E300 review is out!!!

[nightpiper]

it is not becos of the kodak sensor thats why its noisy, its becos Oly has less noise reduction than, eg., canon. u really think the CMOS is less noisy? go dig up other forums & u will find techincally incline people (esp forums related to sensors) praising the FFT sensor designed by kodak. have u ever come across canon users saying that at ISO 800-3200, there's a lack of detail no matter how much sharpening was done later? seriously, u can't just use only noise as a yardstick to measure any brand of DSLR.

before i bought the E1, i was also very skeptical about Oly's noise issue. after a few hands on in exhibition, it won me over. the image just speaks for itself (& thank kodak for their FFT sensors). now that i have tried ISO 800, i wud say its very acceptable, and after noise ninja, its brilliant.

just for the discussion sake, what others r comparing in the sensors deptbased on technical papers from manufacturers:

1) MF CCD digital backs (eg, leaf valeo)---- 12 stops
2) Oly's E1 FFT CCD ---- 11 stops
3) Canon 20D/1D mkII ---- 9+ stops
4) Canon 300D/10D ---- 8 stops
5) Sony CCDs (those that give u min ISO200) ---- 7+ stops

these r based solely from what i read. i m in no position to verify its accuracy & Sony has since withdrawn their technical papers from their site.

if Oly's sensor is not good enuf, i guess the rest is even worse.

by saying astronomical photography, there r many types. if u want those shots with arcs of light, u need a film camera, cos' every DSLR after 1 min will heat up & hot pixels formed. its up to the manufacturer to mask it, & that masking will trade off with details. remember to look for the north star if u want light trails to be in complete circles. also u have been warned of shortening the lifespan of your sensor considerably by keeping it 'hot' for mins/hrs.

 

[nightpiper]

just went to look at the review samples. the pics r very good! look at the tank & his wife at ISO 400.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=olympuse300_samples/

also see how he plays with the noisy ISO 1600 to enhance the rust on the vintage car. very good indeed. :thumbsup:

 

[kimbo]

With the review confirming my earlier posts on E300 birding
I think Olympus SG owes all E300 owners a FREE COPY of Oly studio 1.2
..
NO amount of admitting or frank discussions at any Oly gathering
can heal the amount of money we paid to get this level of
noise and soft photos, even with a lens costing nearly
SG $4000.

Phils review was very FORGIVING. there are many
things he did not say.


If I knew that the CCD was KODAK.. I would NEVER buy
the E300.

Regds
Allan

Allan, I have been browsing your post about your BIRDING experiences etc.. I think its a very painful experience to own something of this AMOUNT OF MONEY which incurr much misery on you. Advice for a fellow human being - GET RID OF IT and live happily ever after.

 

[Allan Teo]

Allan, I have been browsing your post about your BIRDING experiences etc.. I think its a very painful experience to own something of this AMOUNT OF MONEY which incurr much misery on you. Advice for a fellow human being - GET RID OF IT and live happily ever after.

Hi
I still use the E300 to compliment my D70.. Lucky for me I BORROWED
the lens.. :bsmilie: The kit lens is very good. So now I no longer
fit any super expensive lens onto it..

I use it as my 'rough camera' and put on a canon 500d to take
macros and other stuff that should work for me.


But I will take your advice when I see no more use for it.

The E1 is a very very good camera at ISO 100 , focuses at the
blink of an eye..

I would eagerly await an E2 with all the features of the E1 and more.

If I had done anything wrong with my flying eagle experiences, it
does not matter now, I can pull out better shots by using something
else.. maybe I am dumb and my other camera is smart , but I now
I use the E300 for purposes that I do not find it a problem with.

Coming back to software, I am wondering why we must pay
SG$179.00 to get better detail out of the raw files?

How come Olymaster cannot pull out the same details?

Olympus owns the format to their raw files and could have
provided the same algolrithm for both software.

