Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should worry about.
It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - can the same be said for the E-300?
Any opinions from people more experienced than me are much appreciated, and speed is also appreciated, since that open box deal could go anytime. It's a VERY good deal. :>
"(You) go out to fucking Wyoming and go in a bar and mention the word poetry, and you'll get a gun stuck up your ass. That's the way America is. Whereas even guys who work in the street collecting garbage in Paris love nineteenth-century painting. I don't know, am I supposed to put on a false voice and say, 'Here are the rare exceptions, and we should be like them?'"
> Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's > slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
> I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the > DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in > a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
> In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's > just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, > so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but > I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should > worry about.
> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be > around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - > can the same be said for the E-300?
> Any opinions from people more experienced than me are much > appreciated, and speed is also appreciated, since that open box deal > could go anytime. It's a VERY good deal. :>
> "(You) go out to fucking Wyoming and go in a bar and mention the > word poetry, and you'll get a gun stuck up your ass. That's the > way America is. Whereas even guys who work in the street > collecting garbage in Paris love nineteenth-century painting. I > don't know, am I supposed to put on a false voice and say, 'Here > are the rare exceptions, and we should be like them?'"
On 2005-10-06 19:25:49 -0400, Rev. J. Toad <jpaskaru...@Mhotmail.com> said:
> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be > around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - > can the same be said for the E-300?
> I
And at the rate of development of digital photography, I expect any camera made today will be obsolete in 2 years. Which is the exact reason I haven't plunged down 1000US's for a "Pro" camera. So your choice in the sub $1000US market is a good one I bought a Nikon D70s but I expect in two years time to either replace it or revert to film to keep up with future digitals. It used to be an expensive camera was am investment. My Nikon F takes every bit as goof a photograph as a any new 35mm film camera. Now digital cameras are a quickly depreciating asset. Digital photography is an expensive hobby! -- Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
It's a widespread myth that the Four Thirds sensor is 'tiny'. For a start, it's five times the area of the 1/1.8 inch sensor of the C-5050Z, guaranteeing significantly lower noise and better dynamic range, plus more selectable depth of field. So Jim Jarmusch is on the nail when he says: "In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine."
Next, although a Canon APS sensor, as used in the cheaper Canon EOS models, is 41% greater in area (itself not a critical difference), you have to factor in the Canon sensor's wider 3:2 aspect ratio. When cropping images, it's the sides that often get chopped. The vertical dimension of the Four Thirds sensor is only 21% less than Canon's sensor.
To summarise, the Four Thirds sensor size is gargantuan compared to all point and shoot compact digital cameras and even larger ones. The Four Thirds sensor is the smallest DSLR sensor, but the best way of regarding this is that the other 'smaller sensor' DSLRs have sensors that are marginally larger.
Have a look here for a visual comparison of all the main sensor sizes and you will see what I mean:
The Olympus Evolt E-300 will do practically everything the C-5050Z does a lot better. The only thing to watch out for is that the Olympus FL40 flash that works with the C-5050Z flash won't work in TTL mode with the E-300, even though it does with the E-1. There are some very good E-1 deals at the moment by the way...
> "Rev. J. Toad" <jpaskaru...@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:vicbk19d26k92u68i3d5o169311dba8ulc@4ax.com... >> Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's >> slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
>> I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the >> DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in >> a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
>> In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's >> just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, >> so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but >> I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should >> worry about.
>> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be >> around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - >> can the same be said for the E-300?
>> Any opinions from people more experienced than me are much >> appreciated, and speed is also appreciated, since that open box deal >> could go anytime. It's a VERY good deal. :>
>> "(You) go out to fucking Wyoming and go in a bar and mention the >> word poetry, and you'll get a gun stuck up your ass. That's the >> way America is. Whereas even guys who work in the street >> collecting garbage in Paris love nineteenth-century painting. I >> don't know, am I supposed to put on a false voice and say, 'Here >> are the rare exceptions, and we should be like them?'"
