Why not an E-volt?

[chrisdurnin]

Hi, I shoot primarily film and use other people's cameras when

shooting digital but I want to buy my own to play with. I want a

DSLR, and I can't figure out what's so wrong with the Olympus Evolt

E-300??

 

It seems like no body has or wants one?? KEH is selling them for 760

WITH the 14-45 and 40-150 lens!!! An eight megapixel DSLR kit, with

two lenses for less than eight hundred. Why? This sounds tooo

cheap, like people are trying to get rid of them. I read some

reviews on the evolt that looked pretty good...they have that dust

shaker-offer thing...eight mega pixels...cool body design....REALLY

FREAKIN CHEAP!!(for 8mp DSLR).

 

So, why should I or shouldn't I buy this camera?? I guess I am just

wondering why I never hear anything about this camera...why don't

people recomend this for the "I want a D70, but it's a tad too

expensive" crowd?? Why ISN'T this an awesome buy? Any help is

greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

-Chris

[Greg M]

Because it's very much a niche product. Olympus has a very small, but rabit following. Folks on the Olympus Forum defend it fervently. It has it's place in the market- whether that place is big enough to allow Olympus to support it over the long haul is the question.

 

My main problem with it was when I was looking to buy a digital SLR the only one Olympus had was the E-1 and that body and it's very few lenses that were being marketed at the time were darn expensive and I already had a set of Canon EF lenses that would work fine with a Canon DSLR, and that's where Olympus missed the boat with a lot of people. Their 35mm autofocus SLR's were a complete and absolute flop with no users in the end so the only people shooting Olympus were OM system users. Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta all introduced digital SLR's with mounts that supported lens lines already in place so they already had a base of users who were not going to change when they already had the lenses.

 

If it fits the bill for you, then you should go for it.

[basscheffers]

People don't buy it because it doesn't say "Canon" on it... Sure, there are some drawbacks, like more noise at higher ISO settings that some people really get their panties into a twist over, but it never bothered me on my E-1. And unless you want a vast collection of primes, the E-system lens choices are just fine, both on what's available and the price.

 

The kit lens 14-45 to me looks a lot better than the Canon kit lens you get with the 350D (Rebel XT), but if you really want top notch, try to get a deal with the 14-54/2.8-3.5 that is the E-1 "kit" lens. It is really way beyond anyting Canon or Nikon offer without going into 4 figure sums and the main reason I went for the E-system.

[peter_obaldo]

Olympus has a great E-300 Evolt kit that consists of E-300 body, 14-54mm and 40-150mm zoom. This is great way to start with the Olympus system. Really, you have 28-300mm covered with the two lenses. For general shooting, these two lenses would cover it. If you really look at the prices of Olympus lenses compared to Canon and Nikon, Olympus prices are very competitive, contrary to what misinformed non-Olympus poster have stated. I have used Canon's before...I ended up selling my Canon kit for Olympus E-1 and 14-54mm kit. For my type of shooting this lens meets most of my needs. I would suggest to really give the Evolt a look.....to my eyes, Olympus colors are second to none.

[steve_dawson1]

"rabit following"

 

Have they all got big ears or something?

[scott_eaton]

