 |
 | 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 / August 2005Olympus low pricing; Never again?
Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 might (incredibly) be even less than it is now for the body and two zooms. Also, the E-1 is dropping in price as well. It's possible this will never happen again. Both cameras (especially the E-1) are better built than the current crop of entry-level DSLRs from other mfgs and the lenses are good quality for their pedigree. The two new cameras Olympus is releasing (apparently, not until at least Mar 06) are going to be "high end" replacements, one for the E-1 the other, unsure at the moment. I'm pretty certain something radically different (better?) is coming from them, but the urge to get something now to take advantage of the pricing today is strong. > Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for > Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 > might (incredibly) be even less than it is now for the > body and two zooms. Also, the E-1 is dropping in price > as well. It's possible this will never happen again. Yeah right, of course they will drop again. > Both cameras (especially the E-1) are better built than > the current crop of entry-level DSLRs from other mfgs By who's reckoning? Did you review them? > and the lenses are good quality for their pedigree. > The two new cameras Olympus is releasing (apparently, > not until at least Mar 06) are going to be "high end" > replacements, one for the E-1 the other, unsure at the > moment. If they are high end the how are they replacments? They would just be "other" cameras in the range. I'm pretty certain something radically different > (better?) Better? go figure??? is coming from them, but the urge to get > something now to take advantage of the pricing today is > strong. One day Rich I am sure you will stop trolling and actually buy one and take some photos. We live for the day. >> Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for >> Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >By who's reckoning? Did you review them? Well, the E-300 isn't all plastic, like some other cameras at the entry level and the E-1 is in a class above the Canon 20D in terms of build quality. Aside from the top end Canon and Nikons, there is nothing comparable to it as far as build quality goes. >> and the lenses are good quality for their pedigree. >> The two new cameras Olympus is releasing (apparently, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If they are high end the how are they replacments? They would just be >"other" cameras in the range. One is to replace the E-1 which is high end. >I'm pretty certain something radically different >> (better?) > >Better? go figure??? > is coming from them, but the urge to get >> something now to take advantage of the pricing today is >> strong. > >One day Rich I am sure you will stop trolling and actually buy one and take >some photos. We live for the day. The only people who think "troll" are those unintelligent enough and rabid enough to be baited by something completely harmless. Besides, I have taken photos with them. I just haven't bought one of them yet. The DSLR people could take a hint from the prosumer users and try taking some pictures for a change though. You look at the forums on dpreview and most of the posts for the DSLR groups are endless discussions of which lens to buy next and how it's taking more and more money from them whereas the prosumers posts tend to include FAR more actual pictures taken. -Rich >>> Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for >>> Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > more actual pictures taken. > -Rich You need to get on some different forums then like I do, join one that is about photography not about mines bigger than yours. >>>> Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for >>>> Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >You need to get on some different forums then like I do, join one that is >about photography not about mines bigger than yours. I suppose if the structure of the groups was more about specific topics than camera makes it would be possible. -Rich > You need to get on some different forums then like I do, join one that is > about photography not about mines bigger than yours. And your below coment was meant as? Yes there are pro's using these just like there are pro's using nikon and canon. Just because they aren't using them on the sidelines of the football field doesn't mean "pro's" don't use them. ------------ > When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... How many have you seen the pro's using? ----------- Stacey >> You need to get on some different forums then like I do, join one that is >> about photography not about mines bigger than yours. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > football > field doesn't mean "pro's" don't use them. You are actually serious, aren't you?? > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are actually serious, aren't you?? Yawn... Again I suppose you watch the guys on the sidelines at the football game and decide "All pros use a Canon"...  SignatureStacey >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and > decide "All pros use a Canon"... The dudes on the sidelines of football games are hardly pro's, mind you, because you mentioned it, if they "were" using an Ei or E300 on the sideline, what lenses would they be using. Bad example, do you actually have one where they are being used? >> Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for >> Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If they are high end the how are they replacments? They would just be > "other" cameras in the range. When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... So was the Sigma SD9. >> When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... > > So was the Sigma SD9. Not really, I can't believe that, despite claims by both the mfr and Steve G. that Sigma had any real expectation that the SD9 would work as a pro camera, since the film body upon which it was based was never considered at that level, not even by Sigma. On the other hand, Oly built the E-1 with features that, had it had image collecting hardware to match, certainly would have put it in the pro class, like the weather sealing. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >features that, had it had image collecting hardware to match, certainly >would have put it in the pro class, like the weather sealing. There are still magazines claiming the Fuji S-3 is a consumer camera and it's nothing of the sort. -Rich >>>> When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and it's nothing of the sort. > -Rich LOL > There are still magazines claiming the Fuji S-3 is a consumer camera > and it's nothing of the sort. The S3 Pro is more of a specialty camera (as is the Nikon D2/D2H). It has low noise at high ISO settings, and a wide dynamic range, making it popular as a popular portrait studio camera (despite the issues with color accuracy because that can be corrected in post processing), but that's the only use for which it excels. >> There are still magazines claiming the Fuji S-3 is a consumer camera >> and it's nothing of the sort. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >color accuracy because that can be corrected in post processing), but >that's the only use for which it excels. Nonsense. There is another market in which it excels, and in which it sells extremely well. The FujiFilm FinePix S3 is actively marketed to that market almost to the exclusion of all others. It is typical of your profound ignorance and bias that you don't even know what that market is. >>> Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for >>> Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... How many have you seen the pro's using? >>>> Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for >>>> Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >How many have you seen the pro's using? How many pros were bribed away from Nikon by Canon freebees? Were Nikon not "pro" cameras? -Rich > How many have you seen the pro's using? A lot of companies say stuff like "this is a professional grade product," in the hope of justifying a higher price for it, or to at least make buyers think that they are getting a better product than they actually are. >> When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... > > How many have you seen the pro's using? Beside the point, the camera was still aimed at that market. Whether any pros used one isn't germane. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... >> >> How many have you seen the pro's using? >> > Beside the point, the camera was still aimed at that market. Whether any > pros used one isn't germane. That is true, I was feeding the trolls, sorry. >>>When the E-1 was introduced, it was aimed at the pro market... >> >>How many have you seen the pro's using? > > Beside the point, the camera was still aimed at that market. Whether any > pros used one isn't germane. Olympus may have said that it was aimed at the pro market, but I doubt that any pro would purchase one. Just the unacceptably high noise and the poor lens selection, would preclude any self-respecting pro from considering it. >Olympus may have said that it was aimed at the pro market, but I doubt >that any pro would purchase one. Just the unacceptably high noise and >the poor lens selection, would preclude any self-respecting pro from >considering it. You are so dumb - and so biased. The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses is outstanding. However, the E-300 has unacceptable noise at anything above ISO 400. The camera was never aimed at pros, however it has some appeal because of its pixel count. At ISO 100 there is no discernible noise and the many virtues of the Zuiko Digital lenses make it a very good buy. > The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses > is outstanding. The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. The lens selection is... pedestrian. You'll get better choices from Nikon or Canon, at a lower cost in many cases. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses >>is outstanding. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The lens selection is... pedestrian. You'll get better choices from > Nikon or Canon, at a lower cost in many cases. Olympus tried to use the weather-proofing, a feature that is found in pro cameras, to claim that the E-1 belonged in the pro segment. Unfortunately, a manufacturer can't just choose to focus (no pun intendend) on one thing that they do well, while ignoring other attributes. >>>The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses >>>is outstanding. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Unfortunately, a manufacturer can't just choose to focus (no pun >intendend) on one thing that they do well, while ignoring other attributes. Of course Canon shills point to one thing your brand does well (high ISO noise), while ignoring other attributes such as that lousy kit lens and the lack of spot metering, for example. > Of course Canon shills point to one thing your brand does well (high > ISO noise), while ignoring other attributes such as that lousy kit > lens and the lack of spot metering, for example. You're a retard, Tony. You parrot the same lame points over and over again... and guess what? They were stupid the first time you said them. What makes you think repetition will suddenly grant these statements relevancy? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Of course Canon shills point to one thing your brand does well (high >> ISO noise), while ignoring other attributes such as that lousy kit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You parrot the same lame points over and over again... and guess what? Wow and how many times have you REPOSTED that Canon's have better high ISO noise performance? Seems you have only ONE point you keep repeating over and over and over.. SignatureStacey > Wow and how many times have you REPOSTED that Canon's have better high ISO > noise performance? Seems you have only ONE point you keep repeating over > and over and over.. They do have been high ISO performance than the Oly. Go check dPreview. Of course, I only mention the high ISO performance when you try to otherwise disparage others for the sake of Oly. