I picked up an E-1 recently and am loving the colors and the 5 megapixel file size. The 7-14 hasn’t left the body since I bought it. This was fun to watch.
Big fan of Olympus gear. I skipped this whole beginning digital transition. I was all film for couple of decades. When digital first came out I sold all my pro gear and started a Pharma business. Once a pro friend finally got through to me what white balance was… I went somewhat to digital. I have a lot of m43 olympus gear now and it’s earth shattering good. I really enjoyed this history lesson I missed. Thanks
The best colors, better than Kodak KAF sensors, especially in bad weather have Olympus cameras with the general name "Camedia" until February 2005. They have Sony TV CCD sensors with crystal admixtures that "conquer" colors. The largest sensors of this type are in the DSLR E-10/20 and that's why they cost $ 2,000, 25 years ago. Olympus chose for DSLR cameras 4/3, cheaper Kodak matrices. If not for this, he would have to add "1" to the front of the camera price. Since 2007, Panasonic CMOS has entered, but this is a complete shoddy, for fans of "smart" phones.
E1 is my favorite camera, excellent ergonomics, it’s nice to hold in my hands, you can immediately see a professional thing, the Kodak matrix gives the very picture that is more pleasing to the eye, cannot be compared with cmos
I bought an E1 as my first digital SLR because it was a rugged camera with a magnesium alloy frame and very good weather sealing. It could also use all my Nikor lenses with an adaptor, offering greater compatibility than Nikon's DSLR offerings at the time. With the Olympus 4/3 lenses it captured many outdoor action shots in weather I would never have exposed my Nikons to. Its real limitation was the rather pedestrian performance of its autofocus system and its equally modest low light performance. I switched to Canon when I started to extensively cover indoor sports. I borrowed a Canon for a day and the post processing required was a fraction of that for my Olympus' images. With the introduction of the Micro 4/3 system I have once again embraced the OM system. I kept my full frame Canon 'just in case' but they haven't left the closet in more than two years.
I know what you mean about the low light performance. Even with the E3 it was hard to do indoor sports. I go very good with strobes though set up in the corners of the courts. It's interesting though that the reviews never really adamantly complained about it low light performance. I guess because when it came out it held it own but just a few months later it was eclipsed.
I think Olympus is my favourite brand and I own a dozen different camera systems. Ironically my favourite camera is the E-300 which followed this failure and used the same lenses. I use it exclusively with the 50 f2 macro and 25 f2.8 pancake and I love the images. That $300 combo is hard to beat on the used market.
I grew up around my dad's old Olympus film cameras, as well as his 4x5 stuff, prior to his brief few years owning a photo lab, then switching to professional work. The lab must have been in the 80s, then the transition to products, catalogues and models in the 90s and 2000s... Borrowing his E-1 was my reintroduction into photography and the digital world, followed by my old E-510 that suited aerial photography well... He was probably given a bit of grief for shooting Olympus around the country but he swore by it all the same. Thanks for sharing this look back... That 11-22mm is what I'm using for landscapes today on the new camera, even though it's a heavy combination.
Oh please, not de-booted!☹️😠 Try de-booed! Better still, why not Google a pronunciation guide! The È1. I have kept mine and I have zero interest in parting with it or my E3, E300, E510, or my E620 and lastly my E30! + ++ my comprehensive battery of Pro lenses. In short, a fairly sizable cabinet full! As I expect you will have figured out by now when I bought all of the foregoing gear I was working as a pro who was well-satisfied with my Olympus kit. Unfortunately, shortly afterwards my health collapsed to the extent that I was compelled to retire before my time is up! I remain optimistic that I will discover new ways to engage. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. David Callard.