<I> Folks on the Olympus Forum defend it fervently</i><P>That's funny, I see most Oly users in Canon/Nikon forums annoying <b>us</b> because we don't take their camera system seriously :-) I think it's part of the warranty registration process with Olympus that you have to spend so many hours trolling Canon/Nikon dSLR forums ferverently trying to convince us their machine is equivelant. I can't wait for Olympus to introduce their equivelant to the 5D...probably a square sensor or something.<P>I've got a couple relatives with E-300s, and I can sum up the camera with 4 comments; great lens, nice body, fair sensor, and half-ass processing ( improved from the aliasing_from_hell E-1 though, which was another non APS dSLR that was marketed as being equivelant to Canon/Nikon). After prepping images from a couple E-300s for LightJet out-put alongside my 10D, sorry, but I'm simply not that impressed, but at least I don't have to do many as USM passes with the 20Ds I've worked with {grin}. I also get the same lip from those E-300 users as we hear from Bas on a regular basis as well. You know, they've got 8mp compared to the 6mp in my 10D, etc., Olympus is "cooler than boring old Nikon/Canon", then we compare actual 8x10's and they get real quiet.<P><i>Olympus colors are second to none.</i><P>Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the E-300 either, except it's several hundred overpriced and competes more with the upcoming FZ30 and other newer 8mp class digicams than the Rebel 350 and D70. E-300 users hate that, but it's the honest to god's truth.<P>Also, anytime you and Bas want to compare 1 on 1 pics from any Oly E-series to my 10D or a Dreb 350 please bring it on. I'll even let you shoot RAW and I'll stick to Jpeg.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Have they all got big ears or something?</i><P>Actually a smaller 'something else' judging by how Olympus (and Minolta) users would lurk behind me around at press assigments trying to get me in amatuerish and irrelevant Pop Photo' ish debates on camera features with my older F3.<P>Like I've said a zillion times already; it's alternative camera marketing. It ain't Nikon/Canon, so it's better, right. Most really serious Nikon/Canon dSLR users can also give you a big fat list of gripes and complaints, while Oly E-series users rant about the camera as if it's perfect or something. Considering how I've yet to see an E-300 image match a Dreb 300 in anything other than a monochrome test chart, there's obviously serious difference in quality expectations.

[andrew robertson]

I think a lot of people are steering clear of Olympus because they abandoned their film SLR

camera lineup, and people are aware that they might do the same with their DSLR line if

the wind changes.

 

I also think that a lot of folks eschew Oly because they don't really offer fast lenses with

the E series. Their fastest lenses are a 50mm f/2 (with an effective focal length of

100mm), a 150mm f/2 (EFL 300mm) and their pro zooms are f/2.8-3.5. Combined with

the rather poor high ISO performance that the tiny photosites on these cameras exhibit, a

lot of folks have chosen otherwise.

[the shuttered eye]

<i> "It ain't Nikon/Canon, so it's better, right."</i>

<p>

Well, we need SOMETHING in the market other than Nikon/Canon. They BOTH are far from ideal, and we need to have more choice and competition in the market. Olympus is not providing that at all (they missed the boat with the 4/3rd's sensor, IMHO), Pentax isn't, and so far, KonicaMinolta isn't either. It's a shame that Contax didn't fix the issues with the N Digital (and hire new marketers) rather that all-too-quickly throw in the towel. Great handling camera with superb lenses and a full frame sensor -- great potential would have ultimately been a strong and viable contender at the Professonal end of the market. Oh well. Maybe a viable contender to Nikon/Canon will still appear sometime in the future.

[daniel_kreithen1]

Sorry, just had to jump in here due to Scott's completely intemperate response (which he seems to do consistently with Olympus digital products). The truth is: there's not a great deal of difference in performance between the Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. products at similar price points, although each has their unique points (Canon's great high-ISO noise, Nikon's is that they tend to be better built than Canon's at the same price point, Olympus is the dust buster and pixel mapping and lenses, Pentax is smaller size with excellent viewfinder, Konica Minolta is anti-shake with excellent viewfinder) They cannot be that radically different in performance, otherwise they would not sell. Olympus pricing is, in my opinion, due to a few factors: 1) they are the "third player" and therefore do not have the ability to dictate prices, 2) they are a smaller company with limited advertising resources, 3) the E-300 doesn't "look" like a DSLR, so from a marketing perspective this might be a problem, even though it is a brillant design. That said, I would suggest giving it a test drive a local store. I haven't used the E-300 (but I'm an E-1 owner), but have held it, and it seems like an ergonomically competent package. I cannot speak to the image quality, but the E-1 itself is an excellent performer up to ISO400 ("noise" is better than film at all ISOs - so coming from film you'll be pleased) with an excellent Kodak sensor. I ended up deciding on the Olympus system by looking at online photos taken with the various systems. The Olympus "look" was most to my taste. You may decide differently for your taste. I second Bas' recommendation of the 14-54 lens for a really great all around piece of glass.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> The truth is: there's not a great deal of difference in performance

between the Canon, Nikon, Olympus

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

I'm not sure how you're defining 'performance,' but the considerably smaller sensor

size in the Olympuses, combined with inferior high-ISO (higher than ISO 200!) noise-

handling, makes for real differences in final prints.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Olympus is not providing that at all (they missed the boat with the 4/

