OK, Bas, talk to me!

OK, this is my question. Do you think the E-1 is still worth

considering as an initial purchase today with it's current pricing

vs. the newer technology?

 

I've just about decided I am at the end as far as upgrade fever with

Canon goes, and I'd like a good, pro quality body I can use for a

while. The searching for more pixels has stopped for me. If I can get

get a good body & a couple of great lenses, a flash and eventually a

second/backup body I'm willing to stick with something for a good

while.

 

I currently have a 10D, Digital Rebel, 17-40, 100-400 "L" zooms,

85/1.8, 15/2.8 and two EX flash units. I'm thinking I can sell all

this for enough to allow for the buying of:

 

E-1,

14-54,

50-200,

FL-36

 

...and eventually picking up an E-500 as a second, or backup body.

 

Is this crazy to be considering today? The more I look at it, the

better an E-1 looks. I'm positive any replacement for the E-1 is

going to be out of my price range.

 

Thanks, guys. I think I'm ready to join the ranks over here.

Many people would tell you you are crazy. The simple answer is that for me, the E-1 was an upgrade to my 300D well over a year ago, so it would still be an upgrade today. And with current E-1 prices, it is an even better deal.

 

It would be great if you could actualy try (hire) one for a weekend to help you make your mind up. Or get it somewhere with a no-hassle returns policy and do what I did: buy it on plastic, return it if you don't like it or sell the Canon gear before the card statement is due, to avoid paying interest. :)

 

Do a search for "completed listing" on eBay to see what the current going prices are. eBay and PayPal put together will take close to 10% of that. I would say selling it all will probably give you enough cash to get the E-500 right now as well. OR it could be enough to even get an E-3 when it comes out, but that could - and probably will be - months.

 

I see you shoot weddings, I can definitely recomend the 50/2, great replacement for your 85/1.8 for portraits. Probably a better investment right now than a backup E-500. I think Ray "OCULUS" Hull uses his E-1 for weddings to, or was planning anyway.

 

Did you see the shots my brother did at my wedding? Of course we had the most perfect light any wedding snapper can hope for, but I am impressed with the E-1's performance (and my brother's!) anyway. http://bas.scheffers.net/snaps/wedding/

 

Hope that helps!

Yes, i did see those. Your brother has a very good eye and a sense for the moment.

 

I looked at the E-1 back in late 2003 when I started down the digital road, but the E-1 system was still very new at that point and very expensive compared to prices today. I've actually had one in my hands recently and am very "hooked" on the feel and overall ergonomics. The E-500 looks like it will be just as good. I feel like having a "pro" quality body like the E-1 and the larger MP body like an E-500 would make a great combination. Lots of people are still using Canon's original 4mp 1D bodies, so the E-1 is in my mind still a good option for someone like myself, who's photography still is high on the "for fun" side of things, but who wants a high quality body without having to fear using in less than ideal settings with good imaging performance up to ISO 400. I use my 10D now alot at ISO 800 and image quality is very good, but with some slightly faster lenses and more use of my monopod I think I'll be happier with the results.

 

Regarding the

oopps...hit enter to quick.

 

Is there anything about the software compared to working Canon files you've noticed that would be good to know? I currently process my 10D and DR RAW files through Capture One LE & do all other work in Photoshop CS. I see the E-1 is supported by C-1 LE, but from what I've read Olympus software may be the route to better image quality.

 

What's your workflow. I'd be shooting strictly RAW.

Greg, I wouldn't be so presumptive on shooting the E-1 RAW. Many of us leave it in SHQ and never have any problems. Or maybe, I should rephrase that to say that the camera provides such a beautiful finished product that further adjustments for levels and balance are really negated. That's why some of the major mall chain studios use them exclusively. It's literally a straight path to the printer.

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull

I also stricly shoot RAW, mostly because I find working with C1 LE so nice. But if you expose properly, Olympus JPEGs are probably the best in the business thanks to the proper white balance sensor.

