I agree. Something is seriously misaligned and the sensor sounds like
the culprit. Whatever it is the camera needs to go back.
Chuck Norcutt
Ian Nichols wrote:
> My tale really starts with this picture:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ynqmdz
>
> Which I took on my first outing with the E-3 back in December. You'll
> notice it's not aligned perfectly, it's rotated ant-clockwise
> slightly. This bothered me a bit, because I was sure I'd paid special
> attention to alignment at the time. I let it pass and resolved to pay
> more attention in future. But then I kept noticing that I seemed to
> have lost the knack of holding a camera level, not that I considered
> myself particularly skilled there, but I noticed a difference. Then
> there was TOPE 33. That one came out straight. I used live view for
> that. Hmm, I tried an experiment.
>
> I found a piece of old worktop with a nice orthogonal pattern on it,
> set up the E-3/50mm f/2 macro pointing straight down at it (used a
> spirit level), aligned the pattern with the image edges using live
> view and took a picture. Here it is, shrunk to 1600x1200 pixels.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2sekcr
>
> Perfectly aligned, I hope you'll agree. Then I opened the eyepiece
> shutter and looked through the optcal viewfinder. It was noticeably
> out of alignment, so I rotated the camera (using the geared head)
> until it was back in alignment and took another picture. This is what
> the sensor saw:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37ztth
>
> Now that just doesn't look straight to me - and obviously isn't if you
> check the bottom and right edges. It's also rotated anti-clockwise by
> about the same angle as that picture of the brigde tower I started
> with, so enough to spoil a composition where alignment is critical.
>
> For comparison, I tried the E-300 using the same lens. After aligning
> in live view, I couldn't see any misalignment in the viewfinder, so
> I deliberately rotated the camera and then realigned it by eye. These
> are the results. Without looking at the filenames, I can't tell which
> is which.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cczz8
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36m8wx
>
> They're both very very slightly out in an anticlockwise directon, but
> I'll take the blame for that.
>
> Have I found another teethng trouble with the E-3? Am I being too
> critical? I've now convinced myself that I *can* tell when the
> camera's level, but what's the point if it's going to record a rotated
> image anyway? My gut feeling is that this should not be regarded as
> acceptable in a camera costing £1099, so I'm going to report my
> findings to Olympus anyway.
>
> Oh, one other observation - when I swapped cameras there was no
> discernible difference in the image alignment between the optical
> viewfinders of th E-3 and E-330, which suggests a misaligned sensor in
> the E-3.
>
> Anyone else found anything similar? with any SLR?
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|