Olympus EVOLT - 8 MP Consumer DSLR (four thirds)

Clyde wrote:

EVOLT and the new lens. That "ugly" camera sure looks nice and small
though. That also helps it's 'looks'.

The only look that counts is the image that is made. There are a few undeniably
cool looking cameras, and I personally love the old brassy Nikon look, but
really it is the result that counts.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
Michael Meissner wrote:

Well they just announced two new consumer lenses 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
and 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 along with the EVOLT, though I don't recall
the pricing information. I would imagine the third lens announced,
7-14mm (14-28mm) f/4.0 is more of a professional lens.

Let's see... the 40-150/3.5-4.5 is equivalent to an 80-300 lens for
a 35mm camera. Not bad, f/4.5 at the long end, for a consumer lens.

Has anybody figured out the pop-up flash on the Evolt/E300? Specs
say it's a "slide pop-up" but I have no idea what that means.

My first impression was "that's an ugly camera" but I think that's
because it doesn't have a raised viewfinder/prism box and high flash.
Maybe I could get used to the new look, but I fear the flash doesn't
pop up high enough to avoid redeye.


My first impression was "that looks like a solidly built camera".

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/olympus/e300back.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/olympus/e300press.jpg

Its design actually appeals to my taste. It looks rugged, high build
quality, and very usable in the hand. I guess there's something retro
and no-nonsense about its looks. It would be there with a VW, a Vespa,
a Stabilo Boss, a Bic 4-color pen... you know, that mid-20th-Century
European-influenced Design.

Actually the more I look at it the more I like its looks. It looks
more like a rangefinder than an SLR. I feel this would be a great
travel camera.

I really like Olympus cameras. If the image quality is good I would
highly consider it in a year from now. But I would totally understand
why someone with an existing investment in 35mm lenses or someone who
feels a need to buy many lenses in the future would not be
enthausiastic about the 4/3rds system.

Here's a prediction if history proves faithful to its trends :
considering that 8mp is generally good enough resolution for most
uses, I predict that in 5 or 10 years time this same quircky-looking
camera is likely to still have a passionate community/cult of
collectors long after the current crop of canon/nikon (... etc) dSLRs
made their way to the trash heaps.

Mike Henley wrote:

snip a lot

I really like Olympus cameras. If the image quality is good I would
highly consider it in a year from now. But I would totally understand
why someone with an existing investment in 35mm lenses or someone who
feels a need to buy many lenses in the future would not be
enthausiastic about the 4/3rds system.

Here's a prediction if history proves faithful to its trends :
considering that 8mp is generally good enough resolution for most
uses, I predict that in 5 or 10 years time this same quircky-looking
camera is likely to still have a passionate community/cult of
collectors long after the current crop of canon/nikon (... etc) dSLRs
made their way to the trash heaps.

The only barrier I can see for older digital cameras (ok, I realy mean
today's, but in the future) is how well the sensor and other electronics
can withstand the ravages of time.
There are 35mm film based cameras from before WWII that are still
perfectly useable (until 135 film becomes un-available).
How collectable (eg, in 50 years time) would a digicam be if the sensor
is kaput?

dj_nme wrote in message ...

The only barrier I can see for older digital cameras (ok, I realy mean
today's, but in the future) is how well the sensor and other electronics
can withstand the ravages of time.
There are 35mm film based cameras from before WWII that are still
perfectly useable (until 135 film becomes un-available).
How collectable (eg, in 50 years time) would a digicam be if the sensor
is kaput?


That's why I think this Olympus may have a better chance of
withstanding the ravages of time than other SLRs. Also, Olympus
generally builds high quality cameras, and they seem to particularly
emphasize it as a feature in this one.

From Olympus E-300 page : "You cannot achieve high-performance without
a highly-durable camera. The EVOLT-E-300 is built to keep you and your
images at an optimum level no matter where or when you use it due its
sturdy and reliable design.

An aluminum top cover provides added protection for the camera while
giving it a sophisticated feel. The die-cast aluminum chassis provides
a strong foundation for a camera that can be used in all kinds of
conditions. The metallic lens mount supplies further evidence as to
the ruggedness of the camera while also supporting the use of
interchangeable lenses up to the largest telephoto lenses in the
E-System family. It boasts a durable shutter for long-lasting use. And
its exclusive Supersonic Wave Filter™ repels dust and debris from the
EVOLT E-300's 8 megapixel CCD so each and every image you capture is
crystal clear and aberration free, just as you saw it through the
lens. "

Indeed, it does look solidly built. It does sound to me from this that
the camera may be weatherproof, if i am correctly understanding the
phrase that it "can be used in all kinds of conditions". I also like
this self-cleaning filter and the deliberately "durable" shutter. I
also like how this camera is designed for a fully digital image, from
the 4/3 system lenses to the quircky side-slr thingie.

The more I look at this camera the more I like it. A look and feel
reminiscent of rangefinders, and a rugged and durable "all conditions"
construction; this, indeed, would probably be a great everyday or
travel camera. The only thing that bothers me about it is that it uses
proprietary rather than AA batteries. I really would like to hear
about its image quality from reviewers. In fact, I'll tentatively add
it to my next summer's wishlist (or even spring if i put enough things
on ebay to feel okay about it).

Those WWII you mention probably didn't need any batteries. Also, the
thing that ensured the longevity of the film format was its
simplicity. It didn't matter what innovation went into film media, for
as long as it was the same size it was backward compatible.

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
Michael Meissner wrote:

Well they just announced two new consumer lenses 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
and 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 along with the EVOLT, though I don't recall
the pricing information. I would imagine the third lens announced,
7-14mm (14-28mm) f/4.0 is more of a professional lens.