 

I don't like the Oly software, I tried Studio, but was not impressed with it. I'd say you probably won't get better image quality using anything other than C1.

 

I'd be more than happy to send you a couple of RAW files if you want to try it out!

Not crazy at all. I think, owning a 10D, that you know what 5-6 Mpixels can really do (and not do, for that matter). I find that the "feel" of a camera is really important to me, and it seems to be for you as well. You should be excited to pick the camera up and make pictures with it. That's something the specs cannot tell you, you have to try the camera in your hand yourself. Since you've had the camera in your hand, I can only assume that you like what you've seen. As others have said, don't be so quick to dismiss the JPEG engine. I've found (with probably not enough time spend, admittedly) that it can take a fair while to better the results that are out of camera with JPEG. So I normally shoot JPEG, and only use RAW when I know I'll want to do some post-processing (difficult/contrasty lighting, etc.). So far I have not felt the need to invest additional money in RAW processing software. I'll certainly review that decision when the E-3 or other new bodies come along. Good luck, and I suspect that you'll like it...but as you already know, an equipment change will not make you a better photographer. What it may do is motivate you to take more pictures, though. This can only be a good thing.

I don't collect lenses, and if I did, I am not sure that Olympus would be the answer for the specialized anytthing especially long range nature shooter. The E-1 hit me as something special and I sold myself... I can't find any fault with the E-1 after 18 mos and it grows on me the more I use it.<p> I am not a camera loyalist. Give it to me and show me the on button.... For thirty years I shot almost every Canon manual camera. And I still own two fine T90 bodies and a range of good Canon optics and accessories. It is an excellent brand with a wide selection. The Olympus had a special quality and some unique characteristics. If you intend to need image stabilization or tilt and shift anytime, I would say stay with the latest Canon, the EOS 5. Upgrade body. Keep lenses. This is heresy. But then I owned no EOS lenses.<p> Or, keep this under your hat, buy an E 500 and a 14-54 and KEEP your Canon gear. For about 1000. or less Greg C, you will have two systems and can ride the chariot races with a full team...its a thought.<p> Bas,hey there married man, glad you like the 50mm!. I can use it with delight for so much. A prize product and not even top of the line.

Hi Gerry,

 

I thought about the keeping part of the Canon outfit, or just getting the E-500 & a lens, but I think I'm to a point where I want to go "smaller", but with a nicer body, which I believe is what the E-1 is. I do need a second body. While I'm going through this switchout I'll need to go a good period of time figuring all this out and get a backup E-500 before I'll feel good about doing something for pay. That and the second body with the bigger pixel count will be a good option if I felt the need for a bigger file.

 

The 100-400L Image Stabilzation lens is beautful, but HUGE and just a royal PIA to take anywhere or use unless I've got the monopod. So much so I left it at home when I went to St. Thomas USVI in April- bought a second-hand 70-210 EF to take along instead. I have a feeling I woulda took the 50-200 had I had the Olympus system.

 

Ray, the "finished" JPEG product almost seems unbelievable (but very exciting) after living with JPEGS for a very short while with the Digital Rebel, then 10D. To really get the best possible image I had to resort to all-RAW capture. I believe, like Bas, I'd continue using mainly RAW if the process through C-1 is as good as I have now with the Canon RAW files, but good out-of-the-camera JPEG's would be a nice additional option if I wanted it.

 

Downloading pics of the 100-400 right now to put it up on eBay.

Even though the nay-sayers who never traveled with an E-outfit try to minimize (har har) the size savings of the system, if you want to go smaller, that is certainly what you will get. And going from 28-108 with a single zoom is so much more convenient than stopping at 70-80mm, that extra 30mm makes all the difference, something that took 3 lenses on my DRebel to do! I rarely use that 50-200 now and often don't bring it at all.

