Olympus E300 8mp SLR

I don't have to justify my purchases on the bottom line and I don't have to resort to Sea & Sea housings.

At this point, I'll say that it is very unfortunate that we haven't leant much about the E300 and say that there are some of us out there who aren't pros but still have to worry about justifying stuff to the bottom line because of what we can afford . . . Besides, I actually like my Sea&Sea housing. Where's that emoticon for "offering the group some quaaludes"? I know it's around here somewhere.

Mike

Yo' Guys,

Didn't mean to start a debate on housing choices.....Or offend anyone for their particular personal choices, no matter what the cost....

Craig is right that his choice is dictated by what he wants his underwater photographs to be like. As to others who might want to sell work, make prints for family, friends and customers plus any other things you can do with your photographs, they might have to keep within a budget......

I only wanted to point out that debating tech specs ad nauseum usually doesn't mean too much compared to acquiring a camera and housing you can afford, then learning to use by actually going diving!!!

I've personally been down the road many times over the years, constantly buying more lenses, cameras, etc. and only after heading over the crest of "acquiring more" began to realize I can likely do more with less.....That's all I'm trying to present in my posts.....

I don't want Wetpixel to become a place where if you don't / can't own the "best" whatever that is, makes new or advancing underwater photographers feel left out....Inclusion is what the site is supposed to be about....An exchange of opinions, ideas and yes, even humor (No especially humor!!)

So Whitey, keep teasing James about his latest switch to Canon (I bet Eric and others, including me are LOL.) Mike O., yes, you can join PUPHU as soon as I design the logo and generate membership cards....Although I may make you a second class member for going to the "dark side". Sea and Sea versus Ikelite...

All in fun

David Haas

Yes it's the housing that we choose. Are there any known details about the PT-E01 other than the name? If Olympus can market relatively inexpensive housing then the E300 may prove to be very popular. I think there would be more 300D and D70 underwater shooters if there were some lower priced housings. Ikelite makes the least expensive decent DSLR housings but they start at $1100-1200 plus ports. Now imagine if you were able buy a PT-EO1 for $300. Add small dome for the 45-45 for $250 and you're in business.

As Desert Eagle states a housing's cost sometimes dictates what camera people choose...maybe if they were super cheap more people wouljd take up UW photography.....But a problem does exist with this theory...

Although the Olympus PT series and a few other cheaper Canon models have sold well, I've always maintained a housing is only as good as the controls and how long they'll keep my camera dry.

At the risk of a bat over the head from my buddy Laz, the PT housings with METAL BUTTONS are the only proprietary housing I've seen someone use for awhile and not develop leaks. Many models, especially around cheaper plastic shaft buttons simply won't last 50-100 dives!! Another Digital Photo forum has many posts on various low price housings and the associated problems. To be produced at such a low cost something has to be cheapened....That usually is the controls along with material thickness.

Also, molding to the shape of a specific camera model while sleek and sexy leaves NO ROOM FOR EVEN TINY LEAKS!! I think these factors more than justify a slightly more expensive investment in Ikelite housings, as biased as I may be.

YMMV

David Haas

The PT housings were the biggest reason I chose Olympus when I started out. I've made over 150 dives each with the my PT-010 and PT-015. A big advantage these housing have over the Ikelite is the small, form-fitting size. They are easy to handle one-handed even with a couple of strobes attached. It also didn't make any sense to me to spend lots of money on a housing for a camera that I would want to upgrade in a short time.

I think many things have changed in the last year or so. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't consider the newer C-xxxx offerings from Olympus an improvement over the 5050 for underwater use. Also, the newer PT housings have gotten much bigger. The housing for the 8080 is bigger than my Aquatica A300!

Given their recent efforts, I would be surprised if Olympus can build a better housing for the E300 than Ike can, if he chooses to make one. Olympus did well with the earlier PT models because they don't have interchangeable ports, which the E300 housing definintely will need. They don't have the experence and I doubt they will put in the required investment to do a good job on it.

I would check with Ike before buying a E300 for underwater use.

Things to come out of this thread.

Get the best combo that you can afford / most suit's your needs.

It's the indian not the arrow. ( to a point )

Olympus have a housing coming.

Ike is considering ......

A changable port will be essential - surely he Athena people in Japan will have a glass dome available to suit......

TTL would be nice.

Thanks to every one for the input.

Peter

A changable port will be essential - surely he Athena people in Japan will have a glass dome available to suit......  

For a port to be secure, both sides of the connection have to be designed right.

Oly has announced a 7 to 14 zoom for their E system dSLR. Thats the 35 mm equivalent of 14 to 28 mm. If they have a decent macro lens that is all the lenses you would need for a decent underwater system.

Oly has announced a 7 to 14 zoom for their E system dSLR. Thats the 35 mm equivalent of 14 to 28 mm. If they have a decent macro lens that is all the lenses you would need for a decent underwater system.

That lens has a $1800 price tag! If that's in your budget, then there are quite a few DSLR systems to choose from.

List price? Still the lens is more important than the camera. The camera and lens will still be less than the body of the top of the line Cannon or Nikon and the lens will go on your next camera as well.

