Interesting point of view. Olympus would like you to believe that they are the only innovative DSLR company - that's their sales line. But it's not true. Canon invented IS, ultrasonic focusing, etc. What has olympus invented - a smaller squarer sensor. This is supposed to result in better photos and smaller camera bodies, but has this actually been the case?
Yes, it has.
Also lenses are smaller and cheaper.
It also invented dust reduction, TTL and a few other goodies I forget.
More importantly, it has invented the idea that the concept is more important than specs.
Olympus has always had the reputation of being innovative, and of having high-quality glass. From everything I've read, their new lenses are all very nice and the cameras are built from a different perspective that is attractive to many. However, if one compares the new offerings from Canon and Nikon, one has to wonder if Olympus has fallen behind the times a bit. Oly has yet to announce their new "pro" body and Canon and Nikon have already annouced new models with almost all the features rumored to be on the Oly, except the weather-sealing. Whether they stole them from the ideas Oly put in the E-xxx line over the last couple years is a now moot, unless one is a patent attorney. I like the IDEA of the new Oly pro body, and I like the fact that the lenses are smaller, lighter, and of high quality. What concerns me is the small sensor and what the implications will be for image quality. It would appear to be a fact of phyics that a camera with higher pixel density is subject to more image quality issues that one with lower density. Of course, this statement is made independent of lens design. Canon had to jump through many hoops in designing the micro lens "filter" that was necessary to "straighten" the light coming in from their film lenses to provide decent image quality at the edges of full-sensor images. Perhaps Oly's lenses, which are designed to account for this up front work better. Perhaps their intent is to address the noise issues by offering lenses with larger apertures so it is easier to shoot at lower ISOs. Perhaps not. I am excited by the new crop of <$2000 cameras. The good news is that I'm comfortable with my EOS 10D. I finally think I know how to use it. It's paid for. The housing is paid for. So, I can wait until all of these offereings are actually released and their output compared. Until then, it will be fun to sit back and watch all the chatter back and forth!
Mike
Hi Mike,
I have attached a few more images of the Olympus E-3 "PRO" body and the new 12-60 F/2.8-4 zoom (35 eqv.
24-120 mm) seems a good focal range for U/W photographers and should be the "kit" lens for this camera when it is released.
Phil Rudin
Rear images.
Hi Mike,
I have attached a few more images of the Olympus E-3 "PRO" body and the new 12-60 F/2.8-4 zoom (35 eqv.
24-120 mm) seems a good focal range for U/W photographers and should be the "kit" lens for this camera when it is released.
Phil Rudin
Phil,
I've seen the web shots of all of the manufacturers' new entries and they all look good (though I'll throw in the obvious "would I have to cut off the lens hood to use it behind a dome?" comment just to be the first ). Looks great on the demo stand but what will the output look like compared to the competition? I think that is the important thing at this point (unless you like Live View, in which case, it looks like the Nikon might even be better!).
Mike
PS Frankly, I think the equivalent of 24-120 wouldn't be all that useful to me underwater unless I wanted to do fish portraits (and then I might prefer the 35mm or something with less zoom range), though it would make a reasonable "walkaround" lens (of course, something like the Nikon 18-200 VR would be better). I'd probably end up with the 7-14mm and the 50mm macro for underwater. Too bad Tokina doesn't off the 10-17 fisheye zoom in an Olympus mount!
Well Phil,
I just took the plunge and bought a E-410 with both kit lenses. I realize that the kit lenses aren't the best but its probably what I'll start with. I actually had a Nikon D80, used, lined up just as cheap but it came down to my wife and I having the same brand of DSLR and being able to share glass. Your review was also a very helpful factor in helping me decide. Thanks for your effort.
Long rumored but interesting to see Panasonic utilizing the Olypus 510 innards and puttting it in an SLTR type body.
). Looks great on the demo stand but what will the output look like compared to the competition? I think that is the important thing at this point (unless you like Live View, in which case, it looks like the Nikon might even be better!).
