Dpreview's review of Olympus E-300

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

We discussed the noise issue before on this forum, but to me it's all the
other problems that make the E-300 unattractive. Such as:

1. unpredictable underexposure problems

2. Adobe RGB not at all color accurate (see Macbeth chart)

3. vignetting and barrel distortion bad for an unambitious $300 lens

4. can lose images if CF compartment door is opened during write

5. long zooms and telephotos are not a good value for money

6. proprietary (untested) flash accessories

7. only 3 AF points (perhaps more important to others than to me)

Probably Olympus can easily fix #2 with a firmware update, and perhaps #1
also, though #1 probably indicates poor implementation of matrix metering.
I believe all remaining problems are insoluble until the next model.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote in news:41e8041f@news.meer.net:

> We discussed the noise issue before on this forum, but to me it's all
> the other problems that make the E-300 unattractive. Such as:
>
> 1. unpredictable underexposure problems
>
> 2. Adobe RGB not at all color accurate (see Macbeth chart)
>
> 3. vignetting and barrel distortion bad for an unambitious $300 lens
>
> 4. can lose images if CF compartment door is opened during write
>
> 5. long zooms and telephotos are not a good value for money
>
> 6. proprietary (untested) flash accessories
>
> 7. only 3 AF points (perhaps more important to others than to me)
>
> Probably Olympus can easily fix #2 with a firmware update, and perhaps
> #1 also, though #1 probably indicates poor implementation of matrix
> metering. I believe all remaining problems are insoluble until the
> next model.

If you read the article you find even more:

8. Only ISO 100-400 usable.

9. Demosaicing artefacts.

10. Not as crisp, per pixel sharpness, as other DSLR.

11. Ugly noise.

12. Very bad result when you try to correct under exposed
pictures, i.e. very bad dark areas.

13. Small viewfinder.



/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41e8041f@news.meer.net>, can@spam.co says...
> 1. unpredictable underexposure problems

Yeah, that is a bit bizarre.

> 2. Adobe RGB not at all color accurate (see Macbeth chart)

Not too much of an issue if you shoot RAW and use 3rd party software.
But how likely is that if you're buying a "budget" dSLR? Well, still
pretty likely, I suppose.

> 3. vignetting and barrel distortion bad for an unambitious $300 lens

That's more an issue with the mount than the camera, but the two are
pretty much linked due to the poor selection of 4/3rds lenses.

> 4. can lose images if CF compartment door is opened during write

To be fair, this pretty much happens on all dSLRs from Canon.

> 5. long zooms and telephotos are not a good value for money

Yeah. No image stabilization doesn't help.

> 6. proprietary (untested) flash accessories

Enh. I don't use the flash that much, so less of an issue to me.

> 7. only 3 AF points (perhaps more important to others than to me)

I've got 7 AF points on the 10D and I only use the center one, all the
others are less sensitive and tend to be flaky. The 20D is supposed to
be better, but I have yet to try it out.

I was actually impressed with the image quality of the E-300. Maybe
it's because I set my expectations so low with the noise. Compared with
the 20D it's not great, but for $500 less it's not doing too bad. The
biggest deal breaker is the lens mount. Not that great of a selection
and not that much savings over a traditional mount.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:41e8041f@news.meer.net...
> We discussed the noise issue before on this forum, but to me it's all the
> other problems that make the E-300 unattractive. Such as:
>
> 1. unpredictable underexposure problems
>
> 2. Adobe RGB not at all color accurate (see Macbeth chart)
>
> 3. vignetting and barrel distortion bad for an unambitious $300 lens
>
> 4. can lose images if CF compartment door is opened during write
>
> 5. long zooms and telephotos are not a good value for money
>
> 6. proprietary (untested) flash accessories
>
> 7. only 3 AF points (perhaps more important to others than to me)
>
> Probably Olympus can easily fix #2 with a firmware update, and perhaps #1
> also, though #1 probably indicates poor implementation of matrix metering.
> I believe all remaining problems are insoluble until the next model.
>

You would have to be insane to buy this camera, especially since the
300D and D70 can be found cheaper.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1105726889.180310.105160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> By the way, why do you feel the need to bash the E300?
>
> Same reason little guys drive around in big Ford trucks with "Piss on
> Chevy" emblems (and visa versa) - that ugly brew of ignorance,
> confusion of brand=lifestyle, overcompensation, lack of self-esteem,
> and us versus them thinking.

