Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E1 or E300

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 5, 2005 4:57:00 PM

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

A local dealer is chucking out the E1 with 14-45 lens for $1,427.
The E-300 is $1,398 with same lens.
What to do?
DonB

More about : e300

April 5, 2005 6:01:50 PM

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

Oops, I completely stuffed the figures up.
In $US, the E1 is $699, the E300 is $978.
Assuming I like the handling of both cameras in the shop, The E1 would
be a bargain would it not?
DonB
April 5, 2005 8:36:43 PM

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

Thanks very much Michael.
I went and had a look at both since, and the extra bulk of the E1 does
not really suit me.
Looking at your info above, for my purposes, the size factor outweighs
the advantages.
Cheers
DonB
Related resources
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 10:28:48 PM

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

oink@woosh.co.nz writes:

> A local dealer is chucking out the E1 with 14-45 lens for $1,427.
> The E-300 is $1,398 with same lens.
> What to do?

In December, I went for the E1 over the E300, but I went for the more expensive
lens (14-54) so that I could shoot in the rain if need be. Other E1 advantages
include:

The E1 workes with my 3rd party flash (Promaster), while E300 does
not;

The E1 has an external white balance sensor (which means less color
correction);

The E1's focus assist light is just a steady red light while E300's
use of the flash for focus assist would be annoying;

The E1's ISO can go 1 stop faster for low light shots;

The E1 has a pc-sync connector in addition to hot-shoe and can fire off a flash
connected to both;

The E1 can turn the noise filter on/off while E300 you have to shoot RAW to
turn it off.

On the other hand, the E300 has more megapixels, and a builtin flash.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
April 6, 2005 12:02:31 AM

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

David, I knew someone would do this to me! :) 
I see and hear what you are saying about the 350xt. But newly released
here, it is overpriced, and when a reputable dealer here drops the
aging but regal E1 to near half the price of the Canon, one tends to
overexcitment. I also have 3 excellent zuiko prime lenses, and always
had manual cameras so not worried about that aspect. But in the hand
it is bigger than I want after a couple of years of prosumers.
Perhaps I will wait til later when the Olympus/Panasonic dslr king hit
comes out, then the Canon will be going for a song......
Cheers,
DonB
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 1:12:09 PM

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

<oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote:

> Thanks very much Michael.
> I went and had a look at both since, and the extra bulk of the E1 does
> not really suit me.
> Looking at your info above, for my purposes, the size factor outweighs
> the advantages.

Caution: Canonista Olympus bashing follows!

If you want a small/light dSLR, check out the Canon 350D before you spend
your money on the E300: smaller/lighter, lower noise images, much wider
selection of lenses, especially fast primes and 3rd party inexpensive zooms.
If you will be doing much high ISO/low-light work, the 350D is by far the
better camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page17.asp

While the E300 will produce good images at ISO 100, it's ISO 400 is
seriously problematic compared to Canon/Nikon.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

See the photo in the photo.net review: the 350D really is tiny. With a small
prime (24/2.8 or 35/2.0 or 50/1.8), the 350D almost fits in a pocket like a
P&S camera. (Well, with an emphasis on almost: it'll fit in a briefcase or
larger handbag easily, though.) So far, the selection of prime lenses for
the E300 is rather limited.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
April 6, 2005 1:12:10 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> <oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Thanks very much Michael.
>> I went and had a look at both since, and the extra bulk of the E1 does
>> not really suit me.
>> Looking at your info above, for my purposes, the size factor outweighs
>> the advantages.
>
> Caution: Canonista Olympus bashing follows!
>
> If you want a small/light dSLR, check out the Canon 350D before you spend
> your money on the E300: smaller/lighter, lower noise images, much wider
> selection of lenses,

If you don't mind low quality images, if you want to take advantage of the
resolution this 8MP camera can deliver, only the best L lenses will do.

> especially fast primes and 3rd party inexpensive
> zooms. If you will be doing much high ISO/low-light work, the 350D is by
> far the better camera.
>

BTW David have you ever actually used a OM or is this just you spewing
stuff you're read third hand again?

