Is E300 Worth To buy in IT Show?

[chancy]

Those f/2.0 lenses are fake!!!


Yes, the above line is to catch your attention only. However, it's not entirely false. Read on.

f/2.0 is good. Fast lens, some may call it. But they failed to advertise the increase of depth-of-field. The sensor crop is 2x, compared to a full frame 35mm film. DOF increases by 2 f-stops also. Therefore, taking a photo at 25mm f/2.0 on the 4/3 system is equivalent to 50mm f/4.0 on full frame, with regard to DOF. With such DOF, don't expect much background blur.

So if you're a portrait photographer, & like background blur, u may like to reconsider.

However, 2x crop is not a bad thing too, at least for bird & wildlife lovers. a 300mm lens can have the same effect of 600mm.

Sheeze, what went wrong with the civility in the Oly forum that requires posters to message in large coloured type all over to draw attention.

As an Oly E-system user, if I may pose a question to AReality. I understand that one characteristic of the 4/3 system is the greater depth of field effect than an equivalent 35mm-system lens for the same F-stop; a boon to some, a bane for others. What I'm curious to know is how did you arrive at the two-stop depth of field difference; could you point me to any sites that explains or show how this is calculated ? I mean why not 1-stop or 3-stop difference.

Enlighten me

Cheers,

 

[Merciless_Knight]

Those f/2.0 lenses are fake!!!


Yes, the above line is to catch your attention only. However, it's not entirely false. Read on.

f/2.0 is good. Fast lens, some may call it. But they failed to advertise the increase of depth-of-field. The sensor crop is 2x, compared to a full frame 35mm film. DOF increases by 2 f-stops also. Therefore, taking a photo at 25mm f/2.0 on the 4/3 system is equivalent to 50mm f/4.0 on full frame, with regard to DOF. With such DOF, don't expect much background blur.

So if you're a portrait photographer, & like background blur, u may like to reconsider.

However, 2x crop is not a bad thing too, at least for bird & wildlife lovers. a 300mm lens can have the same effect of 600mm.

I think U should own one this system 1st b4 U make this statement. :bsmilie:

 

[chancy]

Have fun separating the wheat from the chaff!

I'm choking from reading the wheed

The point is Nikon, Canon, Minolta, ( I think Pentax too) realise that their users have invested a lot already into extra lenses and accessories. Thus what is the logic of creating a 4/3 system to make them buy a new range of smaller dimension lenses all over again? So these manufacturers did not.

I've read through your past postings, you appear to use Canon & Contax (for decades as you stated) amongst others including Oly RFs. Having reported using FD lenses, how do you reconcile your statements above when Canon replaced the FD-incompatible EF mount with the introduction of the EOS System. What balancing did logic serve when Contax came up with the N-mount lenses which were incompatible with the C/Y mount. What happened to those professionals who invested tidy sums for lenses & accessories built around these old mounts. What did Canon/Contax do or not do different from Olympus in your statement above.

I'm not making a personal attack here, but wonder what makes Olympus's actions with the 4/3 system so different & unjustifiable to you than those by Canon or Contax. Maybe I should include Minolta for historical completeness. Tell us.

Like Nightpiper, I wonder if you can also reconcile the terms APS-C & EF-S & DX with the terms "bluffing", EOS1D/Ds/MkII & "Full Frame" used; I know they're don't spell like 4/3 Tell us.

10 or 20 years ago Oly did try a foray into AF film cameras but the attempt failed miserably. So they know they have less to lose if they introduced a 4/3 system as there was little or no user base of AF Oly film camera users with many lenses.

Olympus lost generations of profits to its competitors when it could not field AF competitive SLR system. It's competitors derived profits as its users accumulated comprehensive systems around new mounts & AF technology. It is not an easy loss for Olympus to make but that presented an opportunity; it is not an easy loss to make.

Do spare a thought for the majority profile of camera users before using the words "Pros" & "people make their living with the camera equipment", "full system backups", "600mm F4" lens for those selecting a camera.

Rgds,

 

[Merciless_Knight]

FYI I dun take the 2x factor as consideration. :sticktong
Cos 4/3 System is totally a new standization.

Whereas Other manfacturers want to follow or not is up to them. It is a open market anyway. :bsmilie:

This remind me of CD is invented. Which manfacturers invented it Philips and Sony :sticktong

 

[AReality]

Bean & nightpiper :
yah, U've got it right. Those companies only let u hear the good side. Seldom they'll tell u the down side of their products. I can't disagree that other company's cropped sensors increases DOF also. Note that I'm not discouraging him to buy the E-300, but telling him the other side of the story which many failed to identify.