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >They do have been high ISO performance than the Oly. Please can you provide an English translation? >> Wow and how many times have you REPOSTED that Canon's have better high >> ISO noise performance? Seems you have only ONE point you keep repeating >> over and over and over.. > > They do have been high ISO performance than the Oly. Go check dPreview. And the Canon has a lousy kit lens and no spot metering, go check DPreview. Your point is REPOSTING this again was? SignatureStacey > > They do have been high ISO performance than the Oly. Go check dPreview. > > And the Canon has a lousy kit lens and no spot metering, go check > DPreview. #1: I don't care. I don't buy kit lenses. #2: I don't care. I never use spot metering. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > They do have been high ISO performance than the Oly. Go check >> > dPreview. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > #1: I don't care. I don't buy kit lenses. Interesting how you went on and on defending a lens you'd never buy... Now you don't care? > #2: I don't care. I never use spot metering. Of course you don't, you're camera doesn't have it! SignatureStacey > > #1: I don't care. I don't buy kit lenses. > Interesting how you went on and on defending a lens you'd never buy... Now > you don't care? I'll do anything to piss you off. > > #2: I don't care. I never use spot metering. > > Of course you don't, you're camera doesn't have it! Even if it did, I wouldn't use it. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > #1: I don't care. I don't buy kit lenses. > >> Interesting how you went on and on defending a lens you'd never buy... >> Now you don't care? > > I'll do anything to piss you off. Then you'll need to try harder. I just laugh when I read your posts. You guys contradict yourselves so often it's a joke! SignatureStacey > >> Wow and how many times have you REPOSTED that Canon's have better high > >> ISO noise performance? Seems you have only ONE point you keep repeating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And the Canon has a lousy kit lens Blah blah blah blah BLAH blah BLAH blah blah blah blah. Greg >>>>The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses >>>>is outstanding. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ISO noise), while ignoring other attributes such as that lousy kit > lens and the lack of spot metering, for example. Not true. First of all, give up on the kit lens schtick, you lost. Canon sells a kit with an excellent kit lens, as well as the one with the 18-55, which by all accounts from people that have actually used one, is a decent, but not outstanding lens. This argument ended when Stacey was caught lying about having used one. The lack of spot metering is a legitimate issue. But it's the ONLY real issue that has EVER been pointed out by any of the ACZs. This is not to say that the competition is simply too terrible to consider, but Canon excels where it matters most to actual photographers, which is in image quality across a wide range of ISOs. Sure you can get an E1, and get weatherproofing, for less than a Canon 20D, but you give up low noise, resolution, a decent frame rate, and you have a very poor selection of lenses. I think Olympus left off a convenience flash in the hope that this would persuade naive buyers that the E1 was in the professional segment, when in reality it came on the market in the prosumer segment, and now is strictly amateur, as other models have eclipsed it. The sad thing is that Olympus went down the path of no return with 4:3. Either they believed that buyers wouldn't care about noise, or they believed that the small body size would be a big hit, or they did it because it's cheaper to manufacture. Whatever the case, the result was a system that cannot compete against Canon, Konica-Minolta, Nikon, or even Pentax. The alliance between Sony and Konica-Minolta means the end-of-the-line for Olympus and Pentax in digital SLRs. These three companies share about 2% of the total market for digital SLRs, not enough for all three to continue. >First of all, give up on the kit lens schtick, you lost. Canon sells a >kit with an excellent kit lens, as well as the one with the 18-55, which >by all accounts from people that have actually used one, is a decent, >but not outstanding lens. The vast majority of Canon consumer DSLRs are sold with the junk lens. Yes, there is a better version available, but people who don't know how bad the junk lens is are not going to pay the much higher price for one that is merely "decent". Hence they buy the junk lens. Heck, even the cheap Sigma 18-50mm is a far better performer. Canon should be ashamed for selling this junk. >The lack of spot metering is a legitimate issue. But it's the ONLY real >issue that has EVER been pointed out by any of the ACZs. You previously argued that spot metering wasn't needed, and that selectable focus points were a substitute. I'm pleased to see you admit you were talking nonsense - again. >Sure you can get an E1, and get weatherproofing, for less than a Canon >20D, but you give up low noise, resolution, a decent frame rate, and you >have a very poor selection of lenses. On the contrary, the selection of lenses is excellent, and they are all designed specifically for digital photography. They set new standards for low distortion and high resolution even at the edges of the frame. There are two ranges, aimed at pros and consumers respectively. Even the consumer lenses are excellent performers, and the pro lenses are outstanding, with focal lengths from 7mm to 300mm, which is an equivalent 14mm to 600mm range in 35mm film photography. >The alliance between Sony and Konica-Minolta means the end-of-the-line >for Olympus and Pentax in digital SLRs. These three companies share >about 2% of the total market for digital SLRs, not enough for all three >to continue. You repeat this 2% so many times, yet you have never justified it. It is pure fabrication, with absolutely no basis whatsoever in fact - like so many of your opinions. Olympus alone has a lot more than 2% of the DSLR market. A lot more. Your attempt to portray the Sony/Konica Minolta pact as a strong union is laughable. It is a suicide pact, a forced partnership of two failed ventures who are both desperate to cut their losses. It has no credibility - just like the digital products of both partners. Sony's