Olympus E-1: Any users and any haters comments?

[todd frederick]

For a very long time I resisted digital.

 

A few years ago I bought an Oly C-5050 and was a convert.

 

I have used other digital brands, my latest a Canon 10D.

 

I just bought a used/very newish Oly E-1 two lens unit and it is the

best I've ever used with no reservations.

 

Why are there very few comments on this forum regarding this

wonderful camera, and if any here use the E-1, I would appreciate

some comments.

[eric friedemann]

Todd, I've been selling cameras going on 25 years. I don't love or hate inanimate objects and I don't get into "Nikon rules/Canon sucks"-type arguments. I'm underwhelmed by the E-1 for these reasons:

 

 

1. The E-1 was initially rather overpriced. Olympus has since dropped the price of the E-1, but the camera still has a steep sticker for a camera with the E-1's atributes.

 

 

2. Olympus' imaging software is mediocre.

 

 

3. The E-1's sensor is even smaller than the APS-sized sensors Nikon uses. This limits the camera's performance at higher ISOs.

 

 

4. The E-1 is only a 5MP camera. Combined with the smaller sensor, this limits the camera's resolution.

 

 

5. The E-1 is astonishingly large for a camera that isn't limited by the focusing constraints of existing lenses and requires a focusing mirror smaller than your thumb. The E-1 and now the E-300 are unnecesisarily big, boxy and heavy and lack the elegant, compact design of the OM system they are apparently designed to replace.

 

 

6. Olympus is continuing a tradition of gauging consumers for higher-end flash pruducts. The FL-50 flash is $380, compared to $295 for Nikon's superior flagship, the SB-800 Speedlight.

 

 

Beyond that, I would direct you to Phil Askey's list of thae E-1's "Cons":

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page22.asp

[archie_alcantara1]

Todd,

 

I do not know if you have ran across this right here in photo.net..but this is worth reading. For the price of E1, the pro-qualities of the body, self cleaning sensor and very good lens in my opinion is worth the admission fee for this camers. Check it out yourself.

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/150f2

[joe_toole1]

Rebuttal:

1- The price has dropped considerably. I got a new E1 body w/a 14/54 lens, a FL 20 flash for only 2199. cdn.

 

2- Yes Olympus's imaging software is mediocre, but so was the software that came with my (since sold)Canon.

 

3- Yes, the sensor is smaller, but I'm not about to let that worry me though. The true test is in the resulting images. I'm more than happy!

 

4- Actually, for the nit-pickers out there, it's really *only* 4.9 mps., but as stated above, the proof is in the pudding.

 

5- Size isn't really much of an issue for me. The camera fits my hand well, and it's actually lighter than my old 10D.

 

6- Gouging? I've got two words for you: 'L' glass!!!

 

7- Beyond that, I would direct you to Michael Reichmann's pros at luminous landscape dot com

 

Cheers

Joe

[peter_foiles2]

What Eric said with the reservation that I don't think the sensor size or 5mp is that big an issue. The 4/3 sensor is only marginally smaller than the APS-c and if you crop a 10D or D70 down to the same aspect ratio they are 5 mp cameras too. I thought the sales pitch was that the 4/3 system was supposed to be smaller and cheaper since it was designed for the non-full frame sensor from the get go. Well it has turned out to be neither. I went into a camera shop expecting to buy the new E300 cause I wanted a small non P&S digital camera. Put it on the counter next to a D70 and 20D and that killed that idea.

 

It is also supposed to be an open system, so where are the non-Oly products? Sigma has just recently released 2 lenses and thats it.

[jamiew]

For what it's worth here are my comments:

 

The Olympus 4/3 system is a very good camera system. It has everything most people need in a system. It takes great photos. It has as much resolution as the 6mp cameras from other vendors since the aspect ratio works better for many standard print sizes (i.e. 8x10), and at 4x6 resolution is not an issue.

 

So why did i get the 10D... simply the Oly offers me nothing more than either Nikon or Canon offer, and I can rent lenses for my Canon.