Bean:
Any camera can be used to take any pictures. just get the correct cam to suit your needs.

nightpiper:
digicams have large aperatures, i.e.: f/2.0, f/1.8 ... But why their DOF so large, even when taken at the largest aperature?


chancy & nightpiper:
There has been a discussion on CS about this, u may like to search for it.

Maybe would like to highlight some point for u...

Depth of field at any given distance for a particular focal length does not change depending on format size. This should be obvious; a different format is just a different crop of the same rendered image; its properties don't change simply because it is cropped differently.

What u need to do is to move backwards to get the same frame compared to a FF, or other crops. As the distance between u and your subject increase, the DOF increases also. Calculations can be found on the net.

 

[chancy]

chancy & nightpiper:
There has been a discussion on CS about this, u may like to search for it.

Maybe would like to highlight some point for u...

Depth of field at any given distance for a particular focal length does not change depending on format size. This should be obvious; a different format is just a different crop of the same rendered image; its properties don't change simply because it is cropped differently.

What u need to do is to move backwards to get the same frame compared to a FF, or other crops. As the distance between u and your subject increase, the DOF increases also. Calculations can be found on the net.

Hi AReality,

While I understand some of your highlights, the issue of whether the image is a crop of the projected image through the lens or entirely within the circle of confusion of a sensor (Full Frame?) eludes me. Care to share you knowledge on both, which of these implementation apply to the 4/3 system?

Sorry if I've not made myself clearer in my earlier posting. My question to you was, how may stops of DOF difference factually exists between the 4/3 & the 35mm system for lenses with the same FOV & subject focus distance. You quoted an eg. of two stops F2 vs F4. Is this from factual knowledge or an arbitary figure. My readings off dpreview seems to suggest a stop of difference but it doesn't sound conclusive; hence my question to you. Before I attempt to blindly search for a calculator that does DOF cal between 4/3 & 35mm. I wonder if you could provide a actual reference or calculator that shows a 2-stop difference to save me some trouble

The reason for asking is that a one-stop background blur maybe acceptable to some compared to a two-stop background blur. eg. F2.8 DOF rather than a F4 DOF for an 4/3 F2 lens.

In any case, an F2 brightness should be equal between a 4/3 system and a 35mm system, am I correct

With thanks in advance,

 

[AReality]

In any case, an F2 brightness should be equal between a 4/3 system and a 35mm system, am I correct

This is correct, no argument here...

My question to you was, how may stops of DOF difference factually exists between the 4/3 & the 35mm system for lenses with the same FOV & subject focus distance. You quoted an eg. of two stops F2 vs F4. Is this from factual knowledge or an arbitary figure. My readings off dpreview seems to suggest a stop of difference but it doesn't sound conclusive; hence my question to you. Before I attempt to blindly search for a calculator that does DOF cal between 4/3 & 35mm. I wonder if you could provide a actual reference or calculator that shows a 2-stop difference to save me some trouble

With reference from this website:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_dslr.html
and the DOF calculator from the same site...


Use the online DOF calculator, open 2 windows, input these values...
1.) 35mm
Actual focal length: 50mm
Selected aperature: f/4
Subject distance: As u wish, I put 20 feet.

2.) Olympus E-300
Actual focal length: 25mm
Selected aperature: f/2
Subject distance: Same distance as 35mm, I put 20 feet.

After clicking calculate, u can see that the values are the same (same DOF).
The FOV is similar for FF at 50mm, and 2x cropped sensor at 25mm.

Have a nice day...


.

 

[ricohflex]

Chancy,

In any case, please note that my second message was addressed to Johnny who specifically requested me to reply. It was not addressed to you :nono: or others, though you may have the opportunity to read.

It must be tiresome for forum members and guests to read this kind of draggy to-and-from message glut over a simple question by Johnny : Is XXX OK to buy?

I have elected not to give another long response. Let the buying public (not just in Singapore but worldwide) decide whether the Oly E300 is a dud and whether the 4/3 system will go same way as 126, 110, APS. Time will tell.

 

[yanyewkay]

IMHO, not worth to buy.. 8mp into a smaller sensor area will theoretically likely to result in higher noise levels (i might be wrong. didn't use it before)
and the package isn't all that attractive compared to others.

if you can wait.. just buy it from shops after the show.

 

[Johnny]

IMHO, not worth to buy.. 8mp into a smaller sensor area will theoretically likely to result in higher noise levels (i might be wrong. didn't use it before)
and the package isn't all that attractive compared to others.

if you can wait.. just buy it from shops after the show.