I wonder how Adobe Photoshop raw compares to oly studio .. :think:


Regds
Allan

 

[chii]

Hi
I still use the E300 to compliment my D70.. Lucky for me I BORROWED
the lens.. :bsmilie: The kit lens is very good. So now I no longer
fit any super expensive lens onto it..

I use it as my 'rough camera' and put on a canon 500d to take
macros and other stuff that should work for me.


But I will take your advice when I see no more use for it.

The E1 is a very very good camera at ISO 100 , focuses at the
blink of an eye..

I would eagerly await an E2 with all the features of the E1 and more.

If I had done anything wrong with my flying eagle experiences, it
does not matter now, I can pull out better shots by using something
else.. maybe I am dumb and my other camera is smart , but I now
I use the E300 for purposes that I do not find it a problem with.

Coming back to software, I am wondering why we must pay
SG$179.00 to get better detail out of the raw files?

How come Olymaster cannot pull out the same details?

Olympus owns the format to their raw files and could have
provided the same algolrithm for both software.

I wonder how Adobe Photoshop raw compares to oly studio .. :think:


Regds
Allan

Phil has done a side by side comparision @ dpreview..

 

[chancy]

Hi
I still use the E300 to compliment my D70.. Lucky for me I BORROWED
the lens.. :bsmilie: The kit lens is very good. So now I no longer
fit any super expensive lens onto it..

I use it as my 'rough camera' and put on a canon 500d to take
macros and other stuff that should work for me.


But I will take your advice when I see no more use for it.

The E1 is a very very good camera at ISO 100 , focuses at the
blink of an eye..

I would eagerly await an E2 with all the features of the E1 and more.

If I had done anything wrong with my flying eagle experiences, it
does not matter now, I can pull out better shots by using something
else.. maybe I am dumb and my other camera is smart , but I now
I use the E300 for purposes that I do not find it a problem with.

Coming back to software, I am wondering why we must pay
SG$179.00 to get better detail out of the raw files?

How come Olymaster cannot pull out the same details?

Olympus owns the format to their raw files and could have
provided the same algolrithm for both software.

I wonder how Adobe Photoshop raw compares to oly studio .. :think:


Regds
Allan

Hello Allan,

Have you considered Olympus Viewer as an option for RAW processing ? It comes with an E-1 but is listed on Oly's website as supporting the E300 as well. It isn't exactly 'free' for an E-300 but then again it doesn't cost $179/- either

Anyone with an E1 should be happy to lend a copy for trial if you're still keen

Meanwhile Ykkok & Tomcat has mentioned about the availability of a Photoshop RAW plugin by Olympus at a recent thread.

Rgds,

 

[Allan Teo]

Hello Allan,

Have you considered Olympus Viewer as an option for RAW processing ? It comes with an E-1 but is listed on Oly's website as supporting the E300 as well. It isn't exactly 'free' for an E-300 but then again it doesn't cost $179/- either

Anyone with an E1 should be happy to lend a copy for trial if you're still keen

Meanwhile Ykkok & Tomcat has mentioned about the availability of a Photoshop RAW plugin by Olympus at a recent thread.

Rgds,

Thanks for the advice.. I am downloading the plugin now :bsmilie:
.
I am convinced of the E dust system - no issue with that..
I also like the lens, my final flying eagle shot was as perfect
as it can get with the E300, when it (allowed the shot)

I will await the appearance of the E2 , any
birding camera i choose now would have to

1. Multipoint Focus at high speed
2. Take fast multiple shots like the Canon 20D
3. Save the Raw files at high speed..

I do hope their future CCD would be very clean at
ISO 400 and 800 as multiple shots photos
are taken much better with higher ISO.

Let hope technology advances by then.

Allan

 

[ykkok]

Hi all,

Now, basically we have these options at hand to process RAW files:

1. Olympus Master
2. Olympus Studio
3. Olympus Viewer (really!? I need to test it out)
4. Olympus RAW for Photoshop
5. ACR plugin by Adobe for Photoshop CS v2.4 beta

From my superficial testing, the ACR (5) does not perform Dynamic noise reduction, because it simply shouldn't.