In one sense you are right, but in a more important sense, your are definitely wrong.
A colleague of mine has a five year old Nikon D1, Nikon's first 100% in-house developed DSLR. It boasted all of 2.7MP resolution and yet he's successfully sold images from this camera to stock agencies who require 50MB image files - and still does.
There are plenty of cameras that produced excellent images 2-3 years ago - are you implying that these cameras no longer produce excellent images?
These cameras may not have all the latest features and it might need a bit more work to get the best out of them, but I disagree that the use of the term 'obsolescence' in this respect means that these old cameras don't take good pictures any more.
>> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be >> around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - >> can the same be said for the E-300?
>> I
> And at the rate of development of digital photography, I expect any camera > made today will be obsolete in 2 years. Which is the exact reason I > haven't plunged down 1000US's for a "Pro" camera. So your choice in the > sub $1000US market is a good one I bought a Nikon D70s but I expect in > two years time to either replace it or revert to film to keep up with > future digitals. It used to be an expensive camera was am investment. My > Nikon F takes every bit as goof a photograph as a any new 35mm film > camera. Now digital cameras are a quickly depreciating asset. > Digital photography is an expensive hobby! > -- > Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
Rev. J. Toad wrote: > Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's > slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
> I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the > DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in > a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
> In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's > just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, > so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but > I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should > worry about.
I always figured image quality should be your main concern? Unless you need really high ISO's (1600), the E300 makes nice images.. If you need to shoot in low light without a flash, DON'T buy the olympus over then Canon. Both have theire good point so YOU have to decide which features you like. The dust buster on the E300 is what swayed me as I don't need ISO 800+ very often if at all. Plus the E300 kit lens is better than the canon one.
> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be > around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - > can the same be said for the E-300?
>> Hey folks. I've decided, after much annoyance with my Olympus 5050's >> slow startup time, to get a digital SLR.
>> I HAD decided on a Digital Rebel XT (I'd really like a 20D, but the >> DigReb is almost as good for almost half the price), but then I was in >> a shop today and saw an open box special on an Olympus E-300.
>> In terms of image quality and such, I'm very happy with my 5050 - it's >> just the lack of changable lenses and the slow startup that bother me, >> so I have no doubt that the images on the E-300 are probably fine, but >> I'm wondering if there are any other considerations that I should >> worry about.
> I always figured image quality should be your main concern? Unless you > need > really high ISO's (1600), the E300 makes nice images.. If you need to > shoot in low light without a flash, DON'T buy the olympus over then Canon. > Both have theire good point so YOU have to decide which features you like. > The dust buster on the E300 is what swayed me as I don't need ISO 800+ > very > often if at all. Plus the E300 kit lens is better than the canon one.
>> It seems to me that like my old A1, the DigRebXT's system will be >> around for a long time, so the camera won't become an orphan anytime - >> can the same be said for the E-300?
> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?
For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of camera. It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby
In article <3qrf57Fge0k...@individual.net>, fotoc...@yahoo.com says...
> Tony wrote:
> > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny
> So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the > difference between tiny and large?
That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare areas since its the area of the sensor, not its vertical dimension, that determines photosite size.
The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365 square millimeters, depending on the model.
The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote: > "Stacey" <fotoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?
> For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of camera. > It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby
Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or not?
Brian Baird wrote: > In article <3qrf57Fge0k...@individual.net>, fotoc...@yahoo.com says... >> Tony wrote:
>> > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny
>> So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the >> difference between tiny and large?
> That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare > areas since its the area of the sensor,
Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints so the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it will just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.
> The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365 > square millimeters, depending on the model.
> The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.
And the nice thing is almost 100% of this sensor ends up in the print instead of 20% being cropped out of every shot. This way all 8MP I paid for are used rather than only 6 or so.
Different strokes I suppose, then again all you can see is "Canon rules, bash anything else" as ussual. I just find these "tiny sensor" coments just more ignorant bash anything other than Canon crap you guys continually post here.