[carl smith]

I realize it's a good camera, but one of the things that bugs me the most is the size and awful handling when you put the grip on the camera. Also the camera doesn't handle or operate as quickly as I'd like, it doesn't feel as responsive as the cameras that are competing with it.

 

Other than that, they have brought the cost down to roughly where it belongs. It is basically of a higher build quality than any of the other cameras in its price bracket. The image quality at higher ISOs (400 and above really) does start to drop below that of the offerings from the other "big guys."

 

Some of the accessories and lenses for the system still cost far too much, but they sell and the system does seem to be coming in to its own. I wasn't initially very optimistic because of the high price.

 

I don't dislike the camera, I have used it plenty, I just don't feel it offers enough to pull me away from Nikon or Canon.

[basscheffers]

As an actual owner and user of the camera, I much prefer it over the competition's offerings in the same price range. And that is for one reason only: lenses. They just kick the butt of anything offered by Canikon at the same price, both in image quality and convenience.

 

And that brings me to the next point: which competitor can offer a pro quality set up that gives you 28-400mm equivalent focal range with just 2 lenses? And that is where the size, weight and money savings come in. You need to buy one less lens, carry one less lens and find room for one less lens in your camera bag.

 

Apart from that, the 5MP sensor is more than adequate even for 16x12" images; heck, the (probably Lightjet) 20x16" prints they had up at Photokina looked stunning.

 

As for noise: up to 400 its absolutely fine, above that it gets shaky. As someone who has shot only 100ISO slide film for the past 10 year, I can't care about that "problem".

[peter_williams2]

I'm pretty sure the seemingly excessive size of the E1 body is beacause they didn't get a new 4/3 sized shutter made for it. I think it is using a full sized 35mm shutter still. Hopefully there will be a new correctly sized shutter for the next pro body they release (E3 I believe it is to be called), and the size will be more in keeping with what you'd expect.

[eric friedemann]

"Yes, the (E-1's) sensor is smaller, but I'm not about to let that worry me though. The true test is in the resulting images."

 

 

Quite so. I've seen approximately 11x14 inch enlargements- 400 d.p.i C prints- from the E-1 shot at ISO 200 and I was not impressed. There was significantly more artifact than I would have seen from even a Nikon D70.

 

 

"(The E-1 is) actually lighter than my old 10D."

 

 

Not by much, but let's compare apples to apples. The Konica Minolta 7D is constrained in size by its use of Minolta's existing 35mm lenses, the 7D has image stabilization built into the body and the 7D uses magnesium plating.

 

 

The E-1 is about the same size as the 7D and weighs 1.5 lbs to the 7D's 1.7 lbs. The E-1 should be at least a third smaller and lighter than 35mm-derived bodies and it is not.

 

 

"(W)hich competitor can offer a pro quality set up that gives you 28-400mm equivalent focal range with just 2 lenses?"

 

 

Setting aside the question of why I'd want to achieve such a focal length range with two lenses, Olympus E lenses lack two attributes I demand in pro zooms (e.g. my 17-55mm f/2.8 DX Nikkor). None of the Oly lenses currently being sold have a constant aperture and none have ultrasonic motors, leaving the lenses' focusing speed so-so.

[digitmstr]

I don't think I would "hate" it but, I certainly would never consider buying it! For the price it's very little camera, with very little features (including high ISO noise, low shitter speed and flash sync), only few (very expensive) lenses that won't fit any other camera, etc...

 

Someone commented on the 28-400 range with two lenses. The 28-135 IS and 100-400L would cover that range, and so would the 28-300L plus the 400 f/4.5L - and many other combos as well. However, it would not be wise to base a decision on who can cover X range with fewer lenses.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> the sensor is smaller, but I'm not about to let that worry me though.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

With steely logic such as this, no further rebuttal is needed!

[peter_foiles2]

Giampiero and Bas

 

First, when Bas was speaking about the 28-400 range he was speaking of 35mm equivalent which means in actual focal length you need something like 17 to 250 or so. So none of the 28-XXX zooms cut it. Which brings us to the Canon EF-S 17-85 and 70-300 DO. Both with IS which the Oly does not yet have so that is at least a stop advantage there and the 20D can go to iso 800 and maintain decent noise while the Oly gives out at iso 400 so that is another stop. I have wanted to find a reason to buy into the Oly system but I haven't found one yet.

