I would also be interested in any remarks about the E3 Viewfinder. I was surpised above that someone said it was smaller and dimmer than some of the mid range Canon Viewfinders. It has to be much better than an E-410 as it provides a view slightly greater than life size. I guess I was expecting something huge like an OM-1 Viewfinder which is about the best viewfinder I have ever looked through.
cogitech wrote:
Only one mention of the viewfinder so far. Any other comments?
For instance, how does it compare to the E-410 viewfinder? If it is not much better, then you should seriously doubt the usability of adapted lenses. It took less than 24 hours for me to liquidate my E-410 after trying it with a selection of OM and M42 glass.
I took a look at an e-3 yesterday. It was body without a lens but even without the lens it was clear that the view finder was >>>>>> than the 410. I will go to another store saturday (if I can find one) that has a floor sample. While it is hard to judge without the lens I got the feeling it was a wee bit smaller than the 40d finder but had a similar quality (clarity/brightness). Definitely bigger/cleaner than the rebel xti.
cogitech wrote:
Only one mention of the viewfinder so far. Any other comments?
For instance, how does it compare to the E-410 viewfinder? If it is not much better, then you should seriously doubt the usability of adapted lenses. It took less than 24 hours for me to liquidate my E-410 after trying it with a selection of OM and M42 glass.
The E-3 viewfinder is terrific, big and bright.
To respond to the OP. From handling both E-3 and 40d Olympus as a complete camera is simply in another league. It is build to a higher standart and is definitely more comfortable. Three years to the market but it shows, this is not a rehashed body.
In addition you may find interesting the no nonsense comments from several multiple systems users posted at LL.
Aside from the unavoidable repetitions "top Zuikos are expensive" and "there is some noise at extreme ISO viewed at extreme magnifications" commets by the posters Lin Evans and SecondFocus on page 4 are quite revealing.
I.G.I thanks for the pointer to that thread. It is informative. I've been reading a lot of reviews and looking at a lot of pictures. It seems that the oly pictures tend to be more muted than the canon - is this something that can be adjusted on camera or does it require post processing ?
you2 wrote:
It seems that the oly pictures tend to be more muted than the canon - is this something that can be adjusted on camera or does it require post processing ?
Honestly don't know what do you mean by "tend to be more muted" but regardless of my understanding files, and colour in particular, can be adjusted almost beyond recognition, either in camera (WB fine tuning, Sat, the umpteen Modes, etc) or via image editor. In each case some experimentation is involved but that's all, nothing to worry about.
The big trouble with image comparisons from internet is that unless RAW files are provided for download comparing JPEGs involve way too many variables that could lead to the wrong conclusions.
As I see it E-3 may turn out as the best all round all purpose camera on the market irrespective of the price.
Well I'm still trying to understand the differences in the images (link posted in this thread). The canon seems to show more individual sand particles and the olympus they seem to blur together.
I'm rather used to the c/y zeiss lenses which produce strongly saturated images. The system I had before the c/y was olympus om which seems somewhat similar to the E-3 (muted - if that is the correct word).
Sorry to hear you didn't like your alt lenses on your E-410, Paul. So far I've found my Oly 50/1.8, Pentax 50/1.4, and Konica 40/1.8 are OK so long as the light doesn't go too low, while my slower lenses are... frustrating. I added a split prism focus screen and that helps the fast lenses a lot. I've got an eyepiece magnifier arriving today and that should help a bit more still. But compared to my 5D it's no contest in the viewfinder department. I prefer to rely on AF when the lights go dim.
For E-3 versus 40D viewfinder size, here's some mathematical gymnastics that might be illuminating...
It seems you'd get a diagonal measurement of the apparent size of the viewfinder. Not sure if that kind of measurement tells the whole story or not, but doing a sanity check comparing my 350D to my E-410 to my 5D (holding one up to each eye and comparing frame sizes), the numbers seem pretty close to what I see. So I'll throw out some cameras plugged into this formula:
(Yes, I have a spreadsheet full of camera specs. I'm an Excel nerd. )
By this measurement (and I'd appreciate feedback on how this might possibly be misleading) the E-3 and 40D and D200 are about the same. The D300 is a bit of a standout (and larger than the 1DMk3!), and the FF cameras are in a whole other league. It would take a 1.35x viewfinder magnification to put the E3 or 40D in the same ballpark as the 5D, or a 1.18x add-on magnifier. (DK-21M anyone?)
you2 wrote:
Well I'm still trying to understand the differences in the images (link posted in this thread). The canon seems to show more individual sand particles and the olympus they seem to blur together.
I'm rather used to the c/y zeiss lenses which produce strongly saturated images. The system I had before the c/y was olympus om which seems somewhat similar to the E-3 (muted - if that is the correct word).
Sorry, haven't looked at the link before. As I mentioned before, way too many variables to judge anything about the cameras. In addition I assume many people shot the pics as each cam had a different position. That said, E-3 pics are consistently the sharpest to my eyes.
