Brief Olympus E-3 Hands on

[godfrey]

I was at the NPPA Flying Short Course workshop this weekend. Nikon, Canon and Olympus were in the

vendor room on Sunday. Nothing on the Canon table interested me very much, so I spent the time I had at

the Nikon and Olympus tables. They had an early production E-3 and almost the entire line of High Grade

and Super High Grade lenses on the table.

<br><br>

The E-3 is terrific. The body fits my hands perfectly, feels compact, tight, beautifully balanced. It's very

fast on sequences and the controls are all nicely placed. The viewfinder is excellent, the 12-60 focused

very very fast, and its responsiveness is wonderful. A credit to Olympus. I could/will become very friendly

with this camera.

<br><br>

We were not allowed to take exposures away with it because it did not have final firmware in it. But I will

try to arrange a loaner once my local dealer has a few available for a day's test drive. It would be the

perfect "pro" complement to my existing 4/3 kit.

<br><br>

I did get a chance to fit the Oly 50-200/2.8-3.5 and 150/2 on my L1 and take a couple of test shots...

<br><br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lasher-1030539.jpg" target=new>

lasher-1030539.jpg (1000 pixels tall)

</a><br><br>

I look forward even more to the E-3 being available... :-)

<br><br>

Godfrey

[jamespjones]

I tried it out as well over the weekend and I walked away with mixed feelings. On the one

hand - it is definitely a nice feeling camera. It seemed to do everything I wanted it to do very

well. But, on the other hand - I was under the impression that the promise of the 4/3rds

system was to create, among other things, lighter cameras. It is not a light weight super-dslr.

It is a moderate weight DSLR.

 

James

[glenbarrington]

I'm a bit put off by the weight as well. But to be fair, If you need light, there is always the E410 which does give you 80% - 90% of what the E3 offers. (Though I wonder what a 'ruggedized' E410 would weigh - I'd love to find out!)

 

Oly IS cramming an enormous amount of 'stuff' into that body.

[godfrey]

It's a camera built to be useful for professional use/abuse and has weather sealing, of

course, which I expect to be larger and heavier than a consumer-oriented compact

camera.

 

I have large hands ... the E-510 and 410 models are a bit cramped for my fingers. The

E-3, like the Pentax K10D and the Panasonic L1, fits my hands very well. The body is

lighter than I expected, actually, and balances beautifully in my hands.

 

Godfrey

[leandro_dutra1]

<p>The E‐3 <em>is</em> lighter than comparable pro bodies, just as the E‐410 is lighter than amateur bodies and the E‐510 than image‐ſtabiliſed bodies.</p>

 

<p>But the big difference is ſeen in lenses: not only ſmaller and lighter, but also faſter and cheaper.</p>

[ilkka]

I agree with the comments on bodies. E-3 should be compared with D2x and 1D, and clearly wins on size and weight.

 

I do not agree on the comment on lenses: "not only smaller and lighter, but also faster and cheaper." This is simply not true. Not even close.

[skip_williams]

I think you've got the E-3 on too high of a pedestal. Those cameras are pro-spec, super-fast, top-end professional cameras. The E-3's competition is the 40D, D300, and Sony a700. And it's not appreciably smaller or lighter than it's competition, IMO.<p>

 

<i>I agree with the comments on bodies. E-3 should be compared with D2x and 1D, and clearly wins on size and weight.</i><p>

 

I don't think I've ever heard Olympus state that their 4/3 lenses' advantages would include cheaper prices. But smaller and lighter is probably true if you choose your comparisons carefully and selectively. I don't think I've ever seen anything close to a 35-70/2.0 or 180-500/2.8 or a 70-200/2.0 lens offered on the other brands, not-to-mention that they'd be positively huge and several thousand dollars.<p

 

<i>I do not agree on the comment on lenses: "not only smaller and lighter, but also faster and cheaper." This is simply not true. Not even close.<i>

[glyn r]

Smaller and lighter definitely applies to the 14-42 and the new 40-150 f4-5.6. they are very small and very light. The optical quality is as good as anything else in their range. coincidentally they are also very cheap. They are not Pro spec lenses but for a pair of lenses to put in your pocket nothing else comes close.