[digitmstr]

Peter, let's not forget the 16-35L either. Also a 300mm lens would result in a crop equivalent to a 480 on a 1.6 camera so, that's a full 80mm OVER what he set as the limit.

 

Canon offers a wide range of lenses to cover that range, in the PRO L series as well as non L, with and without IS.

[Troll]

I'm sure that, like my E-20, the E-1 is a wonderful camera, but, as the old saying goes, compared to the offerings of other makers it came up a day late and a dollar short.

[basscheffers]

Peter, those two lenses are little league compared to the optical quality of the Oly lenses. They are an insult to the 20D's sensor and in any case, no amount of IS is going to give you back any depth of field you lose with those horribly slow lenses.

 

Giampiero, you are missing the point. There is a 265mm gap between the two lenses you mention! But how many lenses would you need to cover a good (say, 28-300mm 35mm equiv) focal range without gaps? With less than three, you can't do it. How much would that cost, how much does it weigh? And you lose the convenience of having 28-100 in one lens in any case, meaning you pretty much always NEED to carry more lenses. A days on foot shooting a city you are visiting with just the 16-35L? I think not.

 

Canon gives absolute quality if you spend enough, Olympus gives the best value in the market; you lose a little bit in quality but you save thousands and gain a heck of a lot convenience.

[ShunCheung]

As long as you are essentially an amateur and don't mind a very limiting system, the Olympus E1 may be ok.

 

For example as Eric points out, for event photography such as indoor weddings, you need some fast lenses and good high ISO capability, especially when no flash is allowed. Olympus still doesn't have any constant-aperture f2.8 zooms, f1.4 or 1.8 primes or IS/VR lenses for dark conditions.

 

If you shoot action such as sports and wildlife, Olympus lacks bodies that provide fast AF as well as a good selection of long lenses. The only thing available is a 300mm/f2.8 which costs $7000, about twice as expensive as the competition. Are you willing to invest in such a lens, which will be very difficult to sell should you decide to switch to another brand? The lack of a large used market to buy and sell lenses is another problem with the 4/3 system.

 

For amateurs, the E1 may be a fine system. The main issue is that at least at this point, there is no upgrade path. Olympus' main partners for the 4/3 system are Kodak and Fuji. Neither one has yet to produce a 4/3 DSLR. Instead, they are busy making Nikon-mount DSLRs. I think that is very telling.

 

Todd Frederick happens to be a good friend of mine. Sorry about my blunt comments, but knowing Tood, I have little doubt that he'll sell his E1 and buy something else within the next 6 to 12 months. :-)

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> but knowing Tood, I have little doubt that he'll sell his E1 and buy

something else within the next 6 to 12 months. :-) </blockquote> </i><p>

 

<u><A href =

http://snipurl.com/c8mj>Yup.</a></u>

[jamiew]

Shun.

 

Even though the E1 was not a good camera for me I have to strongly disagree with a few of your points:

 

Wedding photography - Most wedding are shot with flash, but even if flash is not allowed the majority of wedding photographers still use 2.8 zoom lenses and cameras set at low ISO's. While I chide Olympus for not making a super fast prime lens, in reality all the wedding photogs I know never use one.

 

300 2.8 @ $7000 - That is like a 600 2.8 once you taken into accound the crop factor. To get an equilvent effective focal lengh lens from Nikon or Canon you need a 400 2.8. Go take a look at what them apples cost (I do agree with your comments on re-sell though)

 

As for your last point about the E-1 being for ameraturs, I tend to disagree. I actually think Amatures are more likely to shy away from it than pros. Amatures rarely can look past product specs. The truth of the matter is that Olympus has a dedicated (but small) following among professional photographers, and their new system is designed for their specific wants. It has a great user interface, and is made to high quality standards.

 

What I do think Olympus did completly wrong is not make this camera system based on the OM mount. In the end I think that will be their undoing.