>> In article <3qrf57Fge0k...@individual.net>, fotoc...@yahoo.com says... >>> Tony wrote:
>>> > The sensor in the E-300 is tiny
>>> So making the XT sensor 14.8mm tall compared to the E300 at 13mm is the >>> difference between tiny and large?
>> That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare >> areas since its the area of the sensor,
> Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints > so > the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it > will > just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so > comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and > anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.
People making A4 and super A3 prints have to crop less from 3:2.
>>> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?
>> For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of camera. >> It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby
>Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a >cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a >system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control >lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or >not?
Off the top of my head, it indicates (n a sense) the power and deapth of their design and production teams, as well as the desire to meet the needs of their customers. Personally, if I had the choice of Johns Hopkins or a small community clinic, I know which I'd choose. :-)
-- Bill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com
In article <3qtrsdFgo8s...@individual.net>, fotoc...@yahoo.com says...
> > That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare > > areas since its the area of the sensor,
> Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints so
It's smarter because you're actually calculating sensor well as a function of the AREA, not the vertical dimension, dingbat.
> the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it will > just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so > comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and > anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.
Too bad the pixels are smaller and thus noisier. Yeah, yeah, not an issue for you, but considering even ISO 400 from the E-300 lacks it is a valid point.
> > The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365 > > square millimeters, depending on the model.
> > The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters. > And the nice thing is almost 100% of this sensor ends up in the print > instead of 20% being cropped out of every shot. This way all 8MP I paid for > are used rather than only 6 or so.
Not really.
> Different strokes I suppose, then again all you can see is "Canon rules, > bash anything else" as ussual. I just find these "tiny sensor" coments just > more ignorant bash anything other than Canon crap you guys continually post > here.
Oh shut up with the "Canon" crap, because Nikon kicks Oly's ass around quite a bit too. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise can do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when upsizing them. Blotchy chrominance noise is another matter, but the E-300 isn't bad in this respect.
There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but lots of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300. And certainly at ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an issue.
The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images in the hands of a good photographer.
> In article <3qtrsdFgo8s...@individual.net>, fotoc...@yahoo.com says... >> > That's a function of the 4:3 aspect ratio. You'd be smarter to compare >> > areas since its the area of the sensor,
>> Why is that "Smarter"? I use very close to a 4:3 crop for all -MY- prints >> so
> It's smarter because you're actually calculating sensor well as a > function of the AREA, not the vertical dimension, dingbat.
>> the canon sensor being wider is just a waste of sensor area for me, it >> will >> just be cropped out. Less pixels end up being used for printing so >> comparing the sensor hight between the two is "smarter" for my uses and >> anyone else making 8X10 or 11X14 prints.
> Too bad the pixels are smaller and thus noisier. Yeah, yeah, not an > issue for you, but considering even ISO 400 from the E-300 lacks it is a > valid point.
>> > The APS-C sensors used by Canon, Nikon and others are between 335-365 >> > square millimeters, depending on the model.
>> > The 4/3rds sensor is 18x13.5mm, or 243 square millimeters.
>> And the nice thing is almost 100% of this sensor ends up in the print >> instead of 20% being cropped out of every shot. This way all 8MP I paid >> for >> are used rather than only 6 or so.
> Not really.
>> Different strokes I suppose, then again all you can see is "Canon rules, >> bash anything else" as ussual. I just find these "tiny sensor" coments >> just >> more ignorant bash anything other than Canon crap you guys continually >> post >> here.
> Oh shut up with the "Canon" crap, because Nikon kicks Oly's ass around > quite a bit too. > -- > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
> There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise > can do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when > upsizing them.
Even if you sometimes want a particular noise pattern in some of your final prints, you don't want the same noise in every image all the time. Personally, replacing smooth surfaces with artificial textures is something that strikes me as totally bogus and unacceptable (I don't shoot 35mm). But there's no accounting for taste.
> There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but lots > of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300.