 

Some eBay advice if you don't mind: put up pictures of YOUR lens - making them good, but not _too_ good, it has to be obvious you took them - and don't just list the specs off the Canon website; that's the kind of thing scammers do. Plus add a personal comments on how much you like it, but why you are selling it anyway. That doesn't have to be the truth, of course, "ever since buying the 70-200/2.8LIS and 2x converter, I don't use this lens enough anymore" will do just fine. Make good sentences with correct spelling and punctuation.

 

That has been my strategy since I started selling and compared to others' auctions of the same items, mine usualy fetched more.

 

The 50-200 is definitely a bit smaller than 100-400 and with it being over a stop faster, you probably won't miss IS too much.

 

Gerry, yup, that 50/2 is a great performer. All the formals were taken with it and I think it shows. Tomorrow morning Kylie and I are taking the outlaws - who are over in London for a visit - to the delicous Borough Market. I plan to use just the 50 and see what I come home with.

Thanks, Bas.

 

Got the 100-400 zoom, the 85/1.8 and Digital Rebel up last night. Gotta do this gradually so I can keep something to shoot in the interim. The way I'm hoping this will work out is to have both the E1 and 14/54 and 10D with 17-40 so I can "shoot and compare", but I obviously plan to sell the 10D, 17-40 & my two EX flash units soon afterwards to offset the 50-200. Main thing is to get the E-1 first.

 

I've been checking the features out on the various flash units. I imagine I'll wind up going for the FL-50 up front and eventually getting a backup unit, probably an FL-36, down the road.

 

Can't wait to see what the the price of the E-500 body only turns out to be.

<i><blockquote>

 

<u><A href =

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/push-pull.shtml>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/push-pull.shtml</a></u> <p>

 

Though I know these are fighting words, I'm afraid that I regard the 4/3rd concept is an

evolutionary dead-end. A -2X sized sensor may have made some sense five years ago

when 35mm sized sensors were nearly astronomical in cost. But now this differential

has shrunk dramatically, and will continue to do so. The promised smaller size of

camera bodies due to the use of smaller sensors is modest at best. For example, the

Olympus E-1 is only 150 grams lighter than the Canon 5D. True, Olympus lenses are

smaller and lighter, but this hasn't turned out to be all that compelling a sell. <p>

 

Interestingly, the Sony R1 actually weights more than the Canon 5D, though of course

the R1 has a lens included, while with the 5D you put on whatever lens you wish. The

point isn't to compare these two cameras in any inappropriate way, but rather to

consider that when it comes to camera size and weight there are certain factors of

mechanical and human engineering that mediate a common point around which such

designs will tend to cluster. <p>

 

Back in 2003 when I reviewed the Olympus E-1 here's what I wrote, in part,... <p>

 

<u><b> So, we have someone that buys into the 4/3 format in late 2003 or early

2004. They also buy several lenses for this format. But what happens in 2005 and

2006, and onwards? We will undoubtedly have imaging chips ranging from a 1.5X factor

to full frame 35mm that don't cost all that much more, and you can be certain that

companies like Nikon and Canon will be making cameras that use them, and which can

utilize the huge existing inventory of full-frame coverage lenses available. <p>

 

Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape. They will be limited to

using cameras with a 2X magnification ratio because their lenses are unable to cover a

larger image circle. If we assume that the price differential between small and medium

sized imaging chips is going to decrease, then a 4/3 based camera will always suffer

from smaller images or lower image quality by comparison, because while the number

of pixels can be increased (this is accomplished by making the pixels themselves

smaller), by making them smaller image quality is reduced. It's just physics. Anything

that Kodak does to the 4/3 format chip can also be done to larger ones, so the

differential will remain. <p>

 

It seems to me that history is about to repeat itself. Olympus was the champion of the

failed but elegant little half-frame format of the 1960's, and now appears to be heading

down the same path. A shame really, because the E-1 is a very fine camera in many

ways, and deserves better than to be built around a format that, like half-frame, may

turn out to be just a footnote in the history of photography.</b> </u> <p>

 

I was wrong in 2003 about Nikon. They never did go full frame ? at least not yet.