[mike_smith2]

Price wise the Top Pro OZ-E lenses are no different to Canon or Nikon, sizewise OZ-E lenses should really be considered on a field of view point and not focal length comparison and so are about 30% smaller - the OZ-E 150mm f2 should be compared to the C/N 300mm F2.8 and the OZ-E 300mm F2.8 against the C/N 600mm F4 big gun lenses. The benefits of 4/3rds then really become apparent - The main exception to the rule is the thumping great big OZ-E 35-100mm F2 lens which is bigger and heavier than the equivelent Canon 70-200 IS L lens.

 

 

The mid pro telephotos are a shade smaller, eg the OZ-E 50-200mm is smaller and lighter than the Canon 100-400 IS L and image wise just as good (I have both) the OZ-E 50 macro is smaller and lighter than the Canon 100mm macro and the OZ-E 14-54 is definately smaller and lighter than the Canon 24-108mm L

 

 

At the wide end of course the tables are reversed it easier to make a smaller lighter zoom for a 35mm camera than an equivelent 4/3rds sensor based camera

 

 

I know that I now would rather carry my OZ-E 300mm f2.8 than a C/N 600mm F4 lens, I can use it on a smaller lighter tripod set up as well so there are other weight savings in use other than the physical lens sizes

[GerrySiegel]

Let's see. The E-3 promises to have 1) in body image stabilization, 2) Live View with a bright articulated screen, 3) Effective Dust Reduction4) High Resolution Lens Design,4) Choice of lenses from other manufacturers like Panasonic and Leica and coming down the homestretch,Sigma, 5)Good resolution up to maybe 800 ISO,6) a water resistant body and a water resistant onboard flash,7) a growing array of lenses in just any focal length except for the fast primes that some ache for (not me- I been sold on zooms for a while if they are 2.8 or better)8)a good record on reliability and repairs. Now this is a company that is definitely a dollar late and a day short. Tell them to stick to swallowable endoscopic cameras! Now THAT is SMALL!

[godfrey]

LOL.

 

FYI: I compared the ISO 1600 performance between the E-3 and my L1 using the LCD (we

weren't allowed to take exposures away, pre-release firmware). The L1 has produced a

couple of decent photos at ISO 1600 but it's not easy. The E-3 was significantly cleaner, I

would warrant it quite usable at ISO 1600, at least for the kinds of work I have in mind.

 

I'm seriously considering putting in a pre-order for an E-3 body. I don't really need it right

now, but it was a very compelling camera combining most of the things I like about the

Pentax K10D (in-body stabilization, responsiveness, clean imaging at ISO 800-1600,

weather sealing) with most of the things I like about the L1 (Live View, lenses, mount

adaptability) along with a few nice twists of its own. I do wish that Olympus or Panasonic/

Leica would make the compact, 20mm f/2.8 prime lens but I'm content to work with an

adapted Nikkor 20mm if that's not going to happen.

 

My only real gripe with the E-3 is that Olympus is using CF storage cards instead of SD,

but that's pretty inconsequential.

 

Actually, the real mental battle right now is whether to order the Leica 25/1.4 or Oly

50-200 first... sigh. Both would be very useful.

 

Godfrey

[ilkka]

35mm (24x36mm) lenses are clearly smaller, lighter, and cheaper as well, than medium format lenses, due to their smaller image circle. Why the same does not apply for 4/3 lenses? Comparing equivalent focal lengths is difficult because some DSLR bodies have 1.5 crop, some have 1.6 or 1.3 crop, Nikon D2X has both 1.5 and 2 crop. Why use equivalent focal length for Olympus but not for other systems? Also, fast lens speed is needed for two things that affect the image, narrow depth of field and high shutter speed in low light. 2/35-100 on 4/3s has equivalent DOF of 4/70-200 on Canon 5D for example. And the latter can be used in low light on ISO800 for same or better results than a 4/3 body on ISO 200 or 400. This complicates the comparion of equivalent focal lengths. But surely, for medium format, larger image size means larger and heavier lenses across the board. Why 4/3 is clearly not able to have the same savings?