However, don't bother to try item (4), it's too limited and worse than (5).

Some reasons why this Dynamic noise could not be switch off :

1. Product differenciation, E1 (Pro) more details, E-300 (Consumer) less
2. Trying to sell their Olympus Studio
3. Simply too much noise to be appealing to the masses, as Olym Master is bundled.
4. Rushing for X'mas, resulting in buggy or inmature firmware
5. Provide some 'rooms' for firmware upgrade later, that the buyers will perceive as olympus provides 'better support and upgradability'

It can be any of them, or may be all of them!

Nevertheless, I still like this camera, and hoping Olympus to provide Studio for free, or fix those tiny flaws quickly.

 

[serene]

Hi
From what I know, Olympus Master is an upgrade of the former Camedia 4x..

BTW, I encountered a pleasant surprise, when using either Studio or Camedia, the image looks kind of edgy and some lines look jagged. But when I blew them up as my wallpaper, viola, looks so cystal clear. Don't know whether this has something to do with the LCD. The other question that begs to be answered is - how will the image look on print.

Anyway, I found the wall papers I made to be of excellent quality - my colleagues literally gasped at the impressive images. Seems like every day is a discovery for me

 

[germ_boi]

As far as I know, sales seem to be doing pretty well. Not as well as the Minolta D7D, but better than the S3Pro at least.

how can you compare the S3 with the E300? one costs $3.5k and the other costs $1.6k?! tsktsk...

its like comparing a D2H with a E300?

besides, with the rich vivid details and awesome colors along with the fantastic dynamic range, i do not see anyone WHO owns and really uses a S3 who will complain abt its performances. (other than the shutter speed of course... but then again, why do we need 8fps for in normal circumstances?)

 

[serene]

how can you compare the S3 with the E300? one costs $3.5k and the other costs $1.6k?! tsktsk...

its like comparing a D2H with a E300?

besides, with the rich vivid details and awesome colors along with the fantastic dynamic range, i do not see anyone WHO owns and really uses a S3 who will complain abt its performances. (other than the shutter speed of course... but then again, why do we need 8fps for in normal circumstances?)

While I don't know anything about the Fuji's and the D2H, I can say that as a 2-week old user of DSLR, I am very pleased with the results (the image sharp though the colors are more on the film-like). It is also very affordable for a newbie like me. Already, my colleagues are exclaiming how good the images look, especially how good they themselves look in the pics (this is more important as not many people think others take good pics of them)

 

[ykkok]

The strength of Olympus cameras is their tonality, which is rich and film-like. Most will look good if you print straight from the camera. That's the reason I bought Olympus DSLR instead of the rests. In fact, I've printed out quite a lot, and they look just great fresh from the camera.

Before getting this E-300, I've already know that its noise is higher, limited range of lenses etc. But this was (and is) what I'm looking for:

1. Lesser photoshoping (post-processing)
2. Richer tone and Dyn-range (not dead-flat photos)
3. Lighter to carry
4. A few pieces of good lenses, as now I can choose original Zuikos, which is cheaper relatively to N and C (not S, T and T).

Here's what I like:
http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools

(the pictures!)

So ask yourself, are you looking for 1:1 quality (native size on screen), or photo quality (print outs)? I would like to have digital photos that closely mimic film but I don't and won't scan those negatives and blow-up on screen to inspect their graininess. Do you need to?

 

[eric69]

I'll save you the trouble. It's not due to the height of the flash but due to the hood itself. If the hood is attached properly, the long petals on the 2 sides have a tendency to cause vignetting at the wide end (14mm) of the zoom. You can see this in the viewfinder without having to fire the flash and take a shot. It would look worse in the image because the coverage of the viewfinder is not 100%.

