Olympus E300 8mp SLR

[pmooney 6]

Things to come out of this thread.

 

Get the best combo that you can afford / most suit's your needs.

 

It's the indian not the arrow. ( to a point )

 

Olympus have a housing coming.

 

Ike is considering ......

 

A changable port will be essential - surely he Athena people in Japan will have a glass dome available to suit......

 

TTL would be nice.

 

Thanks to every one for the input.

 

Peter

[herbko 0]

A changable port will be essential - surely he Athena people in Japan will have a glass dome available to suit......  

 

For a port to be secure, both sides of the connection have to be designed right.

[davephdv 0]

Oly has announced a 7 to 14 zoom for their E system dSLR. Thats the 35 mm equivalent of 14 to 28 mm. If they have a decent macro lens that is all the lenses you would need for a decent underwater system.

[herbko 0]

Oly has announced a 7 to 14 zoom for their E system dSLR. Thats the 35 mm equivalent of 14 to 28 mm. If they have a decent macro lens that is all the lenses you would need for a decent underwater system.

 

That lens has a $1800 price tag! If that's in your budget, then there are quite a few DSLR systems to choose from.

[davephdv 0]

List price? Still the lens is more important than the camera. The camera and lens will still be less than the body of the top of the line Cannon or Nikon and the lens will go on your next camera as well.

 

Seems to me that people keep getting obsessed with the latest and greatest camera and forget having the right lens for the shot is the most important factor (after the photographer of course).

[herbko 0]

The $1800 is the list price. I think I saw Ryan write $1600 somewhere.

 

For a DSLR, the camera is also your "film". It's much more significant than just the body of a film camera. If it comes down to

 

$1300 Canon 20D

$800 Canon 10-22 lens

 

vs

 

$900 Olympus E300

$1600 Olympus 7-14 lens

 

I think it's an easy choice.

[craig 0]

List price? Still the lens is more important than the camera. The camera and lens will still be less than the body of the top of the line Cannon or Nikon and the lens will go on your next camera as well.

 

Seems to me that people keep getting obsessed with the latest and greatest camera and forget having the right lens for the shot is the most important factor (after the photographer of course).

 

I can't imagine how the 7-14 lens is any more "the right lens" than the Nikon 12-24 or Canon 10-22. Any of those can be used on some future cameras, the others on far more than the Olympus.

 

I hope you're not comparing an Olympus system to a 1Ds or D2x. For all the extra cost of those systems you get far more camera and "the right lens" is available. In fact, for Nikon and Canon you have a selection of macro lenses, not just one.

 

The finest lens in the world doesn't matter if you can't record the image or even operate the shutter. All the equipment is important, not just the lens.

 

I agree with Herb, the choice is easy just based on the wide lens. Once you get into the other options there's no contest.

[apete 1]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/

[herbko 0]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/

 

No surprises. They're trading off dynamic range for more pixels.

[davephdv 0]

Well I see all the "Cannon lurkers" have come out to jump on me. Must have hit a sensitive spot there. Especially since my point was simply that a good lens of the right focal length for the shot you want is probably the most important thing you can do to get a great shot.

 

This is intuitively obvious if you consider the photographer who confronts a sperm whale and calf while they have their 105 macro lens on their camera while on a dive. Thus my interest in noting how good a lens the new Oly would be for wide angle photography. I doubt that the new Oly is significantly superior to my 12-24 and 10.5x dx lenses; but you will note that the one Oly lens will cover the range of both my superb Nikon DX lenses. A CRUCIAL advantage in underwater photography where you can't easily change lenses and your shot may never come back if you don't get it right now.

 

This was the essence of my original post about the new Oly 7-14 lens. As I further argued I would rather have a relatively inexpensive dSLR and the best possible lens for the job.