To the OP, if you don't mind shooting RAW, the E-300 is a great camera IMHO
and between the 11-22, the 50mm F2 and the 50-200, you won't find lenses
this good elsewhere, especially the wide zoom. If you need to shoot Jpegs,
get the E1 or wait to see if they fix the in camera NR in the next
firmware. They already fixed it in their software RAW converter and have
had a couple of firmware updates already which fixed the metering issue.
After you see the results from the new ZD lenses, you won't want to use
your old primes. These new lenses are that good.

--

Stacey
April 6, 2005 1:12:10 PM

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

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> <oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Thanks very much Michael.
> > I went and had a look at both since, and the extra bulk of the E1 does
> > not really suit me.
> > Looking at your info above, for my purposes, the size factor outweighs
> > the advantages.
>
> Caution: Canonista Olympus bashing follows!
>
> If you want a small/light dSLR, check out the Canon 350D before you spend
> your money on the E300: smaller/lighter, lower noise images, much wider
> selection of lenses, especially fast primes and 3rd party inexpensive zooms.
> If you will be doing much high ISO/low-light work, the 350D is by far the
> better camera.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page17.asp
>
> While the E300 will produce good images at ISO 100, it's ISO 400 is
> seriously problematic compared to Canon/Nikon.
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>
> See the photo in the photo.net review: the 350D really is tiny. With a small
> prime (24/2.8 or 35/2.0 or 50/1.8), the 350D almost fits in a pocket like a
> P&S camera. (Well, with an emphasis on almost: it'll fit in a briefcase or
> larger handbag easily, though.) So far, the selection of prime lenses for
> the E300 is rather limited.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Have you seen all lthe threads about the plastic lens mount on the
Cannons grinding away when you change the lenes and then getting in the
sensor - not the sort of Camera I'd buy in a hurry!
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:43:10 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bhctcF6f8k8cU1@individual.net...
>
> If you don't mind low quality images, if you want to take advantage of the
> resolution this 8MP camera can deliver, only the best L lenses will do.
>

gee, I guess that means that all the many non-L lenses aren't good for anything,
since we all know film has higher resolution than any consumer digital, right?
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 6:14:53 PM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

> <oink@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Thanks very much Michael.
> > I went and had a look at both since, and the extra bulk of the E1 does
> > not really suit me.
> > Looking at your info above, for my purposes, the size factor outweighs
> > the advantages.
>
> Caution: Canonista Olympus bashing follows!
>
> If you want a small/light dSLR, check out the Canon 350D before you spend
> your money on the E300: smaller/lighter, lower noise images, much wider
> selection of lenses, especially fast primes and 3rd party inexpensive zooms.
> If you will be doing much high ISO/low-light work, the 350D is by far the
> better camera.

I dunno, I tend to prefer the colors that Olympus delivers over what I
typically saw in Canon gear. To each their own, enjoy your 350D and I will
enjoy my E1.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 8:58:26 PM

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

"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Have you seen all the threads about the plastic lens mount on the
> Cannons grinding away when you change the lenes and then getting in the
> sensor - not the sort of Camera I'd buy in a hurry!

No, because there never were any such threads.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page6.asp

"The EOS 350D has a metal EF / EF-S lens mount which means that it can use
the full range of Canon EF lenses as well as the newer EF-S lenses."

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:37:11 AM

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

"Michael Meissner" wrote ...

> I dunno, I tend to prefer the colors that Olympus delivers over what I
> typically saw in Canon gear. To each their own, enjoy your 350D and I
> will
> enjoy my E1.

=====================

That seems like a reasonable perspective on the matter.

When I bought my first DSLR, the choice came down to either the Olympus E-1
or the Canon 20D. I'm really enjoying my E-1 - with no nagging quality
control issues to take away from that enjoyment :) 

Rob
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:38:39 AM

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

To address the original question: I would, and did, choose an E-1 over the
E-300, and every other DSLR, as well.

Rob
April 7, 2005 2:20:33 AM

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

SamSez wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bhctcF6f8k8cU1@individual.net...
>>
>> If you don't mind low quality images, if you want to take advantage of
>> the resolution this 8MP camera can deliver, only the best L lenses will
>> do.
>>
>
> gee, I guess that means that all the many non-L lenses aren't good for
> anything,

Yep.

> since we all know film has higher resolution than any consumer
> digital, right?


