On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 06:47 PM, Ross Orr wrote:
I feel like the E-1 and the E system have not really lived up to the
hype. Image-wise it doesn't sound like the real-world quality is there
yet,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/
I have been critical too, but to be fair the reviews on that site,
while thorough, are dealing with minute differences in image quality. I
doubt that you would be able to tell the difference between prints made
from an E-1 image and the band of 6 MP DSLRs except for small
differences in color rendition which could be adjusted.
And so far the E lens system hasn't delivered the advantages the PR
claimed: Where are the ultra wide angles? Where are the f/1.4-class
lenses?
New system from the ground up unlike the others and without the hoped
for help of sharing the burden from the 4/3 coalition of the willing.
It is a different world and a manufacturer just does not take the
chance of creating a whole new system at once like Oly did with the
OM-1.
Worst, contrary to the PR claims, the E-1 throws overboard the most
beloved feature of the OM series, its *compactness*. The E-1 is
BIG--though peeking inside the mirror box at the size of the vital
organs, I find it mystifying why. The grip is too large for my hand (I
have smaller hands), and the whole body seems unnecessarily deep.
Well. If you accept that it is a pro camera it is much smaller than a
Nikon D1X or Canon 1Ds.
And I just don't understand why the viewfinder magnification is so
much smaller than life size.
Because the image and mirror is so much smaller. That is the downside
of a 2x focal length equivalence. If you are going to have a smaller
sensor then you are going to have to settle for some combination of
smaller and/or dimmer. Every digital SLR maker makes its own compromise.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|