 

That seems obvious to me. If I could afford a D2X to go with that top of the line lens I would get it. But I, like a lot of others can't afford a 4000 to 5000$ camera. Especially if I have to get the newest and greatest camera every two years. However a 1600$ lens is not beyond my desires or finances. Also I can probably use it for 10 to 20 years.

 

Now to compare the new Oly to a 20D. If you read the dpreview of the camera you will note he says the resolution is almost as good as the 20D. A more expensive camera. Reading the complaints of the reviewer; what he complains about I suspect could be remedied with a firmware update or maybe a little tweaking of the camera. Where I live is the location of the well regarded Brooks Institute of photography. As you can imagine students there are now using dSLRS for some of their work. One of the staff members told me a year or so ago that they had found that the image quality of the 5 mp Oly dSLR was just as good as that of Cannon 60 and 10D and Nikon D100. Makes me think that when this camera is refined it will shoot as well as 300D, 20D, or D70.

 

Yes, I believe that the above cameras are better for UW use than the top of the line cameras from all manufactures. For one thing they are smaller which can be a priceless advantage when traveling to distant places under potentially difficult conditions. Are you going to leap into a bouncing Zodiac to get that whale shot with with your supercamera? When you might with your 300D or D70? Even if you did can you swim fast enough to get the shot when your camera and housing have twice the mass of the guy with a D70? All your going to get is shots of his (or hopefully her) butt while they get your shot. Even more important. You should never take a camera UW that you would hesitate to leave behind in an emergency. You might think about leaving that 4500$ camera behind just long enough to make your wife a widow. Remember; you don't have to be able to out swim a great white shark. Just your dive buddy.

 

Second thing is that for most shots I believe all the available dSLRS will give you a good shot. That one from the top of the line cameras will only be marginally better. The quality of the lens and the knowledge of the photographer is still more important than the size of the shooters bankroll. Not as true as with film cameras. However for anything under an extreme enlargement I doubt you will be able to tell much different between shots from consumer versus top of the line pro cameras. I really believe too many of these cameras are being evaluated by engineers obsessed by noise created in their tests and not photographers looking at the final image.

 

Unless you are making a living off your UW photography I think one would be nuts to take a 5000$ camera UW. There is a decent chance that sooner or later fate will frown on you. Won't happen to you? Of course not. Except that the last 3 people whom I have watched come up with a leaking camera/housing all said in disbelief that it could never happen to them while they were pouring salt water out of their housing. Fortunately only one of these ended up with a ruined camera. Even more fortunate that it was a film camera!

 

As far as comparing the new Oly 7-14 lens with the Cannon 10-22: a lens I never heard of before. The original Oly 3:4 system seems somewhat over priced to me. That extra 2 or 3 mm of focal length at the wide end my well be worth the extra price.

 

Any way; enough ranting probably brought on by 2 weeks of continual rain and mud slides. I don't care what you shoot. I haven't found a shot yet I couldn't get with my D100. I would rather shoot with the best lens and not engage in "dSLR envy" over what the next guy is shooting.

[herbko 0]

Well, it's raining up here in the Bay Area also.

 

This "Canon Lurker" was commenting on the $1800 Olympus lens in the context of the original question: how's the E300 as a low cost system. Since that lens is not out yet the last time I checked, it's premature to say if it's worth the money to the lens aficionados amonst us, but it's safe to say it's unlikely to be part of a low cost system. As far as coverage, at minimum focal length, the Canon 10-22 F3.5 -F4.5 spans 107 degrees on a DRebel or 20D. The Olympus 7-14 F4 spans 114 degrees, because of the smaller sensor size the much smaller focal length does not translates to that much wider coverage. To complete the list, the Nikkor 12-24 covers 98 degrees.

 

I spent a few minutes reading some of the reactions in the Olympus SLR forum to Phil's review ( It's raining here. ) It's quite entertaining. The way the were jumping on him, you'd think that Phil's insulted their mother or girl friend. As I commented above, I didn't find Phil's review surprising at all. Olympus went for higher resolution and trade signal-to-noise and dynamic range to get it. I, personally, would not choose that trade-off over the E-1 design. The dynamic range of the E300 is now two stops worst than the DRebel or 20D. It makes a big difference if you try to include a tropical sun into your underwater shots.