[GerrySiegel]

Illka, the comparison breaks down as I see it. E lens mount is hugely large compared to the sensor size and the mirror size. They did it for reasons of optical design,don't ask me to explain why. Eliminates lenses the size of the Pen series.

 

High speed is not only way to get rid of distracting backgrounds.( I rejected an L series 85mm 1.2 FD lens once for having TOO much razor thin focus). One can always shoot with a longer focal length lens if you want a mooshy background,but that is choice and it is stil there, just changes things as use of medium format changes things for those who use MF visa a vis 35mm.Me, I lust for the ED 150mm F2.0 but the cash flow is a problem for this hobbyist retired grade..(wish a nice neighbor would buy one,Godfrey!)Remember when only the spenders thought of owning big white L lenses. Hey, they are still big and white and use production- style aspherics now and less fluorite crystals grown in labs. Why don't they come way down in price,ahh I digress,sorry. Lenses now have to race to keep up with the cheaper sensors,and the competition in chips of all kinds I guess. Seems to me that Oly does the lens and body thing together. If their flash and manual writing guys worked closer that is a failing few know about, don't tell anyone.

 

You can argue that Olympus lenses lack affordability,but the silver grade series are truly " super high grade," up with the top notch and built like a brick outhouse. The high grade are just excellent and the kit lenses get good reviews.

 

If you find the Canon 5D and Canon zoom lenses,with their individual image stabilization, fits your needs and your low light shooting,why there is no contest. The size of the camera body and the lens depend on the fittings in the camera,like sensor stabilization and the lens and mirror box and the pentaprism and the design of the shutter mechanism. And last of all, I expect that camera sizes will get smaller as microelectronics improves. I started shooting with a Century Graphic, a so called "miniature graphic" at the time,no bull... Lenses are a different metric than sensor size and lens size ratio.

 

I use an E-1 and a Nikon P5100. Different tools for different jobs. But open season on camera design comparisons is all year especially Fall and makes for great forumbuzz and honest shopping tips sometimes but no substitute for a Hands On Touch and Play.

 

Give Olympus credit though. They got back with Ritz after years of separation. But are apparently estranged from the celebrated site that everyone goes to for their 30 page reviews on the Canon 40D and the big box score,hey that is fine and dandy. I admire Dr Wrotniak E pages myself, thorough and he buys his cams and shoots for months w off shelf gear. Aloha-GS

 

PS That does not explain the individual choice of O vs C or N anymore than Craftsman vs other tools but I guess that answer is because it felt right in hand and was on sale. And I like the glass very much for quality. Still.

[GerrySiegel]

I know my comments to Illka reflect too much caffeine and not enough sleep.Sorry. I was beginning to sound like one of the Democratic contenders on a talk show. I can really explain everything more succinctly and clearly. No, not today!. Be well and peace. Gerry

[ilkka]

I don't have any grudges against Olympus in general. I have used Olympus cameras for close to 30 years now, and I don't own a Canon DSLR. I even have an Olympus 500 as my second, light, travel DSLR body, mainly for making use of all my old Zuiko glass (I mainly still use film). But one of the reasonings behind the smaller sensor was exactly the promise of smaller and lighter lenses. I think Olympus and its partners has completely failed on this one. Few exceptions will not change the fact. And sensor prices have kept coming down so that the smaller sensor starts to be more of a liability. No matter what you do, larger sensor will always have a better signal to noise ratio. It is also a bit strange that full frame Zuiko 18, 21, 24 or 28 mm lenses are much smaller than any of the fixed focal length lenses available for the 4/3 format. Surely a smaller lens could be made with today's technology that gives good quality as it only needs to cover 1/4 of the image area.

