 dioptre
• Built in eyepiece shutter
• Focusing screen: Interchangeable type
• Mirror: Quick return mirror

 

[Lovesong]

Except for the pentaprisms in e1 and e3, you are right on with that.

e3:• Eye-level TTL Optical Pentaprism
• Field of view approx. 100%
• Magnification 1.15x with a 50mm lens and -1 dioptre
• Dioptre adjustment -3 to +1 dioptre
• Built in eyepiece shutter
• Focusing screen: Interchangeable type
• Mirror: Quick return mirror

And away I go being proven ignorant and irrelevant

 

[valiar]

...there is one quintessential issue that all 4/3 suffer from, and that is the viewfinder. Perhaps I have been spoiled by my years of film shooting, and my 5D, but I actually need to see what it is I'm taking a picture of...

This is indeed true of most 4/3 bodies - except the E1 and, looking at the specs, E3.
I absolutely don't like the viewfinder in my E330, and I did try the E500 in the store... Ugh.
However, I love my E1 - I can easily focus manually even without a split screen. Its eyepoint also makes for quite comfortable viewing.
From what I have read in E3 hands-on previews, its viewfinder visually looks a bit larger than the one in 40D. Of course, both E1 and E3's viewfinders cannot really compete with your 5D.

 

[OreoCookie]

This is indeed true of most 4/3 bodies - except the E1 and, looking at the specs, E3.
I absolutely don't like the viewfinder in my E330, and I did try the E500 in the store... Ugh.

Agreed, that was the reason I opted against an Olympus dslr. That was also the reason I sold a D70 after only one week after trying a D80 once. Too bad the E3 didn't come out earlier.

 

[srf4real]

I ended up getting an eyecup magnifier for my L1, and at first wasn't sure it was worth the $30... but after a couple of weeks I find myself focusing manually much more often with confidence. I was about to spring for a Pentax k10d because of the viewfinder issue (plus weatherproofing for less than $1000) but then I came across the deal of a lifetime on the L1 kit. At the low price they're asking for the e3, I'll have my cake and eat it too within a half a year.

 

[Mr. G4]

That article makes me laugh. Automatic dust removal is such a gimmick to me. This proves it.

It's only a gimmick only when you don't have.
Why would Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax went out of their way trying to mimic Olympus if they all tough it's a gimmick. Just stop and think about for a second and be honest with your selves, wouldn't you like to be at the beach or anywhere dusty and change the lens whenever you want?

And this one is my favorite video and this one

 

[compuwar]

It's only a gimmick only when you don't have.

No, possession of a gimick doesn't in any way affect its gimmickyness.

I
Why would Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax went out of their way trying to
mimic Olympus if they all tough it's a gimmick. Just stop and think about for

As we've already said- because of marketing. Lots of industries add gimmicks to increase sales, sell to the uninitiated (which is after all, the largest market and the way to grow a market,) etc.

I
a second and be honest with your selves, wouldn't you like to be at the beach or anywhere dusty and change the lens whenever you want?

No. I'd rather carry a backup body with a wider lens. Every single time.

 

[Mr. G4]

No, possession of a gimick doesn't in any way affect its gimmickyness.

No you didn't get my point or you don't want to get it.
When someone doesn't have a working dust remover built in their camera, they always come up with that lame argument that it's a gimmick.

As we've already said- because of marketing. Lots of industries add gimmicks to increase sales, sell to the uninitiated (which is after all, the largest market and the way to grow a market,) etc.

So I guess Canon really think that their high end models are really for the uninitiated since they went and add "live view" on them, since it's another gimmick when Olympus came out with it more than a year ago with the E-330...yeh I heard that before too in regard to Mac Vs PC.

No. I'd rather carry a backup body with a wider lens. Every single time.

Good for you, but I guess nobody have money to throw away nor enough power to carry each body for each lens.

Oh here I found your picture

 

[compuwar]

No you didn't get my point or you don't want to get it.
When someone doesn't have a working dust remover built in their camera, they always come up with that lame argument that it's a gimmick.

Or they understand that even one that "works" doesn't completely remove dust like cleaning the sensor does, so they'd rather just clean the sensor at regular intervals and have a clean sensor rather than a cleanish sensor.

Rather than engineering a situation where dust removal becomes more important maybe you should consider the reliability and longevity implications of additional moving parts- I'm on my third primary DSLR body and I've yet to miss this "great feature" and I've yet to miss selling an image because of a dirty sensor.

If my sensor isn't all spotty without this feature, if millions of images have been sold made by cameras without this feature, and if this feature in its best implementation doesn't solve the problem, then how is it not a gimmick?

The day my customers regularly start rejecting my images because of sensor dust is the day I'll think it's not a gimmick.

So I guess Canon really think that their high end models are really for the uninitiated since they went and add "live view" on them, since it's another gimmick when Olympus came out with it more than a year ago with the E-330...yeh I heard that before too in regard to Mac Vs PC.

Live view has positive implications for the journalist market. It actually solves a problem that's been a problem for media pack photographers for decades. Yes, there are a lot of gimmicks in the computer industry, what's your point?

Good for you, but I guess nobody have money to throw away nor enough power to carry each body for each lens.

If it's important enough that on-the-fly lens changing in a dirty environment would be necessary- it's important enough to have a second body. You may consider it "throwing away money" but a lot of us do ROI calculations and determine that a single body is even more costly if it breaks down.

Oh here I found your picture

Nope, I don't shoot Canon, and I use a tripod not a monopod

For what it's worth, if you think adding anti-dust to his bodies would have him carrying fewer bodies on a golf course, you're an idiot.

 

[scotthayes]

where did my post go?

All I said was it was an ugly camera and put a link to a review.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oops, wrong thread. guess I spent a little to much time in the pub after work.

 

[saltyzoo]

I've never understood the vile passions against Oly. I luv em. You don't have to.

 

[Mr. G4]

The day my customers regularly start rejecting my images because of sensor dust is the day I'll think it's not a gimmick.

You had to be foolish to submit a picture to with dust spot on it...you are worst than I though.

Live view has positive implications for the journalist market. It actually solves a problem that's been a problem for media pack photographers for decades. Yes, there are a lot of gimmicks in the computer industry, what's your point?

That is exactly my point, people like you who are so blind that don't see further than the tip of their nose and couldn't agonize progress when there is one.

For what it's worth, if you think adding anti-dust to his bodies would have him carrying fewer bodies on a golf course, you're an idiot.

Is that all you have, resolve to name calling ... what a pity.

 

[srf4real]

Come on guys, where's the love? We're all fellow photographers and mac users I hope. It doesn't matter if your preferences are different, but this pissing contest has to go before the mods intervene... so here's a picture of a homeless cat at the beach sleeping under a park bench. Be grateful. Critique away.

>taken with a 4/3 camera<

 

[baby duck monge]

I am Spartacus.



Taken with a 4/3 camera.