 |
 | 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 / February 2006Olympus E330 - It all depends on the sensor... but nice specs!
Well, I suppose it is a completely new sensor, so we shouldn't be harsh until the reports start dribbling in.. but frankly, unless it is bloody quiet at least up to ISO 800, all of the E330's nice specifications may be somewhat irrelevant. Note that it has *dropped* to a 7Mp sensor, less than the E300's 8 - but having said that, the 8Mp of the E300 behaved like they were less than 6, compared to a Canikoltax (ie any other DSLR).. So if it is a *good* 7Mp.... ..but I won't hold my breath. I *do* like the sound of those specs - it also has the following improvements over the E300, which wasn't exactly a dog: *New 49 area metering mode (I think Olympus were stung by the criticism of the E300's metering) *Metering modes include Highlight- and Shadow-based spot - now that sounds very interesting.. *New noise filter that can be turned OFF (- and there's the live or die item...) *'My Mode's *B&W Mode with selectable filters *3 Custom WB memories *Kelvin WB from 2000 - 14000 K (E300 was limited to 10000K) *Flash bracketing *Histogram with blinking highlights/shadows *Play magnify up to 14x (it was 10 but what does that mean - I presume it is now better than actual pixels...?) *Larger, finer LCD monitor - 2.5", 215,250 pixels (was 1.8", 134,000 pixels) PS - I am a fan of many of the Olympus products, and I still think the 4/3 system has a place, but until they get their sensor act together... it's not a very big place and I'm not living there! (O: > Well, I suppose it is a completely new sensor, so we shouldn't be harsh > until the reports start dribbling in.. but frankly, unless it is bloody > quiet at least up to ISO 800, all of the E330's nice specifications may > be somewhat irrelevant. <snipped> And if Phil's specs are accurate, then why have they removed the onboard DC connection? With a live preview (2 in fact) available on the rear LCD screen, that is surely going to drink up the battery juice in double quick time? I would use this tethered to a copy stand, and theoretically offers me a better framing facility. But if I have to keep changing batteries, it's going to be a pain. Not to mention the antiquated USB1.1 transfer speeds. Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of theoretical net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to underline the fact that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit in photosite density with the E-300, but overstepped it too! Without any real-world tests, however, we can only speculate to an extent. But I cannot help but feel that Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their build quality is great and we need as much competition as possible in this market. However, I think it has only made the camera what it should have been when the 4/3rds system really needed it, and that time has now long gone. I think we know 'For whom the bell tolls'. N. >But I cannot help but feel that >Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their >build quality is great and we need as much competition as possible in this >market. However, I think it has only made the camera what it should have >been when the 4/3rds system really needed it, and that time has now long >gone. I think we know 'For whom the bell tolls'. Yes, we do. It tolls for Konica Minolta. ;-) >> But I cannot help but feel that >> Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ;-) Yes, I should have added 'again'! :-p N. >>> But I cannot help but feel that >>> Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes, I should have added 'again'! :-p Well, it's not going to toll for Pentax, because Pentax has just released the DL2, which is just like the DL, which was just like the DS2, which was just like the DS, which was an inferior version of the D - at this rate, Pentax can keep going for years, churning out the DL7***** , with no research & development costs at all. Ingenious - or, at least, it would be if only people would actually buy the damn things............. In news:43sec4F1oso2rU1@individual.net, Pinky & Perky sing sea shanties shoberly <tenpoundsspent@everyport.com> scribed: > Well, it's not going to toll for Pentax, because Pentax has just released > the DL2, which is just like the DL, which was just like the DS2, which was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ingenious - or, at least, it would be if only people would actually buy > the damn things............. I guess, to a certain extent at least, the 'facelift' syndrome with buying a new car comes into play here too. If it looks new, it must be cool. :) But look what happened to Rover. N. Tony Polson wrote: > Yes, we do. It tolls for Konica Minolta. It would be nice of you would "toll" up with some photos Polson. That is to say any that are better than your wretchedly awful train photos... Say your Paris Match cover, for example? : Tony Polson wrote: : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : Say your Paris Match cover, for example? Dream on Alan. That magazine has no knowledge of the man as a contributor or photographer. It was visibly dimmer when I compared it side by side with a E300 and E500 in the store. But I saw that in various Canon Pellix SLRs. So you'll have to upgrade to a f:2 lens