[godfrey]

The issue that you neglect is the required telecentricity for digital sensor optimization.

Film is utterly insensitive to the angle at which light strikes it. Digital sensors are

extremely sensitive to this. So a lens mount designed for a digital sensor should be much

wider than a lens mount designed for film and have a short register to allow lenses to be

designed with collimating elements as close to the sensor as possible to correct the ray

trace and hit the sensor dead on.

 

This is why the 4/3 System lenses, nearly all of them, are exceptional performers ... and

particularly the wide angles. It's also why they tend to be larger than the OM system film

lenses, not to mention that they all have servo operated focus motors and aperture

actuators in them.

 

Godfrey

[ilkka]

Yes, yes, yes, but still. Olympus did talk about the telecentric design already in the beginning, at the same time when they were also promising smaller and lighter lenses. Pentax can make small and light lenses that work in their digital and film cameras. Why not Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sigma etc? I don't expect the sizes of Pentax 110 or Olympus Pen. But why the only one small and light (and cheap) fixed focal length lens for the 4/3 system is a 30mm macro? The Olympus bodies are a bit smaller and lighter than equivalent APS size DSLRs. In my opinion, they would really benefit from a small set of fixed focal length lenses. I am sure you would also be happy to have the choice of a 2.8/14 or a 2.8/18, and maybe a 2.8/25 and/or a 2.8/50 as well.

[godfrey]

Ilkka,

<br><br>

I have and use Pentax DSLR equipment extensively, in addition to 4/3 System gear.

<br><br>

Let's be precise: Pentax has *one* small, light lens with less than 40mm focal length ... the

DA21/3.2 Limited. It gets there virtue of having a relatively slow maximum aperture, no

focus or aperture servo in the lens, clever design, and at the expense of 2% barrel

distortion and 1EV center to edge falloff wide open. A marvelous lens indeed ... I'd love it if

something similar were available for 4/3 System, I use it *a lot*. They have three other

extremely compact lenses (the DA40/2.8 Limited, the FA43/1.9 Limited, and the

DA70/2.4 Limited) all of which get there virtue of the focal length/maximum aperture/

focusing mount tradeoffs as well as a good bit of clever design. But returning to short FL

primes ...

<br><br>

There's also the excellent Pentax DA14mm f/2.8 ED. It weighs a pound and is no smaller

than the ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5. 1.7% rectlinear distortion, 1EV falloff wide open. A superb,

sharp performer, another lens I use a lot. Or the Pentax DA12-24/4 zoom, which is 30%

heavier than the DA14, and inch longer, has 2.1% rectilinear distortion and 1EV falloff wide

open ...

<br><br>

Now contrast those lenses to the Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5, which is about the same

size as the Pentax DA14mm f/2.8 ED prime ... the ZD 11-22 has about the same FoV as

the DA14 at its short end and the same speed and FoV as the 21mm at its long end. It's

rectilinear distortion goes from 1.17% at 11mm to near 0 at 22mm and it never sees more

than .5EV falloff at any focal length wide open. A superb performer. And it's fully weather

sealed and has in-lens focus and aperture servos to boot.

<br><br>

(All lens measurements courtesy <a href="http://www.photozone.de">

www.photozone.de</a> ... a completely independent lens performance test site. Klaus

does a good job with his tests, using real world lenses loaned to him by users and pretty

well established testing methodology.)

<br><br>

Pentax new DA* series zooms ... DA*16-50/2.8 and DA*50-135/2.8 ... which compete

with the Olympus offerings on features (in-lens focus servos, speed, weather sealing,

performance) are not by any means "compact" like the DA21, DA40 or DA70 Limiteds.

<br><br>

The achievement in the diminutive Olympus ZD 14-42/3.5-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 is

remarkable: I was shocked at how small and light these two lenses were as well as their

excellent performance when I first saw them. They're not fast but wow, they're effective

and very very compelling on size and weight.

