is it me or does olympus have a winner in the E-500

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/e500.html

preview of the E-500. comes with the ZD14-45 as kit lens :bigeyes:

8mp kodak sensor with full frame transfer.

only thing is tt i don know how the ISO performance is

and the price is only US799 RRP??

 

[poh6702]

Care to elaborate what is the meaning of "full frame transfer"? Obviously all camera sensor must transfer "full frame" of picture captured to the memory:think:

 

[hammer_400]

Care to elaborate what is the meaning of "full frame transfer"? Obviously all camera sensor must transfer "full frame" of picture captured to the memory:think:

haha... well firstly, the kodak sensor is full-frame size (wrt 4/3 system) just like how the 5d is full frame (wrt 35mm system) and medium format..... just that the field of view equivalent compared to 35mm full frame is 1.94x...
when pple refer to full frame transfer CCD, it refers to kodaks CCD where ALOT of the CCD surface is used to collect light, compared to interline CCDs like in the d70...

 

[fWord]

The ZD 14-45mm lens gives an equivalent of 28-90mm in the 35mm film format. Going based on this, I'm guessing that the sensor on this camera is half the size of a 35mm film negative. So it isn't actually a full-frame sensor camera.

The older E-300 offered a package that was very good value for money, but I just wasn't pleased with the high ISO performance. Hopefully, the E-500 will be better in that regard. At this time though, it'll be a long more way before I get my next DSLR.

 

[mpenza]

The ZD 14-45mm lens gives an equivalent of 28-90mm in the 35mm film format. Going based on this, I'm guessing that the sensor on this camera is half the size of a 35mm film negative. So it isn't actually a full-frame sensor camera.

It's actually, 1/4 the size of a 35mm film negative (areawise). But in terms of the lenses, the coverage was designed for this sensor size (unlike lenses designed for 35mm film).

 

[2100]

haha... well firstly, the kodak sensor is full-frame size (wrt 4/3 system) just like how the 5d is full frame (wrt 35mm system) and medium format..... just that the field of view equivalent compared to 35mm full frame is 1.94x...
when pple refer to full frame transfer CCD, it refers to kodaks CCD where ALOT of the CCD surface is used to collect light, compared to interline CCDs like in the d70...

Full frame? It's actually just semantics. But if it leads people to believe that the E-500 is a winner due to this reason, and the pix quality is superior w.r.t Nikon or other APS sizes, or any other reasons like light collecting performance of lenses, pricing etc....... then power to Olympus and the consumers. :thumbsup: $$ and Marketing is extremely important.

 

[2100]

But I have to say that i really like supersonic wave dust protection. Kudos to Oly to incoporate it into the affordable line-ups. It's really frustrating if you really shoot a lot, say for me every 3-4 weddings i have to open it up and physically clean the sensor. (blowing with bulb blower is insufficient). Every cleaning is about 15 mins including checks on full screen, it isn't difficult but it is not without risks.

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

and kudos to them for offering a 14-45 ZD lens for the rec retail price of USD799!! wow. :bigeyes:

 

[Ah Pao]

I like the physical design of the E-500 most among all the others in the E-series. Looks like Olympus has a winner! :thumbsup:

 

[LittleWolf]

Care to elaborate what is the meaning of "full frame transfer"? Obviously all camera sensor must transfer "full frame" of picture captured to the memory:think:

"Full frame transfer" refers to the way the image signal is read out from the sensor. It should allow larger light sensitive sites and, therefore, improve sensitivity/reduce noise. It has nothing to do with the image format.

 

[litefoot]

Care to elaborate what is the meaning of "full frame transfer"? Obviously all camera sensor must transfer "full frame" of picture captured to the memory:think:

Conventional CCD read out the information in the pixels through shifting line by line into a register and to the buffer. FF transfer means literally FF read out. Why better? Each pixel will no longer need a shift register which make space for holding image information.

 

[litefoot]

Full frame? It's actually just semantics. But if it leads people to believe that the E-500 is a winner due to this reason, and the pix quality is superior w.r.t Nikon or other APS sizes, or any other reasons like light collecting performance of lenses, pricing etc....... then power to Olympus and the consumers. :thumbsup: $$ and Marketing is extremely important.