D70 is much better since it is 1.5x compared to 1.6x of Canon and 2x of Olympus. And D70 is 6MP, thus will theoreticallly result in lower noise? Now 350D is 8MP, so it is not worth to buy too?

Which other package is better? Being monitoring the E300 package for a while, nothing beats the current offer so far. And I can pay by instalments too.

I am leaning towards E300 now as it is a more affordable package now compared to D70 and 350D. The package is better in my opinion too, compared to the other 2. Furthermore, the FL36 is affordable and quality of the 40-150 is much better than the Nikkor 70-300. I find the anti-dust thing very useful. I see some of my friends afraid to change lenses and spend lots of time in post-processing to heal away the dust. I believe I can live with the 2 sec start up to shake the dust away; 2 sec to save hours in post-processing. IMO, start-up in SLR is not really important. How many SLR users really make full use of the spilt-second start up for the Kodak moment? Noise issue, I wonder how often do we use high ISO? Back during the film days, besides have Press 800 for wedding, most casual photographers I see do not use high ISO film so much. Yes, low noise at high ISO is useful, but I can live with noisy images as I would not encounter low light condition so often. I find film 1600 very very grainy, but the noise level in digital camera is not that bad, unless one view in 100%.

Will make a visit tomorrow one more time before making my final decision.

Thanks for all the opinions, there are all very good. They makes me realise more about the E-system.

Final question, what is your opinon of the Pentax *ist DS?

 

[AReality]

Which other package is better? Being monitoring the E300 package for a while, nothing beats the current offer so far. And I can pay by instalments too.

If money is the main concern, then don't buy a DSLR. It's not for you.

Buying a DLSR is not just buying the equipment u see. It's investing in a system. So what happens when u outgrow your 1st camera? Sell the body only, get a better one, or sell the whole system, get another system? Once u get your 1st cam, you're basically stuck with the system, unless u have enough $ to spare.

IMO, start-up in SLR is not really important. How many SLR users really make full use of the spilt-second start up for the Kodak moment?

Don't bet on that. Most newbies tend to think that way too. BTW, there's no such thing as Kodak moment. Don't advertise free for them. It's called "the moment".

Noise issue, I wonder how often do we use high ISO?

Obviously u never shoot indoors with ambient light before. Since u said u won't encounter that kind of situation, then it's all up to u...

 

[tomcat]

f/2.0 is good. Fast lens, some may call it. But they failed to advertise the increase of depth-of-field. The sensor crop is 2x, compared to a full frame 35mm film. DOF increases by 2 f-stops also. Therefore, taking a photo at 25mm f/2.0 on the 4/3 system is equivalent to 50mm f/4.0 on full frame, with regard to DOF. With such DOF, don't expect much background blur.

So if you're a portrait photographer, & like background blur, u may like to reconsider.
[/COLOR]

I know from your later posting that you had based your conclusion that a f/2 lens in the 4/3 system has not 'much background blur' on a DOF calculation software, but how much background blur is considered to be sufficient for portrait or any other purpose can be very subjective and the answer to that can vary from one user to another.

I bought the 50mm f/2 macro lens because I tend to take quite a lot of macros and portrait-style shots with my Canon system and wanted to use the E-300 for the same purpose. I too thought that there would be much more DOF in the Oly lens compared to the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro lens and that would be good.

Though I normally do not take such shots (portrait-style shots at max. apertures), I had tried the Oly lens out at f/2 just to see how much DOF I could get at max. aperture opening and this is what I got:

I don't know if the results looked actually as predicted by the DOF calculation software but it certainly did not look as if there was 'not much background blur' at f/2.0 in actual use for this lens. In fact, if you look at the wall on the left side of the image, the DOF vanished quite abruptly just a short distance backwards from the focal plane. Is that a good thing or not, I don't know. Maybe users who specialise in portrait shots could tell me. To my eyes, the ultimate effect looked quite nice and I'm quite satisfied with it.

With this lens, in practice, I observed that there was significantly increased DOF compared to my Sigma lens but only at much higher aperture nos. ie. smaller aperture openings, and then only just a bit more... and not as much as I had initially expected. Is that good or bad? It would depend on each user's own expectations and interpretation of visual esthetics, I suppose.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that the results of a theoretical computation are only a guide and 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. How a particular lens actually perform in real life may be quite different from what a software calculation predict that it would do and its performance would be better judged from the actual images it could produce when used in real life. Instead of being so decisively written off even before they make an appearance in the marketplace and a single shot has been taken with them, the new Oly lenses that are coming out should perhaps be given the benefit of the doubt until they are proven to be otherwise in real use, like with any new lenses forthcoming from the other brands.

