 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2005Olympus E-300 lenses inferior?
I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on the C-8080 uses 3 ED elements, 2 aspheric, etc. Then I looked at the price of the E-300 lenses versus the E-1 lenses, they are about 1/3rd the cost. Then, I saw this image on the Japanese website taken with the E-300. http://tinyurl.com/42lwr Note the chromatic aberration on the window edges. A severe test, no doubt, but I'm wondering if the E-300's lenses are that much "less" when it comes to quality as compared to the E-1 flagship DSLR? Might it not make more sense, despite the lack of lens-change flexibility to go with the C-8080? -Rich >I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned > how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > flexibility to go with the C-8080? > -Rich Same lens mount on both SLRs. The E300 was announced with a couple of inferior grade zooms, along the lines of the Canon kit lens; the E1 was announced with some good quality lenses. Each product is aimed at a particular price point; however, nothing is to stop you putting the E1 lenses on an E300. And bear in mind that lenses are only part of the story- sensor size and noise, for example. I don't think much of the E300 (vs. the rather impressive Minolta and the budget Pentax), but given the choice between it and the 8080 i'd jump for it.  SignatureMartin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." > I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned > how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > flexibility to go with the C-8080? > -Rich It's abvious that you get what you pay for. I think you don't need to the kit lens if you don't like it. It's the beauty of having a SLR, isn't it? > Then I looked at the >price of the E-300 lenses versus the E-1 lenses, they are about 1/3rd >the cost. Then, I saw this image on the Japanese website taken with >the E-300. The E-300 and E-1 have same lens mount, I'm pretty sure you can buy an E-300 body. Ron Ron Lacey Murillo Ontario ron@ronsfotos.com > > Then I looked at the > >price of the E-300 lenses versus the E-1 lenses, they are about 1/3rd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The E-300 and E-1 have same lens mount, I'm pretty sure you can buy an > E-300 body. At the present time, the E300 is only available with the kit lens (14-45). I would imagine after the initial orders have gone out, you will be able to buy it without the kit lens. If I remember the B&H price, in the USA, the 14-54 (E1 kit lens, f/2.8-f/3.5) is about double the price of the 14-45 (E300 kit lens, f/3.5-f/4.5). SignatureMichael Meissner email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org http://www.the-meissners.org >> > Then I looked at the >> >price of the E-300 lenses versus the E-1 lenses, they are about 1/3rd [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >(E1 kit lens, f/2.8-f/3.5) is about double the price of the 14-45 (E300 kit >lens, f/3.5-f/4.5). That's not to bad then. Olympus is kind of in an awkward situation, their flagship DSLR is a 5 meg while this new economy model is an 8 meg. But, since you pointed out the E1 kit lens may only be 2x what the E300 kit lens costs, the price point would still come un comfortably under the E1 kitted price. -Rich > That's not to bad then. Olympus is kind of in an awkward situation, > their flagship DSLR is a 5 meg while this new economy model is an 8 > meg. But, since you pointed out the E1 kit lens may only be 2x what > the E300 kit lens costs, the price point would still come un > comfortably under the E1 kitted price.< What is worse is that (in UK) the E-1 is now being bundled with the cheaper lens from the E300 - so you end up with a slow lens on a camera that is noisy above ISO 400 and has a proprietary (virtually) mount And it still sells for just under ?1000. Olympus really do seem to have lost the plot - the E300 might prove to be the final nail in their DLSR coffin. > And it still sells for just under ?1000. Olympus really do seem to have > lost the plot - the E300 might prove to be the final nail in their DLSR > coffin. I have to agree. I have a 20D and am looking for an alternative to Canon. I have a soft spot for Olys but that doesn't strech to accepting the seemingly 2 year old technology they incorporated in the E300. 1.1 USB really sucks and with 8MP files, they must be kidding? Head to Head with a 20D it could not go the distance. Oh, well! Doug >> And it still sells for just under ?1000. Olympus really do seem to have >> lost the plot - the E300 might prove to be the final nail in their DLSR [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doug It's a shame, I rather like Olympus as a brand - their 'on camera' pixel mapping feature is a huge plus point, but the prices for their decent lenses seem too high Remember the TCON 300 tele-extender for the E-10/E-20?, that sold for ?700 at one time in the UK (that was about $1100 US at the exchange rate then) I saw one when the price had dropped to ?140 - and I remember thinking that anyone who actually parted with the full asking price was well and truly ripped off - no way was that lens worth $1100! Seems as if they're trying to pull the same stunt with the better Zukina stuff. They missed a great opportunity to restore their credibility in the DSLR market with the 300 - to me it just seems like a glorified P&S (not even a top mounted LCD) and a plastic body made in China. Now, if they'd improved the resolution of the E-1 and addressed the noise issue with it, it could have been a stunning camera for 2005, and might have salvaged the 4/3 format. As it is, the 300 looks like being a flop and the E-1 looks ever more dated as the months go by. As I said, it's a shame. > 1.1 USB really sucks and with 8MP files [...] Buy a cheap USB 2.0 card reader. -Wolfgang > I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned > how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Might it not make more sense, despite the lack of lens-change > flexibility to go with the C-8080? That "CA" is in reality "blooming" caused by severe overexposure, when saturated pixels will influence the neighbouring pixels. The effect is caused by the sensor, not by the lens. From what I have seen the kit-lens is not so bad, sharp and it has low distortion (compared to other brands) but it is not as good as the 14-54mm. Lourens >> I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned >> how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >saturated pixels will influence the neighbouring pixels. The effect is >caused by the sensor, not by the lens. I doubt that considering the colour of the blooming is violet-blue, typcial chromatic aberration. -Rich >>> I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned >>> how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > typcial chromatic aberration. > -Rich Yes, you can get an effect in the sensor which is very similar to chromatic aberration, from areas which are "over-exposed" (i.e. overfilling the sensor capability at a particular pixel). See if you can see the same effect in a region where there is no question of over exposure. Cheers, David >>>> I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned >>>> how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Cheers, >David Unfortunately, chromatic aberration operates in a similar fashion, bleeding the bluish tinge across the image when very light areas are adjacent dark areas. In areas that don't have this, and are very light, you still get the chromatic aberration, you just don't see it owing to the lack of light-dark "edge." But it's distributed over the whole scene, reducing contrast. -Rich [] >> Yes, you can get an effect in the sensor which is very similar to >> chromatic aberration, from areas which are "over-exposed" (i.e. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > over the whole scene, reducing contrast. > -Rich Yes, they look similar, which is why I suggested photographing (perhaps an articial target) with suitable edges at less that 100% exposure so that you could rule out sensor overload. Chromatic aberration should vary across the scene according to the angle that the ray makes with the optical axis. Cheers, David With regard to the sample photo, whether it's CA or overloading of the sensor, we can probably all agree it's a terrible sample which tells us nothing of the capabilities of this camera and lens. Rob > >> I was reading the dpreview of the C-8080 non-DSLR and they mentioned > >> how they used the same lens "quality" as the E-1 DSLR. The lens on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I doubt that considering the colour of the blooming is violet-blue, > typcial chromatic aberration. I don't doubt it at all, in fact I am 100% sure this is blooming. It looks different from CA, and when you examine the image you can see it only happens near areas that are very, very, overexposed. CA causes blur because the images of various light wavelengths don't overlap perfectly, and it affects entite areas of the image. (for example it gets stronger towards the corners.) Lourens |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.