Nice video. I do have some extra thoughts about the failure of the 4/3 system. When I started with the E-500 and later E-1, E-3 and E-520 I believe many photographers were very conservative. I do believe they still are. They were used to 3:2 and Nikon and Canon had a very large amount of cheap lenses from the film era. So they only had to buy a new camera and could use their current lenses. Canon and Nikon also had a patent on their AF micro motors system which gave a quicker and more silent operation. When the patent ended Olympus introduced SWD. Canon and Nikon also had way better sales channels pushing their camera's while Olympus four thirds camera's and lenses were not commonly available in European shops or recommended by the salesman. Also the noise complains started in that period and the bigger the sensor, the better. I have had sold my 300mm f2.8 a few weeks ago. Weight is its greatest drawback.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel It was in the year 2010. The price was way lower than the RSP, I paid 5469 euro which was around 6k $ then. I bought it for it 1200mm reach. I had a E-3 at the time. When I would have bought a Canon 40D with a 500mm F4 it wasn't much cheaper and lighter. I did like the Olympus system that much that other brands were out of considation at the end. It is a great lens in sharpness, has slower AF and is heavy. If my 150-400 breaks I would buy it again, something I would not have considered with the 300mm.
Respectfully I think you have missed the point here.... No one at Olympus, could have expected the e-1 to last any longer than it did... I very much doubt any of the design department got sacked. Sensor innovation and megapixel count.... was the thing at the time. Every product, from every manufacturer, could only expect a very short shelf life.
You made a very good point at the end. If nobody innovates, we are just served the same old stuff. Lucky for cinematographers, though, that Red came out with an affordable 4K camera all the way back in 2007. That forced everyone else to either reduce the prices of their HD cameras, or start making 4K cameras. Then the Epic 5K came out in 2011. The Dragon 6K came out in 2012. Both of these cameras were smaller and cheaper than anything from Sony, Panasonic, or ARRI. The Dragon in particular gave nothing away to its competitors. All of this is many years ahead of what was happening in photography. As a result of this innovation by Red, we have 8K cameras that can shoot RAW footage at 120fps at 17 stops of DR. These high end cameras are not cheap, but they are cheaper than their competition.
18:05 The lens focal length doesn't get to do with the sensor, but imaging area. It is to be exactly the measured distance to the closest focal length. So it might be a 13.6 mm or 14.05 mm, but it is rounded up to 14 mm. And this is example with a tilt-shift lenses where image circle is larger, but focal length is same. And digital cameras raw files has larger area as the edges are cropped in the processing for debayering and other things, but FOV is the 14 mm. And 14 mm is 14 mm even if image ratio is 3:2 or 4:3, it is just cropping it differently as corners of the sensor are placed inside defined image circle in standard. And most people don't really care about edges as in FOV, but the overall image. Why 4:3 is still considered best ratio over all others. That is why Olympus chose the 4:3 to be the one for their new digital camera, instead 3:2 from 135 format. Olympus could have very well gone to 16:9 and we would be discussing how it is much wider FOV and so on 14mm is really like a 12mm, but then be negative about it being so much narrower vertically. But I totally agree with the wide angle and super telephoto sides, that Olympus missed the ultra wide angle side. Olympus was famous with their 18 mm f/3.5 Zuiko for the OM system, it was rare and even today it cost over 1000 €. Nikon got their 18 mm f/3.5 out six years after Olympus, and Canon offered 17 mm f/4 already in 71, so about 6 years before Olympus. Here is a simple rules: 1) Never, ever, overlook or abandon a casual camera owners, you thrive from there. 2) Never, ever, create a larger bodies even when a loud audience demands so. 3) Never deliver later some of the special lenses, like ultra wide angle, super telephoto and tilt-shift lenses, but do it ASAP. And today on the mobile era, all that is more true than ever. Smartphones offer UWA and normal lenses, but can't compete on super telephoto lenses. And smartphones are always lighter and smaller than any camera, why you need to make it light and small, like GM1 or E-PM2. The best body size for SLR like body is E-M10 Mk2. And never take a swiveling screen, always opt to tilt screen, or if really want to do something great, then Fuji X-T2 like screen hinge that offers all best for anything photographer requires. Olympus went over again by producing E-M1 II and E-M1X was just continuity to it, as it was like E-M1 II with HLD-9. Way too large. The way to fix that mistake, would have been to produce E-M10 Mk4 that would have been exactly like E-M1X, so same sensor, same readout speed, just smaller cache, two processors instead four, and by all means be as much possible the tiny package of the larger one. Same is with PEN-F, way too big. they should have pushed it to something like E-PL6 and call the day. Tiny, tiny, tiny... That was the thing...
