Getting DSLR and looking at OLYMPUS EVOLT E-330 - Comments please

[SuPrBuGmAn]

dSLRs are bigger, more parts, bigger sensors, lense mounts, ect If you think the E330 is big, you should get ahold of the E1, or some of the other brand's Pro cams.

 

[RonFrank]

What features is this camera behind in? You never went into this.

As far as I can tell, the E330 is just as feature rich(or more) as any other dSLR in the same market.

Here are some of the things that less expensive competition offers that the E-330 lacks.

1. Sensor size. Why would OLY choose this size? Maybe to keep the size down, but it's not that smaller than the D80 for example, so I'm unclear why the camera is as big as it is given a sensor that is 25% of the size of most DSLR's on the market. Disadvantages of small sensors? More noise at high ISO's. ISO 800 was usable, but not good. Smaller pixels result in lower image quailty. Take a look at the side by side images on DPReveiw compared to the Digital Rebel, there is a difference in image quality that will require more sharperning. More sharpening = more artifacts.

This severly limites the future of 4/3. I'm very positive they will come out with a higher res camera. But unless technology takes a big leap, and current CMOS, and CCD sensor designs radically chage, the 4/3 sensor has a very limited growth due to noise issues, and pixel size.

2. Focus points. Nikon and Canon were beyond three point focus systems before digital was affordable, think early 90's!

3. Viewfinder. Small and dark = not really usable. Why build an SLR that results in a larger body, mirrors and other complications with a viewfinder that is not very useful? Why not just build a ranger finder?

4. Speed. 3fps? Four frames at a burst before you fill the buffer in higher res modes? USB 1.0 download speed (easily fixed by a read, by why is that necessary?) Give me a break. I was unhappy on several occasions with my D1x when I filled the buffer and waited, this generally when shooting for hire. The OLY, a camera announced five years after the D1x is slower? Check out the competition, they blow it away.

5. Lens selection. Oly has done a good job of putting out a lens lineup for the 4/3 system. However they are nowhere near Nikon or Canon in lens options, and there is little third party support (Zeiss and Sigma have started). The glass is expensive and seems large considering the sensor is much smaller.

6. Price. Why would most consider a camera that is more expensive than the competition? The ONLY advantage to this camera is live preview. If live preview is what you desire there are only a few options, and this camera is one. Otherwise, why pay more for less? Glass is also expensive, as expensive or more expensive than Nikon or Canon.

7. Used options - There is none. If I want a good inexpensive macro lens for my Nikon I have options going back to the 60's. There is a ton of Nikon glass made in the past two decades that is fully functional with my current DSLR's.

8. The future? - Oly discontinued their SLR line once. It can happen again. I'm not interested in spending thousands of $$ in glass for a system that may disappear in a couple years.

9. Service. Oly has a reputation for VERY poor service. Honestly, none of the manufactures have a great service rep, but Oly's rep is beyond poor to the point some have openly stated they will never purchase another OLY product.

10. Body options - With my Nikon glass, I have a wide choice of DSLR options from the D50 to the D2x. What options does OLY's 4/3 system offer, not much. I could NOT use this camera to shoot any type of sports with such limited ISO noise. I think many types of nature photography are also in question like birds in flight where advanced autofocus, and high frame rates are preferred if not necessay.

11. Flash system and support. Have you seen what Nikon is doing here! I can run multiple (I think 4) flashes off my D200 wireless and adjust the ratio for each flash from the camera. I used this on an add shoot last weekend, wow, impressive. Nikon and Canon are also supported by Metz, Sunpak, and a number of other third party options, OLY, not so much if at all.

When Oly first announced the 4/3's system I thought it was potentially worth looking into. When I discovered the sensor size was so small, and the crop factor was 2X that was enough to discourage me. After seeing the price, and thinking on how limiting the sensor size will be, I have not desire to own this camera.

Oly has however made a bold move, and I think a lot of photographers that have grown up with Live view MAY like this camera. Then again, for all the reasons I list above, I'm not sure why serious photographers would commit to this system, but I'm not sure why people watch reality TV either!

As an UW tool, the OLY is certainly an option, but not one I'm interested in. Opinions vary.

So aside from Live preview, and built in Image Stabilization (which Nikon/Canon has in lenses where it's useful) where does this camera BEAT the competition, because I am rather disappointed by a LOT of the decisions Oly made.

