Chuck, Olympus could at least have tried to match or exceed *one* of
the parameters
of image quality offered by even the lowest-specced Canon or Nikon
DSLR. As it stands,
pretty as the colours may be, image noise, resolution, dynamic range
are all well below
what is possible from even a bottom-of-the-line plastic DSLR from the
other
manufacturers. The official example images (I know, I know, they are
probably not
really representative, as they never are...) are disappointing in
comparison to
what I got from my Canon DSLR made in 2004. They really should have
caught up by now!
Or they could have built in a single "must-have" feature which,
despite sub-par
image quality relative to the competition, would have made the camera
desirable.
For example, an innovation in dynamic range. Or high capture speed
made possible by
that tiny tiny mirror in that gigantic body.
True story: I recently showed a scan of Fuji Provia slide film to my
colleague,
an experienced E-3 user. The light was quite challenging. He
immediately commented
on how he would have had to do a multi-shot HDR merge to not have
blown the highlights,
"to get a shot like that". And this is in comparison to slide film!
Now, this is probably not true (I hope and believe the E-3 can do
better than Provia)
but it shows how tortured E-3 users have been in terms of dealing with
poor dynamic range.
Since Olympus filed some patents related to high dynamic range a
couple of years ago,
one would have hoped that some of this would have made it into the E-5
by now?
No. The E-5 is like a Leica M8 (image-quality-wise, I'm sure it's a
much better camera
in terms of performance and durability): Far below what is possible
from other systems at
much lower cost, the only reason for use being a heavy investment into
expensive lenses.
Well, guess what? There are many other options available to put those
Zuiko Digital lenses
in front of... Unfortunately, ironically, the E-5 probably has the
best image quality of
the lot.
But the system just doesn't make any kind of economic sense anymore.
I'm sure it's a dandy
camera, but one always has to keep current trends into account.
When I got my 1D MkIIN a couple of years ago (2005), the image quality
was almost unsurpassed.
The dynamic range and per-pixel detail was astounding. The high ISO
performance legendary.
Even though this bulky camera is still a wonderful picture maker today
(but no longer in
my hands...) does it stack up to what is available at lower cost
today? Not really, no.
A Pentax K-7 pretty much beats it, at less than a fifth of the price,
in all parameters of
image quality.
Canon would not be lauded today for bringing out a 1D MkIIM which has
the same low-resolution
sensor, same huge body, same excellent viewfinder, as the model they
sold until 2007,
with merely an added movie mode, and a higher-res LCD, and a fake HDR
"art filter".
So, neither should Olympus have. They seriously dropped the ball with
the E-5, alienated
most of their customers and fans (is anybody seriously proud of this
camera??), and
is clearly making a statement regarding what to expect for the Four
Thirds system.
</rant>
On 14 Sep 2010, at 2:45 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> A bit late perhaps but I'm not sure what else they could have done.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|