13:10 the Olympus had ended the 4/3 lens manufacturing only in 2017, two years after E-M1 II and E-M1X. The lens sales were crazy high up to the 2016, when it became lower, but still higher demand than production and Olympus cut the pre-order list short regardless the profitable production.
Always had a weak spot for Olympus all the way since the E10/E20, E1. But actually waited all the way to buy a E5 body + Panasonic lens; Panasonic 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH MEGA OIS LEICA D VARIO-ELMAR. That was an awesome combo and use it a lot for all-around press photography. Iso range was limited but having a high quality 28-300mm reach + the E5 body did gave awesome photographs. Sold it later on voor m43 + my Canon system at those years. M43 compact and handy but it didn't gave me that E5 quality somehow.
I do have E1 for probably 2 years now and love to use it with OM lenses, especially 50mm f2 in OM mount, recently I got a bargain on 35-100f2 and also got 50mmf2 macro in 4/3 mount and 7-14f4, hence I just order another e500 body🙈. Love the video, definitely wouldn't pay 2k for E1 back in the day, I guess payed around 60USD. I have too many Olympus cameras and lenses now from 5x 35mm OM bodies ,2 x half frame penF, 2x 4/3 to the latest 3x m4/3, also some point and shoot mju, but the E1 has always the special place and I use it regularly , photography is not about Mpx.
Cool video! I skipped the E-1 and started with the E500 > E510 > E30 > E3 > E5. Of which I still have the E500. I just sold a very nice E5 system with many pro lenses for about $2200 on Ebay, still holding it's value. Love the colors of the old CCD sensors. I always considered the EM1X as THE replacement for my beloved E5 with a grip. Cheers!
Wish i could have bought your E5. I saw an ugly one i could probably afford. Has 170,00 clicks but since i wont use it much the clicks do not matter to me. They have really held value.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel Yes, even now I miss the E5, My E5 had 4000 clicks!! but after my back injury, almost all of my cameras and lenses are on the chopping block, including the big Nikon's and those wonderful PF lenses, however, I will be buried with my OMD kit with all the pro lenses and the EM1Xs, and EM1s, and then me and my cameras will be inside my 2004 Mercury Marauder under a freeway, with my hands taped on the steering wheel to be found in a 100 years ... heehee
I remember the belief at the time being that the incident of light had to hit the sensor at a right angle. I remember even Leica saying a digital M would be impossible due to the oblique angle light hit the sensor due to the short flange distance. So with the E system being built digital only, they could design the lens to hit the sensor in an optimal way... so I guess this in one reason for the long flange distance.
Yes they really emphasized that and it was true back then that the light had to come straight on. Only in the past few years have other companies finally embraced this too. The long flange distance though is not needed to do that. Look at how short the flange distance is on the new cannon R system and they have been designing all their new lenses with that in mind.
It was never called a full-frame system... the sensor was a full frame transfer CCD, as opposed to an interline transfer CCD. The CCD sensor was called a Full Frame Transfer (FFT) CCD. It had nothing to do with the sensor size and the image circle from the lens.