loss making photo division has made a succession of very disappointing digital p+s cameras. Despite their attempt to gain some credibility by using the Carl Zeiss name on the lenses, the cameras were basically junk. Sony cannot afford to develop a DSLR, and need customers for their sensors, so why not join up with Konica Minolta? Unfortunately there are plenty of reasons not to have anything to do with Konica Minolta - not least the fact that Konica and Minolta was a forced partnership of two companies going nowhere fast. Add a third company going nowhere fast - Sony - and there is only one way this partnership will go. It ain't up. Maybe Kodak will join in soon. Perhaps Sony thinks that Konica Minolta DSLRs are worth something. Only a company without a DSLR of their own would think that, because the Konica Minolta 7D doesn't sell. Even at less than half the launch price, it stays firmly on the shelf, while the Pentax and Olympus DSLRs are selling well. So much for Anti-Shake! > >First of all, give up on the kit lens schtick, you lost. Canon sells a > >kit with an excellent kit lens, as well as the one with the 18-55, which > >by all accounts from people that have actually used one, is a decent, > >but not outstanding lens. > > The vast majority of Canon consumer DSLRs are sold with the junk lens. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Greg > >>>The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses > >>>is outstanding. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ISO noise), while ignoring other attributes such as that lousy kit > lens and Blah blah blah. > the lack of spot metering, for example. True enough. Greg >> The E-1 has no noise problem and the selection of Zuiko Digital lenses >> is outstanding. > > The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the > standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. What you fail to understand is many pro's aren't selling images to people who are going to look at 100% crops like technoheads will nor are they trying to make 20X30 prints. Given the low noise (sound) these cameras produce, there are many places you can use one when a noisier camera wouldn't work. As far as "lens selection" these cover the 35mm FOV from 14mm to 400mm in three high quality lenses. How many people need something outside of that range? SignatureStacey > > The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the > > standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 14mm to 400mm in three high quality lenses. How many people need something > outside of that range? NOISEBOX = NOISY IMAGES. It's bad enough you only have 5 megapixels to work with when everyone else was doing 6-8, but the noise at ISO 400 wasn't that great. IF you wanted anything to look good in print, the E-1 was never your first choice. You're moron. Nothing else could explain your irrational love of Oly. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the >> > standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >IF you wanted anything to look good in print, the E-1 was never your >first choice. How large a print? Does the noise show up at small sizes like 4x6 or 8x10? -Rich > >It's bad enough you only have 5 megapixels to work with when everyone > >else was doing 6-8, but the noise at ISO 400 wasn't that great. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 8x10? > -Rich By "in print" I meant magazines. Sorry for the confusion. That said, you'd notice the noise at 8x10. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >You're moron. Thanoff? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >You're moron. > > Thanoff? D'oh! Forgot an "a". Who's the moron now, Brian Baird? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Given the low noise (sound) these cameras >> produce, there are many places you can use one when a noisier camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > NOISEBOX = NOISY IMAGES. Depending on where it's being used NOISEBOX could just as easily equal noisy shutter! Obviously you've never actually seen a print from an olympus if you believe there is visible noise in an 8X10 print from one. Noise at the pixel level isn't going to be seen printed at 300DPI. SignatureStacey > Depending on where it's being used NOISEBOX could just as easily equal > noisy shutter! Only if you're a total moron! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the >standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. That simply isn't true, and you know it. Say it as many times as you like and it is still not true. The E-1 *is not* a noisy camera. Why is it that people shilling for Canon on here feel it is necessary to wilfully misrepresent equipment from other brands? > >The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the > >standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. > > That simply isn't true, and you know it. Say it as many times as you > like and it is still not true. The E-1 *is not* a noisy camera. You retard. The E-1 is a noisebox because it has NOISY images. My dog understood that, why you can't is beyond me. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the >> >standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You retard. The E-1 is a noisebox because it has NOISY images. That statement is completely untrue. >My dog understood that, why you can't is beyond me. That statement says a lot about you. I wonder why some Canon users on here need to resort to lies and abuse to justify their purchases? Why are they so insecure? > >The E-1 has high noise by today's standards, and certainly by the > >standards at the time it was released. It is a noisebox. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why is it that people shilling for Canon on here feel it is necessary > to wilfully misrepresent equipment from other brands? Blah blah blah. Greg > Apparently, there is another price drop scheduled for > Aug 1st, according to one source. This means the E-300 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > something now to take advantage of the pricing today is > strong. Comparing the E-1 to the current crop of entry level cameras isn't really fair. It was introduced as a pro level camera, but at mid level pricing, a strategy that could have been devastating to the market, had the camera not had a small sensor with fewer pixels than even the entry level cameras from all the other manufacturers. Its construction is on a par with the 20D, for instance, but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. But it was only 5mp. Had it been introduced with the sensor that the Evolt/E-300 has, it might have made some serious inroads, especially if the lenses currently in the lineup were there upon its introduction. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. How is the 1D MORE weather sealed than the E1? Just wondering why you think YOUR brand MUST have better weather sealing.. SignatureStacey >> but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. > > How is the 1D MORE weather sealed than the E1? Just wondering why you > think > YOUR brand MUST have better weather sealing.. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR SPECIAL BRAND IS?????? > > but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. > > How is the 1D MORE weather sealed than the E1? Just wondering why you think > YOUR brand MUST have better weather sealing.. Stacey, shut up. You're incredibly stupid. You can't post once without describing some Canon/Oly nightmare world that only you live in. Go look at the Canon 1 series environmental seals. They've been well known for being EXTREMELY WEATHERPROOF for years. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Go look at the Canon 1 series environmental seals. They've been well > known for being EXTREMELY WEATHERPROOF for years. I think Stacey is a news reporter in real life, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. LOL > I think Stacey is a news reporter in real life, never let the truth get in > the way of a good story. LOL Stacey is just off his/her rocker. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. >> >> How is the 1D MORE weather sealed than the E1? > Go look at the Canon 1 series environmental seals. Seen the info, they look like they should work well. Are most/all of the pro lenses sealed as well? > They've been well > known for being EXTREMELY WEATHERPROOF for years. Again how is it -more- weather sealed than an E1? Why couldn't he say "They have the same weather sealing features that a 1D has" instead of implying that -or course- it's a notch below what canon produces? You guys are too much! SignatureStacey > > Go look at the Canon 1 series environmental seals. > > Seen the info, they look like they should work well. Are most/all of the pro > lenses sealed as well? Yes. The most popular "L" lenses are completely weatherproofed when used with a 1 series. > > They've been well > > known for being EXTREMELY WEATHERPROOF for years. > > Again how is it -more- weather sealed than an E1? Take a look. > Why couldn't he say "They have the same weather sealing features that a 1D > has" instead of implying that -or course- it's a notch below what canon > produces? > > You guys are too much! You're reading way too much into this. The Canon 1 series has it's origins in film bodies. It's been around a lot longer than the E-1 has. It's a proven system with a bunch of loyal users. The E-1 is still the new kid on the block, and no matter HOW good the environmental seals may be, they have to live up to 1 series standards. That takes time, and more than a 5 megapixel, high noise camera to do. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >You're reading way too much into this. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That takes time, and more than a 5 megapixel, high noise camera to do. You're reading way too much into this. <g> The Olympus sealing is outstanding. It was tested against Nikon and Canon during the development of the E-1 and performs at least as well. It has never let me down; my E-1 and lenses have been drenched in salt water spray and there has been absolutely no moisture ingress - as revealed by the CLA I had done. It might be useful to people reading your nonsense if you could explain what a 5 megapixel sensor has to do with sealing against dust and moisture (nothing whatsoever!) and why you criticise the E-1 for high noise when it doesn't suffer from high noise. The Olympus E-300 suffers from high noise at high ISOs, not the E-1. Neither the E-300 nor the E-1 suffers from high noise at the ISOs that most people use. As always, those shilling for Canon seem to misrepresent other brands simply to make them feel better about their own purchases. ;-) > You're reading way too much into this. <g> No, you're an Oly dweeb. Rational thoughts and arguments do not reach your tiny brain. That simple. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >>> > but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pro > lenses sealed as well? Yes. >> They've been well >> known for being EXTREMELY WEATHERPROOF for years. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > has" instead of implying that -or course- it's a notch below what canon > produces? He said it the way he did, because that is the way it is. The Canon is claimed to be "weatherproof," the Oly is claimed to be "splashproof." There's a difference. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> > but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > claimed to be "weatherproof," the Oly is claimed to be "splashproof." > There's a difference. Perhaps Stacey can send pictures proving his point. >> but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. > > How is the 1D MORE weather sealed than the E1? Just wondering why you > think > YOUR brand MUST have better weather sealing.. Stacey, I have seen few on this group who tempt me to a string of obscenities more than you. The 1D is sealed against moisture and dust better than the E-1, since the E-1 only concedes to being splash proof. Can't you let anything go? Cripes, you are annoying. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Stacey, I have seen few on this group who tempt me to a string of >obscenities more than you. The 1D is sealed against moisture and dust >better than the E-1, since the E-1 only concedes to being splash proof. Olympus always used the term "waterproof" until the company was sued by the owner of a Stylus Epic who found some water inside the camera after accidentally submerging it in water. Since then, the term used by the company has been "splashproof". >>Stacey, I have seen few on this group who tempt me to a string of >>obscenities more than you. The 1D is sealed against moisture and dust [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > after accidentally submerging it in water. Since then, the term used > by the company has been "splashproof". Which is why Canon uses the term "weatherproof." One of the tests I read implied that the E-1 was on a par, seal wise, with the EOS3, which, of course, Canon has no digital equivalent. And that puts in above the 20D (just because of the dial, if nothing else) and behind the 1D/1Ds mkII. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Which is why Canon uses the term "weatherproof." One of the tests I read > implied that the E-1 was on a par, seal wise, with the EOS3, which, of > course, Canon has no digital equivalent. "implied"? and how did they test this or was this just what they figured because of course a canon MUST be better! SignatureStacey >>> but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > obscenities more than you. The 1D is sealed against moisture and dust > better than the E-1, Wow then why do people need to clean the sensors on the canon? And you know the 1D is sealed "better" because of what? > since the E-1 only concedes to being splash proof. So what is the difference between weather proof and splash proof? Neither claims to be "water proof" so looks like two different way of explaining the same thing to me. Both can be used in the rain and hostile environments without a worry, unless of course you remove the lens from the canon outside of a clean room... SignatureStacey >>>> but with weather sealing that comes close to the 1D. >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > without a worry, unless of course you remove the lens from the canon > outside of a clean room... For one thing, the buttons on the Canon can be sealed better than the dial on the Oly. That's one of the reasons the 1 series is better sealed than the 20D or the old A2. And the sealing refers to keeping dust and moisture out of the electronics, not the sensor. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > For one thing, the buttons on the Canon can be sealed better than the dial > on the Oly. And you know this because? It fits your arguement? > That's one of the reasons the 1 series is better sealed than > the 20D or the old A2. And the sealing refers to keeping dust and > moisture out of the electronics, not the sensor. So dealing with sensor dust isn't something a pro would even be concerned with? SignatureStacey >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And you know this because? It fits your arguement? No, because that was the rationale behind using the (to me) annoying button system of the 2 series and EOS3 rather than the dial of the A2 and Elan. Also, it has been mentioned by a couple of reviewers, but sometimes in conjunction with comments that Nikon doesn't seem to be too worried about it. One can seal a dial against weather as effectively as using a diaphram on a button ( I just know someone's going to make a "diaphram" comment...) but it is more difficult. >> That's one of the reasons the 1 series is better sealed than >> the 20D or the old A2. And the sealing refers to keeping dust and >> moisture out of the electronics, not the sensor. > > So dealing with sensor dust isn't something a pro would even be concerned > with? Not part of the discussion. If moisture gets on the electronics, any dust, or lack thereof, on the sensor is rather moot, don't you think? And the Oly's sensor isn't sealed against dust any better than anyother camera, just has a way of taking care of the problem after the fact. By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the Oly system? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com Excuse me, should read "1 series," not "2 series." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> So dealing with sensor dust isn't something a pro would even be concerned >> with? > >Not part of the discussion. Why? Because Canon has nothing to deal with it and Olympus does? >>> So dealing with sensor dust isn't something a pro would even be >>> concerned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why? Because Canon has nothing to deal with it and Olympus does? No, because this part of the discussion was about sealing, not sensor dust, and the Oly is no more sealed against sensor dust than any other camera. And it's not just Canon that doesn't deal with it... Of course, I said that in the part you edited out, TP. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the Oly >system? How much image movement with DSLRs is due to user movement and how much is due to too aggressive a shutter/mirror slap? Some people say that is an issue, I remember it was with some SLRs. -Rich >>By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the Oly >>system? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > say that is an issue, I remember it was with some SLRs. > -Rich I've heard, but not seen, that as an issue with the 20D, with it's apparently harder mirror impact. But I'd have to say that user movement is far more prevalent, unless at shutter speeds too slow for handholding. It's doubtful that you'll see much user/camera movement on a tripod, unless you're on a bridge or dock, and that's when you may see some twitching due to mirror slap. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >>By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the Oly > >>system? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you're on a bridge or dock, and that's when you may see some twitching due > to mirror slap. And of course, that's what the mirror lock-up feature is for. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >>By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the >> >>Oly [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And of course, that's what the mirror lock-up feature is for. True, but that's cumbersome, sometimes. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > diaphram on a button ( I just know someone's going to make a "diaphram" > comment...) but it is more difficult. So now it's not that it's "better", just easier? >>> That's one of the reasons the 1 series is better sealed than >>> the 20D or the old A2. And the sealing refers to keeping dust and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dust, > or lack thereof, on the sensor is rather moot, don't you think? So where is the evidence that the E1 is somehow going to let moisture into the camera? I've read reports of people dropping them into mud puddles, getting blasted by mud at motocross races etc and keep going. Not it's EASY to find evidence of sensor dust on a canon! > And the > Oly's sensor isn't sealed against dust any better than anyother camera, > just has a way of taking care of the problem after the fact. So it DOES become a moot point for one camera. > By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the Oly > system? Depends on what it's being used for and IMHO the smoother shutter/mirror seems to help a bunch. Look at the speeds people can handhold a Leica because of this if you think camera "shake" isn't at least partially caused by the camera itself. I've taken some shots at shutter speeds I couldn't believe without any IS. SignatureStacey >>>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So now it's not that it's "better", just easier? The implication being that most mfrs won't do it, because it is more difficult, more expensive, and more prone to failure. >>>> That's one of the reasons the 1 series is better sealed than >>>> the 20D or the old A2. And the sealing refers to keeping dust and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > EASY > to find evidence of sensor dust on a canon! We're talking about sealing the body, not dust that is let in when the lens is off. I've had my A2, 1n and D30 drenched by waves and they all worked fine after. But that, and your statement, are apocryphal, not by way of testing. >> And the >> Oly's sensor isn't sealed against dust any better than anyother camera, >> just has a way of taking care of the problem after the fact. > > So it DOES become a moot point for one camera. It is moot for all cameras. Read what I wrote more carefully. >> By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the >> Oly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > by the camera itself. I've taken some shots at shutter speeds I couldn't > believe without any IS. I'm happy for you. Now try it with an SLR, not a rangefinder. Since that IS what the discussion is about, and on topic for this group. I've hand held down to 1/4 sec with my 28-135 IS, not bad for an old guy who drinks too much caffiene. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> So now it's not that it's "better", just easier? > > The implication being that most mfrs won't do it, because it is more > difficult, more expensive, and more prone to failure. Oh so now it's an "implication"? >> So it DOES become a moot point for one camera. > > It is moot for all cameras. Read what I wrote more carefully. WOW! That's interesting news.. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=sensor+dust&btnG=Google+Search 1,400,000 hits. >>> By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the >>> Oly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm happy for you. Now try it with an SLR, not a rangefinder. I have been, shutter noise/mirror shake isn't a problem on these cameras. FYI the Leica is also a focal plane shutter. SignatureStacey >>> So now it's not that it's "better", just easier? >> >> The implication being that most mfrs won't do it, because it is more >> difficult, more expensive, and more prone to failure. > > Oh so now it's an "implication"? The implication is in why, not what. >>> So it DOES become a moot point for one camera. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1,400,000 hits. So? What's your point? You still didn't read my post, did you? >>>> By the way, don't you think that lack of AS/VR/IS is a drawback of the >>>> Oly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I have been, shutter noise/mirror shake isn't a problem on these cameras. > FYI the Leica is also a focal plane shutter. What cameras? If mirror slap is a problem for you to hold any camera, it's going to be a problem with every camera. The difference between your Oly and my Canon is minor. I know the Leica has a focal plane shutter, what the heck does that have to do with anything? Just trying to confuse the issue? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>WOW! That's interesting news.. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So? What's your point? You still didn't read my post, did you? I get millions of hits per month on my web site too. But when I look more carefully at the data, I see that it really is only only in the high thousands, since most of the hits are from search engines that are indexing the site. Steve "http://digitalslrinfo.com" (or Google "digitalslr information unbiased" and it'll be the first result) >>>WOW! That's interesting news.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I get millions of hits per month on my web site too. Ah so you both want to claim sensor dust on dSLR's is a moot issue? SignatureStacey > Ah so you both want to claim sensor dust on dSLR's is a moot issue? Let me see if I can explain this in terms you might have a chance of understanding. Since you seem determined not to read my post. I did not say that dust on a sensor was moot. I said that getting moisture on the electronics would render such dust moot. What I didn't say, because I thought you were bright enough to figure it out for yourself, was that it would render dust on the sensor moot because the moisture in the electronics would cause the camera to cease functioning, so the dust on the sensor wouldn't matter, since the camera would be unable to take an image, anyway. Got it now? Because the discussion was about sealing the body, not dealing with dust on the sensor that no amount of sealing would prevent, since it gets there when the lens is dismounted. Let me know if you need further explanation. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Let me see if I can explain this in terms you might have a chance of > understanding. So now we are back to you personally insulting me rather than discussing cameras? SignatureStacey >> Let me see if I can explain this in terms you might have a chance of >> understanding. > > So now we are back to you personally insulting me rather than discussing > cameras? You earned it by your repeated, probably deliberate, misinterpretation of what I said. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > If mirror slap is a problem for you to hold any camera, > it's > going to be a problem with every camera. Yea right. So now you're going to claim ALL slr's have the same amount of mirror shake independant of format and make/model? Of course format has nothing to do with anything except sensor noise at 1600ISO? > The difference between your Oly > and my Canon is minor. So you've shot with both? > I know the Leica has a focal plane shutter, what the heck does that have > to > do with anything? The only difference between a leica and an SLR is the mirror, smaller better damped mirror equals less camera shake. Duh? SignatureStacey >> If mirror slap is a problem for you to hold any camera, >> it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mirror shake independant of format and make/model? Of course format has > nothing to do with anything except sensor noise at 1600ISO? Didn't make that claim, stop putting words in my mouth, so to speak. But mirror slap is going to be a problem to one degree or another, at slow speeds, no matter the amount of damping. Unless you use mirror lockup. Oh, but wait, the E-300 doesn't have that, does it? >> The difference between your Oly >> and my Canon is minor. > > So you've shot with both? Have you? Careful, you've already said you haven't used a 20D. >> I know the Leica has a focal plane shutter, what the heck does that have >> to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > better > damped mirror equals less camera shake. Duh? Since we were talking about SLR type cameras, it isn't germane. And asking me if I knew if the Leica had a focal plane shutter wasn't indicative of a question you'd already answered, though no one asked. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> If mirror slap is a problem for you to hold any camera, >>> it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mirror slap is going to be a problem to one degree or another, at slow > speeds, no matter the amount of damping. "One degree or another"? That's quite a silly statement, can I use it for -all digital camera have noise at high ISO to one degree or another? > Unless you use mirror lockup. > Oh, but wait, the E-300 doesn't have that, does it? Yes it does.. But since you've never used one you wouldn't know. >>> The difference between your Oly >>> and my Canon is minor. >> >> So you've shot with both? > > Have you? Careful, you've already said you haven't used a 20D. I've test fired them in the store and it's much "noisier" than any of the olympus models. >>> I know the Leica has a focal plane shutter, what the heck does that have >>> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Since we were talking about SLR type cameras, it isn't germane. Only because you say so. Like I said Leica's are known for being capable of really low shutter speeds handheld because of their low mechanical shock. But then you say this doesn't make any difference? SignatureStacey >>>> If mirror slap is a problem for you to hold any camera, >>>> it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "One degree or another"? That's quite a silly statement, can I use it for > -all digital camera have noise at high ISO to one degree or another? Certainly, because it is true in both statements. Not the least bit silly. >> Unless you use mirror lockup. >> Oh, but wait, the E-300 doesn't have that, does it? > > Yes it does.. But since you've never used one you wouldn't know. It does? Then you'd better tell B&H. They list it as not available. >>>> The difference between your Oly >>>> and my Canon is minor. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've test fired them in the store and it's much "noisier" than any of the > olympus models. Gee, I've done the same thing, and, while noisier, the 20D didn't have much more of an impact than the Oly. At shutter speeds conducive to hand holding, the difference would be minor, if observable at all. >>>> I know the Leica has a focal plane shutter, what the heck does that >>>> have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > really low shutter speeds handheld because of their low mechanical shock. > But then you say this doesn't make any difference? But they are neither Oly E-300s nor Canon 20Ds, which both have mirrors, so it doesn't make any difference to a discusson of either, or both, of those camera. And the Leica shooters tend to use single focal length lenses, and not telezooms, so lower shutter speeds are the normal, also due to the lower weight of the entire camera package. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> Unless you use mirror lockup. >>> Oh, but wait, the E-300 doesn't have that, does it? >> >> Yes it does.. But since you've never used one you wouldn't know. > > It does? Then you'd better tell B&H. They list it as not available. Intersting, the camera I have (with ANY firmware past V1.0) has it.. > And the Leica shooters tend to use single focal length lenses, > and not telezooms, What difference does zoom/vs prime make? > so lower shutter speeds are the normal, also due to the > lower weight of the entire camera package. So now you think a lighter camera has less shake? The leica's I've used didn't seem particularly light to me aqnyway. SignatureStacey >"One degree or another"? That's quite a silly statement, can I use it for >-all digital camera have noise at high ISO to one degree or another? All digital cameras have noise at all ISOs, to one degree or another. I don't really like to think of it as an ISO thing, at all. Noise is only proportional to ISO when the exposure is automatic and varies inversely with the ISO. Sensor noise comes totally from absolute exposure and the resulting signal-to-noise ratio; noise also comes from posterization (shadows or underexposures, even at ISO 100 or ISO 50), and some noise (less than usually assumed, IMO) from readout of the sensor. An ISO 100 image will be much noisier than an ISO 1600 image with the same absolute exposure. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message