3rd's sensor, IMHO), Pentax isn't, and so far, KonicaMinolta isn't either.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

At Pentax's and K_M's price points they offer better shooting with better viewfinders,

but they're all using the same Sony sensor as in the Nikon D70, so there's not too much

differentiation in final outpput. What's interesting is that K_M, far behind in the market

(and whose parent corporation is less interested in the DSLR biz, which amounts to a

small part of the corporation's revenues) has partnered with Sony, which might bolster

its chances if both partners work (quickly) together.

[dg1]

Why can't so many photographers just accept that photography is self expression for some people. Forget the specs, if you like the files or prints you're getting - great. One size does not fit all. Sounds like the current pricing on the Evolt is a killer deal if the camera delivers what you, not the virtual photo.net commitee here, want.

 

So called professionals, out of necessity, get into pixel peeping because they want the pet photos, or the campbell's soup ad to look just so. Family snapshooters with enough money to buy DSLRs nit pick all this stuff and brag about their cameras because they don't know what else to do with them. IMO neither group have attitudes that are particularly healthy for amateurs, artists, or creative pros who love photography, not cameras, and are trying to be a little creative with it.

[david_bedell]

"I also think that a lot of folks eschew Oly because they don't really offer fast lenses with the E series. Their fastest lenses are a 50mm f/2 (with an effective focal length of 100mm), a 150mm f/2 (EFL 300mm) and their pro zooms are f/2.8-3.5."

 

Olympus has announced a couple of very fast zooms, a 14-35mm (constant) f/2.0 and a 35-100mm (constant) f/2.0.

 

Probably not cheap, but I can't recall any other company releasing f/2.0 zooms...

[dmanthree]

I made a brand switch several months ago, and took a long look at the Olympus DSLRs. My conclusion was that while the products are pretty nice, they aren't as good as they're competition,and don't produce images that are as good. I know the cameras were supposed to be smaller and lighter, as well as the lenses, but the reality is that they're the same size, and in some cases (E-300 vs Rebel XT) larger. I suppose I could have lived with the E-300, but buying into another brand not only gave me a camera that I felt produced better images, but gave me access to a much more comprehensive camera system, including some very nice primes. Overall, I believe I made the right decision.

[bobatkins]

As far as I know, there are no 3rd party 4/3 format lenses, which locks you into a lens selection restricted to lenses made by Olympus.

 

While Olympus lenses are very good, a monopoly supplier isn't ever a good thing.

[kithg]

All I can say is that I didn't go for the E-volt because Olympus has a bad habit of introducing a product line and then abandoning it. So then you're stuck with a camera and no way to either add to your kit or fix things if they go wrong. The OM sytem was fine - they just dumped it. So how long do you think it will take them to dump this? That said, some of their P & S cameras are among the best, both film and digicams.

[peter_phan]

The E-300's sensor doesn't perform quite as well as the sensors of other 8mp DSLR's in the entry-level segment (ie, the Digital Rebel XT). Plus, I don't care too much for the control layout of the E-300. It feels like it was designed in the Soviet Union in the early 80's. The other thing is that you have a more limited lens selection with the E-300. No Image Stabilizer lenses, less third party lens support, no fast primes. But if your needs are modest, the E-300 might be a perfectly fine choice for you.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Look at it this way. If you don't want tilt-shift lenses, long (and really good) lenses with IS past 200mm, full time manual focusing, acceptable ISO perf past 400, really fast primes (1.4 - 1.8), high-speed FPS, weather-sealed bodies and lenses, and large variety of lighting (flash) and remote-control options, then you should buy it. Within it's capabilities, the E-300 will take fine pictures. And if you're only really buying the body and lens and it will make you happy, that's all that counts. If the demands you will put on the camera go past the abilities of that single body and lens, then you may want to look at other "systems".

[basscheffers]

You guys make me laugh. For some reason, the loudest mouths seems to be the ones who spend the most money on their gear and expect everybody else to do the same.

 

You really think that everyone asking advice on wether to get a D50, 350D or E-300 will get into the same life-long spending habbit as you do and spend thousands on getting every conceivable lens available?

