PDA

View Full Version : Nice camera but so is the E3


Kiwi Paul
16th December 2010, 12:20 AM
Not wanting to be a doom-slayer or be negative about the E5 but my first impressions so far aren't exactly filling me with delight.
So far in my camp the E5 has done nothing my E3 can't do as well.
Some folk claim the low light focus is better, well not here both camera's focus as well as each other, in fact if anything I was wondering if the E5 was as good as my E3 with the 14-35 but eventually I decided they were about the same.
I've taken numerous low light high ISO (3200) shots recorded in RAW and sRGB jpg and to be perfectly honest the unprocessed RAW files have the same noise content ( in fact in some shots I thought my E3 was less noisy) and the jpg's are indistinguishable (after configuring the settings for each camera).
I have a colour cast on the E5 when shooting under artificial light that the E3 doesn't have (after setting the white balance) on RAW and OOC jpg's.
I also prefer the rear panel of the E3 I find the new E5 layout less user friendly or more cumbersome, whatever, familiarity maybe but to me the E3 just seems better.
Sorry guys I know everyone is singing the praises but I'm still trying to be convinced.
The E5 isn't by any means a bad camera but I'm struggling to see any advantage over my trusty E3 that justifys the expenditure.

The bigger brighter LCD screen is better for sure but the rest of the stuff (level meter, video, multiple exposure, lens focus calibration etc) while nice little add ons don't really cut it for me, I bought the E5 on the presumption the image quality, noise etc was vastly improved but so far.... well I guess I need to do more testing. I'll get out this weekend, take both cameras and all the lenses and draw a more substantial conclusion but honestly my initial view is disappointing.

Paul

Graham_of_Rainham
16th December 2010, 12:46 AM
I can agree with a lot of that. Also I did a comparative shot of a static subject using the 14-35 on the E-5 and an E-PL1 with the same exposure, ISO, etc., etc... As DxO indicates and I observed, they are virtually identical.

I'm seriously considering the E-5, but it will have to be at a reduced price to justify the upgrade.

Ross the fiddler
16th December 2010, 05:11 AM
You would have to admit the fine detail is better, wouldn't you? To have a lighter AA filter has got to give sharper images. After starting on the E410 & then progressing to the E520, I found the images were softer in the E520 because of the stronger AA filter.

With your comment, I can still enjoy my E30 knowing it is (also) still a nice camera & I should just save up for the extra lenses I want & not rush to get the E5 (but I'd still like it :(). I can't rush for it anyhow, unless I want to rush to jeopardise my marriage.

benvendetta
16th December 2010, 08:43 AM
Paul, your observations are reassuring to those of us with E-3's that can't afford to get the E-5 :D

Ian
16th December 2010, 08:55 AM
Maybe the measured level of noise is similar to an E-3, but the way the noise is rendered is very different and makes it more manageable in my view. I also feel there is more detail retention. This adds up to the fact that I can honestly say that there is at least a one EV increase in latitude over the E-3. I can't say that I have noticed a cast issue in artifical light with my example. Paul - have you ensured that the external white balance sensor is enabled in the menus?

Other things that I do feel give the E-5 an advantage are improvements to the AF with SWD lenses (after firmware updates), faster shooting rates using continuous AF, much more usable live view mode, especially with live view optimised lenses, and I use the new video and digital level modes a lot. Adoption of SD instead of xD cards a big plus for me as I have loads of SD cards :)

Ian

Makonde
16th December 2010, 11:28 AM
Now would be an excellent time to re-sell onwards your E-5 while the market is hot.......

I must say I'm delighted with mine, but the step up was from the E-520.

Zuiko
16th December 2010, 11:28 AM
Maybe it just illustrates what a cracking good camera the E-3 was and still is. In the past model upgrades of all marques have come in quantum leaps but I do feel we're reaching a plateau of product maturity where future upgrades will be incremental rather than fundemental.

From what I've seen so far I'd like an E-5 but it's not a real "must have" over my E-3. More importantly it gives me a replacement option if and when my E-3 bows out. Should I ever be in a financial position to upgrade, hopefully by then Ian will have some hire stock and I'll run a detailed comparison myself before deciding. Until then I consider to feel fortunate to have an E-3 and am still delighted with it.

Paul, I hope in time you resolve the issues and become more enamoured with your E-5. :)

Howi
16th December 2010, 11:58 AM
Paul, your observations are reassuring to those of us with E-3's that can't afford to get the E-5 :D

I'd second that, it never was the quantum leap everyone expected, It's unusual to find someone who has both the E-3 and the E-5 and is finding it hard to justify the spend over the benefits.
There is no doubt it is a fine camera, as is the E-3, I (personally) don't like the trend to put in video, art filters etc, and the only benefits as far as I can see (to me!) are the level meter (I must have one leg shorter than the other) and the weaker AA filter.