This is partially true. Looking back at archives some articles have actually been modified and edited to fit the modern definition of FF. When I read my hard copies from magazines about the E1 they refer to it as FF just as it should be. Something I hate is that this terms definition was changed because it is confusing. The old definition worked and was not confusing. Now that medium format digital sensors are becoming a thing is 35mm still FF? Or is it cropped compared to say a medium format? The words Transfer CCD is an older term that was once applied to all CCD sensor but has been lost or deserted in use because it takes too long to say. The transfer refers to how each line of piles transfers its charge to the next as the sensor is read off.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel going back the original Olympus press release, it was always a "Full Frame Transfer CCD" but some magazine writers misunderstood what that meant. The term "full-frame" for a 24x36mm sensor had already been used a year prior to the E-1 for the Kodak DCS Pro 14n, and two years prior for the Contax N Digital, as you can read in their press releases. Nothing was ever called just a "transfer CCD." Terms like interline transfer, frame transfer, full frame, and full frame transfer were used to describe how they transferred data, and how large their light-sensitive area was, and whether or not they required a mechanical shutter. No doubt Olympus hoped that calling it a "full frame transfer CCD," which was technically accurate, might confuse some buyers into thinking it was the same "full frame" as cameras with 24x36mm sensors. It worked with a few clueless journalists, at least. But the definition you gave was never correct nor intended by Olympus or Kodak.
You will notice that none of those magazine writers were ever criticized for calling it full frame. Today they would be because the definition has changed. Look at older magazine and they do not even call them cropped sensors. Instead they are called sub frame cameras. if a sensor was 24x36 back then it was called 35mm period. Just do some reading of old books and you will see what I mean. And I have the printed Contax N digital brochure. It says it's a full frame camera because the sensor fully fills the image circle of the lens mount. Too bad that camera did not take off. But at 10,000$ I can see why it would not. Even today they are expensive. Maybe someday I can afford one for the collection. I love contax stuff.
Oh and one thing thy introduced with the Contax N digital was a lens adapter that allowed 645 lenses to be used with it which then made it a cropped sensor lol.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel you're going to need to give an exact quote from the Contax N brochure you have, because everything I have from them calls it "35mm full frame" or "full frame 35mm." Maybe you have some magazines where the writers were confused, but the companies making the cameras never were, and from at least 2002 you had companies like Contax, Kodak, and Canon using the term "full frame 35mm" in press releases and brochures.
It's funny how people had different views regarding the E1, personally I had 2 mainly for studio work shooting Portraites and Model portfolios in London. I had the canons and 6 x 4.5 digital cameras but for skin tones none could match the E1's.
The E1 does make a good audio cameras. But in wall outlet port made all day shooting easy and you could tether through firewire 400 back when that was a port you had. lol
I agree and saw the same issues. Lens selection was pretty poor. With the smaller size of the mirrorless system, I would love to see them build a 35-100mm f/2. If I would get back into event photography, I could see myself getting one.
Up to this day the E-1 has the best ergonomics of any DSLR. I use it (when I have the spare time to shoot), as well as my E-3, more or less like film cameras. I have them set up at single shot and no preview. I know their limitations, I try to take it slow, get my desired result and to do as little post-processing as possible. And I've never felt like I've been constrained by the wide angle capabilities of the 14-42 I started with on my E-410. The 11-22 was a huge step up for me and I still haven't mastered it, the way I would want to. The 7-14 is still a butt-load of money for me to consider buying. I have to mention that all of the old 4/3 lenses perform even better on newer m4/3 bodies with phase-detect-AF.