Thanks. But once you use an external flash (higher flash), the flower hood no longer obstruct the light, and the picture is well-lited. Was in CathayPhoto yesterday, the E-300 sure weigh very light, but somehow the ability to use at its wide end is limited due to the problem we just highlighted. Guess I'll give it a miss. Also the actual feeling of holding the camera in my hand felt strange, it's too light for comfort, and also the box-ish shape take some convincing to get used to. But nevertheless, I don't doubt the capability of Oly E-300. Will continue to look for a travel cam to replace my Oly C5050Z. Cheers.

 

[ykkok]

Hi,

But aren't we suppose to remove any hood for indoor flash photography?

 

[chancy]

Thanks. But once you use an external flash (higher flash), the flower hood no longer obstruct the light, and the picture is well-lited. Was in CathayPhoto yesterday, the E-300 sure weigh very light, but somehow the ability to use at its wide end is limited due to the problem we just highlighted. Guess I'll give it a miss. Also the actual feeling of holding the camera in my hand felt strange, it's too light for comfort, and also the box-ish shape take some convincing to get used to. But nevertheless, I don't doubt the capability of Oly E-300. Will continue to look for a travel cam to replace my Oly C5050Z. Cheers.

Hello Eric69,

If it's a travel cam you seek and unless you're looking for a equivalent replacement to your 5050, do reconsider the E300. Weight is usually an important consideration for travel photography, but if you feel it's too light for comfort, you may wish to know that the E300 mount & body structure is designed to handle the weight of the full range of Zuiko Digitals up to the 300mm F2.8. That speaks alot for robustness. Normally these two attributes don't come together in a single body and should be valued for travel. You may consider the HLD-3 battery grip if you want sometime meatier & more confidence-inspiring.

As for the boxy appearance, the lack of protrusions facilitates equipment stuffing on the move. Not quite the way cameras have always looked like but very functional.

For the built-in flash, the lens hood should not get the way of illumination for general travel subjects. From my short hands-on, it illuminates evenly & without hotspots at normal subject distance. Unless you're shooting into the sun, the hood can be removed for macro subjects when flash is needed. Not an issue if you can afford space for an external flash for travel.

The system introduced with the the E300, the FL36 & the kit lenses all designed to be compact while offering very good performance, this makes the E300 a leading contender for travel photography.

But ergonomics is subjective and a choice for you to make.

Cheers,

 

[tert]

Hi all,

Now, basically we have these options at hand to process RAW files:

1. Olympus Master
2. Olympus Studio
3. Olympus Viewer (really!? I need to test it out)
4. Olympus RAW for Photoshop
5. ACR plugin by Adobe for Photoshop CS v2.4 beta

A question for all you friendly Oly owners:

With regards to the excellent colour and saturation rendition (albeit slushy details) of the Oly's JPEG images, and the capability to achieve exceptionally high level of detail when one shoots RAW and proceed them with some of the softwares mentioned above, I gathered that a trade-off might exist between achieving the Oly-type colours of E1 fame on the E300 (as one forum member had mentioned that no matter how much tweaking were applied could he bring the converted RAW files close to the colours of the jpegs) and the level of detail by going RAW.

My question is whether any of the softwares above allow me to do both: To go RAW and yet attain the colours Oly's famous for?

 

[nightpiper]

not exceptionally high level of details but a little more detail & DR can be harness if its shoot in RAW & process under Studio or Viewer (only these 2 s/w & not the master or other plug ins). i m also not comparing jpegs straight from cam. i have found that by using RAW & processing it to jpegs, the images in fact look better than jpegs themselves. the E sys so far allows users to shoot RAW+Jpg, so i can actually make a direct comparison of the same scene.

again i quote from what i read which was not verified in any way, the colour is good becos the Kodak FFT CCD is actually using 14 bits instead of 12 bits of colour (ADC). if this is true, that wud explain why only Oly's software can retrieve better colours than any other vendors. i think that cud be very possible, just look at those MF digital backs, they run on 16 bits colour.

i have no doubt that Oly has very good colours but one thing i find limiting is the standard 8 bits per colour allocation. they saturate & clip too fast making colourful images not that colourful anymore. u get what i mean? this is the reason why i still like slide films. that kind of saturation, i dare say, is not achieveable by any '35mm DSLR' on the market today (probably MF can rival it).