 

No, not even those asking here on photo.net. So wether the system has a 35mm T/S lens, a 50/1.0 or 135mm soft focus available, wether or not other brands make lenses for the system or if the system may be dropped completely 5 years down the line is completely irrelevant to 99.9(99?) percent of those buying this class of camera.

 

The E-300 is a great deal and especialy if you can shell out for the 14-54 will give you years of photographic joy.

 

By the way, Scott, what lens was on that E-300? And on your 10D? And how much tdid that E-300 setup cost and your 10D? And did you take both images, or was one by some random person not as competent a photographer as you are? Unless you take similar images using similar lenses and/or have seen hundreds of shots from both systems, you have a sampling error greater than the hairs on Geoge's (the dog in the corner) back.

[peter_obaldo]

Why is it that most digital equipment questions end with Canon lovers defending their equipments ? Reading thru some people's comments (aka Scott -read his history about non-Canon equipment bashing) or people making claims of Olympus dropping support (was it not Canon who dropped the ball on FD mount?) and these people have never really used Olympus equipments ? Why ? Why ? Why ? Scott, tell us how you compared your output from Canon 10D against Olympus E-300. What lenses and setting did you use...or do you need a manual for Olympus E-300 so you would have a fair comparison ?

[basscheffers]

Peter, I did the same as you: sell Canon gear because "For my type of shooting this lens meets most of my needs." I thought long and hard about it, but Canon still doesn't have an alternative lens that is as good and versatile, so I am still happy with my decission. All I want is a lens in the 28-100 (35mm equiv) range that I can walk around with and take pictures on my travels. I have the 50-200 as well but I honestly don't use it enough.

 

Given the choice between the E-1 and a 10D with EF-S 17-65/2.8 (or even f/4) I would never have looked at the E-1, but that 10D didn't have EF-S and that lens doesn't - and will never - exist.

 

A 5D and 24-105/4L would probably be excelent for that too and no doubt outperform what I have now by a great margin. But then again, the E-1 kit costs $1500 and that Canon combo is supposed to sell for $4400.

[mark_chappell]

What Kieth said: within the limitations of the system, the Oly gear is probably just fine. I

wouldn't go near it because of the lack of stabilized long telephotos in the Oly system (plus

the outrageously high price of the Oly 300/2.8). But I've flogged that horse before.

[Greg M]

At $1,500 for camera/lens combination the E-1 is a very good buy- B&H actually has that combo plus the FL20 flash for $1,469- very attractive and a much better built camera than the E300. Today if I wanted to get into the Olympus system that's what I'd go for more than the cheaper body/two lens combination.

 

As I mentioned above, when I was originally in the market to buy my first DSLR, which was late 2003, not today, the E-1 body only (E300 was not yet available) was around $2,000 and the least expensive lens was the 14-54 at around $600 and the 50-200 was over $1,000, so the combination of body/normal lens was around $2,500/2,600, not $1,500. For people who already had a set of EF lenses and compatible flash units, a new Digital Rebel or discount priced 10D was a much more affordable buy.

 

The fact Olympus dropped the OM line wasn't the problem. I was among the Nikon user crowd laughing at Canon when they dumped the FD line for EOS in 1987-88. The problem Olympus had in capturing users initially back in 2003 (again, not today) their system was very expensive to initially get into for the casual user. The shooting pros- the ones who can either afford anything or work for companies that purchase equipment for them, have been dedicated buyers of Nikon or Canon because of the continuous committment those two compaies have had with the industry. Back in 2003 this site would not have seen an initial post like yours because the last thing the Olympus 4/3's system was, was affordable.

[daniel_kreithen1]

Bob, a short trip to B&H website will reveal to you that Sigma also produces lenses in 4/3 mount. Not many, but they do so. Spreading misinformation is in nobody's best interest. Oh, and third-party manufacturers (and their buyers) who've reverse engineered the Canon EF mount protocol are in the uneviable situation of having to keep up with firmware changes by Canon specifically performed to make third-party lenses incompatible. So, yes, Canon does have many third party suppliers, but buying third-party lenses is not without the attendant risk.