Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
is the olympus e3 a match for the sony or nikon as it has the smaller sensor
Quote: Is the olympus e3 a match for the sony or nikon as it has the smaller sensor
From the reports I've read,for the vast majority of photographers,the E3 would hold it's own in this company.Not only that,it has 'pro' build quality and the lenses are smaller/lighter.
The Olympus E1 had 'only' a 5M sensor but apparently it was a 'good' sensor and could punch above it's weight when it came to prints.10M pixels is surely more than enough for most of us.
Plus many think the price of the E3 will probably drop as time passes making it even more competitive.
I understand Nikon & Canon together own the majority of the world's cameras market. The rest of the brands only accounts for less than 1/5 of the world cameras market. Nikon & Canon's positions & reputations in the market place are indeed hard-earned. I am a Nikon man, alway owned Nikon SLRs. A few years ago, I ventured beyond my usual brand and paid heavily for that. I have always maintained, that once you handled a Nikon, you will stay with Nikon. My preference: Nikon D300 with the 18-200mm VR lens!
Quote: Is the olympus e3 a match for the sony or nikon as it has the smaller sensor
Yes it is, and the sensor is not that much smaller just a different format.
The sensor size has alway been made out as a negative 
Just look through the gallery and a very large % of 3/2 are cropped to death
A 2.0 crop sensor, as on all Olympus DSLRs, is not really going to be a match for full-framers from Canon, and now Nikon.
However, it is not at any great disadvantage compared with the 1.6 crop Canons and 1.5 crop Nikons. The 4/3 system used by Olympus was "designed for digital" from scratch which is said to give an advantage.
Quote: A 2.0 crop sensor, as on all Olympus DSLRs, is not really going to be a match for full-framers from Canon, and now Nikon
True CB, but your comparing apples to oranges here
Quote: The Olympus E1 had 'only' a 5M sensor but apparently it was a 'good' sensor and could punch above it's weight when it came to prints
Still happy using mine
There are plenty of E3 reviews apearing now.
review
I don't think the sensor size is that important, except if you need really high ISO. In that case the "full framers" (which the OP didn't ask about) will be better - at the expense of vignetting in certain situations. The Olympus won't have this problem.
I think the choice between the E3, D300 and A700 will be made on different criteria, such as which lenses you have - or need - and how you like the camera's handling. One thing about the A700 (apart from a fantastic LCD, much underestimated of course, which the D300 shares) is that you almost never need to mess about with menus. All the controls you need (metering options, focus options, etc) are available on dials ("levers" as Sony call them). Plus it has memory-recall settings for your favourite preset settings, again available on a dial. But the E3 looks good. I wonder if its image stabilisation is going to get rubbished by the Canikonista like Minolta/Sony's has.
Quote: OK, this Canikonista stuff is becoming rather boring, can you back up your claim? cos I don't recall in camera stabilisation being rubbished as such.
Cambirder, a new attack-dog! It depends where you're looking. If you're looking on this (sparse) forum do a search on posts where in-camera stabilisation is "better than nothing". I think Strawman has conducted some experiments - although, I admit, he usually talks sense.
If you're looking at the rest of the web, you should look at DPR, in particular. They managed to get the specs right, at least. I almost don't want to write this, because it's giving you ammunition, but look at the stuff about Sony SSS - you need to look carefully.
That's the way it is.
Quote: I think the choice between the E3, D300 and A700 will be made on different criteria
I think it already is, at least with 4/3
What makes 4/3 different to Pentax/Sony is that it fills a niche, were as Pentax/Sony are really offering nothing different and a fair bit less than Canon/Nikon.
Quote: I understand Nikon & Canon together own the majority of the world's cameras market. The rest of the brands only accounts for less than 1/5 of the world cameras market
I really can`t see many of those using Canon/Nikon changing over to any of the smaller three brands. What you are starting to see though are a number of Nikon/canon users adopting 4/3 to run alongside what there already using for those occasions when they want to travel light and leave the bigger heavier stuff at home.