Bottom line - I can purchase a DSLR for less that takes better photo's and has more features and options, and the future of those systems is backed by companies that have supported their SLR's/DSLR's for decades. If Nikon or Canon announces a Live view camera with the features of a D80 or DRebel, Oly's DSLR future is looking grim. What more can I say?

 

[Jamdiver]

Here are some of the things that less expensive competition offers that the E-330 lacks.

1. Sensor size. Why would OLY choose this size? Maybe to keep the size down, but it's not that smaller than the D80 for example, so I'm unclear why the camera is as big as it is given a sensor that is 25% of the size of most DSLR's on the market. Disadvantages of small sensors? More noise at high ISO's. ISO 800 was usable, but not good. Smaller pixels result in lower image quailty. Take a look at the side by side images on DPReveiw compared to the Digital Rebel, there is a difference in image quality that will require more sharperning. More sharpening = more artifacts.

This severly limites the future of 4/3. I'm very positive they will come out with a higher res camera. But unless technology takes a big leap, and current CMOS, and CCD sensor designs radically chage, the 4/3 sensor has a very limited growth due to noise issues, and pixel size.

2. Focus points. Nikon and Canon were beyond three point focus systems before digital was affordable, think early 90's!

3. Viewfinder. Small and dark = not really usable. Why build an SLR that results in a larger body, mirrors and other complications with a viewfinder that is not very useful? Why not just build a ranger finder?

4. Speed. 3fps? Four frames at a burst before you fill the buffer in higher res modes? USB 1.0 download speed (easily fixed by a read, by why is that necessary?) Give me a break. I was unhappy on several occasions with my D1x when I filled the buffer and waited, this generally when shooting for hire. The OLY, a camera announced five years after the D1x is slower? Check out the competition, they blow it away.

5. Lens selection. Oly has done a good job of putting out a lens lineup for the 4/3 system. However they are nowhere near Nikon or Canon in lens options, and there is little third party support (Zeiss and Sigma have started). The glass is expensive and seems large considering the sensor is much smaller.

6. Price. Why would most consider a camera that is more expensive than the competition? The ONLY advantage to this camera is live preview. If live preview is what you desire there are only a few options, and this camera is one. Otherwise, why pay more for less? Glass is also expensive, as expensive or more expensive than Nikon or Canon.

7. Used options - There is none. If I want a good inexpensive macro lens for my Nikon I have options going back to the 60's. There is a ton of Nikon glass made in the past two decades that is fully functional with my current DSLR's.

8. The future? - Oly discontinued their SLR line once. It can happen again. I'm not interested in spending thousands of $$ in glass for a system that may disappear in a couple years.

9. Service. Oly has a reputation for VERY poor service. Honestly, none of the manufactures have a great service rep, but Oly's rep is beyond poor to the point some have openly stated they will never purchase another OLY product.

10. Body options - With my Nikon glass, I have a wide choice of DSLR options from the D50 to the D2x. What options does OLY's 4/3 system offer, not much. I could NOT use this camera to shoot any type of sports with such limited ISO noise. I think many types of nature photography are also in question like birds in flight where advanced autofocus, and high frame rates are preferred if not necessay.

When Oly first announced the 4/3's system I thought it was potentially worth looking into. When I discovered the sensor size was so small, and the crop factor was 2X that was enough to discourage me. After seeing the price, and thinking on how limiting the sensor size will be, I have not desire to own this camera.

Oly has however made a bold move, and I think a lot of photographers that have grown up with Live view MAY like this camera. Then again, for all the reasons I list above, I'm not sure why serious photographers would commit to this system, but I'm not sure why people watch reality TV either!

As an UW tool, the OLY is certainly an option, but not one I'm interested in. Opinions vary.

So aside from Live preview, and built in Image Stabilization (which Nikon/Canon has in lenses where it's useful) where does this camera BEAT the competition, because I am rather disappointed by a LOT of the decisions Oly made.

Your forthright manner in posts is always a pleasure to read Ron .

 

[RonFrank]

Your forthright manner in posts is always a pleasure to read Ron .

Well, I'm glad some appreciate it. I hesitate to write these types of posts because I certainly am not opposed to more competition for Nikon and Canon, and was hoping that the 4/3 system would offer serious consideration. I can not understand why Oly put out a camera that is so far behind in so many ways, but I really didn't want to discourage those that feel this is a good system for them. Of course people tend to ignore what they don't want to believe even if the facts are staring them in the face, so there maybe hope yet!