A couple of questions for the experts here,
1) why does the E-3 have such an aggressive AA filter?
2) how does the E-5 process thing differently to cope with the weaker filter?
3) does this processing apply to RAW as well as Jpeg?

I am assuming that there is some processing of the RAW data before it is presented to us as an ORF file.

Kiwi Paul
16th December 2010, 12:19 PM
Thanks John. I haven't given up on the E5 by any means, I was just voicing my initial impression compared to the E3. I haven't even tried testing C-AF yet (although that's not a mode I use regularly) and want to get out with the SHG lenses and capture some landscapes etc then I can see if the extra detail, and resolution (due to the different sensor, weaker AA filter and processing) show through.

Remember too my comments are based purely from my POV and how I use the camera and what my expectations are, others will have different expectations and standards etc and may well find the E5 to be that jewel in the crown, I'm still hoping I can adopt that opinion.

Both the E3 and E5 are excellent cameras so don't think for one minute I'm saying not to get an E5 it's just does the expense outweigh the benefits compared to the E3?

Paul

StephenL
16th December 2010, 12:57 PM
At the moment the price difference is great. In due course the price will come down and maybe then it will appear better value for money. Maybe Olympus set an initial high price because of the usual, by all manufacturers, forces of supply and demand. Once production gets into its swing, then who knows?

Nick Temple-Fry
16th December 2010, 01:51 PM
Lets see,

Secondhand
Grey Import
No 2 year UK warranty.

'bout 850 if Paul gets a quick sale ('cos there is bound to be lots for sale soon)

Paul, I'm first in line :)

Nick

Zuiko
16th December 2010, 01:52 PM
Lets see,

Secondhand
Grey Import
No 2 year UK warranty.

'bout 850 if Paul gets a quick sale ('cos there is bound to be lots for sale soon)

Paul, I'm first in line :)

Nick

Nice try, Nick! :D

andym
16th December 2010, 01:52 PM
('cos there is bound to be lots for sale soon)



Nick

Not!;););)

Kiwi Paul
16th December 2010, 02:58 PM
Ha ha nice try, nup I'm not thinking of dumping it I was just saying I have yet to experience it's full potential :cool: (Hows that for a politically correct way of stating my experience so far :D)

Paul

Nick Temple-Fry
16th December 2010, 03:40 PM
Ha ha nice try, nup I'm not thinking of dumping it I was just saying I have yet to experience it's full potential :cool: (Hows that for a politically correct way of stating my experience so far :D)

Paul

I'll put that down as a Maybe then - still, no quibble made about the price, that's 'almost' a contract :D

Nick

WPJ
16th December 2010, 04:01 PM
Hi,

I'm just wondering when we talk about value per between E3 and E5 have we forgotten what a E3 cost new a few years ago and what they cost now new http://www.parkcameras.com/6581/Olympus-E-3-Body.html

Yes there are plenty of E3's about used and some deals to be had new. If you wanted to change from an E3 now to an E5 it would cost a few more however didn't it also cost to upgrade from the other E models to and E3?

I'm personally over the moon with my E5, I love the Jpeg images, the filters are useful, how much I'd use them I'm no sure, they weren't why I bought the E5 but they are on my E30 so why on on the E5. Video, useful at times, but again not why I wanted the E5.

As Paul states people will judge the E5 on what they use their camera for and their own expectations. Paul has created some stunning images with his E3 and I'm waiting to see more from the E5 from him.

Paul

Barr1e
16th December 2010, 04:14 PM
I am not saying I had an E-3 which didn't live up to expectations.

If I rate the E-3 against the E-5 it would be no contest.

E-3 = 5

E-5 = 9 +

One only has to look around various postings and the E-5 is highly favoured.

Regards. Barr1e

benvendetta
16th December 2010, 06:39 PM
If I could get a weaker AA filter on my E-3 I would be most happy *yes (not that I am generally unhappy with it but some of the images that I have seen from the E-5 have been stunning, especially with SHG glass)

Ross the fiddler
16th December 2010, 11:00 PM
I'll put that down as a Maybe then - still, no quibble made about the price, that's 'almost' a contract :D

Nick

Talk about a try hard! 10 points for trying. ;) :D

Ross the fiddler
16th December 2010, 11:06 PM
At the moment the price difference is great. In due course the price will come down and maybe then it will appear better value for money. Maybe Olympus set an initial high price because of the usual, by all manufacturers, forces of supply and demand. Once production gets into its swing, then who knows?

One problem with starting with a high price is that the biased magazine reviewers will always quote the (initial) RRP & say the Olympus camera is poor value for money, all the time. Yeah, I get a little annoyed with misinformation that gets put out frequently.