You also forget here, the scorn and ridicule placed on 4/3 cameras and later M43 cameras by the likes of Canon and Nikon. Very little directly but by their dealers and their rabid fanboys. True it did not apply so much to the E1 but as Olympus started evolving new features that no one had seen before, the angst was unbelievable. Especially in the American market place and online forums aimed at the general market, not the professional photographers, as all the manufactures recognised that professional sales are small compared to the general market of amateurs, hobbyists and wannabees, especially the wannabees. The fact that many on the forums had never personally seen, let alone handled an Olympus was in many cases very clear. Example, live view was something invented by the devil and had no place on a real camera used by a real photographer, or wannabee. IBIS was the same. Just two of the things that Olympus ran with and got decried for. Yet today try selling a camera today without them and other Olympus inclusions. And another angst they had, the tiny sensor cannot gather any light they insisted, quoting their exceptional knowledge of the laws of physics from the back of a cigarette packet, as they proudly show images taken on their phones. One reason the likes of Canon and Nikon never introduced a proper digital camera is that they had done such a job on Olympus they were scarred that any such offering by them would be seen as being a flop. A flop for the reasons they themselves created initially white anting Olympus in the US public eye, which then of course spread world wide. They had promoted the self defined superiority of their old concept DSLRs. Make no bones about it Canon and Nikon have been instrumental in the demise of Olympus. Kill the E1 and that kills the family. But yes you are right about the wide angle lens being a problem its one I have had problems with myself. Even though I have the old 9-18mm it was late coming. Luckily today some Chinese companies are making some very good ultra wide rectilinear primes for the M43 and other digital cameras. I just need to save my pension to get one.
You make some very valid points; however, the E-1 has rightfully become a cult-classic! Glad I still have mine, as they are going for ridonkulous prices on eBay, due mainly to the "magic" of the Kodak CCD sensor -- which DOES produce some stellar colors and a very film-like feel. I stuck with Olympus and still pull out my E-1 and E-30 when the mood is right :). cheers! Great video.
Just wondering why you use mirrorless for astrophotography? Is it so you don't have to hook up a laptop to a camera? Was watching other astrophotography channels those cameras are a lot different and they use fans inside of them. Also I heard CCD is better for stars but CMOS is better for planets but one guy I think he's from Australia said CMOS is catching up with CCD.
You must be watching some older stuff. CMOS has surpassed CCD in every way. Ya there's a few custom made and one of a kind CCDs out there but they are one of a kind cameras. Usually custom made for an exact task and cost at least 6 digits or more. I actually do primarily use CMOS cameras with pelter cooled sensors. They can drop the sensor temp by 40C. I really only use my mirrorless cameras for fun and experimentation.
So cool to get to see you in your work environment. Or ... is it? I mean, so different, right? Makes you look all edgy and "Zeitgeist" whereas your usual content's background seems so grounded. Both worlds, I guess. Like myself - Design Office at day, family at ... every other time of the day :-) Thanks for the edutainment and kind regards from Germany
I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself thinking the failure of the E-1 is what stopped Canon and Nikon to make from-the-ground-up digital systems. This is absolutely not the case. If the E1's failure had anything to do with it, it was maybe a minor reassurance but nothing more. Canon made the EF mount with the intention of going digital with it in thd future. Nikon went digital without changing the F mount because there was no point doing so. Creating a whole new system with new lenses is a HUGE task and investment for any camera company. If you have the ability to keep customers within your brand by making the switch to digital as painless as possible by allowing them to keep their lenses as they switch, you're assuring yourself a healthy customer base. I mean this is not rocket science and the failure of thd E1 was just one more proof to show Nikon and Canon that the course that they have been on for years was the correct one. The Z and RF systems were introduced as mirrorless technology was taking over DSLR tech, not because the wraith of the E1's failure finally dissapeared. As for the EF-M system, the goal was to make the smallest consumer APS-C ILC on the market to put some competiton to Sony and their NEX cameras that were eating the consumer DSLR market. I know the narrative you give as why camera companies "waited so long" is nice as it gives the E1 importance. But you need to look at facts.