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

Here are some of the things that less expensive competition offers that the E-330 lacks.

1. Sensor size. Why would OLY choose this size? Maybe to keep the size down, but it's not that smaller than the D80 for example, so I'm unclear why the camera is as big as it is given a sensor that is 25% of the size of most DSLR's on the market. Disadvantages of small sensors? More noise at high ISO's. ISO 800 was usable, but not good. Smaller pixels result in lower image quailty. Take a look at the side by side images on DPReveiw compared to the Digital Rebel, there is a difference in image quality that will require more sharperning. More sharpening = more artifacts.

This severly limites the future of 4/3. I'm very positive they will come out with a higher res camera. But unless technology takes a big leap, and current CMOS, and CCD sensor designs radically chage, the 4/3 sensor has a very limited growth due to noise issues, and pixel size.

I'm looking at the comparisons, the difference is most definately negligable compared to the Drebel in sharpness. I preffer color and tonality through Olympus regardless. Canon colors in general seem pretty drab before post processing IMO.

2. Focus points. Nikon and Canon were beyond three point focus systems before digital was affordable, think early 90's!

I'll agree with this, but how many focus points is enough? I only use one. Alot of people seem to think they need more, so its a valid point.

3. Viewfinder. Small and dark = not really usable. Why build an SLR that results in a larger body, mirrors and other complications with a viewfinder that is not very useful? Why not just build a ranger finder?

Far from unuseable, I've had the E500 which has a slightly smaller viewfinder and found it completely useable. I have the E330 now and its useable. My E1s viewfinder is in another league though.

4. Speed. 3fps? Four frames at a burst before you fill the buffer in higher res modes? USB 1.0 download speed (easily fixed by a read, by why is that necessary?) Give me a break. I was unhappy on several occasions with my D1x when I filled the buffer and waited, this generally when shooting for hire. The OLY, a camera announced five years after the D1x is slower? Check out the competition, they blow it away.

XT shoots 2.8fps and fills the buffer at 4 shots. D50 gets 2.5fps and fills at 4 shots. Why compare a pro camera to a budget dSLR? Perhaps you are looking at some of the newer cameras that have just been released?

6. Price. Why would most consider a camera that is more expensive than the competition? The ONLY advantage to this camera is live preview. If live preview is what you desire there are only a few options, and this camera is one. Otherwise, why pay more for less? Glass is also expensive, as expensive or more expensive than Nikon or Canon.

Its not THAT much more expensive and it comes with a very usable feature that isn't an option in the other camps. The glass is quality, quality costs $$. This has been talked about...

8. The future? - Oly discontinued their SLR line once. It can happen again. I'm not interested in spending thousands of $$ in glass for a system that may disappear in a couple years.

Its not just an Oly market anymore, Panasonic and Leica have bodies available for the line as well. They obviously see a future, and I'm sure they're better in touch with the future in digital photography than either of us.

9. Service. Oly has a reputation for VERY poor service. Honestly, none of the manufactures have a great service rep, but Oly's rep is beyond poor to the point some have openly stated they will never purchase another OLY product.

Look around and you'll find QUITE alot of reports praising Oly's custom service. Alot of people in SCUBA will gripe when there camera floods - such as life. It happened to me, I sent my housing in, they couldn't reproduce the flood, why should they pay for anything?

10. Body options - With my Nikon glass, I have a wide choice of DSLR options from the D50 to the D2x. What options does OLY's 4/3 system offer, not much. I could NOT use this camera to shoot any type of sports with such limited ISO noise. I think many types of nature photography are also in question like birds in flight where advanced autofocus, and high frame rates are preferred if not necessay.

Olympus will have the new Pro-E camera at PMA in early 2007. As is, you can always get the E1 for very cheap(new for $500ish with full warranty). Magnesium body, weather sealed, 12 shots to fill the buffer, very ergonomic camera, blah blah blah Its what I preffer to shoot on the everyday basis.

2x magnification factor makes the cameras excellent for nature photography. Do a search on the Oly forums for several examples. There's a Bird Thread every Sunday that usually yields in excellent shots.

Here's a nature shot I took today after work.

