zuiko OM lenses vs. E-1 lenses

are the new E-1 digital zuikos abouty the same quality of the OM

zuikos ?

 

- any users of both that can share some experience ?

 

thanks

Users of the dSLR claim excellent performance for their AF lenses. I haven't seen any objective bench tests yet.

 

As a user of the OM-1 and a few Zuiko lenses, my observation after handling the E-1 and a few lenses is that:

 

1. The affordable zooms are too slow, making the viewfinder uselessly dim at maximum focal length in low available light (even in the camera store). Outdoor and flash photographers may not notice or care but these hindrances make the system almost totally unsuitable to my style of photography.

 

2. There's no fast (non-variable f/2.8 or faster) wide or normal focal length prime or zoom.

 

3. The entire system is somewhat less portable compared with the OM system, not so much heavy as bulky, closer in size to a 645 medium format system.

 

4. A related disadvantage to the slowish affordable zooms is the fact that the sensor has tested noisier than the comparable competition (Canon and Nikon). With slow lenses you'll be forced to rely more often on cranking up the ISO sensitivity, making for noisier photos in dim available light. I'm disappointed to see that Olympus hasn't solved that problem since it plagued my otherwise satisfactory C-3040Z P&S digicam.

 

On the plus side:

 

1. The ergonomics and build quality are excellent and I preferred the handling and control layout of the E-1 to the Nikon D70.

 

2. The 4/3 sensor takes the greatest advantage of the telephoto lenses compared with any other system on the market. That makes the 300mm f/2.8 effectively a 600mm f/2.8 lens and the price somewhat less painful for serious wildlife, sports and other photographers who need long, fast lenses.

 

In my opinion if Olympus provides either an ultra fast wide and normal prime or a continuous f/.28 aperture wide-to-prime *and* finally comes up with a sensor that's as quiet as the serious competition's (Canon and Nikon) above ISO 400 equivalence, they'll have a serious contender. But they'd better do it quickly.

 

The problem right now for Olympus is product crossover confusion within the lineup. Consumers who are partially informed are going to wonder why they should buy the 5 megapixel E-1 with a noisy sensor when for less money they can buy an 8 megapixel Evolt with the same sensor.

 

Pretty much the same kind of mistakes they've made before, such as introducing a half-assed 35mm AF SLR system years ago before the technology was ready, diminishing confidence in the company's ability to compete with the big players.

 

They had winners with the iS-series ZLRs and could have again with an improved E-1 system.

If you are comparing the zooms to OM primes, that's comparing apples and oranges. The lenses are great, but slower. And they are zooms, so they have some other downsides.

 

Compared to zooms from other DSLR brands, they come out very favourable, they are similar in image quality to the top of the range from Canon/Nikon, with the only downside that they are f/3.5 at the long end, which is probably due to the fact that they have a 4x zoom range, compared to 3x on the other brands. And they are a lot cheaper.

The point is precisely that they are zooms and not primes. It's no good excusing the lack of room in the back of 4WD [sUV] because of the mechanicals if you never needed off-road capability to start with.

 

It's the art of good design to know what features to leave out. "Less is more."

Well, I know that you folks who've bought the E-1 system and are satisfied are going to feel a bit challenged by my remarks.

 

But it's not apples and oranges. Olympus made lower priced Zuiko zooms (tho' not lesser quality in construction) that were smaller, lighter and slower; and they made faster zooms that were a little larger, heavier and a little better optically. And they made one particularly impressive fast midrange zoom, tho' never a fast telephoto zoom, unfortunately.

 

And over the years of the OM-system run they offered slower primes and some very impressive fast primes.

 

If you think back to the early days of Zuiko lenses several were slowpokes. Later they introduced 50/2 and 90/2 macros (still considered among the best ever made) and f/1.2 normal lenses.

 

If the speed of the lens and view through the finder were not inextricably linked I might not be so concerned. But this isn't a Leica M with a viewfinder that's equally bright regardless of whether a 50/1.0 Noct or 90/4 is attached. It matters. And the E-1 finder isn't the brightest on the market as it is now.

 

So I don't see any disparity whatsoever in my comparisons. If Olympus expects to be truly competitive, especially with Canon and Nikon, they're going to need to come up with faster lenses. That's inarguable. Same with a less noisy sensor at the faster ISOs.

 

That's all it would take to persuade me to take a chance on investing in the system (if I were to go digital, which is still a big if). I use older Nikon manual focus stuff but that's moot - none of it is particularly useful with Nikon dSLRs so I'd be starting from scratch with any dSLR system.

First, the quality of the Zuiko-Digital lenses is on par with the Nikon AFS, Canon L, etc. Zooms don't get much better than this. As to how they compare to common OM-System primes, they're about equal, perhaps a little poorer, but again, no different than other makers.

 

Responses to Lex:

 

Affordable? The new lenses that were introduced from Olympus and Sigma are very low priced, IMO, but there are significan trade-offs for the price. They are no different than any other maker's "kit" lens, light weight, slow, dim, good value, not very durable. The "standard" E-system zooms IMO aren't exorbitantly priced and are quite affordable if you're buying into a semi-professional system. This is just a pet-peeve of mine, but too many people have been lured into buying cheap lenses, but willing to spend $1000-1500 on a body. The lenses are where the money should go, assuming you have a workable body.

 

Constant f/2.8 zooms. I know that many of us, me included, like to have constant aperture zooms, and the top-end lenses are usually so. But does 1/2 stop from wide to tele REALLY make that much difference? You're saying that the difference between 1/125 and 1/90 will change the camera system you buy?