unless you only use the tilt screen. Would be good on a copystand because of that. > Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged > reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of theoretical > net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to underline the fact > that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit in photosite density > with the E-300, but overstepped it too! Without any real-world tests, > however, we can only speculate to an extent. We haven't seen Oly's next pro body yet. If it's a 7MP camera then I think most would agree the jig is up. But the E-330's uniqueness is its main selling point. I don't think Oly needs 10 MP to make this camera sell. Putting a higher MP and higher cost sensor on it might have made the camera unaffordable to those who otherwise might have bought it. >> Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged >> reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sell. Putting a higher MP and higher cost sensor on it might have made > the camera unaffordable to those who otherwise might have bought it.< Credit to Olympus for trying, whatever the result. It's a sharp contrast to Pentax, who seem content to re;lease one pissy little re-badge after another while their market share flushes away down the pan. Shortly, when it becomes apparent to even the most fanatical Pentax die-hard that no upmarket Pentax will be forthcoming, even their remaining customer base will lose heart and take themselves off to Canon or Nikon. It's doubtful if any former Pentax owners will choose Olympus though - one experience of the disadvantages of a minority marque is surely enough for anyone. One thing seems certain, though - the next time the DSLR funeral bell tolls, it will be Pentax that's carried out feet first. > Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged > reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of theoretical > net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to underline the fact > that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit in photosite density > with the E-300, but overstepped it too! To do this, they needed a sensor capable of delivering live preview. Perhaps what they have is the best they could get. (Of course, such a sensor would be wasting some of its space for the circuitry to do it, so the smaller size still does come into play.)  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > To do this, they needed a sensor capable of delivering live preview. > Perhaps what they have is the best they could get. (Of course, such a > sensor would be wasting some of its space for the circuitry to do it, > so the smaller size still does come into play.) Nope, the live preview sensor is a separate one that Oly developed for one of their P&S cameras. This new sensor - the main one - was developed because of the size of the photosites. > Nope, the live preview sensor is a separate one that Oly developed for one > of their P&S cameras. Read the specs. Mode B preview uses the main sensor with the shutter held open. That's why the optical viewfinder is unavailable and why there is no autofocus in that mode. The other mode uses the second sensor in the viewfinder light path. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Nope, the live preview sensor is a separate one that Oly developed for >> one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > no autofocus in that mode. The other mode uses the second sensor in the > viewfinder light path. I was refering to Mode A that uses a separate sensor. That's the one that Oly develeoped for their P&S cameras. > I was refering to Mode A that uses a separate sensor. That's the one that > Oly develeoped for their P&S cameras. They still needed an image sensor that could do live preview, which are not abundant in DSLR size, which helps to explain the drop in pixel count. They needed a sensor that could do live preview. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com <snip> > Note that it has *dropped* to a 7Mp sensor, less than the E300's 8 - > but having said that, the 8Mp of the E300 behaved like they were less > than 6, compared to a Canikoltax (ie any other DSLR).. So if it is a > *good* 7Mp.... ..but I won't hold my breath. The sensor comes from Cypress, which acquired Fill-Factory, who made the CMOS sensors for the ill-fated Kodak digital SLRs. Those sensors were very noisy. Still, you have to believe that Olympus would not be so foolish to release a new camera that had the noise problems of the Kodak digital SLRs, and of the earlier Olympus digital SLRs. The fact that they backed off on the resolution tells you that they understand that while more megapixels are great, buyers of digital SLRs are sophisticated enough to look beyond megapixels. Cypress also has a lot riding on this camera, so it's likely that they solved the noise issues that Fill-Factory was plagued with. Cypress also has 9MP sensor coming. They are using a 0.18u process for these sensors, and they've lessened the space between pixels in order to make the pixels larger, to reduce noise. Maybe Olympus will pull off what everyone thought was impossible, and breathe some new life into 4:3 with a consumer level digital SLR with reasonable noise levels, and live-preview. |
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.