As an aside, the lense I used retains full functions and costed me a whopping $150 new. I guess everyone has a budget, but you shouldn't be in the SLR game if you can't afford a $150 lense - Yeah, the bokeh is nasty, the picture is acceptable regardless.

Oly has however made a bold move, and I think a lot of photographers that have grown up with Live view MAY like this camera. Then again, for all the reasons I list above, I'm not sure why serious photographers would commit to this system..

Yet, several serious photogs do use the cameras. Macro shooters seem to love it. I'd imagine a photojournalist could probably make good use of the LiveView with overhead shots as well. The benefit of LiveView is obvious for UW photographer, you can handle the camera without having your face up to it, better for us, better for the environment some people will disturb while keeping their body tight to a camera thats shooting at something low.

So aside from Live preview, and built in Image Stabilization (which Nikon/Canon has in lenses where it's useful)

Oly doesn't have any Image Stab in camera or in their lenses. Some of the Leica lenses for 4/3rds have Image Stab in the lense. Pentax seems not to have any problems with their in camera Image Stab regardless.

Bottom line - I can purchase a DSLR for less that takes better photo's and has more features and options, and the future of those systems is backed by companies that have supported their SLR's/DSLR's for decades. If Nikon or Canon announces a Live view camera with the features of a D80 or DRebel, Oly's DSLR future is looking grim. What more can I say?[/QUOTE]

I don't find the competitions photos any better, I honestly don't see their feature set any better. C&N have a lot of options available already, but I'm just looking for a select lense lineup to cover the ranges I'd need - thats already available in 4/3rds. Having to wade through lenses to find the one I need isn't anything to brag about.

What other camera has LiveView, Dustbuster, in-camera pixel mapping, spot metering, mirror lockup? Canon and Nikon's budget cameras all lack some of the above while retaining other features that the Olympus lacks.

No camera has everything, budget, semipro, pro - Its up to every person to make their own minds up on whats more important to have - you obviously thing Olympus is doing something wrong. A great number of other people disagree and still come home with excellent photos

 

[RonFrank]

What other camera has LiveView, Dustbuster, in-camera pixel mapping, spot metering, mirror lockup? Canon and Nikon's budget cameras all lack some of the above while retaining other features that the Olympus lacks.

No camera has everything, budget, semipro, pro - Its up to every person to make their own minds up on whats more important to have - you obviously thing Olympus is doing something wrong. A great number of other people disagree and still come home with excellent photos

I don't think that OLY is doing anything wrong, I just think they need to do a lot better to compete in the DSLR market place. Most people are not going to care about mirror lockup, or a DusBuster. I've been cleaning sensors for 5 years without issue.

The big deal breakers for me are sensor size, image quality, and buffer size. I did a shoot last weekend where I would have been waiting on a camera that had such a poor buffer rate. Not good to tell a client that your are waiting to shoot because your equipment can not keep up.

I think the reasons Oly did not do better are obvious. Nikon and Canon have been working for over a decade to improve buffering speeds, Autofocus, noise reduction, frame rates, anti-alaising technology, flash technology and many other things to grow in a competitive professional and high end amateur DSLR market. Meanwhile Oly discontinued their DSLR line, and was making relatively slow camera with small sensors for consumers who are not printing much over 8x10 prints. Now they want to compete with engineers who have technology they are just not capable of matching.

They chose to get in the game now rather than wait until they can compete, and did so with live preview. Unfortunately even with their $6000 300mm f2.8 lens Oly is just outgunned, and no professional can afford to touch a camera with such a poor buffer rate and poor noise charasteristics.

I'm betting Oly will be improving their camera's to catch up quickly, or Nikon/Canon will produce live preview, and OLY will fold up the DSLR line.

The $1000+ dollar DSLR market (with a lens) they are in is not the casual consumer maket where people show up at best buy, and purchase a camera from a guy who is barely qualified to represent the product. DSLR shooters tend to be a lot more informed.

As for lens selection, for $699 the Nikon 18-200mm VR has some serious range with VR that makes the 200mm focal length usable at shutter speeds that in the past required a tripod. Oly NEEDS to be making similar products, and fast because that lens is so hot it's still not available after close to a year from the release. Having more selection is never a bad thing, so you can try and make that argument, but it's simply not true.

I don't know anyone who has the 330, so they can not be that market dominating. I do know of a couple people shooting the 300, and they like it a lot. Granted it's the only DSLR they have ever shot. Once you use features beyond what you own, it's hard to step back!