 

System size - E-1 body about the same as a modern AF film or digital camera, no 4/3 advantage. Lenses are much lighter for the same image magnification and aperture.

 

Sensor noise - it's about 1 stop noiser than a Canon 10D, E-1's ISO 800 = 10D's ISO 1600. You must decide if that is a big enough issue to force a system decision. I hope that the E-3 has better specs in that regard.

 

The lower-MP, older, pro model vs. the newer, higer-MP, amatuer body is the same pickle that Canon and Nikon have gone through over the past 2-3 years. Why do you think that pros were buying the D1x instead of a D100? It's unavoidable and not endemic to Olympus. OTOH, many pros have been flocking to the DRebel and D70 as cheap ways to get more MP, a second/third body, albeit with lower long-term reliability/durability.

 

I think you may be mistaken that the availability of fast primes will make much difference in sales. You and I are of a very small minority that feels that they need thos lenses to make a system decision (I'm an old OM-System and Leica M-System user). The vast majority of entry/moderate-level DSLR camera buyers today will only buy a zoom and wouldn't know what to do with a fast prime if you stuffed down their throat. If that is a huge issue for you, then the E-System may not be your cup of tea.

 

I don't see where the piss-poor AF OM-101, etc debacle of the 80's has any bearing on today's E-system. That was 20 years ago! Olympus has really stuck their neck out this time with the only way that they could compete. Given that they had no installed, AF lens base, they were free to start with a clean sheet of paper. Advantage? Disadvantage? It depends on your perspective. But that situation can't be changed, so they had to start with reality, not wish what-would-have-been.

 

I've had spectacular results with the 10 months that I've had my E-1. Don't knock it so much until you've lived with it. It makes great pictures, with almost no post-processing requirments.

 

Skip

The 50mm f 2.0 ED macro lens 'aint half bad.---> A studied, analytical, solid and opinionated opinion,--but don't quote me!:-)... Gerry Siegel

Bench test of my 50mm macro ED lens.<div></div>

Skip, I'm not really knocking a system I've only handled in the shop and never actually worked with. I'm just offering what I hope are constructive opinions in the hopes of prompting others to expect more from Olympus and for Olympus to deliver.

 

Do I really think a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom is really that much more important than a variable f/2.8-3.5? Yeh, I really do. For me. After having used both types over many years with manual focus systems I'm fed up with trying to recalculate flash settings when using non-TTL flash. Again, chances are good that very few folks who buy into the E-1 system (and, hopefully, later upgrades) will really care about this issue. The nearest they'll come to sophisticated flash is a single, on-camera TTL, no-brainer unit. And that's fine.

 

I think the 50/2 macro demonstrates, as Gerry and other fans have said, that there's definitely a market for top notch fast primes. Canon and Nikon have several.

 

Look at it this way - for some of us the noisy sensor at higher ISO issue would pretty much be moot if Olympus offered an f/1.2 or f/1.4 normal focal length prime. It seems to me that goal could be accomplished readily while Olympus and Kodak work on the sensor.

 

I don't think Olympus needs to offer the variety of fast primes that Nikon and Canon traditionally have, whether manual focus or auto-everything. Just a fast wide (something between what most folks would consider an "average" wide and an ultrawide) and a fast moderate telephoto along the lines of the outstanding 180mm Zuikos.

 

Anyway, I gotta admit, of the affordable dSLRs on the market (tho' I haven't handled Canon's D20) the E-1 is the first that's seriously tempted me. And that's primarily due to the ergonomics, control layout, build quality and certain intangibles.

 

One thing that bugged me about the Nikon D70 was that the demo I tried showed significant wear to the white lettering on the controls. That would be a huge PITA if those markings wore off before you'd mastered all the necessary controls. The E-1 markings seemed more durable.

 

In terms of one-hand grippability there's no contest. I doubt there's a dSLR on the market that can come within a mile of the E-1. The D70 felt like a slippery fish in comparison. The E-1's deep finger grip, material that reaches out and holds your hand, and solid feel put it in an entirely different league. I usually keep motor drives on my Nikon F3HP and FM2N mostly because it improves handling. But I often wish it didn't add so much to the weight. The E-1 has outstanding handling without a weight penalty.

 

So I'm certainly not biased against the system. I really want to like it. But I've never been the type to buy the first Hyundai, Kia or Hummer off the dealer's floor. I tend to sit back and see how the manufacturer responds to the initial reports, pro and con.

I too wish that Olympus had come out with the fast wide angle and fast normal sooner, I'd have them. But I really have to think about the market realities that exist and what lens offerings sell new cameras. And the wide zoom range afforded by the three main zoom lenses does that very well.

 

I also wish that the sensor was quiter at high ISO's, but it's not. And I value the improved ergonomics, handling, color output, low post processing requirement, and lighter lens weight more than the high-ISO noise. In reality, the noise is not much different than film grain, but I guess I could be just finding excuses.

 

For manual flash, I agree that the constant f/2.8 issue is real. But I typically don't shoot flash wide open, and the aperture doesn't change below wide open.

 

FYI, There is a new roadmap out this week that shows the lens expectations for 2005:

- Fullframe fisheye

- Normal macro

- Telephoto macro

- Narrow-range zoom

- Telephoto-range zoom

- Super-telephoto-range zoom

 

what's interesting is the two mid-range zooms. Why introduce another set of zoom lenses with narrower ranges? Maybe they are pro-spec, fast zooms destined for the E-3? Nobody knows.