Quote: Cambirder, a new attack-dog
Lol, hardly
Yet another E3 review Posted.
here
Attack dog! Moi!
strawman stropps off in the huff
Hmm faced with the choice E3, D300, A700 hmmm
I know get the Canon 40D and spend the money saved on lenses.
Biased I do not know where they get it from
To be serious I have not tried them (well I picked up a D300 quickly and can say it was a camera and that I manged to upset the tracking focus feature) so no definite view from me. I just saw my name.
Sorry a friend with a Sony A100 and I did some back to back tests, The 100 did better than my camera with no IS, but equipped with a 28-135, the canon system was more consistent, sometimes the Sony IS did not work well.
So my view was in-camera IS better than no IS, in-lens IS better. My friend with the Sony was happy as his camera worked better in this respect than mine and was not upset with the result. It matches with the review results I have read. But that is all part of a Canikon conspiracy to do down Sony, apparently :-0.
It's the festive season lets just say all three are probably very good pick you own.
Quote: I was referring to this site, where I've not seen any such thing.
Well you haven't looked very hard then. Anyway, Strawman has helpfully repeated his findings above. But he's not the only one who says this sort of thing. If you look through the forum you'll see statements to the effect that AS/SSS is less effective on long lenses - which is unfortunately exactly where you need it most.
The A700 review has the following statement:
"Also, there's anti-shake technology built into the body - activated with a switch, which gives between 2.5EV and 4EV extra stops to play around with, though this is all dependent on how still you can hold the camera anyway."
Doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of in-camera IS.
The E3 preview says that the Olympus claims for their IS are probably "exaggerated". Et cetera.
I don't see any such equivocation when it comes to the effectiveness of Canon IS and Nikon VR - or maybe I missed it? My personal opinion is that the manufacturers' claims in this area need to be given some credence - and they all make fairly similar claims - not only because there is such a thing as the Advertising Standards Authority but because, in order to design and develop this technology they must have a pretty good way of measuring its effectiveness. I think you need pretty strong test evidence before the claims are called into question. In my experience SSS lives up to the claims.
Anyway, it was just a throw-away remark. You shouldn't be so sensitive.
BTW, Strawman, I think you'll find the A700 can be found for about the same price as the 40D, if you look around. Mine cost £650.
Quote: Doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of in-camera IS.
And nether is it rubishing the systems
Quote: My personal opinion is that the manufacturers' claims in this area need to be given some credence - and they all make fairly similar claims
I give marketing claims little credence whoever they come from (just see how many non-macro lenses have macro stamped on them)
Quote: Anyway, it was just a throw-away remark. You shouldn't be so sensitive.
Nice that you admit your claim has no substance.
Quote: Nice that you admit your claim has no substance.
On the contrary, I think I've just fully substantiated it.
With regard to the manufacturers' claims I was careful to say that you should give them credence unless you have good evidence to the contrary - especially when they're in high tech areas that are very difficult to verify. No one has yet come up with any evidence worth a bean that the manufacturers' claims are wrong - and most of the people making the claims probably haven't even used the system that they're criticising.
In any case my point is about having a level playing field. Why are the Canon IS/Nikon VR claims tacitly accepted? Like I said, I don't see any slightly weasely words about these systems, to the effect that, of course, they only work if you hold the lens reasonably steady, etc. But maybe I've just missed it. Let me know if you find anything to that effect - or even any attempt to verify their claims.
Otherwise, let's just drop it or it'll get as boring as the LCD debate - BTW has EPZ managed to see the light on this yet? I thought one of the moderators was looking into it. I've actually checked it myself using real cameras rather than specs. The A700 does indeed have 4 pixels for every one on the standard A100 LCD. The pixels themselves, on both cameras, are red, green, blue or white - not R, G or B as stated in the review. This seems true for all LCDs, as far as I can see.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top