While the exact definitions differ slightly from context to context, dynamic range (the ability to record a large range of levels) and signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. the 'noise') are almost exactly the same thing. Dynamic range is usually (max signal)/(noise floor), whereas SNR is sometimes exactly that, sometimes (rms signal level)/(noise floor), sometimes (actual signal level)/(actual noise) for a measured signal.
What that means is that the claim that the E300 has bad noise but good dynamic range is a physical and logical impossibility.
"Overall, the Olympus eVolt E-300's color management was a bit less accurate than average, particularly in the blue part of the spectrum. Cyans are shifted toward blue (generally a good thing, as it tends to make sky colors look better, but blues were also shifted toward purple, and yellows and greens were somewhat undersaturated. In the real-world photos, I saw some of the tendency to render blues with purple tints, but other colors looked better than what the plot above might indicate. On average, color saturation of swatches on the MacBeth ColorChecker(tm) chart are 107.1% of their ideal values. (An average oversaturation of 7.1%, resulting from the oversaturation of blues and bright reds.) Average "delta-E" color error is 6.98, a bit higher than average, but not terrible. The variance in the delta-E was rather high at 8.71 though."
Weak yellows and greens, oversaturated reds and blues, less accurate hues. OK, I give up. What is there to prefer???
"Color is obviously a key factor in digital cameras, and for the most part, I prefer to let readers arrive at their own conclusions, based on test shots and "gallery" photos we take. It's safe to say though, that the Canon Digital Rebel XT has excellent color rendition. Like most "prosumer" digital cameras, it does over-saturate some colors a bit, particularly those that are highly saturated in the subjects in the first place. The amount of its over-saturation is slightly less than that of the original Rebel though, and the Rebel XT also offers slightly greater hue accuracy as well. Most Canon cameras that I test tend to shift cyans slightly toward richer blues, a tendency that I suspect is a deliberate choice made to enhance sky colors. (Rich blues are also typically shifted slightly towards purples, which is a bit more problematic in my experience.) In the case of the Rebel XT, this cyan-to-blue shift is noticeably reduced, as is the blue-to-purple shift other colors are likewise somewhat more accurate as well."
> And certainly at ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an issue.
The E-300 at ISO 100 is getting close to the 20D and D70 at ISO 400 (see the bar graph at the bottom of the above page). That will be an issue if you try to pull up shadow detail, or underexpose to record more highlight detail.
> The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images > in the hands of a good photographer.
Holgas and pinholes and lensbabies produce great images in the hands of good photographers quite regularly. That doesn't mean they are good cameras.
Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read lab test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to interpret these findings and to decide whether or not any of these findings really adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging Resource use Imatest - which produces almost unintelligible data. I use DxO Analyzer, which I think produces more easily absorbed data, but still far from perfect.
But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good pictures in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab tests, I mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a normal fashion, by ordinary people?
I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors any more. There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation, design and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in the quality of images produced that most people will notice or be bothered about.
If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D is not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the images and their colour. Others have related similar observations. It's possible that my film days have left a lasting influence on my perception of image quality and that may put us on the opposite ends of a scale of perception, who knows?! Which is more correct than the other - cinema, TV, HDTV? They all have their strengths and weaknesses and they are all very different.
But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a perfectly good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they are going for now.
> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsrem...@this-dpnow.com> wrote: >> There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise >> can do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when >> upsizing them.
> Even if you sometimes want a particular noise pattern in some of your > final > prints, you don't want the same noise in every image all the time. > Personally, replacing smooth surfaces with artificial textures is > something > that strikes me as totally bogus and unacceptable (I don't shoot 35mm). > But > there's no accounting for taste.
>> There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but >> lots >> of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300.
> While the exact definitions differ slightly from context to context, > dynamic > range (the ability to record a large range of levels) and signal-to-noise > ratio (i.e. the 'noise') are almost exactly the same thing. Dynamic range > is > usually (max signal)/(noise floor), whereas SNR is sometimes exactly that, > sometimes (rms signal level)/(noise floor), sometimes (actual signal > level)/(actual noise) for a measured signal.