[Helge Suess 0]

Hi!

 

I had the chance to do a few pictures with the Olympus 7-14 on an E-1. It's a great lens, as far as I've seen. No visible distortion, crisp sharp, nice to handle. It'll part of my lens bag as soon as it is available (expected March 2005).

IMO the crucial part ist the dome and the lens. You can easily spoil the best lens by mis-placing it in the dome. You will render the most superior camera useless with a cheap lens. UW photography drives a lens to its limits. It's a subject the lens wasn't designed for and thus it maybe will show some weak points that are completely invisible in top-side use. Dynamic range is another aspect why I choose the E-1 (and prefer it over the E-300).

I'm going to house an E-1. The design is nearly complete and the aluminium block for the prototype is alredy ordered. I will house the 50mm macro (and also the other macro lenses that are promised for 2005) adn the 7-14mm as well. Domes will be calculated (in contrast to a mere mechanical fit or trial & error) to match the lens (at least at the widest angle). Later on, a dome for the 11-22mm will follow.

If you're interested in the housing, please drop me a line.

 

Helge ;-)=)

[whitey 2]

Herb, to be elevated to the status of 'Canon Lurker', you'd have to own a Canon lens, wouldn't you? :roll:

 

I just had a read of Phil's review too.

 

"If you're a real stickler for image quality however you may wish to consider other cameras. "

 

He didn't sound very convinced for a 'recommended' camera.

 

I think it's a really interesting concept in camera design, and kudos to Olympus for being a bit braver than the competition with their camera engineering. But I don't see any compelling reason to buy into this system, and I think I'd have some reservations as to where the Four Thirds system will be at in five years time.

 

Having said that, Helge, I await some photos of your prototype housing with interest!

[craig 0]

I'm certainly not a "Cannon lurker" or even a "Canon lurker" for that matter. I don't have brand loyalty. Performance loyalty though...

 

The 7-14 is a 2x zoom lens and is no more flexible than any other 2x zoom, so if you think it can cover the range of both the fisheye and the 12-24 you are mistaken. It may be a good lens for whale sharks but it won't be for hammerheads. The equivalent of 14-28mm is just not as good IMO for most things as the 18-36 equivalent that the Nikon and Canon lenses provide. If you must have the superwide zoom, with Nikon and Canon you have the choice of a 12-24 or 15-30 zoom and full frame imagers. What I want in a wide zoom is something "wide enough" but with some reach. A 17-40 or longer equivalent would be nice.

 

As far as image performance goes, apparently the E300 provides good resolution or so says Phil. It's noise performance sucks as is expected out of a 4 micron pixel pitch. James and Herb have already mentioned this. The viewfinder apparently also sucks and that's a big deal when you have to go through a housing. The camera has only one macro option though the roadmap shows two others. I hardly think this is (currently) a viable underwater solution.

 

Somehow you've assumed that the housed E300 that doesn't exist is smaller than any competitive rig. That's a big assumption. You've also assumed that price somehow matters to everyone else in the same way it does to you. I can tell you this: how fast I swim after the whale shark will not be determined by the size of my housing and I don't leave my camera on the boat because it's too expensive. YMMV.

[james 0]

Interesting observations in this thread. I think many of these considerations will apply to any new camera system, whether it's a Foveon camera, 4/3, etc. I would like to keep the tone good and "wholesome" if possible and keep off the "brand comparison" trend if possible.

 

One thing to consider is that new and "one off" camera's are usually housed first by Ikelite (except for the Kodak :-) In this case, I'll assume that Ike is going to use his new compact molded DSLR "box." In that case, housing size is taken out of the equation because the D70, 20D, 10D, D-Rebel, etc ALL use this form factor.