BTW - why do you feel the urge to bash the post?

The E-300 got a bad review. Get over it.

> There are a whole lot of current cameras - digital and otherwise -
> whose performance I find lacking. But I don't make it a habit of
> randomly pointing that out, however.

You just did.



/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95DEC48554B52klotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
says...

> But it was less sharp, so it might be better to compare
> to 6 Mpixel thingies. And they are not $500 more expensive.

Maybe try it with a different lens. Or shoot RAW in case the internal
camera processing is the culprit.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105730699.992120.80320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Bash the post? Nope. The poster? Maybe. Mostly just the motive behind
> it - I'm not a big fan of the E-300 (at least at this point) either,
> but I don't see the need to harp on that, or to get into this Canon vs
> Nikon vs Whatever (AKA - mine is longer than yours) debate.
> Brand loyalty - it ain't a pretty sight.
>

Get a life, the poster is pointing out some serious flaws of the E-300.
That is perfectly fine and within the guidelines of this newgroup.
He didn't troll with subjective remarks and I did not detect any brand
loyalty in his post.
The fact is, there are serious issues and design shortcomings with this
camera, and only some *loyal* to Olympus would consider it over
the D70 or 300D. Someone in this thread compared the E-300 to
the 20D which is laughable. This camera is a 300D/D70 competitor,
in theory that is.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1105730699.992120.80320
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Bash the post? Nope. The poster? Maybe. Mostly just the motive behind
> it

You guessed the motive. I dare say you guessed wrong.

> - I'm not a big fan of the E-300 (at least at this point) either,
> but I don't see the need to harp on that, or to get into this Canon vs
> Nikon vs Whatever (AKA - mine is longer than yours) debate.
> Brand loyalty - it ain't a pretty sight.

If a camera gives bad results in a test, then it is not
any brand loyalty to tell that here.


/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1105733086.317456.107180
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> No - mine's longer

You are rather single minded - are you not



/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1105734735.096099.4210
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> 8=D ;(

OK - we get it


/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> No idea here, but I heard that the kit lens which comes with the 300D is
> not good.
[...]

I haven't heard that. Everything I've heard matches what I've found: The
kit lens is a decent value for $100. It's not the sharpest lens on the
planet, nor the fastest, but it covers a good range of focal lengths, it's
sharp enough to do decent photography, and it's very inexpensive.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
> And opening the cf-card door while the led is flashing is just stupid,
> it's not a fault of the camera.

Maybe so, but it's not a difficult engineering problem to solve.

Film cameras have a similar problem. Many newbies, and old-timers,
ruin film accidentally. I have a < $200 SLR that locks the back door
while film is in the camera. Locking mechanism are not costly.

I wasn't trying to bash the E-300, just pointing out a number of
photography-related problems not related to noise. Unlike the E-1,
the E-300 does not appear to be "a photographer's camera."

Also I should note that the Adobe RGB color accuracy problem also
** occurs when shooting RAW and using Olympus conversion tools. **

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105733086.317456.107180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No - mine's longer

Your loyalty to Him is dully noted.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> "Dave" <webkatz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1105726889.180310.105160
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> By the way, why do you feel the need to bash the E300?
>>
>> Same reason little guys drive around in big Ford trucks with "Piss on
>> Chevy" emblems (and visa versa) - that ugly brew of ignorance,
>> confusion of brand=lifestyle, overcompensation, lack of self-esteem,
>> and us versus them thinking.
>
> BTW - why do you feel the urge to bash the post?
>
> The E-300 got a bad review. Get over it.
>

Bad review? Recomended rather than highly recomended?

Depends on how you look at what it does. For some people it's the wrong
camera system. For others, it's a great camera. People seem to ignore a few
of the good things like the resolution is as good as a 20D etc. I like the
extra DOF, the 2X lens factor and the 4:3 sensor ratio. The lenses I've
used (50 F2 macro and 11-22 zoom) have excellent performance even wide
open. The kit lens might not be world class but it's better than what canon
gives you with theirs.

