Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <46eaada7$0$14135$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
>
>
>>What you seem to have been hoodwinked by is the (old?) Olympus
>>FourThirds advertising speil (attempting to justify their
>>all-retrocfocus range of lenses) that says that the older lenses for
>>other makers cannot be used with DSLR cameras.
>>Look at pbase.com and try and comprehend the vast number of images taken
>>with supposedly "unusable" (as per Olympus/FourThirds speil) lenses made
>>for 35mm slr cameras which are now being used with dslr cameras.
>
>
> I'm currently travelling and don't have the time to dig out the test
> results which prove that you are wrong. Just consider that image sensors
> are not like film and the angle of incidence matters, and especially at
> wide angle the angle of incidence is an issues with non-telecentric
> lenses.

The larger back-focus of the larger sensor DSLR cameras means that the
light rays are as close to the "telecentric" ideal that Olympus and the
rest of the FourThirds cabal keep chanting about as to make a special
case for the FourThirds system somewhat moot.
The only 35mm based digital camera which should have real problems is
the Leica M8, due to the closeness of the rear lens element of the
rangefinder lenses to the sensor plane, and this has been dealt with by
incorporating microlenses into the surface of the sensor to eliminate
the "vignetting problem" which the FourThirds cabal sems to promote as
the "fatal flaw" for existing interchangable lens digital cameras (other
than the FourThirds system cameras, of course).
It obviously isn't true, as there are literally millions of photos
online which do not suffer from this mythical ailment by which
(originally) Olympus sold the FourThirds system to the world with.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <46eb03ac$0$27222$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
>> I never said it cost more to manufacture them, just that they are very
>> expensive.
>
> The 7-14 is expensive because it is made with a cumbersome manual
> process and is of very high quality.

And the Canon 10-22 has the optical quality of their L series lenses.

The manufacturing cost of the 7-14 is of little interest to the retail
customer. All that matters is what lenses of equivalent range and
optical quality sell for for other lens mounts.

Olympus needs to come out with mid-range ultra-wide-angle zoom lens. Not
a low end $300 lens, and not necessarily 7-14mm, but maybe 8-16mm, in
their "high-grade" segment. Canon has three segments like Olympus, and
the 10-22 is in the mid-range. A junky ultra-wide angle zoom is not of
much interest to Canon or Nikon buyers, and I doubt if it will interest
Olympus buyers either.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

Marty Fremen wrote:

> True. I am attracted to the Olympus SLRs because I want a small light
> camera...

Note that the Canon EOS-400D (XTi) is smaller than the E-510 (48 cubic
inches versus 52 cubic inches) though the Canon does weigh a bit more
(18 ounces versus 16.6 ounces).

It's difficult to compare lenses, as the different companies often don't
have similar quality lenses in each zoom range, but here's a comparison
that is good for the wide angle, and not so proper for the telephoto in
terms of optical quality:

The EF-s 10-22 lens is 13.6 ounces and is 3.3 x 3.5, the 7-14mm Olympus
lens weighs 27.85 ounces and is 3.4" D x 4.7" L.

The Canon EF 70-300mm (112-480) f/4-5.6 IS lens is 7.8" x 4.7" inches
and weighs 1.4 pounds, while the 50-200mm (100-400) Zuiko Digital
f/2.8-3.5 ED is 9.1" L x 4.7"D inches ; 4.2 pounds.

So don't assume that the other manufacturers don't make stuff as small
and light as Olympus!
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <46ec92fc$0$27204$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
>> Note that the Canon EOS-400D (XTi) is smaller than the E-510 (48 cubic
>> inches versus 52 cubic inches) though the Canon does weigh a bit more
>> (18 ounces versus 16.6 ounces).
>
> The 400D has no IS, so it should be compared with the E400 which also
> has no IS.

No, the E510 and the 400D are both entry level models, so the comparison
is fair. IS in the lens is far, far, better than IS in the body, and
since you really only need one or two lenses with IS, the difference in
cost is not all that much.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

In article <46ec92fc$0$27204$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...

> Note that the Canon EOS-400D (XTi) is smaller than the E-510 (48 cubic
> inches versus 52 cubic inches) though the Canon does weigh a bit more
> (18 ounces versus 16.6 ounces).

The 400D has no IS, so it should be compared with the E400 which also
has no IS.

E400: 375 grams, 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm
400D: 514 grams, 127 x 94 x 65 mm

> It's difficult to compare lenses, as the different companies often don't
> have similar quality lenses in each zoom range, but here's a comparison
> that is good for the wide angle, and not so proper for the telephoto in
> terms of optical quality:
>
> The EF-s 10-22 lens is 13.6 ounces and is 3.3 x 3.5, the 7-14mm Olympus
> lens weighs 27.85 ounces and is 3.4" D x 4.7" L.
>
> The Canon EF 70-300mm (112-480) f/4-5.6 IS lens is 7.8" x 4.7" inches
> and weighs 1.4 pounds, while the 50-200mm (100-400) Zuiko Digital
> f/2.8-3.5 ED is 9.1" L x 4.7"D inches ; 4.2 pounds.
>
> So don't assume that the other manufacturers don't make stuff as small
> and light as Olympus!

The 50-200mm is a heavy, high quality lens for professional use. It has
for instance environmental protection. For small and lightweight lenses
you have to look at the newest generation of Olympus lenses:

http://myolympus.org/E510/#Lenses

The 14-42mm (28-84 equiv). weighs just 190 grams.
The new 40-150mm lens (80-300 equiv.) weighs just 220 grams.