Seems to me that people keep getting obsessed with the latest and greatest camera and forget having the right lens for the shot is the most important factor (after the photographer of course).

The $1800 is the list price. I think I saw Ryan write $1600 somewhere.

For a DSLR, the camera is also your "film". It's much more significant than just the body of a film camera. If it comes down to

$1300 Canon 20D

$800 Canon 10-22 lens

vs

$900 Olympus E300

$1600 Olympus 7-14 lens

I think it's an easy choice.

List price? Still the lens is more important than the camera. The camera and lens will still be less than the body of the top of the line Cannon or Nikon and the lens will go on your next camera as well.

 

Seems to me that people keep getting obsessed with the latest and greatest camera and forget having the right lens for the shot is the most important factor (after the photographer of course).

I can't imagine how the 7-14 lens is any more "the right lens" than the Nikon 12-24 or Canon 10-22. Any of those can be used on some future cameras, the others on far more than the Olympus.

I hope you're not comparing an Olympus system to a 1Ds or D2x. For all the extra cost of those systems you get far more camera and "the right lens" is available. In fact, for Nikon and Canon you have a selection of macro lenses, not just one.

The finest lens in the world doesn't matter if you can't record the image or even operate the shutter. All the equipment is important, not just the lens.

I agree with Herb, the choice is easy just based on the wide lens. Once you get into the other options there's no contest.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/

No surprises. They're trading off dynamic range for more pixels.

Well I see all the "Cannon lurkers" have come out to jump on me. Must have hit a sensitive spot there. Especially since my point was simply that a good lens of the right focal length for the shot you want is probably the most important thing you can do to get a great shot.

This is intuitively obvious if you consider the photographer who confronts a sperm whale and calf while they have their 105 macro lens on their camera while on a dive. Thus my interest in noting how good a lens the new Oly would be for wide angle photography. I doubt that the new Oly is significantly superior to my 12-24 and 10.5x dx lenses; but you will note that the one Oly lens will cover the range of both my superb Nikon DX lenses. A CRUCIAL advantage in underwater photography where you can't easily change lenses and your shot may never come back if you don't get it right now.

This was the essence of my original post about the new Oly 7-14 lens. As I further argued I would rather have a relatively inexpensive dSLR and the best possible lens for the job.

That seems obvious to me. If I could afford a D2X to go with that top of the line lens I would get it. But I, like a lot of others can't afford a 4000 to 5000$ camera. Especially if I have to get the newest and greatest camera every two years. However a 1600$ lens is not beyond my desires or finances. Also I can probably use it for 10 to 20 years.

Now to compare the new Oly to a 20D. If you read the dpreview of the camera you will note he says the resolution is almost as good as the 20D. A more expensive camera. Reading the complaints of the reviewer; what he complains about I suspect could be remedied with a firmware update or maybe a little tweaking of the camera. Where I live is the location of the well regarded Brooks Institute of photography. As you can imagine students there are now using dSLRS for some of their work. One of the staff members told me a year or so ago that they had found that the image quality of the 5 mp Oly dSLR was just as good as that of Cannon 60 and 10D and Nikon D100. Makes me think that when this camera is refined it will shoot as well as 300D, 20D, or D70.

Yes, I believe that the above cameras are better for UW use than the top of the line cameras from all manufactures. For one thing they are smaller which can be a priceless advantage when traveling to distant places under potentially difficult conditions. Are you going to leap into a bouncing Zodiac to get that whale shot with with your supercamera? When you might with your 300D or D70? Even if you did can you swim fast enough to get the shot when your camera and housing have twice the mass of the guy with a D70? All your going to get is shots of his (or hopefully her) butt while they get your shot. Even more important. You should never take a camera UW that you would hesitate to leave behind in an emergency. You might think about leaving that 4500$ camera behind just long enough to make your wife a widow. Remember; you don't have to be able to out swim a great white shark. Just your dive buddy.

Second thing is that for most shots I believe all the available dSLRS will give you a good shot. That one from the top of the line cameras will only be marginally better. The quality of the lens and the knowledge of the photographer is still more important than the size of the shooters bankroll. Not as true as with film cameras. However for anything under an extreme enlargement I doubt you will be able to tell much different between shots from consumer versus top of the line pro cameras. I really believe too many of these cameras are being evaluated by engineers obsessed by noise created in their tests and not photographers looking at the final image.

Unless you are making a living off your UW photography I think one would be nuts to take a 5000$ camera UW. There is a decent chance that sooner or later fate will frown on you. Won't happen to you? Of course not. Except that the last 3 people whom I have watched come up with a leaking camera/housing all said in disbelief that it could never happen to them while they were pouring salt water out of their housing. Fortunately only one of these ended up with a ruined camera. Even more fortunate that it was a film camera!

As far as comparing the new Oly 7-14 lens with the Cannon 10-22: a lens I never heard of before. The original Oly 3:4 system seems somewhat over priced to me. That extra 2 or 3 mm of focal length at the wide end my well be worth the extra price.

