Its here... the E3

Just because an enthusiastic equipment geek starts a website that becomes known for test

reports doesn't mean that they practice "responsible, repeatable testing".

 

The magazines like Modern Photography and Popular Photography, back in the day, had

people writing for them with known credentials as photographers and equipment

specialists, and published their test methodologies so that readers could question and

understand the data presented in their tests. Where is this information today for Imaging-

Resource and DPReview? I haven't found it on their websites. Have you?

 

Godfrey

By the way, images posted to dpreview and elsewhere suggest that high ISO images from the E-3 don't match up to the (ahem) prosumer competition from the 40D:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=25270196

Bas, time permitting, can you comment on personal experience regarding "usability," focus speed and size of the 50-200mm. I am not primarily a tele enthusiast,but there are times,etc....I have read that optically it is fine as is the 14-54mm. An Oly user on another forum wrote that it is "frappin huge,"

 

I wondered if you are still getting a lot of use out of that lens? (Did it need the focus enhancement described in the SW or whatever upgrade?) And have you noticed any problem regarding the tripod mount that some have had in the past? Ah Yes, I meant internal zoom, 50-200m

 

I saw that lens just once briefly before all our photo stores closed down except Ritz,---a small tourist outlet,-- and it had a considerable extension of the barrel when at 200 tele... Also, can you later comment on the Panasonic-Leica 25mm 1.4? The kit zoom PanaLeica lens attached to the L-1 at Best Buy was a hefty hunk of metal. Is the 1.4 it as good as claimed,even at max aperture and is it the ultimate wear- all- day carry lens? Bas, I notice you are now living in Australia. So good to see your name again, and g'day to you and the family...Gerry

Gerry,

 

I don't have the Oly ZD 50-200 but I borrowed one for an afternoon ... the older model

though. It is bulky but the quality is excellent. It does tend to vignette a little at wide open

aperture but I didn't find that troublesome. The build quality and imaging performance are

excellent. If I used a longer focal length lens like that enough, I'd buy it.

 

Regards the Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH ... YES. This is a wonderful

lens. A friend just recently got his and let me have it for a day to try out. Feel, fit and finish

are superb. Imaging quality is second to none. It is not, however, small and light: it is

about an inch shorter, same diameter, weighs about the same as the Vario-Elmarit

14-50mm standard lens for the L1.

 

I'd like to buy one of the 25/1.4s, need to sell my spare 14-50mm first however. Anyone

interested in that should send me an email for more info.

 

Godfrey

Funny thing, having a pop up flash on the flagship model. Pop up flash used to be something that distinguished the lower end models. And getting it to still be water resistant was a trick. I haven't digested the new flash system although Olympus is not a slouch in keeping up with the times. A day late and a dollar short? Yeah,Ma used to say that too. I doubt it with this item. The E cameras have some shortfalls with compromises as all brands have to meet a target price that can be "competitive."

 

I hope to read that they have come out with a snappy way to do firmware upgrades. The image quality is likely to be more than one needs for typical pro or sumer photography. And the low light shooters are likely not going to be happy campers until the cameras are equal in lux to sniperscopes, I exaggerate. But,funny thing, I have a Nikon P 5000 with a little sensor, and likely a cheaper chip, that gives pretty sharp photos,fully croppable. Maybe the sensor battle has less artillery. They are all getting good I mean.

Hi Gerry, yes, relocated down under earlier in the year. Just starting to get back into old

habits. Oh, expect baby portraits soon too! :D

 

The 25/1.4 is too big for what it is; about the same size/bulk as the 14-54. But is is very

nice indeed. I haven't done too much shooting with it yet and do not yet have any too

interesting images, but technically it is near flawless. Dead sharp, lovely bokeh. I do see

ever so slight vignetting wide open, but unless you are in the habit of shooting white walls

at f/1.4, you won't notice.

 

Probably not the perfect all-day walk-around lens, but if you can put up with the 14-54

and would like something better quality at the expense of zoom, it should do quite well.