A 1.6X crop from 35mm isn't better than any consumer digital, that's what
we're talking about. Trying to get 8MP resolution from a APS sized sensor
requires good glass.
--

Stacey
April 7, 2005 2:47:44 AM

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

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > Have you seen all the threads about the plastic lens mount on the
> > Cannons grinding away when you change the lenes and then getting in the
> > sensor - not the sort of Camera I'd buy in a hurry!
>
> No, because there never were any such threads.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page6.asp
>
> "The EOS 350D has a metal EF / EF-S lens mount which means that it can use
> the full range of Canon EF lenses as well as the newer EF-S lenses."
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I stand corrected!
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 7:16:01 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bjjnhF625uc6U1@individual.net...
> SamSez wrote:
>
> >
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3bhctcF6f8k8cU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> If you don't mind low quality images, if you want to take advantage of
> >> the resolution this 8MP camera can deliver, only the best L lenses will
> >> do.
> >>
> >
> > gee, I guess that means that all the many non-L lenses aren't good for
> > anything,
>
> Yep.
>

well, there's a good reason to take you seriously
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 7:16:02 AM

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

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:RB15e.7929$4b.320@trndny08...
>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bjjnhF625uc6U1@individual.net...
>> SamSez wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3bhctcF6f8k8cU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> If you don't mind low quality images, if you want to take advantage of
>> >> the resolution this 8MP camera can deliver, only the best L lenses
>> >> will
>> >> do.
>> >>
>> >
>> > gee, I guess that means that all the many non-L lenses aren't good for
>> > anything,
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>
> well, there's a good reason to take you seriously
>
>
My thoughts, exactly. Stacey has a hard time accepting the idea that
anything less than "L" Canon glass is competitive with her Oly glass...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:24:50 AM

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

> >> > gee, I guess that means that all the many non-L lenses aren't good for
> >> > anything,
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >
> > well, there's a good reason to take you seriously
> >
> My thoughts, exactly. Stacey has a hard time accepting the idea that
> anything less than "L" Canon glass is competitive with her Oly glass...

sounds like we have ourselves a new George Preddy here.
Big difference is that Olympus actually makes some great
cameras and lenses and Sigma doesn't.. But still it smells
like Preddy all the way.

-Em
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:03:12 AM

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

"Emma Knaps" <emmaknaps@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a735f378.0504070324.404b95c7@posting.google.com...
>> >> > gee, I guess that means that all the many non-L lenses aren't good
>> >> > for
>> >> > anything,
>> >>
>> >> Yep.
>> >
>> > well, there's a good reason to take you seriously
>> >
>> My thoughts, exactly. Stacey has a hard time accepting the idea that
>> anything less than "L" Canon glass is competitive with her Oly glass...
>
> sounds like we have ourselves a new George Preddy here.
> Big difference is that Olympus actually makes some great
> cameras and lenses and Sigma doesn't.. But still it smells
> like Preddy all the way.
>
> -Em

She's worked herself into a lather because of perceived slights from what
she says are Canon shooters, but when confronted and asked to provide
specifics, she dodges. She also has quite a few useful comments on other
subjects, so she's not really a George Preddy.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 7, 2005 6:31:45 PM

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

In article <eca5e.2$lz2.1@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net says...
> She's worked herself into a lather because of perceived slights from what
> she says are Canon shooters, but when confronted and asked to provide
> specifics, she dodges. She also has quite a few useful comments on other
> subjects, so she's not really a George Preddy.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
>
Though she may have some predjudice toward the camera of her choice, I've
never seen her post anything I thought was "designed" to start a flame war,
nor have I noticed any posts from her that are less than helpfull (at least
in some way).
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:42:50 PM

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

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbf46988536154a989985@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <eca5e.2$lz2.1@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net says...
>> She's worked herself into a lather because of perceived slights from what
>> she says are Canon shooters, but when confronted and asked to provide
>> specifics, she dodges. She also has quite a few useful comments on other
>> subjects, so she's not really a George Preddy.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>>
> Though she may have some predjudice toward the camera of her choice, I've
> never seen her post anything I thought was "designed" to start a flame
> war,
> nor have I noticed any posts from her that are less than helpfull (at
> least
> in some way).
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

No, she's definitely not troll material! <G>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!