 

For new cameras viewfinder is a big consideration, noise is a big consideration, sync speed is important, and lens and port choices are big considerations.

 

Cheers

James

[herbko 0]

Herb, to be elevated to the status of 'Canon Lurker', you'd have to own a Canon lens, wouldn't you?  :roll:      

 

I bought the 10-22 (still waiting for the zoom ring). Now I'm official.

[davephdv 0]

"Somehow you've assumed that the housed E300 that doesn't exist is smaller than any competitive rig. That's a big assumption."

 

Actually I had the Subal D70 housing in mind when I wrote that. The point is that the small housing available for some of the smaller dSLRs will be much easier to wrestle around; especially in any kind of current or surge. I know of what I speak. I've dragged around an F5 housing before. After that an N70 housing was a treat.

 

"You've also assumed that price somehow matters to everyone else in the same way it does to you."

 

Well no thats not what I said. I said that if I had the money to waste I would buy one also. Or if I was a pro and could make money off it I would buy one as well. However I'm sure the great majority of wetpixel members and UW photographers wouldn't consider buying a a 4 or 5.000$ camera and housing. While a significantly greater number might be able to consider a lens like the one in the original post.

 

"The 7-14 is a 2x zoom lens and is no more flexible than any other 2x zoom, so if you think it can cover the range of both the fisheye and the 12-24 you are mistaken. It may be a good lens for whale sharks but it won't be for hammerheads."

 

I went to S. Australia to photograph white sharks. One of the other divers was a well regarded professor of UW photography (you have seen some of his images) After the shooting was over he commented that the 28 mm focal length (35 mm equivalent) was the perfect focal length for getting full frame shots of sharks. For WIDE angle photography I find 28 mm is as wide as you want to go. On the 2 trips I made to shot white sharks and also shooting Hammerheads I have found that while it is a lot easier to get shots at the long end of my lenses focal range; all the good shots were taken at the wider end. The longer focal lengths have their uses for close up photography but you are not shooting wide angle then. I would much rather have a lens that goes wider than one that goes longer when I am shooting wide angle UW. It makes this lens more versatile than the Nikon or Cannon lenses. Is it a better lens? That judgment awaits the reports of an actual photographer. I know the Nikon is a great lens. But I sure would like to shoot the 12-24 and the 10.5x on the same dive.

 

Sorry; no more ranting. The rain has stopped and I haven't been swept away by the mud.

 

Herbko - The Conception (out of Santa Barbara) is suppose to go on a 3 day trip to Cortez Bank on 21, 22, 23 Jan.

[craig 0]

There's not such a great difference in size between the E300 and the D70 as the example you speak even assuming a housing for the E300 exists. As james pointed out, it may be that the E300 housing is ultimately identical is size to its competitors. You suggested a big advantage for the E300 when there's no evidence there would be one.

 

Regarding price, you've made a qualitative judgement in favor of the E300 which is entirely arbitrary. It doesn't matter whether it represents your views or not. People make decisions on what they're willing to spend for any number of reasons and to say that a diver would leave one camera on the boat while taking the other due to price is silly and presumptuous.

 

As for the "professor of UW photography", perhaps 28mm was perfect for his sharks and his shooting conditions. The times I've shot great whites and hammerheads I've switched to a 28-75 for my shooting and took most of my shots longer than 28mm. It matters how close you can get to the subjects. On the other hand, the professor couldn't have had objection to a 17-35 equivalent range in that case since it encompasses 28mm and anyone could recognize that it would be a better choice than a lens that couldn't go longer than "the perfect focal length".

