Finally: the DPReview of the E-3

[Max@Home]

...what many have been waiting for: at first glance a thorough in-depth review of the E-3.

Some highlights from the conclusion:

Reviewer: Simon Joinson:

To start with there's no doubt that the E-3 is, without a shadow of a doubt the best Four-Thirds camera ever made and a more than worthy (if a little tardy) successor to the original E-1.

Compared to the best competitors in the 'semi pro' sector the E-3's achilles' heel is without doubt its Four-Thirds sensor, which struggles to match the high ISO performance and dynamic range of the best APS-C based models (such as Nikon's new D300).

Its also a camera that will only produce the best results in experienced hands; you need to be prepared to roll up your sleeves and take control of metering, exposure, focus and (unless you're shooting raw) white balance; the automatic systems are over sensitive and sometimes go seriously awry.

If Olympus could only find a sensor to match the quality of the camera itself and the lenses available, the E-3 would have been lifted into a class of its own.

Features like in-body IS and a tilting screen are all well and good, but a camera at this level needs to offer the ultimate image quality and total shooting versatility, and here the E-3 stuggles to match its direct competitors.

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Paul Shields]

I guess reviews matter to some, but I take all of them with huge pinches of salt - particularly if I already have the item in hand . I think the review could have been written by 10 different people and there would be 10 different conclusions.

My own review - it's great, best camera I've used though not the best handling. My 0.02p for those too cheap to buy a magazine .

[eric rose]

Interesting. First they say it's the best four-thirds camera ever built and then they say it struggles to match it's direct competitors. So which is it?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by eric rose

Interesting. First they say it's the best four-thirds camera ever built and then they say it struggles to match it's direct competitors. So which is it?

Both

If looking only to four-thirds, the E-3 is the best ever among these, if taking into account the 1.5x/1.6x cropped (APS-C) cameras of the other brands, it struggles with these...

Best within it's own family, but struggling to keep up with the Jones'...

Hope that explains a little, *my* €0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Paul Shields]

Depends on who the Jones's are though. I guess a Nikon D300 may be better, but as they're so different in functions and capabilities the decision over which is best can only ever be subjective, and also needs to be based on a consideration of the whole system. When I say it's the best I've used I include my Canon 5D in that list, but others may think I'm crazy to think that.

The thing with the 4:3rds is that they don't have to keep up with the Jones's. They just need to continue developing the system. The E-1 was a magnificent camera when it came out, and still is. The E-3 will no doubt be 'improved' by an E-5 or whatever, but it doesn't detract from what it can do for you now or in the future.

Things are looking very encouraging I feel with the Olympus roadmap. Lots of new and innovative features (that usually get copied though not bettered by others a generation or two later ), as well as a proper regard to the art and science of photography and optical design. Two thumbs up .

[keepright]

I read some of the review -- the first ten pages or so -- and once I'd smoothed my feathers down a bit I was quite happy with what I'd read.

He complains about the sensor, and probably has some valid concerns. I bought my E-1 long after its reviews were out, so I knew from the beginning that the sensor would be the weak point of the 4/3 format.

But so what? The image sensor is also the least important part of the imaging system. The light and the lens that shapes it is far more important than the camera. (And of all the components of the camera, the sensor is the last one to matter. If anything else fails to perform then the sensor quality is irrelevant.) If you're looking for the highest final image quality, the sensor matters less than the printer.

He also writes that the raw file is relatively fragile, while the camera itself is capable of handling extreme situations. Again, that's nothing new to me as my E-1 has the same feature. If I do my job right as a photographer, I will never push the boundaries of the raw file; if I need more than 1EV of highlight recovery I've scr@wed something up to begin with. And those few photographers who routinely and correctly need to pull every last pixel out of a single raw file aren't the ones looking to DPReview to see if they should buy a 40D or a D40.

And all of this -- the question of being a hair-breadth better or worse than the competition -- is irrelevant to the vast majority of photographers. I was out a month ago with some photographers from my club, both active and accomplished image-makers. They were discussing the Canon 40D and trying to decide if it was worth the upgrade, if the new features had value, and if it would make better images. They both decided they should wait for the next model. They both use the Canon 10D. And they're sincere, too -- I remember having the same conversation about the 30D with one of them.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

The thing with the 4:3rds is that they don't have to keep up with the Jones's. They just need to continue developing the system.

I don't entirely agree , to be able to continue to develop they need research money, thus income, thus sales... sales is in an open competitive market, and the niches get thinner and thinner by the flood of other cameras that are out...

The E-1 was a magnificent camera when it came out, and still is. The E-3 will no doubt be 'improved' by an E-5 or whatever, but it doesn't detract from what it can do for you now or in the future.

No argument here, but the same can be said about many if not all cameras, and that doesn't mean that both consumers and manufacturers should keep striving for better or more, as long as they feel they did not squeeze the last quality-drop out of their system.

...just some thoughts, *my* €0.02...

