Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Olympus Evolt E-300

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:45:57 AM

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

$1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on "flypaper".
http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...

More about : olympus evolt 300

Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:24:39 PM

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

"Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> $1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
> interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
> with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on "flypaper".
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...

For an additional $75, you can get an E-1. You sacrifice a little
resolution, but pick up features and a a professional build.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 4:31:06 AM

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

Barry Bean wrote:
> "Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > $1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
> > interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
> > with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on
"flypaper".
> > http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...
>
> For an additional $75, you can get an E-1. You sacrifice a little
> resolution, but pick up features and a a professional build.

You have two more options
i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)
ii) For the same price get a Nikon D70 or the Canon Rebel XT

;) 

- Siddhartha
Related resources
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 3:44:02 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> What is not up to snuff that causes the E300 not to sell well?

Image quality, no USB 2.0 or Firewire, Unacceptably high noise at
higher ISO settings, No Mirror Lock-Up, Lens selection (the 4:3
standard has not gone anywhere, so do not ever expect a good selection
of lenses).

Mostly it's that the competition is much better, for not much more
money.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 7:05:59 PM

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

"Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> $1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
> interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
> with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on "flypaper".
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...

You can get it for a net cost of about $550 now. It isn't selling well, and
has been heavily discounted.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:22:21 PM

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

In article <1110533466.961957.97860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain says...

> You have two more options
> i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)

Why isn't the E300 a "real camera" ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:22:22 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9bf2213321fa0f98aa3f@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1110533466.961957.97860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Siddhartha Jain says...
>
>> You have two more options
>> i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)
>
> Why isn't the E300 a "real camera" ?

It is, and isn't bad, but it isn't competitive with the offerings from Canon
and Nikon. I think the writer was trying to make a point using humor.

Note the wink...

> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:09:53 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c9bf2213321fa0f98aa3f@news.supernews.com>,
alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
> > You have two more options
> > i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)
>
> Why isn't the E300 a "real camera" ?

It's made of cheese. Cheddar, I believe.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 11, 2005 10:12:47 PM

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

Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Barry Bean wrote:
> > "Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > $1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
> > > interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
> > > with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on
> "flypaper".
> > > http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...
> >
> > For an additional $75, you can get an E-1. You sacrifice a little
> > resolution, but pick up features and a a professional build.
>
> You have two more options
> i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)
> ii) For the same price get a Nikon D70 or the Canon Rebel XT
>
> ;) 
>
> - Siddhartha

I thought they were all real cameras... oooh silly me - just someone
else anonymously having fun being rude.... what a child...
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:39:32 PM

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

What is not up to snuff that causes the E300 not to sell well?

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>"Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>$1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
>>interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
>>with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on "flypaper".
>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...
>>
>>
>
>You can get it for a net cost of about $550 now. It isn't selling well, and
>has been heavily discounted.
>
>
>
>
March 11, 2005 11:39:33 PM

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

In article <8mnYd.17352$Pz7.5884@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> What is not up to snuff that causes the E300 not to sell well?
>
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> >"Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >>$1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
> >>interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
> >>with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on "flypaper".
> >>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You can get it for a net cost of about $550 now. It isn't selling well, and
> >has been heavily discounted.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From what I have seen as far as pictures produced with the E-volt, there is
nothing seriously WRONG with it, it simply doesn't have anything "special"
enough about it (The ultrasonic cleaner is NICE but not a deal closer), and
it has a limited lens selection (OLY only), which cannot be used anywhere
else (at least so far).

In other words, its not so much whats wrong with the camera, but rather there
is not quite enough right with it.

The competition is stiff.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 3:18:16 AM

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

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> In article <MPG.1c9bf2213321fa0f98aa3f@news.supernews.com>,
> alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
> > > You have two more options
> > > i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)
> >
> > Why isn't the E300 a "real camera" ?
>
> It's made of cheese. Cheddar, I believe.

In the ratio 4:3 :) )

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:42:22 AM

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

While this months Pop Photo rate the Canon 20D and the Nikon D70 1 and 2
respectively, they did give the Evolt a reasonably good review. I
wonder why. If it is the fact they are an advertiser then why should
you trust them with any rating including Nikon and Canon.

scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>What is not up to snuff that causes the E300 not to sell well?
>>
>>
>
>Image quality, no USB 2.0 or Firewire, Unacceptably high noise at
>higher ISO settings, No Mirror Lock-Up, Lens selection (the 4:3
>standard has not gone anywhere, so do not ever expect a good selection
>of lenses).
>
>Mostly it's that the competition is much better, for not much more
>money.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:44:29 AM

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

That I can see. I do think that Canon is the one to get right now.

Larry wrote:

>In article <8mnYd.17352$Pz7.5884@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>measekite@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>What is not up to snuff that causes the E300 not to sell well?
>>
>>Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Blaze Garlan" <sawlake-emblazongarland@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1110465957.560209.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>$1,000 USD, 8 MP, true optical SLR, Compact Flash, Zuiko
>>>>interchangeable lenses. Supposedly shakes debris off the CCD filter
>>>>with a 375 kilohertz (supersonic) buzz and collects it on "flypaper".
>>>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/03/shake-it-like-pola...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You can get it for a net cost of about $550 now. It isn't selling well, and
>>>has been heavily discounted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>From what I have seen as far as pictures produced with the E-volt, there is
>nothing seriously WRONG with it, it simply doesn't have anything "special"
>enough about it (The ultrasonic cleaner is NICE but not a deal closer), and
>it has a limited lens selection (OLY only), which cannot be used anywhere
>else (at least so far).
>
>In other words, its not so much whats wrong with the camera, but rather there
>is not quite enough right with it.
>
>The competition is stiff.
>
>
March 12, 2005 6:22:21 AM

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

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Barry Bean wrote:

>
> You have two more options
> i) spend a bit more and get a real camera (Canon 20D)

Hell yea, I want a camera that locks up like a windows computer does! :-)

Only "real" computer related products have that feature!

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:27:44 AM

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

In article <2OrYd.16985$OU1.639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> While this months Pop Photo rate the Canon 20D and the Nikon D70 1 and 2
> respectively, they did give the Evolt a reasonably good review. I
> wonder why. If it is the fact they are an advertiser then why should
> you trust them with any rating including Nikon and Canon.

Pop Photo has never met a camera they didn't like. They pretty much
pull punches for every manufacturer.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 13, 2005 1:27:45 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c9d36ed2df47ab998a80c@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> In article <2OrYd.16985$OU1.639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
> > While this months Pop Photo rate the Canon 20D and the Nikon D70 1 and 2
> > respectively, they did give the Evolt a reasonably good review. I
> > wonder why. If it is the fact they are an advertiser then why should
> > you trust them with any rating including Nikon and Canon.
>
> Pop Photo has never met a camera they didn't like. They pretty much
> pull punches for every manufacturer.
>

They also rated the Sigma SD10 in the same article, and they did so as a 10+
megapixel camera... they MUST know better than that!


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:28:20 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c9d422c9f9ba469989763@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > Pop Photo has never met a camera they didn't like. They pretty much
> > pull punches for every manufacturer.

> They also rated the Sigma SD10 in the same article, and they did so as a 10+
> megapixel camera... they MUST know better than that!

At least they said the Fuji S3 only delivered resolution on par with a 7
megapixel camera, not 12 megapixels. Part of that could be Fuji's own
reluctance to sell the S3 on the basis of better spatial resolution
instead of better dynamic range.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
!