 

[tert]

not exceptionally high level of details but a little more detail & DR can be harness if its shoot in RAW & process under Studio or Viewer (only these 2 s/w & not the master or other plug ins). i m also not comparing jpegs straight from cam. i have found that by using RAW & processing it to jpegs, the images in fact look better than jpegs themselves. the E sys so far allows users to shoot RAW+Jpg, so i can actually make a direct comparison of the same scene.

again i quote from what i read which was not verified in any way, the colour is good becos the Kodak FFT CCD is actually using 14 bits instead of 12 bits of colour (ADC). if this is true, that wud explain why only Oly's software can retrieve better colours than any other vendors. i think that cud be very possible, just look at those MF digital backs, they run on 16 bits colour.

i have no doubt that Oly has very good colours but one thing i find limiting is the standard 8 bits per colour allocation. they saturate & clip too fast making colourful images not that colourful anymore. u get what i mean? this is the reason why i still like slide films. that kind of saturation, i dare say, is not achieveable by any '35mm DSLR' on the market today (probably MF can rival it).

What do you think about the potential of shooting RAW+Jpeg, converting the RAW with ACR and use Adobe colour match to calibrate the processed RAW to match the jpeg?

 

[2100]

Hi,

But aren't we suppose to remove any hood for indoor flash photography?

Well, i usually shoot with the hood on unless I am shooting in tight spaces and so need to work compactly. Of course i don't use the built-in flash.

 

[chancy]

A question for all you friendly Oly owners:

With regards to the excellent colour and saturation rendition (albeit slushy details) of the Oly's JPEG images, and the capability to achieve exceptionally high level of detail when one shoots RAW and proceed them with some of the softwares mentioned above, I gathered that a trade-off might exist between achieving the Oly-type colours of E1 fame on the E300 (as one forum member had mentioned that no matter how much tweaking were applied could he bring the converted RAW files close to the colours of the jpegs) and the level of detail by going RAW.

My question is whether any of the softwares above allow me to do both: To go RAW and yet attain the colours Oly's famous for?

- Edited : I forgot to add that this test involves pictures taken with an E1 not from an E300 -

Hello Tert,

In my opinion, if one is after Oly colours, it's only logical that Oly's products be sourced since no one knows the characteristic of Oly colour better than Oly themselves.

I will share my experience with using Viewer because that's about all the time I have to do a test. Before that, I would like to state that I'm slightly colour blind. But this test isn't about reporting how true colours are but whether RELATIVE colour differences exists between two similar images of different format. I believe our eyes are good for discerning such activities, colour-blind or not. But the grains of salt are for yours to take

I took a RAW photo which I coverted to JPEG at full resolution & highest quality in Viewer. Both files were then viewed side by side in Viewers Light Box mode which allowed such a comparison. It has a productive link option that moves both images in the same direction & distance to facilitate comparison.

When magnified at life size 1:1 & greater (something which I rarely do, since I don't like to pixel peep). I observed that other than the aliasing effects of lossy jpeg compression. There is a barely noticeable colour variation between the two. The JPEG version exhibited colours that are a shade lighter than the ORF version. The colour quality of the ORF files are slightly deeper (richer) than that in JPEG.

I did the same test on the same picture exported as 16-bit channel TIFF. The subjective colour difference looks closer to ORF in TIFF than JPG. But I can't help but notice better (richer) colours in the ORF than TIFF which appears very slightly lighter.

I can't be sure if JPEGs & TIFFs are best exported within Oly's Viewer/Studio or from Photoshop or in-camera (JPG) only. Further tests are required. And since I don't shoot JPG+RAW, I can't comment further as I have no such samples.

Anyway, regardless, these are my test procedures, try out Viewer or Studio if you have yourselves & let's hear by your eyes. My results are your conclusions to make.

Cheers,