Olympus E330 - It all depends on the sensor... but nice specs!

Well, I suppose it is a completely new sensor, so we shouldn't be harsh
until the reports start dribbling in.. but frankly, unless it is bloody
quiet at least up to ISO 800, all of the E330's nice specifications may
be somewhat irrelevant.

Note that it has *dropped* to a 7Mp sensor, less than the E300's 8 -
but having said that, the 8Mp of the E300 behaved like they were less
than 6, compared to a Canikoltax (ie any other DSLR).. So if it is a
*good* 7Mp.... ..but I won't hold my breath.

I *do* like the sound of those specs - it also has the following
improvements over the E300, which wasn't exactly a dog:

*New 49 area metering mode (I think Olympus were stung by the criticism
of the E300's metering)
*Metering modes include Highlight- and Shadow-based spot - now that
sounds very interesting..
*New noise filter that can be turned OFF (- and there's the live or die
item...)
*'My Mode's
*B&W Mode with selectable filters
*3 Custom WB memories
*Kelvin WB from 2000 - 14000 K (E300 was limited to 10000K)
*Flash bracketing
*Histogram with blinking highlights/shadows
*Play magnify up to 14x (it was 10 but what does that mean - I presume
it is now better than actual pixels...?)
*Larger, finer LCD monitor - 2.5", 215,250 pixels (was 1.8", 134,000
pixels)


PS - I am a fan of many of the Olympus products, and I still think the
4/3 system has a place, but until they get their sensor act together...
it's not a very big place and I'm not living there! (O:

In oups.com,
Chrlz scribed:
Well, I suppose it is a completely new sensor, so we shouldn't be harsh
until the reports start dribbling in.. but frankly, unless it is bloody
quiet at least up to ISO 800, all of the E330's nice specifications may
be somewhat irrelevant.

snipped

And if Phil's specs are accurate, then why have they removed the onboard DC
connection? With a live preview (2 in fact) available on the rear LCD
screen, that is surely going to drink up the battery juice in double quick
time? I would use this tethered to a copy stand, and theoretically offers me
a better framing facility. But if I have to keep changing batteries, it's
going to be a pain.

Not to mention the antiquated USB1.1 transfer speeds.

Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged
reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of theoretical
net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to underline the fact
that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit in photosite density
with the E-300, but overstepped it too! Without any real-world tests,
however, we can only speculate to an extent. But I cannot help but feel that
Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their
build quality is great and we need as much competition as possible in this
market. However, I think it has only made the camera what it should have
been when the 4/3rds system really needed it, and that time has now long
gone. I think we know 'For whom the bell tolls'.

N.

"nrh" wrote:

But I cannot help but feel that
Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their
build quality is great and we need as much competition as possible in this
market. However, I think it has only made the camera what it should have
been when the 4/3rds system really needed it, and that time has now long
gone. I think we know 'For whom the bell tolls'.


Yes, we do. It tolls for Konica Minolta.

;-)

In ,
Tony Polson scribed:
"nrh" wrote:

But I cannot help but feel that
Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their
build quality is great and we need as much competition as possible in
this market. However, I think it has only made the camera what it should
have been when the 4/3rds system really needed it, and that time has now
long gone. I think we know 'For whom the bell tolls'.


Yes, we do. It tolls for Konica Minolta.

;-)

Yes, I should have added 'again'! :-p

N.

"nrh" wrote in message
...
In ,
Tony Polson scribed:
"nrh" wrote:

But I cannot help but feel that
Olympus has merely prolonged the agony. I wish it were not so, as their
build quality is great and we need as much competition as possible in
this market. However, I think it has only made the camera what it should
have been when the 4/3rds system really needed it, and that time has now
long gone. I think we know 'For whom the bell tolls'.


Yes, we do. It tolls for Konica Minolta.

;-)

Yes, I should have added 'again'! :-p


Well, it's not going to toll for Pentax, because Pentax has just released
the DL2, which is just like the DL, which was just like the DS2, which was
just like the DS, which was an inferior version of the D - at this rate,
Pentax can keep going for years, churning out the DL7***** , with no
research & development costs at all.

Ingenious - or, at least, it would be if only people would actually buy the
damn things.............

In ,
Pinky & Perky sing sea shanties shoberly
scribed:


Well, it's not going to toll for Pentax, because Pentax has just released
the DL2, which is just like the DL, which was just like the DS2, which was
just like the DS, which was an inferior version of the D - at this rate,
Pentax can keep going for years, churning out the DL7***** , with no
research & development costs at all.

Ingenious - or, at least, it would be if only people would actually buy
the damn things.............

I guess, to a certain extent at least, the 'facelift' syndrome with buying a
new car comes into play here too.
If it looks new, it must be cool. But look what happened to Rover.

N.

nrh wrote:
Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged
reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of theoretical
net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to underline the fact
that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit in photosite density
with the E-300, but overstepped it too! Without any real-world tests,
however, we can only speculate to an extent.

We haven't seen Oly's next pro body yet. If it's a 7MP camera then I
think most would agree the jig is up. But the E-330's uniqueness is its
main selling point. I don't think Oly needs 10 MP to make this camera
sell. Putting a higher MP and higher cost sensor on it might have made
the camera unaffordable to those who otherwise might have bought it.

"Kyle Jones" wrote in message
...
nrh wrote:
Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged
reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of
theoretical net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to
underline the fact that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit
in photosite density with the E-300, but overstepped it too! Without any
real-world tests, however, we can only speculate to an extent.

We haven't seen Oly's next pro body yet. If it's a 7MP camera then I
think most would agree the jig is up. But the E-330's uniqueness is its
main selling point. I don't think Oly needs 10 MP to make this camera
sell. Putting a higher MP and higher cost sensor on it might have made
the camera unaffordable to those who otherwise might have bought it.


Credit to Olympus for trying, whatever the result. It's a sharp contrast to
Pentax, who seem content to re;lease one ****y little re-badge after another
while their market share flushes away down the pan.

Shortly, when it becomes apparent to even the most fanatical Pentax die-hard
that no upmarket Pentax will be forthcoming, even their remaining customer
base will lose heart and take themselves off to Canon or Nikon.

It's doubtful if any former Pentax owners will choose Olympus though - one
experience of the disadvantages of a minority marque is surely enough for
anyone.

One thing seems certain, though - the next time the DSLR funeral bell
tolls, it will be Pentax that's carried out feet first.

nrh wrote:

Another novel, and highly revealing aspect, is your already acknowledged
reduction in sensor resolution. WTF! I understand the claims of theoretical
net gains in resolution bit, but IMO it only serves to underline the fact
that the 4/3rds system has not only reached the limit in photosite density
with the E-300, but overstepped it too!

To do this, they needed a sensor capable of delivering live preview.
Perhaps what they have is the best they could get. (Of course, such a
sensor would be wasting some of its space for the circuitry to do it,
so the smaller size still does come into play.)

--
Jeremy |

To do this, they needed a sensor capable of delivering live preview.
Perhaps what they have is the best they could get. (Of course, such a
sensor would be wasting some of its space for the circuitry to do it,
so the smaller size still does come into play.)

Nope, the live preview sensor is a separate one that Oly developed for one
of their P&S cameras.
This new sensor - the main one - was developed because of the size of the
photosites.