E-1 or?

[charlesp]

This has probably been asked in various ways but I'm still not certain of the route to take. My formerly wonderful KM 7D is now driving me

crazy with its slow AF so I'm looking to jump to a new system. I find I do a lot of low light (stage eg) photography and I'm intrigued by the

Olympus 35-70 2.0 lens and a few other of their lenses. Is it wrong to assume that the advantage of the fast lens may be compromised by

the less-than-industry-leading high ISO performance (I've read) of the E-1? If one has no great brand allegiance or stock of other-brand

lenses, is there any good reason not to opt for 4/3 over the D300, 40D etc alternatives? Having hefted a few cameras, I prefer the

ergonomics of the E-1 over all others except the Nikon D300 which for me is similar. The other less expensive cameras simply

(unfortunately) don't work for me physically. Incidentally, I'm not concerned about making large prints as I use MF and film for that.

Cheers.

[charlesp]

Oops, I meant E-3!

[leandro_dutra1]

Do you really make huge prints to be observed at close quarters of shots made at ISO 3200? Can you afford a Nikkor equivalent to the 35�70 1:2? If you say yes to both, get the D300. If any answer is negative, get the E-3

[ilkka]

The 2/35-70 is a big and expensive lens and the extra stop you gain is lost when you are not able to crank up the ISO as high as on other DSLRs with APS size sensors or bigger. If you have some lenses for the 7D, I would consider the new Sony offerings, A700 for example. Switching systems is rarely a good idea. The E-series is a well designed camera system and the E-3 is generally speaking very good. Two areas where the E-series is not that strong against good competitors are low light and very large prints. Small sensor is small no matter how it processes the image data and more than 10 megapixels would be better for very large prints (or cropping). Since print size is not an issue for you, I would compare the cost of 2.8 zoom lens (or faster fixed focal length lens) plus a similar Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax body, against that 2/35-70 and E-3. I think E-3 will lose in this comparison. The E-1 is very old and not that good anymore, but I suppose you really meant E-3 whenever you said E-1.

[charlesp]

Thanks folks. Maybe part of me likes to go "against the grain" and support less popular camera makers. But then, there's a

big cost here for that quirk. I can feel myself leaning to maybe the D300...

[nick_evans1]

In responce to Ilkka post, the Olympus E-3 will produce fine prints, I have just used mine to make A2 prints without noise or grain visable on the image. I have also believe the E3 will go up to A1 as well, with not to much loose of image quality but even at those sizes the other manufactures machines will struggle with their small sensor as well. Just depends on how you post process your image I suppose

 

As for the "low light high noise issue". The early production E3s did have some issues but having seen images on E-System forums that have been produced at ISO3200, the E3 is no worse than the D300 or the Canon equivalent machine.

 

If you want low light performance and have the money then go for the Nikon D3 that trounces any other machine at the moment.

[jtk]

K20D equals D300 at high ISO (several reports)...3200 noise is about like last year's prosumer DSLRs at 800, better in color than NPZ (which I love), way better shadow detail and detail resolution in B&W than any 3200 film/process

[ilkka]

"the Olympus E-3 will produce fine prints... Just depends on how you post process your image I suppose"

 

I am sure it produces fine prints. But with high quality lenses and good post processing, larger sensor with more pixels WILL produce better large size prints. There is no magic that only Olympus can apply to go around laws of the physics. The E-3 is a fine camera, but its two weaknesses against the competition are its smaller sensor and smaller number of pixels. D3, 5D and 1Ds, even D300 and A700, are clearly better in low light and when really large prints are made.

[nick_evans1]

Hello Ilkka,

 

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you.

 

I feel that compairing the E-3, A700 or D300 against the full frame cameras is an unfair one. Full frame machines are in a league of there own, simple becuase they have much larger chips and much more expensive, (yes I know th 5D has dropped in price, but itis due for replcement and it when it was orginally launched was much more expensive)

 

Also it depends on what size prints you are doing and how high a ISO your going to. At A3 I would pitch the E3 against any of them and I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference btween the A700, E3 or D300.

 

Why do I say that?

 

Because I have done it aginst people at college who have the same cameras A700, D300 & E3.

 

And to be honest just how many people shoot at such high ISO's anyway?

 

I think this could run and run so lets just agree to disagree :-)

[ilkka]

"Full frame machines are in a league of there own, simple becuase they have much larger chips"

 

Thank you. So you agree that larger chip is better for large prints and in low light. That is all I was trying to point out. All cameras are compromises. E series compomises on size of chip. They make some very nice and small bodies, and now have started to make some small and nice lenses as well. That is why I have an E system. But I would not suggest it as the first choice for someone who specifically says he wants a low light camera. It is a very good system for 'smaller' prints (and these can be quite large) and in lower ISO's up to about 800. For most people and most uses that is perfecty fine.

 

Price is always a tricky comparison because there are many factors affecting equipment comparison. But just to refute your point that full frame is not fair game, here are the prices from Adorama:

 

E-3 body $1500 plus 2/35-100 zoom $2100, total $3600 for an image stabilised low light 4/3 outfit with 10 megapixels

 

5D body $1900 plus 2.8/70-200 IS L zoom $1650, total $3550 for an image stabilised low light full frame system with 12 mega pixels.

[nick_evans1]

Ok Ilkka fair point

 

Fancy a beer sometime?