Cannon by their own documentation stated the EF system was to create an AF system. It was done before Digital was only a lab experiment. My conclusion though is just as much speculation as yours.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel digital cameras were a "lab experiment" in 1975... By 1980 if you were in the camera industry and didn't think digital cameras would soon hit the market you would have been considered a fool. Canon released the EF mount in 1987, and the first consumer digital camera was released in... 1988. The first digital back was released in 1991. The goal in the short term was to create an AF system : yes. But then why is the mount so wide compared to others on the market at that time? It has no effect in the viability of an AF system at all. The answer is : because digital was the long term goal. Digital sensors are, unlike film, not flat. each photosite (especially on those early digital sensors) were like wells. The more acute the angle of the light rays was, the more light loss and vignetting you would get in your image, so having a larger mounts allows for different lens designs that allow you to correct the light ray path without making the lens overly big, especially when it comes to wide angle lenses. You can't take Canon's statement at face value here. They were well aware of the incoming digital era and were preparing their lens mount for it. Otherwise they would have done the exact same thing as Nikon did, aka re-use the FD mount and transition to digital with it. There was more than enough space for the AF system to take place (flange is 42mm, EF flange is 44mm. Not that different)
4/3 @14mm has a horizontal field of view of 63,4°. With FF, 29mm is 63,6°, and 28mm is 65,5°, so it falls more on the 29mm side than the 28mm, but your claim that it is more like 30mm is not true. @11mm, the horizontal field of view is 76,4°. With FF, 23mm is 76,1° and 22mm is 78,6°. So you are correct that it feel slightly narrower than a 22mm, but the difference is smaller than 1mm, as it is wider than 23mm. Also, I have this lens and it definitely does not feel like a 24mm lens. | do agree that 4/3 failed as a system, but it was for different reasons. 1. Getting market share from Canikon, who were entrenched with huge lens libraries that were already on people's bookshelves was always going to be an uphill battle. 2. The rate of release for new lenses and cameras initally was very slow 3. Reliance on zooms right when bokeh became THE THING. Most photographers do make the use of prime lenses, complete lack of them was unacceptable. 4. Pricepoint of some of their lenses and cameras was baffling high 5. Why are the top-of-the-line cameras and lenses so large? Ridiculous. 6. In late '00s they had literally the worst sensor performance. It was so bad, that a 2003 Canon 10D has the same DxOMark score as the Olympus E-5.
Hi Edmund. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this up. I always appreciate seeing others opinions because I often learn from them. Here are my responses. 1. I remember at the time when digital was a thing many photographers changed lens mounts. It was actually strange to see because so many that I knew were absolute die hards on a particular brand just dropped everything because of digital. 2. agree all the way. 3. Reliance on zoom I agree. Though the bokeh thing did not really become a thing till about 5 years after the E1. Least I never heard anyone say anything about it. 4. agree! 5. agree the 7-14 f4 was huge! There were faster f2.8 lenses in the same range for 35mm. 6. it was not the best but it was at least close. All the reviews I remember and many you can still go back and ready did not hound the system for this. I agree thought they should have made a better sensor for the camera though. The e20 had 5mp and to not jump up even a little considering they were switching to s sensor that was vastly larger.
Strangely, you fail to mention the bad high ISO performance of the E-system. For me, this was a dealbreaker. I bought an E-1 as late as 2006 and used it professionally in photojournalism for about two years. Coming from primes in film photography (Pentax with Super-Multi-Coated Takumars, those little sweeties), with 28mm as my main tool, the 14-54mm wasn't too bad. At one point I too, for some reason, thought I needed to go wider and had sleepless nights over getting a 7-14mm, which was very expensive at the time. I thought better of it and got a Canon 5D. Main reason: underwhelming high ISO performance on the E-1, getting quite bad from 800 onwards, sometimes 400. A shame, because I liked the camera a lot. I never cared for zoom lenses and after another five years of shooting way too wide with the 17-40mm mostly @17mm, ten years ago I bought a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZE. The great feeling of shooting primes returned and today I use its big brother the 35/1.4, next to a 25/2, a 50/2 Makro Planar and a 135/2 APO Sonnar (all ZE's) on a 5D mark 2. It's heavenly. I never got rid of the E-1, though, and revived it two years ago by buying a 50-200mm for a steal, now using this combination just for fun. And lo and behold, it performs quite well, if you operate within its limitations. I'm contemplating getting a E-5 for better ISO performance, but I don't think I should do it. It could never match my Canon/Zeiss output in any way and investing anything more in a dead system seems moot. A shame, again!