 

I'd be curious to know just how often anyone needs a 120 degree field of view and a zoom at the same time. It may be a great whale shark lens, as I said already, but it would not be the hammerhead lens of choice for me. In any event, the 7-14 would not be equivalent to the 12-24 and the 10.5 FE. The 10.5 offers 180 degree field of view while the 12-24 offers a 36mm long end. The 7-14 doesn't come close to either of these. If superwide is the end-all-be-all of wide angle photography as you feel it is, then you should really get the Sigma 12-24 and a full frame camera. In the end the 7-14 is just an abnormally wide 2x zoom and an expensive one at that. Sure it would be a good range for some things but it is not more perfectly suited to the task than the competition.

[scorpio_fish 5]

Step aside everyone, let me take a turn at this dead horse.

 

First, I'll preface this by admitting to hating Olympus. It started almost 20 years ago, well after my purchase of my first SLR, an Olympus. I'll skip the history. Now that it is a digital world, I'm willing to forgive and forget. But.....

 

At $995.00 including 14-45 3.5/5.6 lens it sound like good value

 

Compared to a D70 or Rebel? I don't think so.

 

Size

 

One of the supposed advantage of a digital 4/3 design was size. I haven't seen this as a big advantage, either in the camera or the lenses. If size was the most important factor, then I wish I get a housing for this camera:

 

http://www.minox.com/minox2002/gifs/kunden...age/classic.jpg

 

A housed E300 simply isn't going to get you a significant, if any, size reduction.

 

Granted, compared to a housed ubercamera (Kodak, Canon 1dxxx, Nikon D2) it will be smaller, but that issue isn't salient to the discussion.

 

Image quality

 

Based on Phil's review, the inherent disadvantages of the 4/3 system manifested itself in the final product, e.g. noise and dynamic range. I use the term inherent because while certain conventional wisdom holds true, manufacturers have overcome this limitations. (E.g. noise, CMOS is noisier than CCD, but Canon has overcome this inherent disadvantage)

 

Lenses

 

OK, Olympus is coming out with a 7-14mm. Great, but it is expensive compared to the Canon 10-22mm or Nikon 12-24mm. Nor has anyone truly tested this lens vis-a-vie the Canon or Nikon. Again, it is inherently more difficult to make gooder wider lenses, hence the added expense. I know some people might disagree, but to my eyes, the 17-35mm on an F100 outperforms the 12-24mm on the D100 under all circumstances. Point being, the $1600 Olympus lens might not be as good as cheaper equivalent lenses that don't have to go down to 7mm. (I could be wrong here)

 

Housing vs. Camera

 

Poorly matched dome ports make good cameras lousy. I don't care if a housing is plastic or aluminum. I only care if the port system is good and efficient and the controls I need to use are easy to use. The other key issue for camera/housing is the viewfinder. This has been where the digital revolution has gone the wrong direction. According to the review, the E300 viewfinder is dimmer than the E1. I don't know what that really means, but I find being able to see the frame and subject critical to good composition. I don't lust after the Seacam housing, but I do lust after the optional viewfinder.

 

My first housing was an Ikelite N90 unit. It had an eyepiece that attached to the camera and sat between the camera and housing. It was like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Trust me, I don't need the subject to look smaller.

 

One should really evaluate the E300 viewfinder versus its competitors.

 

Price

 

Who cares. If all we cared about was value, we'd all be shooting with Ikelites and driving Civics (or Kia's or something similar). People buy what they want to buy. They value incremental performance differently. For every performance benefit from upgrading from an Ikelite is an incremental cost. Is it worth the extra cost? The is no universal answer. Some would think it's crazy as an amateur to buy a 1ds and Seacam housing, but the issue is irrelevant. Some thought I was crazy to spend all that money on an MX10 instead of a Ikelite auto35. I drive a well dented pickup. The wife drives a Lexus. I place no value beyond a good radio and being able to haul dive crap. The camera room has more value than my vehicle. It's just a personal choice. Criticizing one's choice because of the absolute dollar amount is a waste of bandwidth. But when it comes down to value/performance for a given equivalently priced system, then the discussion is quite fruitful. This is where I find the Olympus quite lacking relative to the Rebel or D70.