Oh, if only Pentax released their pancake 21/3.2 in FourThirds mount! (I would buy an E-

410 just for that combo)

 

I have never been a real big telephoto user, so the 50-200 isn't too good value for me.

That said, optically, it is a stunning lens. Not "as good as the 14-54"; it is much better, in

fact. My main problem with it isn't focussing speed, rather the fact that it does not have a

focus range limiter like the Canon 70-200 does. This means that if you miss-fire, it goes

hunting through the entire range, even though you were exclusively shooting at 3 meters

and beyond. (as you can probably guess, the amount of rotation needed to go from 3m to

infinity with lenses such as these is much, much smaller than 1m-3m) I guess a 2x faster

AF motor will make that less painful, but it is not nearly as good a solution as putting in

the darn limiter. (Olympus has it on their 150mm, so the tech isn't foreign to them!)

 

I have a 16" print of this and the detail in it is amazing:

http://bas.scheffers.net/snaps/safari/068-cheetah.html (E-1 and 50-200) And you can

even get a decent yield of reasonable pics when shooting sports:

http://bas.scheffers.net/snaps/touch/ (the first and only time I have tried my hand at this)

 

It isn't the smallest, but for a lens with an equivalent focal range of 100-400 at only

f/2.8-3.5, I find it quite a good size. Definitely needs a tri- or monpod to be used

comfortably, though! (or a beanbag on top of the landrover) I am not sure what problem

with the tripod mount you are referring to, but I do find the mount gets in the way of the

zoom action.

 

By the way, these discussions about what makes a professional camera bore me to tears.

Photographers are professional or amateur, cameras just are. People make money with

images taken using a Holga for crying out loud!

In the event you are interested, or care to add something I missed, I made a recent pitch to Josh to consider a four-thirds forum for the several brands using this new open standard. And my arguments in favor of this addition. (A lot to be learned about any complex, costly investment system. No time or inclination to trade inflammatory digs with trolling players). Link to the suggestion to PN thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MymC

"Photographers are professional or amateur, cameras just are."

 

Quite right, sir.

No-name troll wrote:

"I posted info from a respected reviewer and a link to people who have tried the e-3 and have found it compares unfavorably to the 40d"

 

How can it compare unfavourably with the 40D? It's not even on the market yet, and none of them have been used extensively by pros for any amount of time. My E-1 on the other hand has, and along the way, I've compared it to most other cameras below $2,000. The only one that tempted med was the D200, but I don't want to carry all those big lenses. (My studio camera is a Fuji S3 with the appropriate Nikkors, so it's not completely unknown area to me.)

 

The problem with "respected reviewers" is that they are just that: reviewers. The usability of a pro-camera isn't decided in a protected studio environment or during a reviewers nice-weather stroll along the Thames. It's decided by the everyday use and abuse by professional photographers. The E-1 has shown that it delivers far beyond what reviewers indicated 4-5 years ago.

 

If the E-3 proves to be as good as the E-1, but with a little bit more of everything, I'm all smiles. If some Canon dude claims that it's not as good as his hi-ISO wonder, fine with me. Sometimes, that makes me even happier with my choice.

Why Jorgen, didn't you read from respected reviewers years ago, that the concept even of sub APS-C four thirds was an evolutionary dead end, dead man still walking. That Olympus w/ no established base of lens users could never reach profitability for the camera division. That all manufacturers were headed by digital evolution to the so called full frame CMOS sensor. That new experiments, bravely touted, such as the Sigma Foveon machines and Oly are for niche showoffs and sports, the kind that buy Mini Coopers with raccoon tails flying. Imagine those old Minox users, and folks on the Leica forum. Say, maybe the Four Thirds should be a part of that Alternative Camera Forum with Holga. Walk proudly, Jorgen. And keep on smiling. Many smile that don't do forums nor spout numbers and bench tests of pre production models or cherry picked loaners. (If you can't smile,say cheese... :-)) Some of my best friends and brother in law are Canon dudes. We get along OK.