With my kindest regards and respects,

Max@Home

[Paul Shields]

Sure, sales stimulate growth and development. However, I haven't see Olympus slipping in this area. On the contrary, I see them constantly being innovative. To be honest, it's the likes of Canon that simply rehash their designs every 12 months or so that show a lack of development and imagination. Quite often it's the smaller player who pushes the boundaries - no doubt because they can't afford to be lazy.

[dannn]

Great thread. Isn't so much of camera selection just personal preference? For example I used a nice Canon camera for wrist watch and pocket watch photography and I did not like the way Canon read the color renditions in artificial light. I found an off brand camera with a super macro that I liked better. Which one was better? Who knows! The controls of the off brand camera allowed me to get the shot I wanted better. The key word here are , " I wanted ". So back to the e3... I knew that Oly, Canon, and Nikon were going to produce extremely nice results . So my task in selecting a semi-pro camera was the lens system available, the camera controls, fit and finish, and the feel in my hand. I went for the OLY.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

Both

If looking only to four-thirds, the E-3 is the best ever among these, if taking into account the 1.5x/1.6x cropped (APS-C) cameras of the other brands, it struggles with these...

Best within it's own family, but struggling to keep up with the Jones'...

Hope that explains a little, *my* €0.02...

I would like to know where exactly it struggles with the competitors. For one- the whole dynamic range evaluation of DPreview has been put in question many times, but this time, even the results using their own methodology. Not that I see it as reliable (as I don't see virtually any DR test as reliable) but if we go by them, the E-3 actually has as much DR as the 40D and 1/3rd of a stop more than the D300.

Of note is to point out though, that quite frankly, even Simon himself admits the difference are minute and that the jpeg of the E-3 are of the high end class (by that he means D3, the *really* expensive Canons, not the 40D nor D300), there are far more important factors to a camera than minute differences.

Put the E-3 through a rainstorm and see which camera struggles.

I only say this because quite frankly, I find this "struggle" adjective quite misleading particularly as quoted.

Finally there are other things that fall of the comparison. Like virtually no examples of SAT, which makes the camera shot 1/3rd of a stop less to preserve more highlights and bring up the shadows (and since the dpreview test says that the E-3 has more latitude in the shadows than the 40D or D300 in particular...).

There's other things like not testing UDMA Lexar 300x cards- when the E-3 *does support* UDMA. For example as tested by dpreview, you can shoot 17 shots in a row, and 1.6 fps once it's full. That's their best results. Turns out that with the Lexar- as measured at least by two websites, you can shoot 24-25 raws in a row and at a fairly fast 2.7 fps unlimited once the buffer is full. That's much faster. Simon admitted this was a dpreview oversight and they may try to get hold of UDMA cards (to his credit).

So "struggle?" No, don't think so. I am sorry but I am a bit tired of reading opinions going by single reviews, or people who don't know the equipment. I know you mean well, but I would like to put this in perspective.

In the end all these cameras are great and it's up to the photographer & their needs.

[Paul Shields]

Ah well, it's only a camera . Let's just make sure we don't end up going down the DPR route of having to defend our choice of camera, or even worse attack other brands. I've vowed never to visit that site again as such arguments are really quite poisonous and have nothing to do with photography.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Raist3d

I would like to know where exactly it struggles with the competitors.

...according to Simon Joinson, DPReview: "a camera at this level needs to offer the ultimate image quality and total shooting versatility, and here the E-3 stuggles to match its direct competitors."...

Put the E-3 through a rainstorm and see which camera struggles.

point made, you need a $3.750 Canon 1D Mk3 to get the same weatherproof-ness

In the end all these cameras are great and it's up to the photographer & their needs.

...110% true and I fully agree

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[keepright]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...according to Simon Joinson, DPReview: "a camera at this level needs to offer the ultimate image quality and total shooting versatility, and here the E-3 stuggles to match its direct competitors."...

First of all, I do agree with Paul, and don't feel the need to defend or debate camera choices, and don't think it adds any value to the discourse. I also concur with Raist3d, cameras are great -- it's hard to make a bad choice these days. I'm also on board with Stephen Stills, that if you can't use the one you love, then use the one you're with.

It's the comment by the reviewer that I find odd. The E-3's closest competitors are the Nikon D300 and the Sony A700, and its image quality is comparable with those cameras. But neither of those two are expected to provide "the ultimate image quality"; Nikon has the D3 and Sony is also working on a camera to be positioned above the A700. The implication seems to be that because Olympus does not have, or has not announced, an uber-camera of D3(x?) or 1Dmk3 proportions, the E-3's IQ should be compared to those two marvels.

The only place in the conclusion where he specifically states a "struggle" is comparing it to the best APS-C cameras for high-iso noise and dynamic range. On the high-iso test page, he writes: "Once again it's worth pointing out that the gap in 'real world' high ISO performance between Four Thirds and APS-C cameras is nowhere near as wide as some people would have you think, especially with the E-3."

While I'd hate to subject anyone to all 30+ pages of the review, the conclusions seem to lose the subtlety of what are admittedly minor distinctions in the pursuit of the perception of significance.

And now, taking my own advice, I'm about to go out and take photos in a howling snow storm. I expect my only struggles to be with finding good footing and keeping the eyepiece clear.