Yes it has some issues, some could be fixed with firmware. That's why the
firmware is upgradeable. I'm shooting landscapes in RAW at ISO 100 using
the 11-22 lens and it's produced some of the nicest images I've seen from
any digital or film camera I've ever used. People that have used it seem to
be happy with the images it produces. I guess if you want to open the CF
door while the camera is writing an image you should buy something
else? :-/

I know many canon users HATE any camera other than their own and feel a
need to belittle anyone who doesn't choose their camera model. It was
interesting watching all the canon users flock to the OM on line forums
bashing this camera when NONE have ever even used one! I suppose if these
people had actualy used the camera it would make more sense to me..

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> The 20D provides the same image quality at ISO 400 as the E300
> does at ISO 100.

Have you seen prints from both to claim this as a fact? Just curious where
you got these numbers from.

>
> And compared to the E1, the 20D is a full stop faster (for the same image
> quality) and a lot more pixels.

Who's talking about the E1?


>
> On the 20D, the 200/2.8 is a tiny fraction of the price (and weight!) of
> the Oly 150/2.0.

And it's a stop slower lens.



--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:

> We discussed the noise issue before on this forum, but to me it's all the
> other problems that make the E-300 unattractive. Such as:
>
> 1. unpredictable underexposure problems

Haven't seen this, but I always use aperture priority.

>
> 2. Adobe RGB not at all color accurate (see Macbeth chart)

Haven't seen this, but the lab I use wants files is sRGB anyway. I bet this
isn't an issue with RAW files processed in PS ACR.

>
> 3. vignetting and barrel distortion bad for an unambitious $300 lens

I haven't seen this either with the little I've used the kit lens, maybe
wide open it's "bad"? The 11-22 F2.8 doesn't have any of these issues.

>
> 4. can lose images if CF compartment door is opened during write

Duh? Like why would you do that anyway? :-)

>
> 5. long zooms and telephotos are not a good value for money

The sigma zoom is said to work great on this camera and is $140? Works
better than on the other Dslr's because it's using the center of the lens.


>
> 6. proprietary (untested) flash accessories

Untested by who? And any flash will work, just not in TTL mode. And like
canon and nikon flashes aren't "proprietary"?

>
> 7. only 3 AF points (perhaps more important to others than to me)

This is one reason I like it, the other Dslrs have too much clutter in the
viewfinder. How many people -need- 7 AF points?



I like how people ignore the good points and focus on the others. Shoot this
camera in RAW and "develop" with PS RAW 2.4 using good optics and it's
sharp as a tack. I also like the self cleaning sensor etc.

I figured the canon users would bash this camera and I was right. If any of
the people complaining had actually used one or seen the prints made from
one with some PP, I could understand. Looks like the only people
complaining are the people who shoot with canon gear? So what's new....
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Roland Karlsson wrote:

> > The E-300 got a bad review. Get over it.
>
> Bad review? Recomended rather than highly recomended?

DPreview only has two rating.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jürgen Eidt" <JurgenE@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> schrieb
> > DPreview only has two rating.
> Three ratings so far:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdx7590/page9.asp

Oops. I forgot Lake Woebegone, where all the children are _above average_.

Highly recommended = OK
Recomended = Several fatal flaws
Above average = Don't even think about buying this camera.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cs9k6k$ba3$2@reader2.panix.com>, Paul Wylie says...
> Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > No idea here, but I heard that the kit lens which comes with the 300D is
> > not good.
> [...]
>
> I haven't heard that. Everything I've heard matches what I've found: The
> kit lens is a decent value for $100. It's not the sharpest lens on the
> planet, nor the fastest, but it covers a good range of focal lengths, it's
> sharp enough to do decent photography, and it's very inexpensive.

Do a Google search and you will find that after the 300D was launched
there were a lot of posts here complaining about the cheap lens it came
with and advising against using the kit lens.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2J5Gd.119328$K7.112171@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, One
Million Pictures says...

> Saddly for the consumer, Canon is the *the* DSLR to measure all other by. If
> the Olympus camera costs as much as a Canon dslr, it needs to perform as
> well as them too, or it is a dud. Given all the shortcomings reported for
> this camera, one can only presume it really is a dud.

The E300 costs over 500 Euro less than the 20D (811 vs 1328 Euro for the
camera+lens combo). That's quite a significant difference.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:34rpjjF4ene52U1@individual.net:

> Bad review? Recomended rather than highly recomended?

Nearly no camera get anything below "recomended" at dpreview.
I assume that Phil Askey must do so to get more cameras
for free to review. Nothing wrong with that, you just have
to adjust your scale - thats all.