[carl smith]

<i>300 2.8 @ $7000 - That is like a 600 2.8 once you taken into accound the crop factor. To get an equilvent effective focal lengh lens from Nikon or Canon you need a 400 2.8. Go take a look at what them apples cost (I do agree with your comments on re-sell though)</i><br><Br>Irrelevant. Olympus should charge for what it is, not for what they can compare it to. It's highway robbery to be selling their 300 2.8 at that price when bigger and more complicated ones from Canon and Nikon are considerably less.

[ShunCheung]

Jamie, a lot of churches do not permit flash photography during weddings and unfortunately they are also very dark inside. It is impossible to shoot those weddings with f2.8 lenses at low ISOs. I suggest you to take a look at Marc Williams' portfolio. Marc is one of the top contributors to the Weddings forum and he has a number of wedding images shot with f1.4 (and f1.2??) Canon lenses.

[jamiew]

I am familiar that lots of churches do not allow flash, however if you work with the church most times you can use flash inside so long as you do not use it durring the actual ceramony. Of course you still want photos of the ceramony, but I still maintain 2.8 works.

 

I know fast lenses are great, but as I said.. many wedding photographers (I think most but I have no hard numbers so I just say many) use 2.8 lenses in these situations. My point is not that I am against faster lenses, but rather that 2.8 works. Just think of all those MF wedding photographers.. They have been producing excellent work for almost 100 years with hardly anything faster than a normal 2.8 lens.

[todd frederick]

Shun Chung...why did you say?:

 

"Todd Frederick happens to be a good friend of mine. Sorry about my blunt comments, but knowing Tood, I have little doubt that he'll sell his E1 and buy something else within the next 6 to 12 months."

 

From me: I do like to play with different cameras, but the E-1 is the best digital I've used and I think I can now trust it in a wedding venue.

 

I have photographed weddings for 15 years with both Canon and Nikon film cameras.

 

I am trying to find a digital system that will suit my needs, especially with regards to flash exposure consistency and ergonomics...I can't use heavy cameras for physical reasons.

 

I bought the E-1 system from a common friend of Shun and me, with body, with 14-54 lens, with 50-200 lens, for a wonderful price.

 

I was using a Canon 10D for weddings last year and I could never get consistent flash exposure.

 

Now, with the E-1, with flash or without flash, all photos are near perfect with no serious need for major adjustments in Photoshop what-so-ever!

 

i really don't give a hoot if it is 4/3 or whatever. I look for results, and this is the best think to come my way.

 

When I first got the E-1, a few days ago, I put on a Vivitar 285 flash with the E-1 in manual, and the exposure was perfect! I have done this dozens of times since and the results are the same. I could not do that with the canon 10D with any flash!

 

I previously owned a Canon 10D: The Canon 10D flash interface drove me crazy. No consistency in any way.

 

I now think I can do weddings again, in digital, with the E-1, with no concerns.

 

Shun...This camera is NOT for sale! I've found my dream! Blessings

 

Todd (^0^)

[ShunCheung]

Todd, mark my words, 6 to 12 months, max. :-)

 

Medium-format wedding photographers have been using fast film, like ISO 800 for color negatives or even faster B&W film. Because of their larger film area, they have less concern about film grain. The E1, however, has the smallest sensor size among all current DSLRs with interchangeable lenses. It inherently has more problems with noise at high ISO.

 

Incidentally, the E1's higher-end zooms: 11-22, 14-54 and 50-200 are all f2.8-3.5. Your lose 2/3 stop when you zoom to the long end. Olympus has no constant f2.8 zoom and there is no wide angle prime of any type, period, full stop. Therefore, even though f2.8 were sufficient, the E1 system still lacked f2.8 lenses.

[todd frederick]

Shun...you are a ver good and kind friend and this is a good friendly debate. Your are a Computer Scientist and I am a Theologian. So, I look for what works for me.

 

Simply stated: after a year, my Canon 10D did not work well for me. I restate that it did not work well for ME...Just ME.

 

After 3 days, my E-1 gives me what I want and more...for ME. It's a totally personal issue.

 

This is a personal thing with me.

 

Let's get together and chat. (^0^)

 

Blessings, Todd