 

[hammer_400]

D70 is much better since it is 1.5x compared to 1.6x of Canon and 2x of Olympus. And D70 is 6MP, thus will theoreticallly result in lower noise? Now 350D is 8MP, so it is not worth to buy too?

Which other package is better? Being monitoring the E300 package for a while, nothing beats the current offer so far. And I can pay by instalments too.

I am leaning towards E300 now as it is a more affordable package now compared to D70 and 350D. The package is better in my opinion too, compared to the other 2. Furthermore, the FL36 is affordable and quality of the 40-150 is much better than the Nikkor 70-300. I find the anti-dust thing very useful. I see some of my friends afraid to change lenses and spend lots of time in post-processing to heal away the dust. I believe I can live with the 2 sec start up to shake the dust away; 2 sec to save hours in post-processing. IMO, start-up in SLR is not really important. How many SLR users really make full use of the spilt-second start up for the Kodak moment? Noise issue, I wonder how often do we use high ISO? Back during the film days, besides have Press 800 for wedding, most casual photographers I see do not use high ISO film so much. Yes, low noise at high ISO is useful, but I can live with noisy images as I would not encounter low light condition so often. I find film 1600 very very grainy, but the noise level in digital camera is not that bad, unless one view in 100%.

Will make a visit tomorrow one more time before making my final decision.

Thanks for all the opinions, there are all very good. They makes me realise more about the E-system.

Final question, what is your opinon of the Pentax *ist DS?

hi...
the e-300 does have more noise from iso 800-1600 compared to the competition, one of the reasons MAY be the higher pixel density ( more megapixels in a slightly smaller sensor ) but another reason is that olympus does not use any heavy noise reduction at high ISO's. If u can test out the d70/D7D etc at iso 1600 u get less noise but also softer 'smudged' details in the pics, this is'nt much the case with the e-300...
u can go to steve's digicam to compare diff high ISO shots and compare the details... with the e-300 u can always use noiseware or neatimage to reduce noise to the amount u want.

regarding the 2 sec startup, i have'nt yet encountered any situation where it has been a hindrance.
On--> bring to eye --> zoom/frame/compose --> half press to AF --> shoot
ussually take more than 2 sec

i do not have any other sys to compare lens optically and the lens build quality, but the body is pretty well built, aluminium frame with polycarbonate side panels, with canon u need at least 20d to get that quality. For lens, i would not claim to be able to compare them, but from other user review etc (dpreview) from experiance pros, they find the kit lens very good esp for a kit lens, and that u need to go at least mid-range canon lens to match..
i can provide links if u want.

another concern may be the no of AF points. the e-300 has 3 while d70 has 7 and 350d has 9. but if u just use the centre AF point then its not a concern.
btw, AF sensitivity is pretty good, much better than d70 and 300d ( dunno about 350d ) and i find that it focuses pretty well in low light without any af asist. btw the af asist is terrible, it uses the flash and strobes it..like the 300d/20d, fortunately u dun realli need it...

here's an example, dug up the exif and it was shot at 1/2 sec at iso 400... that pretty dim..

its PP quite abit to brighten the image up, so it really was DIM... all the lights were off except for a lcd projector and the lightsticks...
there are many comments esp at dpreview abiut the AF sensitivity of the e-300. AF speed of the kit lens may be slightly slower than the d70 kit etc, but the AF is very sensitive and accurate..

hope this helps u make your choice
cheers


edit: imaging resource just posted thier full e-300 review. just browsing thru i find it pretty well balanced.. worth a look...

 

[ch5800]

Johny, my another 2 cents advice is:

listen to the actual owner of that particular system on their points about what is the GOOD and BAD on it. Ask Canon user about Canon, ask Oly user about Oly, then you decide. (If they cannot tell you about some BAD things, then they are lying)

If possible, read about how people who ACTUALLY own and use different system in giving truthful comments about them

Yes you are right about the way you evaluate that 2s startup time. Also about the practicality about SLR dust problem.

Still, I am never disappointed about the kind of photos that turns out from the E1 & E300 posted on the web. That's the bottom line. There are people who perfect their photography and there about people who perfect their equipment

P.S: My brother got back from Hai Er Bin -20 degree and have zero problem shooting with that "Entry-level" E-300 and the battery last ever
A camera in your hand is better then a complete system at home

 

[tomcat]

edit: imaging resource just posted thier full e-300 review. just browsing thru i find it pretty well balanced.. worth a look...

Just scan through the updated review by Imaging Resource. Seems that the updated review is a lot more positive than the preliminary review and informative on many of the features of the E-300.