 

</blockquote> </i><p>

You could very well be right. There's been more than one instance of me quoting the same or close to the same thing while I sat back shooting this current Canon outfit I have, all as I sat back and waited for that 35mm frame sized, reduced price body to show up. Yes it's now here, but to be honest it's going to have to get down to 20D levels before I could afford one and no one can really know the time frame on that.

 

Olympus appears to be more and more committed to their system with new lens designs and body upgrades. That no one is stepping in with third party accessories and lenses is a non-issue for me. I wouldn't buy them if they existed. If the Olympus 4/3rds system goes down in flames a few years from now I'll simply shoot this stuff until it wears out, then buy back into Canon's system with lower priced, lighter lenses and go on.

 

As you said, we've not been right about everything up to this point.

When they only made 35mm cameras, Canon never came up with a 28-105 of the quality of the 14-54, and certainly not at the same price, let alone weight. What makes you think they will start now that they have gone digital? The 24-105/4 is slower, costs more than twice as much, weighs a tonne and is BIG. I have no desire for a Canon FF sensored body, not now, not ever.

 

It just such a shame that I too fear 4/3 will not make it another decade and I may be forced to buy into a suboptimal system by the time my bodies or lenses wear out.

 

What Gerry said, and there will probably be a fantastic E-3 next year at the very least. One that will no doubt last a decade after I get it, which will probably be a year or so after it comes out. That is long enough for me.

 

Discontinued after 5 years and no service after 7? Then buy a second hand replacement from someone who jumped ship, probably cheaper than repairs anyway.

 

I really don't see the risk you see.

Me either at this point, and what you or I think are all that matters to you and I at this point- right!

 

For me, this move is a good thing.

BTW, if you're in the US, hold off on buying Olympus until Oct 1. Rebates start again then, and run until Dec. 1. I think this will amount to $150 extra off your desired system.

Thanks, Daniel! Sounds like my timing is right. I'm not going to lay any cash out until I sale and collect on my items currently being liquidated. Best case scenario would be late next week. More likely the next week.

Philip Greenspun prediction, about the same time frame as Reichmann's early punditry on the Olympus path:<p>

"What if you don't have a 35mm lens system already? Canon and Nikon are still better if you have a specialized requirement, e.g., for image stabilization or autofocus tracking of birds in flight. Canon and Nikon also win if you're on a tight budget; the Canon Digital Rebel and a couple of non-professional lenses cost much less than the E1 body alone. The E1 system wins if you're rich and want a compact yet very capable system for general travel photography. It would be a big winner for this application if Olympus made some lenses shorter than 10mm.

 

There is a danger that the whole system will collapse under the weight of its high prices. It is true that what Canon and Kodak are doing in making full-frame 24x36mm sensors is ridiculous and almost totally impractical from an engineering point of view. On the other hand if they keep doing it year after year they might eventually get really good at it. If Canon or Nikon can produce a $1500 full-frame digital SLR before the Four Thirds system becomes truly popular it is hard to see a vibrant future for the new standard. The lenses will still be compact but due to low production volume they might not be cheap, just as the Four Thirds format 300/2.8 should cost much less than Canon's 24x36mm-coverage 300/2.8 and yet the Four Thirds lens costs nearly twice as much.<p>

 

[December 2004 update: Canon has come out with its next-generation full-frame digital SLR, the 16 megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark II. It costs $8,000. Kodak's full-frame digital SLRs are still around $4000. Olympus has released the Evolt, an 8-megapixel Four Thirds system camera that sells for $1000 with an included 14-45mm/3.5-5.6 zoom lens (i.e., a cheap consumer zoom lens). The closest equivalent Canon product is a Digital Rebel kit for $870.]<p>

Conclusion

As an engineer I love the direction that Olympus is taking. As with other mid-priced digital SLRs the E1 delivers image quality that is reasonably comparable to 35mm film and therefore good enough for many professional projects. The E1 is compact yet its most important controls can be operated by feel. The E1 has a bright accurate optical viewfinder that makes it easy to evaluate a scene before taking a photo.

