Form of the E-300, E-330 & DMC L-1

[rdm]

<p>I was just thinking about the design of this camera and wondering why is was discontinued. So I was wondering how many people really liked the porro-prism style of the Olympus E-300, E-330, and Panasonic's DMC L-1, and thought that might be a reason. I know i love the look of these models and think holding and looking through a camera like this is so much easier than the standard penta-prisms. (especially for people with roman noses ;]).<br /> I mean the design of the DMC L1 is especially great aside from the Porro prism detail there is the AF assist lamp and the built in 2 position bounce flash. And the tilt screen of the E-330 and Dual Live view modes was really cool too. I wish i could get one of those biddies with a 10mp sensor and some more updated features</p>

<p>Anyone have any thoughts?</p>

[jason_hopper]

<p> Agree, I do like my L-1's form. On the plus side, it looks less obviously a camera than a pentaprism'd camera, offset finder works well for me, seems to dampen out easily with that smaller mirror, has a great kit lens, goes along with my LC-1. On the minus side, it is a chunk, that dimmer finder (makes it harder to manual focus in low light with legacy lenses), mirror mechanism is a little noisy.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>My biddy, an E-300, has some features less than my E-510, but it serves me well. The no-hump form is much older than the humped form: although this may not be known to those for whom photography began with the Asahi Pentax and the Nikon F.</p>

<p>Jason, how can something with a usually large piece of glass sticking out in front not look like a camera?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The E-1 departed from the center balance and was a good design from that point of view. When I looked at the L-1 it did seem that the assembly, which I understand was consonant with the Olympus 300xx designs seemed to be dim to me. Mirrors just don't do the job as well. The L-1 was a handsome camera notwithstanding, very Leicaish in appearance and solid as a cinder block. Especially when the price came way way down. </p>

[rdm]

<p>SO its the inherit flaw in the porro-prism design that the finder would be dimmer than a penta-prism design?<br /> Hmm ok , maybe that is why it was abandoned.</p>

<p>I like the E-330 the best for its dual live view design, tilting screen and the finder is a little closer to the edge of the body than its predecessor. I Wish it had a higher mp sensor than its predecessor but I understand that by going down in Megapixel number was necessary for a live view sensor at the time. I wonder if there much difference in picture quality. Still its a shame tho that Panasonic or at lease Leica didn't make a newer version with their body design. Instead Pana went the penta-prism way and leica just went away..lol</p>

[meissner]

<p>Well I tend to think that the fact that E-300, E-330, and L-10 did not sell well why you haven't seen too many other models, though I would think that Pens actually carry the square top design ethic.</p>

<p>The E-300 did not sell well in part because it was too early for the DSLR wave, and was not in anything but speciality markets. I looked at the E-300 and for me, the critical failing was the poor auto white balance, particularly on caucasian skin types (plus it being a lower end body, it didn't have all of the features that made the E-1 special). The auto WB did get improved in later firmware releases, but by then the damage was done. Olympus not delivering it to stores until a few days before Christmas in 2004 (or maybe just afterwards) also did not help sales in the US. The E-500 follow-on did sell relatively well, but Olympus had penetration in the CompUSA and Circuit City stores for that camera and delivered it earlier in the fall of 2005. I do know there were some users turned off by the form factor and not having a hump. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be too different from the previous generation. This is sort of like Italic fonts that were originally made to look like the hand drawn characters when printing came out.</p>

<p>The E-330 did not sell well because Olympus tried to sell it at premium prices so it would not undercut the E-500, and only sold it at speciality stores. Unfortunately being the first (or second, depending when the L-10 came out) camera with live view meant that people weren't ready for the camera, and didn't appreciate LV. It wasn't until Canon or Nikon introduced a LV camera (without AF) that suddenly people got what LV was. The live view mode A processor made the viewfinder much dimmer, and there a number of people that were turned off by it. Olympus not being able to market its way out of a paper bag, and explain new features didn't help matters. At times Olympus seems to use a Field of Dreams approach to marketing (if you build it, they will come), but you really need to be able to state in a few sentences why people should buy your camera and not the other, and also do a sales job to the sales force in big box stores, that mostly does not understand details. To cap things off, the E-330 not having a wired shutter release option grates on me. Another mis-feature (IMHO) is that the live view mode A processor doesn't have 100% coverage (90% if memory serves).</p>

<p>The only thing that makes Olympus marketing efforts look good in comparison was Panasonic 4/3 marketing was even worse. You had the L-1 which meant to appeal to old school photographers, particularly those who craved the red dot (Leica) but didn't have the money. The L-1 was sold at unrealistic prices (at least in the USA), and there was no follow through on additional lenses. When the L-10 came out, they removed some of the features that made the L-1 camera harken back to the older cameras, and was kind of obvious that they had no follow through -- if they were going to change direction once, they might do it again (and did). Panasonic refusing to de-couple the IS lenses didn't help matters. Since they used the E-330 view finder setup, but not the live view mode A processor, it meant they had a dim viewfinder, but no live view auto focus which was the E-330's compensation for the dim view finder.</p>

[mike_fellhauer]

Note I'm answering this as an E-300 & E-330 user and fan (those are the only "E" cameras I own).

 

Reviewers lambasted the E-300 when it first came out, criticizing the non-traditional SLR design (I preferred the E-300 over the lousy IMO E-1 design). Having come from a C-700, the E-300 was the best design out there; although in retrospect I would have loved if the early "E"'s were like the E-4xx in design since the film SLR I used for 20 years was most like the E-4xx design (today though the E-4xx is too small for me as I'm used to the heavier, bulkier cameras).

 

As for the E-330 with its live view, reviewers called it a solution looking for a problem (although most dSLRs today have live view).

 

Considering most went for the E-5xx design, that's where Oly concentrated on (before the PEN came out).

[jesse_starks]

<p>I bought the E-300 because it looked different, felt good in the hand, and was the best priced 2-lens + body kit on the market. It has shortcomings (for me) such as the less than 100% viewfinder and poor (generally) poor + ISO-800 noise control. Until I can afford a replacement, I will happily continue using it.</p>