I'm glad you like the camera, and maybe I am being a bit harsh, but there is a reason Phil gave it a Recommended rating (which kinda started this whole debate), and IMO he went easy on the 330. He seems to be growing more PC!

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

I think the reasons Oly did not do better are obvious. Nikon and Canon have been working for over a decade to improve buffering speeds, Autofocus, noise reduction, frame rates, anti-alaising technology, flash technology and many other things to grow in a competitive professional and high end amateur DSLR market.

The E330 competes right up there with Canon and Nikon budget dSLRs, they don't have better frame rates are buffering speeds. Its not a fair match to compare the E330 to the D200s or 5Ds, just as its not a fair match to compared the D70s/D50/350D to the D200s and 5Ds.

They chose to get in the game now rather than wait until they can compete, and did so with live preview. Unfortunately even with their $6000 300mm f2.8 lens Oly is just outgunned, and no professional can afford to touch a camera with such a poor buffer rate and poor noise charasteristics.

There are Pros who choose Olympus. One example? http://www.thestudiocoach.com/ This guy is famous for his portraits and studio lighting, lately he's been doing his lectures with an Olympus camera - the E330 at that. Another? Mitsuaki Iwago shoots for National Geographic with an Olympus camera. God knows there are countless pros shooting with C&N, but Olympus cameras can produce as well.

The $1000+ dollar DSLR market (with a lens) they are in is not the casual consumer maket where people show up at best buy, and purchase a camera from a guy who is barely qualified to represent the product. DSLR shooters tend to be a lot more informed.

E330 is $900 with a lense. Its not this overpriced camera you make it out to be. A few hundred more than the D50/E500 much closer in price to the 350D.

As for lens selection, for $699 the Nikon 18-200mm VR has some serious range with VR that makes the 200mm focal length usable at shutter speeds that in the past required a tripod. Oly NEEDS to be making similar products, and fast because that lens is so hot it's still not available after close to a year from the release. Having more selection is never a bad thing, so you can try and make that argument, but it's simply not true.

Can't argue with that, its a great lense. I typically carry a monopod with my 55-200mm if I think about it before hand - often I don't think about it. The Zuiko 50-200 is about the same price as the 18-200 and extremely sharp, weathersealed, and small compared to the 18-200 or Canon's L equivelant. Everything has a tradeoff.

I'm glad you like the camera, and maybe I am being a bit harsh, but there is a reason Phil gave it a Recommended rating (which kinda started this whole debate), and IMO he went easy on the 330. He seems to be growing more PC!

Do you agree with the Highly Recommended rating the E500 recieved? I disagree with Phil's reviews because the E330 and E500 put out the same quality photos. The E330 has a unique feature at(at the time) a bloated price and gets kinda dumped on.

I don't really believe there is a bad, current, dSLR on the market. Great shots can be taken with any of them, they all have their advantages and disadvantages which will have to be weighed by the photographer. In the end, results will be determined by the photographer's skill - not some camera.

 

[Life-Is-Good-Diver]

I learned alot from you both reading this thread.

I'm in the market for a DSLR, and started a thread in comparison of the Oly E-330 , Oly E-500 , and Canon Rebel Xti , DSLR.

I know the Oly E-330 has a live view LCD, but I only been shooting UW pictures for a couple of years. You guy's have some good info for begginers like myself getting into DSLR's.

I'm starting to wonder though I had a Oly C-8080 , and sold it, but the game of DSLR's, looks like to me, that's just begun, and like somone stated before, if Canon comes out with a live view LCD, that will leave Oly behind.

Me personalley, I been shooting Olympus camera's for years, I had the C-5050 ,
C-5060 , C-8080 , and now I was going to DSLR's. But I may be in over my head for a begginer thats only shooting pics for the past few years.

Any suggestions?

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

You were shooting prosumer PnS's before now, the only logical step up is dSLR. The C8080 was probably the most powerful PnS made, you won't find an equivelant without moving up.

 

[Life-Is-Good-Diver]

You were shooting prosumer PnS's before now, the only logical step up is dSLR. The C8080 was probably the most powerful PnS made, you won't find an equivelant without moving up.

Thanks, I'm wondering now If I should have sold it. Looks like the DSLR's run into thousands !!!