<br><br>

To me, it's important to be realistic. The 4/3 System mount does as advertised: it provides

a base for some of the best performing lenses in the DSLR world, which are FoV for FoV

smaller than comparable offerings of similar speed from other manufacturers. No,

they're no match for

Pentax' unique and tiny Limited primes on size and weight ... but the trade off is better

correction, less light falloff, very competitive resolution and contrast. You simply don't get

something for nothing, the laws of physics remain inviolable. No other manufacturer has

produced lenses that compete with Pentax' compact Limiteds, and there are only a couple

of them with known tradeoffs to achieve their compactness.

<br><br>

Amongst the many tradeoffs one must make on equipment, each of the manufacturers has

their strengths and weaknesses. That's why I have two systems and use them for what they

do well.

<br><br>

best,<br>

Godfrey

<br>

[GerrySiegel]

Olympus School of Digital Photography class at a Honolulu hotel got me a chance 3 years ago to see and handle freely, the big gun 150 and 300. I was impressed and it was encouraging to see a future pro commitment.

 

Well, they could use more missionary efforts here in the Americas to display product to the masses,my opinion. I suspect O was even caught kimonos-down that entry level E 500 buyers would spring for the 50mm macro at four hundred plus, sweet lens, fast prime no less. There were backorders for months. Plus,the well corrected EC-14 works like a charm with it for portraits.

I would not have considered an E-1 vis a vis a 20D until I handled the new unit at the military exchange which had them shipped in for a few months with noone around who knew anything about the system of course. Thus no sales pitch which was pretty intriguing, like the mystery girl at the prom:-) I was drawn to it and no great second thoughts.

 

Never read many reviews online at the time, and was in an experimental mood...Bonus feature =my schnozz did not scrunch against a pentaprism! The images on my CF card looked great in JPEG. It seemed a small finder image as others quickly noted,but the readout was easy to see and had the works all there...not many things were forgotten. Even had a firewire plug.. I had to show the clerk how to attach the FL 20 and we found some AA cells. The rest is history as they say.

 

 

The lack of a nationwide company like Ritz (arcane politics of retailing I imagine) to stock ANY Olympus product was not a great coup here in the US.

I am not sure they had ANY real grand strategy for pushing sales natiionwide, else why come out with the E-1 as first DSLR at 2K plus in 2003,too many skeptics who did not see Oly as anything but a miniaturist (a la the OLympus Epic 'manini' film cam and OM series). I guess company branch that engineered E 10 saw it as a step up for E 10 and E20, forgotten loyalists cum fence-straddlers,(dubbed old fogies by one PN reviewer) and in a twilight world of fixed lens SLR (FSLR or ZSLR I forget term) with a pellicle mirror, long back- benched by other companies.

 

I would like to see an Olympic page in National Geographic with the weatherproof and dustproof features featured,anyone spot this overseas from us?.

And,second wish list, a Series Handbook commissioned by the company on E series Cameras,a Magic Lantern or the like.. I am not an account executive so I am just whistling a tune like everyone.

O seem to be lately getting on the ball to exploit those features that set Olympus apart and there are a few. Yet only those who have used them,handled the units, and shot with the lenses and flash, can know the appeal even as a niche appeal. How to measure efficacy of dust reduction in numerals? Brightness lumens of finders? Integration of lens and body..real battery and life of the battery too.

For the tireless wedding photogs, I see no reason why an E-3 and a couple mid price lenses can't do the trick in speed or power or print size. Quantum Intruments has a nice TTL adapter for the T5D flashgun. And a power cord for the FL 50/50R. Speculation for next year, will Tamron adopt the mount in their better glass? I predict they will.

[Andrew in Austin]

An interesting read, but it is high time to close the "italics". </i> Dont' you think?

[godfrey]

</i></i>would be nice if it were possible. <br><br>

Godfrey

[ilkka]

I agree with the size and weight of the new Olympus standard zoom. Only concern is the plastic construction that even extends to the lens mount.

 

And Pentax indeed has a very nice setup with its 21, 40 and 70mm compact lenses (equivalent to 32, 60 and 105mm).