The diff is that Reichman's article is from a couple of days ago, in which he revisited the

issue, and found little difference between his original speculations about the market

and what actually happened. The 4/3 format has not resulted in smaller bodies, or

better lenses, or better enlargements, or lower prices. It has some positive attributes at

the edges of some peoples' checklists, but the cost is a limited system with few

customers, close to no resale market, and no easy way to use extant 35mm lenses, and

due to low sales volume either (1) a relatively higher price than APS-sensor cameas or

(2) lower profits for Olympus should they choose to keep their prices competitive, thus

cutting back on available r&d funds for the future.

This is all very nice, but what Reichman or Phillip Greenspun do or say as far as equipment is concerned, either on a user basis or to simply put their own views forward, has little to do with my own needs as far as photographic equipment goes. Either of them can afford (at least) a couple Canon 1Ds Mark II's and 8 to 10 high end "L" series lenses and, in Reichmans case at least, he does, in addition to many, many other photographic "toys". The concept of only needing one or two high quality cameras, one of which would be pro build quality, and two or maybe three high quality zooms is as foreign to him as 1-2 months cavorting around the world taking pictures is to me.

 

This is a hobby for me, not a religion or a job. I think the Olympus system will be fun to shoot, so that's why I'm doing it.

In many ways this will be a refreshing change. When I come to this site and check images posted or the forum devoted to my brand I won't have to look at all those "how to clean my sensor" and "which lens to buy, Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc, etc" and "when's the full frame digital SLR camera going to cost under $1,000" postings.

 

Yes, refreshing indeed.

Reichman is just plain wrong. How is the E-1 not a smaller body than those with similar build quality from the other brands? How is a 14-54/2.8-3.5 not a lot cheaper than a 24-70/2.8, which is only marginaly faster and opticaly no better? How is the 14-54/2.8-3.5 not a lot cheaper and of much, much higher quality than the beloved 17-85/3.5-5.6? Even the 50/2 is faster and cheaper than it's Canon equivalent, the 100/2.8. 50-200? The competition has nothing to match, but it is cheaper than their 70-200s and gives their behind a kicking for optical quality.

 

Would you expect a body to be much smaller than the E-500? Only if you buy it for a 10 year old kid! People have a certain size hand you know. Some dimwit on this website (sorry Bob Atkins but yes, in this case that is you) suggested the E-500 should be 50% smaller than it is. What a load of bull, how would you hold it in your hands? How would the lenses fit?

 

Sorry, but an E-1 system is much cheaper and smaller than an equivalent Canon systems. And I have not only had a quick look at them like some reviewers, I have owned both.

Ordered my E-1 this morning, along with the 14-54, extra battery, FL-50 flash and off-camera TTL cord- all online through B&H. I should have it mid-next week sometime. Tuesday or Wednesday I figure. I'll do a little comparison shooting with the 10D + 17-40 before I sell those along with the last of the Canon equipment so I can buy the 50-200 and eventually an E-500 second/backup body.

Use it in good spirits and all kinds of weateher Greg. And in the event you haven't heard elsewhere, the Canon Off Camera flash coiled cord and shoe accessoryt work perfectly with the E-1 and FL 50. Stronger than the Olympus version,which broke on me. Don't ask why,but pins lines up perfectly. One for Ripley Believe it or Not but confirmed by others.

Oh Man! I woulda never thought that about the Canon off-camera cord. I have one of those right now that I was going to sell along with my two Canon flash units. I'll have to check that all out when I get the E-1 on Tuesday.