Any way; enough ranting probably brought on by 2 weeks of continual rain and mud slides. I don't care what you shoot. I haven't found a shot yet I couldn't get with my D100. I would rather shoot with the best lens and not engage in "dSLR envy" over what the next guy is shooting.

Well, it's raining up here in the Bay Area also.

This "Canon Lurker" was commenting on the $1800 Olympus lens in the context of the original question: how's the E300 as a low cost system. Since that lens is not out yet the last time I checked, it's premature to say if it's worth the money to the lens aficionados amonst us, but it's safe to say it's unlikely to be part of a low cost system. As far as coverage, at minimum focal length, the Canon 10-22 F3.5 -F4.5 spans 107 degrees on a DRebel or 20D. The Olympus 7-14 F4 spans 114 degrees, because of the smaller sensor size the much smaller focal length does not translates to that much wider coverage. To complete the list, the Nikkor 12-24 covers 98 degrees.

I spent a few minutes reading some of the reactions in the Olympus SLR forum to Phil's review ( It's raining here. ) It's quite entertaining. The way the were jumping on him, you'd think that Phil's insulted their mother or girl friend. As I commented above, I didn't find Phil's review surprising at all. Olympus went for higher resolution and trade signal-to-noise and dynamic range to get it. I, personally, would not choose that trade-off over the E-1 design. The dynamic range of the E300 is now two stops worst than the DRebel or 20D. It makes a big difference if you try to include a tropical sun into your underwater shots.

Hi!

I had the chance to do a few pictures with the Olympus 7-14 on an E-1. It's a great lens, as far as I've seen. No visible distortion, crisp sharp, nice to handle. It'll part of my lens bag as soon as it is available (expected March 2005).

IMO the crucial part ist the dome and the lens. You can easily spoil the best lens by mis-placing it in the dome. You will render the most superior camera useless with a cheap lens. UW photography drives a lens to its limits. It's a subject the lens wasn't designed for and thus it maybe will show some weak points that are completely invisible in top-side use. Dynamic range is another aspect why I choose the E-1 (and prefer it over the E-300).

I'm going to house an E-1. The design is nearly complete and the aluminium block for the prototype is alredy ordered. I will house the 50mm macro (and also the other macro lenses that are promised for 2005) adn the 7-14mm as well. Domes will be calculated (in contrast to a mere mechanical fit or trial & error) to match the lens (at least at the widest angle). Later on, a dome for the 11-22mm will follow.

If you're interested in the housing, please drop me a line.

Helge ;-)=)

Herb, to be elevated to the status of 'Canon Lurker', you'd have to own a Canon lens, wouldn't you? :roll:

I just had a read of Phil's review too.

"If you're a real stickler for image quality however you may wish to consider other cameras. "

He didn't sound very convinced for a 'recommended' camera.

I think it's a really interesting concept in camera design, and kudos to Olympus for being a bit braver than the competition with their camera engineering. But I don't see any compelling reason to buy into this system, and I think I'd have some reservations as to where the Four Thirds system will be at in five years time.

Having said that, Helge, I await some photos of your prototype housing with interest!

I'm certainly not a "Cannon lurker" or even a "Canon lurker" for that matter. I don't have brand loyalty. Performance loyalty though...

The 7-14 is a 2x zoom lens and is no more flexible than any other 2x zoom, so if you think it can cover the range of both the fisheye and the 12-24 you are mistaken. It may be a good lens for whale sharks but it won't be for hammerheads. The equivalent of 14-28mm is just not as good IMO for most things as the 18-36 equivalent that the Nikon and Canon lenses provide. If you must have the superwide zoom, with Nikon and Canon you have the choice of a 12-24 or 15-30 zoom and full frame imagers. What I want in a wide zoom is something "wide enough" but with some reach. A 17-40 or longer equivalent would be nice.

As far as image performance goes, apparently the E300 provides good resolution or so says Phil. It's noise performance sucks as is expected out of a 4 micron pixel pitch. James and Herb have already mentioned this. The viewfinder apparently also sucks and that's a big deal when you have to go through a housing. The camera has only one macro option though the roadmap shows two others. I hardly think this is (currently) a viable underwater solution.

Somehow you've assumed that the housed E300 that doesn't exist is smaller than any competitive rig. That's a big assumption. You've also assumed that price somehow matters to everyone else in the same way it does to you. I can tell you this: how fast I swim after the whale shark will not be determined by the size of my housing and I don't leave my camera on the boat because it's too expensive. YMMV.

Interesting observations in this thread. I think many of these considerations will apply to any new camera system, whether it's a Foveon camera, 4/3, etc. I would like to keep the tone good and "wholesome" if possible and keep off the "brand comparison" trend if possible.

One thing to consider is that new and "one off" camera's are usually housed first by Ikelite (except for the Kodak :-) In this case, I'll assume that Ike is going to use his new compact molded DSLR "box." In that case, housing size is taken out of the equation because the D70, 20D, 10D, D-Rebel, etc ALL use this form factor.

For new cameras viewfinder is a big consideration, noise is a big consideration, sync speed is important, and lens and port choices are big considerations.

Cheers

James