Of particular interest to me is the info on the design of the Zukio Digital lenses which incorporate features that are unique to the Four-Third system. One of these is the greater amount of communication between the lens and the body, in particular about their optical characteristics including information on geometric distortion.

In the E-1, this information can be used to correct in-camera, light falloff in the corners of the frame ie vignetting, via a menu option called "Shading Compensation." They now report in the updated review that according to info from Olympus, the E-300 apparently always performs this correction in-camera, rather than providing it via a menu option. Perhaps that would explain why when I applied Shading Compensation in the Olympus Studio software on my E-300 images, most of the times I found that it 'brightens' up the corners too much and I have to back off from applying the correction.

The review also reported that the data about geometric distortion that's captured by the camera body is written into its RAW files, so the Olympus Master software can correct for such lens defects after the fact, back on a host computer and this could could be used to achieve very low distortion with relatively inexpensive lenses. What is more interesting is that the review now says that to the best of their knowledge, only the Olympus Zuiko Digital lenses offer this capability and third-party Four-Thirds format lenses do not, making it another factor that mgiht need to be considered when deciding on whether to buy the much cheaper Sigma lenses for the E-system or not.

 

[serene]

If money is the main concern, then don't buy a DSLR. It's not for you.

Buying a DLSR is not just buying the equipment u see. It's investing in a system. So what happens when u outgrow your 1st camera? Sell the body only, get a better one, or sell the whole system, get another system? Once u get your 1st cam, you're basically stuck with the system, unless u have enough $ to spare....

Your logic is flawed - there are people, for eg myself who are new entrants to the DSLR world and hence want to start in the most economic way. For the outgrowing part, since we are new it will take some time, don't we. What happens after that - not so difficult - just upgrade to the pro-line. Why do you keep harping on stuck with whole system and selling it. Who will be stuck with whole system so soon? From the money is the main concern point of view, we go slowly and prudently as we build our skills.

From the money-is-the-concern point of view, my budget was around $1,500,does this mean that I should not have bought the e-300 or any other DSLR?

Seene

 

[ch5800]

Your logic is flawed - there are people, for eg myself who are new entrants to the DSLR world and hence want to start in the most economic way. For the outgrowing part, since we are new it will take some time, don't we. What happens after that - not so difficult - just upgrade to the pro-line. Why do you keep harping on stuck with whole system and selling it. Who will be stuck with whole system so soon? From the money is the main concern point of view, we go slowly and prudently as we build our skills.

Serene, I echo your view on SKILL matching EQUIPMENT. I was amazed when someone using a simple Canon A70 and still managed to get those stunning shots. (pbase: Richard Armstrong, and also look at his recent one using the Canon 300D, yes no L lens no 20D, don't even talk about 1D)

From the money-is-the-concern point of view, my budget was around $1,500,does this mean that I should not have bought the e-300 or any other DSLR?
Seene

I am sure by now the E-300 has already bring you much Fun. Those skills that you learn now and the photos that are captured are more important than sit-and-wait-for-the-best camera. Anyway, by then if one out grow the camera, just sell your old one and get the new one if necessary.

 

[chancy]

Final question, what is your opinon of the Pentax *ist DS?

Hello Johnny,

I agree that the Pentax *istDS is a contender amongst those you are considering. I'm sure by now you have a good idea of the relative strengths & weaknesses of the E-300 & the 4/3 system is general.

My fellow Oly member mentioned that Canon Forum for Canon opinions, Olympus Forum for Oly opinions. The Pentax forum has a dedicated & civil following. I'm sure you'll get good advise there. Be careful of hounding hawks though

Anyway, take my opinions of the *Ds with a grain of salt since it's mostly hearsay. It is the most compact SLR system to-date. I think it embodies the OM1 philosophy of compactness better than the E-systems to date, helped in part by adopting SD format for image storage. I read that the menu system is well thought out & easy-to-navigate. The size of the hands determines whether its compactness is a fit or fiddly. Pentax has the BEST record to date for backward lens compatibility; works with the old manual focus K-SMC Takumars to the latest KAF2 digital-specific lenses without adaptors. The focusing screen does a good job with manual focusing too. The most important issue would be manufacturer support since Pentax does not have an official presence here relying on J&J for sales & support. Pentax owners at their forum maybe able to give a better picture on this area. Same for the image quality performance. They seem to be a friendly lot like us Olys here

If you have further questions with the E-System, pop by to ask. Door's always open

Cheers,

 

[ch5800]

Chancy, I love your positive comment about another system. That's the spirit!

 

[raycsk]

Tomcat,

Your cat looks like it has something stuck up its CENSORED.....