What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Feedback on E 1 wanted

I'm only familiar with the 50, 50-200, 14-54, and the 11-22 Zuikos.
All the Olympus lens are great, but the 11-22 must be the best wide angle zoom in the business.
If you get an E-1, you have got to check out this lens.

Edwin
 
When you say, "best wide angle in the business" about the 11-22 Zuiko, you mean the best wide angle ZOOM, right? And even that claim wuld be disputed by the Carl Zeiss 17-35mm/f2.8 wide angle zoom for the Contax N/ND, which really set new standards for wide angle zooms (even if it it is twice as expensive as the Zuiko). The 11-22mm Zuiko might have to settle for second and take comfort in the fact that it is significantly less expensive.
 
Well, I was tempted by the 11-22mm wideangle but I feel that for use in conjunction with the 14-54mm there is a bit more "overlap" of focal lengths than I need. I think that maybe I'll wait for the 7-17mm (or whatever it actually is) that is announced for release later this year.

Andy
 
The 11-22 does have overlap with the 14-54, but the difference between 11 and 14mm is pretty dramatic. Plus the ability to seamlessly zoom over this focal range is very convenient. And the performance is better than the 14-54.
I haven't used every wide zoom on the market, but I'll take the Zuiko over the Nikon or Canon offerings I've used any day.
 
A couple of observations - including noting that Olympus has supplied me with equipment:
1. The 11-22 is a shockingly good lens; I have a Leica M 21 2.8 ASPH, a Nikon 17-35 2.8 ED Silent Wave, and a Sigma 20 1.8 AF - And at 11, the Olympus outperforms the Nikon in terms of vertical distortion, blows the Sigma out of the water, and while I haven't done any formal "testing," seems to be giving me images the equal of those I get the with Leica - granted, we're talking digital v film, etc. etc. But the images are sharp edge-to-edge, there is no color fringing or other obvious distortion, and the vertical distorion, present with any super wide, is minimal.

2. I am absolutely convinced that the firmware upgrade for the E-1 that Olympus put out late last year definitely reduced the noise at 800-3200. Is it noiseless at those isos? Absolutely not. But where I was having problems shooting at 800 -which I routinely do for conversion to b&w (I almost always shot - shoot - tri-x at 800) I now have no problems. Yes, I sometimes use software to clean up the noise in underexposed areas, but the work required is minimal. 800 is now good, 1600 is acceptable, 3200 is desperation time - but it is with film and every other digital as well.
3. The ergonomics of the E-1, the build, the menues, the overall performance, are terrific. There are some problems, but they don't outweigh the advantages the camera offers.
4. The performance of the standard zoom - 22-44 is fine; not outstanding - but fine. The performance of the 11-22, the 50 f2, and the 50-200 are all outstanding.
If you go to
http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/folder-list.html -
you will find E-1 images in the folders labled
Olympus E-1, Baby Boy H, Digital In Low Light, and T Scenes.

B. D.
 
I also noticed fair improvement in the noise at 800 (can't say I tried 1600 or 3200) after the firmware upgrade, as well as 400 being cleaner, all this without any added propensity to blow the highlights.
The 14-54 zoom is a great lens, just not up to the performance of the 11-22.
 
Hi,

Its a week since i bought the E1 and im looking for further feedback. I have read in a detailed report on the E 1 that the image quality is better if the image is taken in RAW and then converted. One of the reasons i bought the camera was that the end user required TIFF files and this is what the E 1 produced. For what its worth the images i am getting using TIFF are better than my scanned images using transparency. I obtained a free trial copy of Genuine Fractals from DCP Systems Limited (0114 257 3640)and i have used this on some images with good effect. Compared file size to file size with scanned transparency the E1 images are noticably better.Would they improve further if the images were taken in RAW?

I have found the transition to digital smoother than expected and its unfamiliarity with controls that are causing some problems. I am trying to set the AEL to lock on exposure but whilst i can find it in the menu i am at a loss to alter the setting to my requirements. Help would be appreciated on either point.

Regards

David
 
David- What are you using to scan the transparencies? With a good film scanner and proper software, that should NOT be thecase.
 
Hi

For the last six months i have been using a Minolta 5400 with either Velvia or Sensia 100 depending on useage. I used Contax with Carl Zeiss lenses and Elements 2.0. I was aiming for file size 50-70 mbs

Before i bought the camera i tested images taken with the E 1 to my own set up and was impressed so i bought in. Sounds improbable but true.
 
Doesn't sound improbable at all. Prior to getting my E-1, I was shooting with Leica Ms, primarilly with three of the latest ASPH lenses, and Nikon F-100s, using several of the better lenses. Not only have I found that the E-1 holds its own against my film equipment - keeping in mind that I was almost exclusively shooting Tri-X at 800 asa (but then what else would you do with Leica Ms :) )and has yet to let me down. My one real complaint is that the glass for the E-1 isn't fast enough - but hopefully that will be rectified over time.

B. D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top