The only site I am aware of that post full sized samples shots under constant conditions is Imaging-Resource. If you haven't checked it here is E-3 and here 40D
To me E-3 samples are consistently some of the sharpest (check also D300), no doubt due to the kit lens excellence. Yes colours are saturated yet somewhat subdued. A matter of perception: I see them as more neutral.
cogitech wrote:
Only one mention of the viewfinder so far. Any other comments?
For instance, how does it compare to the E-410 viewfinder? If it is not much better, then you should seriously doubt the usability of adapted lenses. It took less than 24 hours for me to liquidate my E-410 after trying it with a selection of OM and M42 glass.
The E3 viewfinder is very good. I use the E3 with the nikon 800/8 EDIF via adaptor and I can focus without problem. I think the olympus E3 is an excellent "alternative" camera. You can use Nikon, Pentax K, Olympus OM, C/Y, M42, Leica R lenses with cheap adapters. Here one 800pix sample at 400 iso and the Nikon 800/8 EDIF:
The E3 is bigger than the 40D, A700 and is about the same size (different shape though) as the D200 and slightly smaller than the D300.
It also has 100% coverage- a feature not found in many cameras at this price range and an area that with the 40D annoys me to no end.
I handled an E3, D300, A700 and 40D, tried them out in the store.
The E3 is easily a match to the D300 in build and is better sealed to boot.
AF with the 12-60 in S-AF center point, was as close to instant as you can get, much faster than the D300 and 40D/17-85 combo. And slighty faster than my 40D/24-105.
It's a very nice camera with what IMO are a few ergo problems. I prefer the layout, function and ergos of the 40D over the E3, D300 and A700.
If you want a professionally sealed camera and lens set- the Oly is the least expensive way to get it.
you2 wrote:
Ramon that looks very nice. Is that jpeg straight from the camera or did you have to post process to get the deep colours ?
The original is raw and I have converted to tif with the Olympus master software, then I have resized at 800pix and apply some levels and USM (100/0.5/0) and saved as jpg level 11, that's all.
just to add to Chris's investigation of OVF sizes, Chris is that APS C sensor size or image size, I say this because we often see sensor sizes quoted as opposed to image area of the sensor like in 4/3rds where imaging area size is 17.3x13mm, and sensor size is 18x13.5mm. Just an apples and apples thing no big problem.
the method might be different but the scores appear to roughly compare.
I have a Pentax O-ME53, 1.2x mag finder on my E3 which ups the OVF to .69 by those values, ever so slightly larger than 5D, but I still feel I need something like a kateye for MF lenses.
That said it is vastly different from the days of side swinging poro mirror OVF's for Olys, which even with relatively good 85% efficient mirrors becomes 85^4 hence losing a full stop of light in the VF (and i credit Joseph S Wisniewski with those ideas).
Whatever your viewpoint the OVF in E3 is vastly larger than 410/510, and 410/510 are vastly brighter than E300/330.
I have to say that the E-3 viewfinder is by far the best I've seen in 4/3.
I think that the worst I've seen is the E-500.
Here's my quick estimation of 4/3 VF quality:
E-500/E-330 < E-300 < E-410 < 510 < E-1 < E-3
The E-3 VF is (IMO) much better than the E-1 in terms of coverage/brightness and ability to manually focus.
I am easily able to manually focus indoors and the coverage is spectacular.
I will leave the comparison to Full Frame cameras for other more qualified persons...
I took a look at an E-3 today with a lens (11/22, 40-150 and 14-45) (the store did not have the 14-54 or 12-60). I compared it side by side with the 40d. I found the 40d view finder a *lot* brighter and a little more comfortable to the eye (not sure why - maybe because I'm used to 35mm aspect ratio). The E3 view finder was very good - but definitely a bit dimmer. The layout are similar (data at the bottom - i prefer side and putting it at the side on the e3 would help with the aspect ratio).
The 40d was a little (emphasis on little) quieter and the menu system much more natural (to me) (not sure why as my current camera is a film camera - but I think it is because it was clearly labeled and not cluttered where the e3 had a bunch of little symbols you had to know off hand with regards to function.
The one mistake I made is that I did not try to manually focus with either camera. I suspect the e3 would be a little more difficult and I regret not trying (can anyone comment on this aspect ?)
Alas these are cosmetic and do not comment on the image quality which I did not have a reasonable method of testing.
One thing that sort of bothered me is that the salesman said you should over expose when using digital. I had always thought the logic was to slightly underexpose ?
Last but least has anyone heard any rumors if the E-3 price is likely to drop in the next 6 months ?
you2 wrote:
...One thing that sort of bothered me is that the salesman said you should over expose when using digital. I had always thought the logic was to slightly underexpose ?...
If you overexpose in digital and bring it back in PP you will end up with less noise, particularly in the shadows. The trick is you don't want to overexpose too much or you will blow out the highlights and not be able to recover them.
)