Olympus E300 8mp SLR

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

I bought the 10-22 (still waiting for the zoom ring). Now I'm official.

"Somehow you've assumed that the housed E300 that doesn't exist is smaller than any competitive rig. That's a big assumption."

Actually I had the Subal D70 housing in mind when I wrote that. The point is that the small housing available for some of the smaller dSLRs will be much easier to wrestle around; especially in any kind of current or surge. I know of what I speak. I've dragged around an F5 housing before. After that an N70 housing was a treat.

"You've also assumed that price somehow matters to everyone else in the same way it does to you."

Well no thats not what I said. I said that if I had the money to waste I would buy one also. Or if I was a pro and could make money off it I would buy one as well. However I'm sure the great majority of wetpixel members and UW photographers wouldn't consider buying a a 4 or 5.000$ camera and housing. While a significantly greater number might be able to consider a lens like the one in the original post.

"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."

I went to S. Australia to photograph white sharks. One of the other divers was a well regarded professor of UW photography (you have seen some of his images) After the shooting was over he commented that the 28 mm focal length (35 mm equivalent) was the perfect focal length for getting full frame shots of sharks. For WIDE angle photography I find 28 mm is as wide as you want to go. On the 2 trips I made to shot white sharks and also shooting Hammerheads I have found that while it is a lot easier to get shots at the long end of my lenses focal range; all the good shots were taken at the wider end. The longer focal lengths have their uses for close up photography but you are not shooting wide angle then. I would much rather have a lens that goes wider than one that goes longer when I am shooting wide angle UW. It makes this lens more versatile than the Nikon or Cannon lenses. Is it a better lens? That judgment awaits the reports of an actual photographer. I know the Nikon is a great lens. But I sure would like to shoot the 12-24 and the 10.5x on the same dive.

Sorry; no more ranting. The rain has stopped and I haven't been swept away by the mud.

Herbko - The Conception (out of Santa Barbara) is suppose to go on a 3 day trip to Cortez Bank on 21, 22, 23 Jan.

There's not such a great difference in size between the E300 and the D70 as the example you speak even assuming a housing for the E300 exists. As james pointed out, it may be that the E300 housing is ultimately identical is size to its competitors. You suggested a big advantage for the E300 when there's no evidence there would be one.

Regarding price, you've made a qualitative judgement in favor of the E300 which is entirely arbitrary. It doesn't matter whether it represents your views or not. People make decisions on what they're willing to spend for any number of reasons and to say that a diver would leave one camera on the boat while taking the other due to price is silly and presumptuous.

As for the "professor of UW photography", perhaps 28mm was perfect for his sharks and his shooting conditions. The times I've shot great whites and hammerheads I've switched to a 28-75 for my shooting and took most of my shots longer than 28mm. It matters how close you can get to the subjects. On the other hand, the professor couldn't have had objection to a 17-35 equivalent range in that case since it encompasses 28mm and anyone could recognize that it would be a better choice than a lens that couldn't go longer than "the perfect focal length".

I'd be curious to know just how often anyone needs a 120 degree field of view and a zoom at the same time. It may be a great whale shark lens, as I said already, but it would not be the hammerhead lens of choice for me. In any event, the 7-14 would not be equivalent to the 12-24 and the 10.5 FE. The 10.5 offers 180 degree field of view while the 12-24 offers a 36mm long end. The 7-14 doesn't come close to either of these. If superwide is the end-all-be-all of wide angle photography as you feel it is, then you should really get the Sigma 12-24 and a full frame camera. In the end the 7-14 is just an abnormally wide 2x zoom and an expensive one at that. Sure it would be a good range for some things but it is not more perfectly suited to the task than the competition.

Step aside everyone, let me take a turn at this dead horse.

First, I'll preface this by admitting to hating Olympus. It started almost 20 years ago, well after my purchase of my first SLR, an Olympus. I'll skip the history. Now that it is a digital world, I'm willing to forgive and forget. But.....

At $995.00 including 14-45 3.5/5.6 lens it sound like good value

Compared to a D70 or Rebel? I don't think so.

Size

One of the supposed advantage of a digital 4/3 design was size. I haven't seen this as a big advantage, either in the camera or the lenses. If size was the most important factor, then I wish I get a housing for this camera:

http://www.minox.com/minox2002/gifs/kunden...age/classic.jpg

A housed E300 simply isn't going to get you a significant, if any, size reduction.

Granted, compared to a housed ubercamera (Kodak, Canon 1dxxx, Nikon D2) it will be smaller, but that issue isn't salient to the discussion.

Image quality

Based on Phil's review, the inherent disadvantages of the 4/3 system manifested itself in the final product, e.g. noise and dynamic range. I use the term inherent because while certain conventional wisdom holds true, manufacturers have overcome this limitations. (E.g. noise, CMOS is noisier than CCD, but Canon has overcome this inherent disadvantage)

Lenses

OK, Olympus is coming out with a 7-14mm. Great, but it is expensive compared to the Canon 10-22mm or Nikon 12-24mm. Nor has anyone truly tested this lens vis-a-vie the Canon or Nikon. Again, it is inherently more difficult to make gooder wider lenses, hence the added expense. I know some people might disagree, but to my eyes, the 17-35mm on an F100 outperforms the 12-24mm on the D100 under all circumstances. Point being, the $1600 Olympus lens might not be as good as cheaper equivalent lenses that don't have to go down to 7mm. (I could be wrong here)

Housing vs. Camera

Poorly matched dome ports make good cameras lousy. I don't care if a housing is plastic or aluminum. I only care if the port system is good and efficient and the controls I need to use are easy to use. The other key issue for camera/housing is the viewfinder. This has been where the digital revolution has gone the wrong direction. According to the review, the E300 viewfinder is dimmer than the E1. I don't know what that really means, but I find being able to see the frame and subject critical to good composition. I don't lust after the Seacam housing, but I do lust after the optional viewfinder.

My first housing was an Ikelite N90 unit. It had an eyepiece that attached to the camera and sat between the camera and housing. It was like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Trust me, I don't need the subject to look smaller.

One should really evaluate the E300 viewfinder versus its competitors.

Price

Who cares. If all we cared about was value, we'd all be shooting with Ikelites and driving Civics (or Kia's or something similar). People buy what they want to buy. They value incremental performance differently. For every performance benefit from upgrading from an Ikelite is an incremental cost. Is it worth the extra cost? The is no universal answer. Some would think it's crazy as an amateur to buy a 1ds and Seacam housing, but the issue is irrelevant. Some thought I was crazy to spend all that money on an MX10 instead of a Ikelite auto35. I drive a well dented pickup. The wife drives a Lexus. I place no value beyond a good radio and being able to haul dive crap. The camera room has more value than my vehicle. It's just a personal choice. Criticizing one's choice because of the absolute dollar amount is a waste of bandwidth. But when it comes down to value/performance for a given equivalently priced system, then the discussion is quite fruitful. This is where I find the Olympus quite lacking relative to the Rebel or D70.