> People that have
> used it seem to be happy with the images it produces.

I am happy with the pictures my G2 produces and if someone
gave me a E-300 with a kit lens, I should also be happy
with the pictures it produced. I should very fast buy a
sharper lens though.

But - I know that my G2 is less capabale than a good
DSLR. Now it also look like the E-300 is not top notch.
One of the major disadvantages with the E-300 seems to
be the lousy sensitivity - the dark parts of the images
look terrible and ISO 100-400 can my G2 handle also.

> I know many canon users HATE any camera other than their own and feel a
> need to belittle anyone who doesn't choose their camera model. It was
> interesting watching all the canon users flock to the OM on line
> forums bashing this camera when NONE have ever even used one! I
> suppose if these people had actualy used the camera it would make more
> sense to me..

Very few people HATE cameras. This is a myth. It is also a method
to accuse others with negative comments to be brand loyal, in an
argumetation to belittle others opinions. I am sorry - but I find
that kind of "off topic" way of argumentation offensive.


/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do a Google search and you will find that after the 300D was launched
> there were a lot of posts here complaining about the cheap lens it came
> with and advising against using the kit lens.

I think the early reviews were probably from folks who had unrealistic
expectations of a $100 lens. The consensus view of the kit lens, both
in this newsgroup and on Photo.net, is that it's a pretty good lens,
especially for $100.

It was because of that consensus that I decided to buy the Digital Rebel
with the kit lens, and I've been happy with the performance. As I already
mentioned, as long as your expectations aren't unrealistic about a $100
lens, you'll be happy with the results.

Those wishing to use sharper lenses, or lenses with wider apertures can
choose from an assortment of quality lenses. They don't have to buy the
kit lens if they don't want to. However, the kit lens is so inexpensive
and versatile that it makes almost no sense to forego it, unless one
already has a substantial investment in Canon-compatible glass covering
that precise range of focal lengths. And someone with such an investment
is unlikely to choose the Digital Rebel as his entry into the Canon dSLR
market.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <MPG.1c52fe7b56dd246998a946@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Do a Google search and you will find that after the 300D was launched
>there were a lot of posts here complaining about the cheap lens it came
>with and advising against using the kit lens.

The lens may have changed since the 300D was introduced. I remember
picking up a 300D with the kit lens in B&H right after the 300D came
out, and the lens was silver/grey, IIRC, and had a horrible rough feel
when turning the zoom ring or the focus ring. The 18-55 that came with
my 20D has a smoother feel, and feels better-constructed than what I
remember on the 300D. it is still pretty worthless for manual focusing,
though, as the focus changes as soon as you release your fingers from
the lens.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:


>
> Very few people HATE cameras.

Lots of people seem to hate anything other than what they chose to buy.
Obviously to me by the numbers of canon users flooding the OM online forums
bashing this camera that something is going on.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in

> Looks like the only
>> people complaining are the people who shoot with canon gear?
>
> Hey - 2 people have written negative stuff here about the camera - me
> and Bill (OP).
>

Read is thread. Go to the DPreview olympus forum and read the HUNDREDS of
posts from canon users who flooding that group bashing this camera. Seems
odd people using another brand would be so concerned about this?

Notice no one here other than me has even used one or probably even looked
at one in 3D yet all are saying it's a "failure".

Then again the "my brand is best" stuff has been going on for decades and
isn't just with camera gear. All I was trying to say is: for certain
people/uses, this camera works really well. To dismiss it because someone
posts a list of questionable issues (like propritary flashes or the CF card
door issue) seems silly to me.

>now it is back at Pentax DS
>where I have some old but good lenses.

Which you'll probably be disappointed with using on a Dslr. Once you get
to the 6MP and above, the old optics aren't likely to resolve well enough
to get the extra performance these sensors provide. It's why the "kit" lens
on almost all of these don't provide the performance the good optics do.

Like I said in another post, no one is looking at the good points of this
under $1000 camera or understand why some of the test shots don't look that
sharp ect. With good glass using either ACR in PS or some other RAW
converter, the image quality at ISO 100 is amazing. Better than any of the
other sub $1000 cameras I tried out. If you need low light shooting ability
or cheap long tele lenses, buy something else. For what I shoot this was a
good choice and I believe with a firmware update some of the other issues
could be addressed. They were trying to get this out for Xmas and probably
rushed it out too quick.

--

Stacey