Let's see... the 40-150/3.5-4.5 is equivalent to an 80-300 lens for
a 35mm camera. Not bad, f/4.5 at the long end, for a consumer lens.

Has anybody figured out the pop-up flash on the Evolt/E300? Specs
say it's a "slide pop-up" but I have no idea what that means.

I'm not sure what that means but it says one of the features of this
pop-up flash is that you don't get that lens shadow in the close-up
shots.

Here are images with one of them of the flash (it does seem to reach
up higher than usual pop-up flashes)

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=2878

here's the official olympus e-300 page
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...uct=1140&fl=43

Mike Henley wrote:
dj_nme wrote in message ...

The only barrier I can see for older digital cameras (ok, I realy mean
today's, but in the future) is how well the sensor and other electronics
can withstand the ravages of time.
There are 35mm film based cameras from before WWII that are still
perfectly useable (until 135 film becomes un-available).
How collectable (eg, in 50 years time) would a digicam be if the sensor
is kaput?




snip detailed ruggedness description

Indeed, it does look solidly built. It does sound to me from this that
the camera may be weatherproof, if i am correctly understanding the
phrase that it "can be used in all kinds of conditions". I also like
this self-cleaning filter and the deliberately "durable" shutter. I
also like how this camera is designed for a fully digital image, from
the 4/3 system lenses to the quircky side-slr thingie.

The more I look at this camera the more I like it. A look and feel
reminiscent of rangefinders, and a rugged and durable "all conditions"
construction; this, indeed, would probably be a great everyday or
travel camera. The only thing that bothers me about it is that it uses
proprietary rather than AA batteries. I really would like to hear
about its image quality from reviewers. In fact, I'll tentatively add
it to my next summer's wishlist (or even spring if i put enough things
on ebay to feel okay about it).

Those WWII you mention probably didn't need any batteries. Also, the
thing that ensured the longevity of the film format was its
simplicity. It didn't matter what innovation went into film media, for
as long as it was the same size it was backward compatible.

While I must agree on the apparent mechanical ruggedness of the Oly
E-300, it is not realy directly related to degredation of the sensor.
The sensor technology that I think of from the pre-WWII that has not
withstood the rigours of normal use over an extended time is selenium
light-meters.
I hope that the ccd sensor is more durable than a selenium lightmeter
sensor and gives the cameras of today value in the future as a usable
"retro" photography experience.
Perhaps true DSLRs, like the E-300, with their focal plane shutters
covering the sensor until the shutter is fired have a greater chance of
surviving than a DSLevf (like Minolta Dimage 5/7/A1/A2 or Oly C-8080)
that have the sensor always exposed to give the live preview.

The propriety batteries are a concern, but not a real show-stopper, as
packs can be rebuilt or the camera run off an external battery pack.
I am thinking of a distant future, not next week.

Mike Henley wrote:

I'm not sure what that means but it says one of the features of this
pop-up flash is that you don't get that lens shadow in the close-up shots.
Here are images with one of them of the flash (it does seem to reach
up higher than usual pop-up flashes)

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=2878

Yes, that looks quite good. It's unusual because the SLR mirror
swings to the side, so I suppose this is why there isn't the normal
SLR mirror hump in the middle, on which popup flash is usually set.

I wonder how bright the viewfinder will be, with side-swing mirror?
Personally I don't like photographing via LCD.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:04:41 -0000, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Mike Henley wrote:

I'm not sure what that means but it says one of the features of this
pop-up flash is that you don't get that lens shadow in the close-up shots.
Here are images with one of them of the flash (it does seem to reach
up higher than usual pop-up flashes)

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=2878

Yes, that looks quite good. It's unusual because the SLR mirror
swings to the side, so I suppose this is why there isn't the normal
SLR mirror hump in the middle, on which popup flash is usually set.

I wonder how bright the viewfinder will be, with side-swing mirror?
Personally I don't like photographing via LCD.

It appears to have the standard optical viewer as well.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Mike Henley wrote:

I'm not sure what that means but it says one of the features of this
pop-up flash is that you don't get that lens shadow in the close-up shots.
Here are images with one of them of the flash (it does seem to reach
up higher than usual pop-up flashes)

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=2878


Yes, that looks quite good. It's unusual because the SLR mirror
swings to the side, so I suppose this is why there isn't the normal
SLR mirror hump in the middle, on which popup flash is usually set.

That lump on top of an SLR camera usually houses the pentaprism (some
oddball SLRs have a fixed mirror box or porroprisms).
The mirror that you can see from the front (with the lens off) reflects
the image up into the prism.

I wonder how bright the viewfinder will be, with side-swing mirror?
Personally I don't like photographing via LCD.

I don't think that it will make much difference to the brightness of the
finder.
Because it is an SLR, the mirror and shutter block light to the image
sensor until the shutter is fired.
No live LCD preview on this camera.

I don't think that it will make much difference to the brightness of the
finder.
Because it is an SLR, the mirror and shutter block light to the image
sensor until the shutter is fired.
No live LCD preview on this camera.


No live LCD preview on this camera?

That'd be annoying. I am documenting my papers this days with a 5mp digicam;
1200 papers the other day and another 1000 just lately. Still got lots more to
do. While I don't think I'll have such once-in-a-few-years personal archival
event for a long time, i found the live LCD preview of the digicam quite handy.
It would've been a major pain if i had to look in the viewfinder for each
click.

So is the only way to compose a picture in this camera is to look in the
viewfinder?

What's the LCD for then?