Hi Matt. Thanks for your story. I like reading these. So I did not mention ISO performance because when the E1 was launched in 2003 is was at par with any other camera of its time. If you read reviews about it that were done when it was launched you will see that reviewers never complained about it either. Cameras were improving very fast back then though. A camera was often out of date just one year after you bought it. So that is why I do not consider the E1 a failure there. For example when you bought the E1 Olympus had come out with the E400 which was 10MP and performed much better in lower light. That was also a shame though and was a problem with the entire system. Olympus would often come out with low $$ cameras that had better sensors than the high $$$$ pro models. Made a lot of professionals mad because they felt like their gear was outdated.
The best colors, better than Kodak KAF sensors, especially in bad weather have Olympus cameras with the general name "Camedia" until February 2005. They have Sony TV CCD sensors with crystal admixtures that "conquer" colors. The largest sensors of this type are in the DSLR E-10/20 and that's why they cost $ 2,000, 25 years ago. Olympus chose for DSLR cameras 4/3, cheaper Kodak matrices. If not for this, he would have to add "1" to the front of the camera price. Since 2007, Panasonic CMOS has entered, but this is a complete shoddy, for fans of "smart" phones.
Agreed. And the files are SHARP. The ergonomics were the best of any camera I have ever used. The BEST. The main limitation is how fast the files fall apart when pushed, you have to stay at or under ISO400. Any higher and you risk banding issues. If Olympus had released an E-6 with the 16MP Sony sensor that went into the E-M5, I would probably still be using an E-6 day by day. The 12-60mm is an amazing lens, so is the 50mm macro. Even the affordable 50-200mm is really good.
I have wanted one of those for a long time. They never seamed to go down in price though on the used market. I think because anyone with those lenses that camera was the finest thing you could get and they all hung on to them. You are lucky to have one.
@@thedarkslide They did have an E7 in the works with the 16mp sensor. But they deserted it to go MFT. And yes the three lenses you name are amazing lenses. I have all three of them now.
I can't stop loving my E5 either. Respect its limits, and it gives results. I use it day and night in harsh environments and it keeps working. Last week the Tasman Sea claimed the rubber off the grip, but aside from that.... 120k clicks. It's at a point now where i'll pick up a low mileage spare for when the inevitable happens, because what else will i do with all the glass? With the battery grip, she's a lovely big lump of a thing.
Yes it was about two years latter but way to late. By then no one had any interest in the system. And other manufacturers had come out with wide and fast zooms that cost a lot less and were actually smaller. Again the flange distance made the wide lenses bug.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel the system was lacking on what was available and yes SHG lenses where far to expensive but extremley good but still to expensive, SWD lenses should have come out much sooner as well so all over the place, all SHG lenses should of all had as standard but later came out so only 14-35mm f2 of the line up of SHG line From memory only the 14-35mm f2 and the HG 12-60mm f2.8-4 where only ones with SWD Considering the SHG lenses where so expensive they should of all had SWD but must have not produced SWD in the first few, 14-35mm f2 SHG and 12-60mm f2.8-4 must have been later cant remember to have SWD, Never used SHG lenses without SWD so not sure if they where still pretty quick must be focus speed of 14-54 or faster but just not SWD
@@nickhaswell6011 It was disappointing that they never did update all the lenses with SWD. Could have been a selling point if not to make the system more interesting but also to get first buyer users like myself to upgrade which I did with the 14-54mm and thus they could have made more money on essentially the same lenses.
I think you're talking a lot of crap !!! You're comparing a len that 20 years old with a lens of today .... like comparing tvs of 20 years ago with tvs of today !!! Apples and oranges e1 was a great camera of the day ... i have e1 e3 e5 e500 e510 e420 e300 and most of the 4/3 equipment... other that the iso / noisy image in low light they produced great photos !!!