 

But other manufacturers make small and light wide lenses as well. Canon has a 2.8/24 (equivalent to 31 or 38mm) that uses 58 filter and weighs 270 g.

 

Sony has 2.8/20 that is a bit big with 72 filter but weighs only 285 g while the 2.8/28 has 49 filter and weighs 185 g. These are equivalent to 30mm and 42mm.

 

Nikon has a 2.8 20 with 62 filter and 2.8 24 with 52 filter, both weighing the same 270 g.

 

The Pentax is of course a featherweight at 155g with hood attached.

 

Olympus 35 macro is similar in size to these and weighs 165 g, but is equivalent to 70mm. The 4/3 mount wideangles are all over half a kilo and bigger than any of the above.

[herve_laurent]

Hello Everyone

I think that this thread is very interesting as it explains clearly some very important facts. I

think Godfrey contribution to these posts is very useful as it states points with back-up

and without trying to take sides. I also would like to add that godfrey is also someone who

takes the time to post pictures as well and Godfrey you make some great pictures.

The argument of the weight of the E3 is a no-brainer for me. People should compare

apples and apples. You cannot find a camera with a comparable viewfinder,weather built

and solidly built, with IS in a significantly lower wieight elsewhere

Most of us who are devoted to making pictures would not travel with one body only. so

think for a moment how effective would be the combination of weight of having say an E3

and a e510 ( or 410) as a back-up body.

plus you can have for little money the standard zooms which while they are not bright are

very light and produce very good results

I bought the 40-150 for one specific assignment and thought : "well it would work for

what I need but don't expect too much of it"

Well I was wrong the quality is very high much higher than any kit zoom in another brand

Godfrey is right to say that this is partially explained because of the fact that the lens was

designed specifically for a digital sensor

I see so many threads about comparing the E3 or other cameras of the 4/3 standard to

other DSLR's when used at 1600, 3200 ASA or more but honestly I want to ask who cares

I mean, I am sure some of you specialize in night Photography but I am curious

How much of your work is done at 1600 or above

It must be me . I shoot the equivalent of probably 400 rolls in 120 a year (sorry I am still

counting in films) and I don't think that I had the need of more than 1600 ASA once a year

if that

Not to mention the fact that with built in IS you can make-up for iso to a certain point by

using a slower speed

I want to add one more thing that seems to be consistantly overseen on these forums :

the quality of the viewfinder in the choice of a DSLR. Composition and the ability to make

the right decision in framing is still one of the key elements in producing a great image

 

Not enough has been said about the improvement of the viewfinder of the E3 compared to

the other models . I spent an hour with the E3 and the e1 viewfinder ( which was just

decent) does not even come close

And I don't even want to tell you what in my mind is the biggest advantage of the olympus

because most of you would not even believe me

H

[GerrySiegel]

Thanks Herve. I as a hobbyist, appreciate the views of someone who earns a living with a camera instead of a testing lab however prominent. Your point about high ISO is most pertinent to any serious photographer who seeks optimal result from the native light gathering ability of the image receptor. I have read that Olympus broke some fresh ground in the viewfinder. What else did they accomplish? When I bought my Bronica kit, the entry level for this E-3 would have seemed a real bargain. I just wish I needed top of the line. I may convince myself to get an E-3 in a year or less though, sounds like a well thought out design. No E 510 backup, as I have the E-1. Sounds like you put many activations on your cameras. I should live long enough to make those 150,000 clicks as per the specs on the E-3! g.

[norm_havens]

<b>Gerry</b>: <i>What else did they accomplish?</i><p>

 

Advanced 11-point focusing system with world-leading speed and improved accuracy and sensitivity down to -2EV (to put that into perspective, think: the amount of light requiring a 16 second exposure af f2.0), thus obviating the need for the focus-assist lamp. In-body IS with <i>up to</i> 5 stops compensation, in-camera SAT, articulated LCD with liveview, improved 10MP sensor with new amplifier and support circuitry for lower noise, etc., etc. I think they accomplished a lot.