This means that the camera + the two lenses covering the focal range
(equiv.) of 28-300mm only weigh 785 grams for the E400/410 and 880 grams
for the E510. As a comparison, the Sony R1 which I use currently, weighs
995 grams and has a focal range of only 24-120mm equiv.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:59:18 +0000, Juarez wrote:

> When researching DSLR's recently the one that impressed me the most for
> image quality and price was the Olympus EVOLT E-510. I don't see it getting
> much love in here though. Why is that?

Probably because most of the posters here seem to have canon and nikon on
the brain and can't see anything else.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

In article <46ed1b74$0$27175$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...

> No, the E510 and the 400D are both entry level models, so the comparison
> is fair.

The E510 is larger than the E400 because it has in-camera IS. Compare
apples with apples please.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:59:18 +0000, Juarez wrote:
>
>
>>When researching DSLR's recently the one that impressed me the most for
>>image quality and price was the Olympus EVOLT E-510. I don't see it getting
>>much love in here though. Why is that?
>
>
> Probably because most of the posters here seem to have canon and nikon on
> the brain and can't see anything else.

You don't have to like it, but perhaps a history lesson is in order?
A good (but sad) reason for that could be that Olympus (seen as the
"flag bearer" for FourThird) abandonned their OM lensmount in 1988 with
the market failure of their second only AF OM model (OM-101) and went to
the ZLR camera format (the IZM 300, IZM 400, IZM 200 and L-1).
This (unfortunately) left any-one using the great Olympus Zuiko lenses
stuck with using increasingly aged SLR camera bodies (and no new
lenses!) which were no longer supported and completely betrayed by the
total discarding of the OM design when Olympus adopted the FourThirds
system as their first DSLR camera (the E-1), in 2003.
A fifteen year wait between SLR bodies, only to find the new DSLR won't
take the old lenses must be taken into account when wondering about
Olympus not "getting much love" around here.
The marketing hype for 4/3 "telecentric" lenses really doesn't help much
either.
Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Pentax all kept and built on the loyalty of
their SLR camera using customers by keeping the same lensmount design on
their DSLR cameras as on their film SLR cameras.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

In article <46edcca7$0$32452$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...

> A fifteen year wait between SLR bodies, only to find the new DSLR won't
> take the old lenses must be taken into account when wondering about
> Olympus not "getting much love" around here.

You are not well informed. 4/3" DSLRs take OM lenses with an adapter.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <46edcca7$0$32452$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
>
>
>>A fifteen year wait between SLR bodies, only to find the new DSLR won't
>>take the old lenses must be taken into account when wondering about
>>Olympus not "getting much love" around here.
>
>
> You are not well informed. 4/3" DSLRs take OM lenses with an adapter.

I am well informed, without that extra doohickey the OM lenses are just
shelf decoration in your den or shed (unless you've bought a Canon DSLR
and a mount adapter during the fifteen wait between Olympus SLR cameras).
Also, OM lenses cannot be used natively on 4/3 cameras and none of auto
functions work.
Not even with the the latest of the OM lenses.
Abandonning your customer base is a good way of having to start form
scratch again and in the fifteen year gap, Olympus would have lost
customers to Pentax, Nikon and Canon.
Attempting to claim anything else just makes you seem pretty darn silly
and that you're in severe denial.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

dj_nme wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <46edcca7$0$32452$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
>>
>>
>>> A fifteen year wait between SLR bodies, only to find the new DSLR
>>> won't take the old lenses must be taken into account when wondering
>>> about Olympus not "getting much love" around here.
>>
>>
>> You are not well informed. 4/3" DSLRs take OM lenses with an adapter.
>
> I am well informed, without that extra doohickey the OM lenses are just
> shelf decoration in your den or shed (unless you've bought a Canon DSLR
> and a mount adapter during the fifteen wait between Olympus SLR cameras).
> Also, OM lenses cannot be used natively on 4/3 cameras and none of auto
> functions work.
> Not even with the the latest of the OM lenses.
> Abandonning your customer base is a good way of having to start form
> scratch again and in the fifteen year gap, Olympus would have lost
> customers to Pentax, Nikon and Canon.
> Attempting to claim anything else just makes you seem pretty darn silly
> and that you're in severe denial.

All true, but I don't think Olympus ever had their film SLR customer
base as a consideration in their plans. It's a new market. If 4:3 had
taken off then they would have been in a great position, but 4:3 is just
not practical as resolution moves up due to sensor noise. You also have
the problem of how difficult it is to make wide angle lenses for such a
small sensor.
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510 

In article <46ee721c$0$32487$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...

> I am well informed, without that extra doohickey the OM lenses are just
> shelf decoration in your den or shed (unless you've bought a Canon DSLR
> and a mount adapter during the fifteen wait between Olympus SLR cameras).
> Also, OM lenses cannot be used natively on 4/3 cameras and none of auto
> functions work.
> Not even with the the latest of the OM lenses.
> Abandonning your customer base is a good way of having to start form
> scratch again and in the fifteen year gap, Olympus would have lost
> customers to Pentax, Nikon and Canon.
> Attempting to claim anything else just makes you seem pretty darn silly
> and that you're in severe denial.

You have an incredibly negative way of seeing things. Olympus creates
from scratch a new DSLR system, designed from the beginning for the
realities of digital sensors and that's a bad thing?
Canon and Nikon, encumbered by the need to support their user base, rely
instead on a last century DSLR design optimised for film.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Why isn't there much talk on the Olympus EVOLT E-510