Say this in a DCS forum and you will get slammed badly. All the Kodak DCS range uses the same technology.

 

[zekai]

dunno what type of winner it will be boy....

 

[eric69]

But I have to say that i really like supersonic wave dust protection. .

Yeah, the supersonic wave dust protection is a nice feature. and having used a E-1 and E300 previously (part of friend's studio Oly gears), I must admit that the SW really does work.

But the problem is for the E500, the supersonic wave mechanism is activated everytime the camera is switched on. This added some delay to the cam starting up time. Maybe for a beginner, 99.9% of the time he may not feel the delay or don't bother by it. But there are always times where one would want to switch on a cam "instanteously", and that's when the delay may seem "un-tolerable".

For the E500, it will be good if we can activate this SW mechanism manually or automatically everytime the cam detected a change of lens.

But given the price, consumers can't really complain more. Cheers.

 

[nightpiper]

But I have to say that i really like supersonic wave dust protection. Kudos to Oly to incoporate it into the affordable line-ups. It's really frustrating if you really shoot a lot, say for me every 3-4 weddings i have to open it up and physically clean the sensor. (blowing with bulb blower is insufficient). Every cleaning is about 15 mins including checks on full screen, it isn't difficult but it is not without risks.

hello 2100, check out this 1DsII test sample & u will really appreciate the supersonic wave duster even more. see how many "elephants" u can spot. :bsmilie:

http://www.pbase.com/jayseejay/image/50132722/original

the pic is huge, so broadband is highly recommended.

 

[2100]

Say this in a DCS forum and you will get slammed badly. All the Kodak DCS range uses the same technology.

Bro, no offence really meant.

Kodaks, hey I did actually consider a Kodak DCS SLR/n quite some time back because one of my contacts offered it to me at a pretty low price as he has changed to offering videography. I needed a new body and a D2X does not make the $$$ sense to me (not that i do not shoot enough). Sadly, the present Kodaks will not do it in terms of noise levels (at least for my wedding and events needs), if you are talking about this technology offering good performance in this area.

 

[2100]

hello 2100, check out this 1DsII test sample & u will really appreciate the supersonic wave duster even more. see how many "elephants" u can spot. :bsmilie:
http://www.pbase.com/jayseejay/image/50132722/original

Wah lao, that pbase pix is nothing lar. :bsmilie: Wait till you kena 1 big elephant on somebody's face.

No problem, I have my own share of elephant problems. I can fully appreciate the problem, i just spent 1 lousy man hour last week cloning and healing brush out elephants from an outdoor wedding shoot because it was damn sunny (bo bian, time constraints), i needed to stop down to f13-f14 as 1/500 is as fast as my flash sync would go. Not sure where and when did i get them, i usually check once every 2 weddings.

Nowadays, i just blow it first with a blower, then use a cotton ear bud, some microfibre lens cloth, 99.9% isopropanol, and just whack the lens cloth in to clean lar. The AA filter/glass is pretty hardcore and can take quite a fair bit of abuse, within common sense of course.

 

[litefoot]

Bro, no offence really meant.

Kodaks, hey I did actually consider a Kodak DCS SLR/n quite some time back because one of my contacts offered it to me at a pretty low price as he has changed to offering videography. I needed a new body and a D2X does not make the $$$ sense to me (not that i do not shoot enough). Sadly, the present Kodaks will not do it in terms of noise levels (at least for my wedding and events needs), if you are talking about this technology offering good performance in this area.

Well, just like conventional CMOS, logically in terms of noise its never a good comparison against CCD. However, CMOS is well deployed in Canon's DSLRs.

I guess I too have low tolerance for "noise". To a certain extend that I am telling people that if you are not using original Nikkor wide angles and Speedlight for your photography needs, I would not recommend a Nikon DSLR. I am sure I will get slammed for such a comment.

I am getting a lot of recomendation on the DSC as a "Nikon" FF. To me, I too have reasons that its never an option of mine.