> What that means is that the claim that the E300 has bad noise but good > dynamic range is a physical and logical impossibility.
> "Overall, the Olympus eVolt E-300's color management was a bit less > accurate > than average, particularly in the blue part of the spectrum. Cyans are > shifted toward blue (generally a good thing, as it tends to make sky > colors > look better, but blues were also shifted toward purple, and yellows and > greens were somewhat undersaturated. In the real-world photos, I saw some > of > the tendency to render blues with purple tints, but other colors looked > better than what the plot above might indicate. On average, color > saturation > of swatches on the MacBeth ColorChecker(tm) chart are 107.1% of their > ideal > values. (An average oversaturation of 7.1%, resulting from the > oversaturation of blues and bright reds.) Average "delta-E" color error is > 6.98, a bit higher than average, but not terrible. The variance in the > delta-E was rather high at 8.71 though."
> Weak yellows and greens, oversaturated reds and blues, less accurate hues. > OK, I give up. What is there to prefer???
> "Color is obviously a key factor in digital cameras, and for the most > part, I prefer to let readers arrive at their own conclusions, based on > test shots and "gallery" photos we take. It's safe to say though, that the > Canon Digital Rebel XT has excellent color rendition. Like most "prosumer" > digital cameras, it does over-saturate some colors a bit, particularly > those that are highly saturated in the subjects in the first place. The > amount of its over-saturation is slightly less than that of the original > Rebel though, and the Rebel XT also offers slightly greater hue accuracy > as well. Most Canon cameras that I test tend to shift cyans slightly > toward richer blues, a tendency that I suspect is a deliberate choice made > to enhance sky colors. (Rich blues are also typically shifted slightly > towards purples, which is a bit more problematic in my experience.) In the > case of the Rebel XT, this cyan-to-blue shift is noticeably reduced, as is > the blue-to-purple shift other colors are likewise somewhat more accurate > as well."
>> And certainly at ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an >> issue.
> The E-300 at ISO 100 is getting close to the 20D and D70 at ISO 400 (see > the bar graph at the bottom of the above page). That will be an issue if > you try to pull up shadow detail, or underexpose to record more highlight > detail.
>> The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images >> in the hands of a good photographer.
> Holgas and pinholes and lensbabies produce great images in the hands of > good photographers quite regularly. That doesn't mean they are good > cameras.
> Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read lab > test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to interpret > these findings and to decide whether or not any of these findings really > adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging Resource use Imatest - > which produces almost unintelligible data. I use DxO Analyzer, which I > think produces more easily absorbed data, but still far from perfect.
Imaging Resource' informal descriptions of the Imatest results were perfectly in line with the results.
> But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good pictures > in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab tests, I > mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a normal fashion, > by ordinary people?
The E300 has a serious problem that precludes it being recommended to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances: the lousy high ISO performance and lack of fast primes make it problematic for available light shots.
> I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few > that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors > any more.
Well, you picked one that has a really nasty problem for family snapsots: the E300 is the wrong camera to use for low-light work. Now maybe "not every need to take low light shots", but my experience is that available light shots simply look a lot better than flash.
This isn't a great discovery: it was well-known when I started photography in the '60s.
If someone buys an E300, figures out this simple well-known truth, they're going to be unhappy.
People who just want to take landscapes (with weak yellows and greens and oversaturated reds and blues) will love the E300. Except when they decide that maybe they'd like to bring up the shadow detail a bit. Oops.
> There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation, design > and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in the > quality of images produced that most people will notice or be bothered > about.
If you assume your user is an idiot and knows nothing about photography, maybe. But digital cameras make photography a lot easier to learn, and that assumption will be less true for someone interested in a DLSR.
> If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D > is not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the > images and their colour. Others have related similar observations.
The only people who have ever said that are people who find themselves emotionally attached to inferior cameras and desperately need a straw to cling to. Meanwhile, Canon remains the choice of working pros who don't have the option of delivering inferior images.
> It's possible that my film days have left a lasting influence on my > perception of image quality and that may put us on the opposite ends of a > scale of perception,
Guy, I pretty much only shoot film. Mamiya 645, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7, and Nikon 8000 are my tools of choice for other than family snapshots.
But I suspect that by "film" you mean a certain inferior subminiature format, and that really does "put us on the opposite ends of a scale of perception".
> But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a perfectly > good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they are going for > now.
It sounds like seriously bad advice to me, for the reasons above.
I have used both an E-300 and an Rebel XT/350D extensively and apart from more noise at higher ISOs, both cameras produced excellent A4 prints with good colour and saturation. There is no comparing the results with Jim's old C-5050Z - both these cameras are significantly superior.
By the way, I never tested the E-300 with its original firmware and I certainly didn't get results with the colour issues your described. In fact my tests show the E-300 has more saturated yellows in un-adjusted JPEGs than earlier the E-1, completely opposite to what you say.
I take issue with you painting a picture of me regarding people as being 'idiots' - if you need to resort to such tactics in order strengthen your argument, it seems a bit desperate.
Oh well, we just have to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly happy with my comments. I have tried and tested these cameras in the lab and on location, as well as their peers. Have you?
> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsrem...@this-dpnow.com> wrote: >> Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read >> lab test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to >> interpret these findings and to decide whether or not any of these >> findings really adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging >> Resource use Imatest - which produces almost unintelligible data. I use >> DxO Analyzer, which I think produces more easily absorbed data, but still >> far from perfect.
> Imaging Resource' informal descriptions of the Imatest results were > perfectly in line with the results.
>> But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good >> pictures in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab >> tests, I mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a >> normal fashion, by ordinary people?
> The E300 has a serious problem that precludes it being recommended to > ordinary people in ordinary circumstances: the lousy high ISO performance > and lack of fast primes make it problematic for available light shots.
>> I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few >> that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors >> any more.
> Well, you picked one that has a really nasty problem for family snapsots: > the E300 is the wrong camera to use for low-light work. Now maybe "not > every need to take low light shots", but my experience is that available > light shots simply look a lot better than flash.
> This isn't a great discovery: it was well-known when I started photography > in the '60s.
> If someone buys an E300, figures out this simple well-known truth, they're > going to be unhappy.
> People who just want to take landscapes (with weak yellows and greens and > oversaturated reds and blues) will love the E300. Except when they decide > that maybe they'd like to bring up the shadow detail a bit. Oops.
>> There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation, >> design and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in >> the quality of images produced that most people will notice or be >> bothered about.
> If you assume your user is an idiot and knows nothing about photography, > maybe. But digital cameras make photography a lot easier to learn, and > that assumption will be less true for someone interested in a DLSR.
>> If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D >> is not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the >> images and their colour. Others have related similar observations.
> The only people who have ever said that are people who find themselves > emotionally attached to inferior cameras and desperately need a straw to > cling to. Meanwhile, Canon remains the choice of working pros who don't > have the option of delivering inferior images.
>> It's possible that my film days have left a lasting influence on my >> perception of image quality and that may put us on the opposite ends of a >> scale of perception,
> Guy, I pretty much only shoot film. Mamiya 645, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7, and > Nikon 8000 are my tools of choice for other than family snapshots.
> But I suspect that by "film" you mean a certain inferior subminiature > format, and that really does "put us on the opposite ends of a scale of > perception".
>> But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a >> perfectly good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they >> are going for now.
> It sounds like seriously bad advice to me, for the reasons above.
> David J. Littleboy > davi...@gol.com > Tokyo, Japan
Bill Funk wrote: > On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:36:39 -0400, Stacey <fotoc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>> "Stacey" <fotoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?
>>> For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of >>> camera. It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby
>>Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a >>cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a >>system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control >>lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or >>not?
> Off the top of my head, it indicates (n a sense) the power and deapth > of their design and production teams, as well as the desire to meet > the needs of their customers.
Or that they are just continuing to sell designs they came up with decades ago in a new package depending on how you look at it I suppose..
> but my experience is that available > light shots simply look a lot better than flash.
Maybe we should say you LACK of experience using flash creates a need to not use it to get nice results? Shame that Canon doesn't allow the use of the onboard flash at the same time an external is used as this gives very natural looking results if you have even the slightest buit of skills in this area.
> If someone buys an E300, figures out this simple well-known truth, they're > going to be unhappy.
Funny that the people buying and USING them aren't complaining.
> People who just want to take landscapes (with weak yellows and greens and > oversaturated reds and blues) will love the E300. Except when they decide > that maybe they'd like to bring up the shadow detail a bit. Oops.
The only people who have ever said that are people who find themselves emotionally attached to other cameras and desperately need a straw to cling to.
>> If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D >> is not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the >> images and their colour. Others have related similar observations.
> The only people who have ever said that are people who find themselves > emotionally attached to inferior cameras and desperately need a straw to > cling to. Meanwhile, Canon remains the choice of working pros who don't > have the option of delivering inferior images.
You and I both know the main reason most "working pro's" use them has nothing to do with anything other than someone else is buying their gear for them (the press), they get a monster discount from canon or free "loaner" fast glass at sporting events.
> Oh well, we just have to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly happy with my > comments. I have tried and tested these cameras in the lab and on > location, as well as their peers. Have you?
I doubt he's ever held one in his hands much less used one but he is one of the major "4/3 bashers" on this forum. Seems his interest in photography is basically shooting test charts, looking at huge blowup of 100% crops at ISO 1600 and other things unrelated to making actual images. Given he DOES look at his film with a microscope might explain his interests in photography better. ANyone who doesn't share this interest is "an idiot" in his mind.
I guess if I did this, I might listen to some of what he has to say but I don't. Like you said if you look at actual prints, I sure don't see any of this "poor quality" he keeps ranting about.
BTW did you catch the "No fast primes" when the OP is highly unlikely to be buying anything like that? Most likely he'll be using whatever lens comes with the camera and in that case, the Rebel kit lens isn't anything to include under the heading of "high quality".. --
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:31:42 -0400, Stacey <fotoc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:36:39 -0400, Stacey <fotoc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>>> "Stacey" <fotoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> How much of the "system" do you plan on owning?
>>>> For an amateur, IMO, the E-300 with the two kit lenses is a lot of >>>> camera. It has a 35mm equavilent range of 28mm-300mm, not to shabby
>>>Given many users never buy anything other than the kit lens and maybe a >>>cheap tele zoom, most people shouldn't get all excited about how "deep" a >>>system is. Like if you're never going to buy a 24mm TS perspective control >>>lens or an IS 300mm F2.8, why would you care if their system has one or >>>not?
>> Off the top of my head, it indicates (n a sense) the power and deapth >> of their design and production teams, as well as the desire to meet >> the needs of their customers.
>Or that they are just continuing to sell designs they came up with decades >ago in a new package depending on how you look at it I suppose..
I get the feeling that you'd complain if you were hanged with a new rope. :-)
-- Bill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com
>"Digital Photography Now" <infoplsrem...@this-dpnow.com> wrote: >> Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read lab >> test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to interpret >> these findings and to decide whether or not any of these findings really >> adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging Resource use Imatest - >> which produces almost unintelligible data. I use DxO Analyzer, which I >> think produces more easily absorbed data, but still far from perfect.
>Imaging Resource' informal descriptions of the Imatest results were >perfectly in line with the results.
>> But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good pictures >> in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab tests, I >> mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a normal fashion, >> by ordinary people?
>The E300 has a serious problem that precludes it being recommended to >ordinary people in ordinary circumstances: the lousy high ISO performance >and lack of fast primes make it problematic for available light shots.
Then get a Nikon D50. It's cheaper than the Rebel by a pretty steep margin and has LESS noise. -Rich
|