I picked up an E-1 recently and am loving the colors and the 5 megapixel file size. The 7-14 hasn’t left the body since I bought it. This was fun to watch.
That sense is on my to get list. It's such a monster though.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel It is, but it balances well on the beefy E-1 body.
@@lzwnn Ya the E1 was built for big lenses and so was the E3 and E5. When I put my older 43rd lenses on my newer cameras they do not feel right.
Big fan of Olympus gear. I skipped this whole beginning digital transition. I was all film for couple of decades. When digital first came out I sold all my pro gear and started a Pharma business. Once a pro friend finally got through to me what white balance was… I went somewhat to digital. I have a lot of m43 olympus gear now and it’s earth shattering good. I really enjoyed this history lesson I missed. Thanks
Thank you Jack. Sometimes we learn by looking back.
The best colors, better than Kodak KAF sensors, especially in bad weather have Olympus cameras with the general name "Camedia" until February 2005. They have Sony TV CCD sensors with crystal admixtures that "conquer" colors.
The largest sensors of this type are in the DSLR E-10/20 and that's why they cost $ 2,000, 25 years ago.
Olympus chose for DSLR cameras 4/3, cheaper Kodak matrices.
If not for this, he would have to add "1" to the front of the camera price.
Since 2007, Panasonic CMOS has entered, but this is a complete shoddy, for fans of "smart" phones.
E1 is my favorite camera, excellent ergonomics, it’s nice to hold in my hands, you can immediately see a professional thing, the Kodak matrix gives the very picture that is more pleasing to the eye, cannot be compared with cmos
Those raw files were tuff to edit but it did give nice colors.
I bought an E1 as my first digital SLR because it was a rugged camera with a magnesium alloy frame and very good weather sealing. It could also use all my Nikor lenses with an adaptor, offering greater compatibility than Nikon's DSLR offerings at the time. With the Olympus 4/3 lenses it captured many outdoor action shots in weather I would never have exposed my Nikons to. Its real limitation was the rather pedestrian performance of its autofocus system and its equally modest low light performance. I switched to Canon when I started to extensively cover indoor sports. I borrowed a Canon for a day and the post processing required was a fraction of that for my Olympus' images. With the introduction of the Micro 4/3 system I have once again embraced the OM system. I kept my full frame Canon 'just in case' but they haven't left the closet in more than two years.
I know what you mean about the low light performance. Even with the E3 it was hard to do indoor sports. I go very good with strobes though set up in the corners of the courts. It's interesting though that the reviews never really adamantly complained about it low light performance. I guess because when it came out it held it own but just a few months later it was eclipsed.
I think Olympus is my favourite brand and I own a dozen different camera systems. Ironically my favourite camera is the E-300 which followed this failure and used the same lenses. I use it exclusively with the 50 f2 macro and 25 f2.8 pancake and I love the images. That $300 combo is hard to beat on the used market.
I grew up around my dad's old Olympus film cameras, as well as his 4x5 stuff, prior to his brief few years owning a photo lab, then switching to professional work. The lab must have been in the 80s, then the transition to products, catalogues and models in the 90s and 2000s... Borrowing his E-1 was my reintroduction into photography and the digital world, followed by my old E-510 that suited aerial photography well... He was probably given a bit of grief for shooting Olympus around the country but he swore by it all the same. Thanks for sharing this look back... That 11-22mm is what I'm using for landscapes today on the new camera, even though it's a heavy combination.
I used that lens a lot to for landscapes until i purchased the 7-14.
Sadly my E1 and E3 are both broken , Eventually I will get a working ones. Nice video, nostalgic
Sorry to hear that I hope you can someday. The price on the E1 has been going up though. Glad I kept mine.
Man, an E-1 with a smaller flange distance would have been sick. Still, it is a lovely DSLR with a wonderfully funky body design.
Totally agree
Oh please, not de-booted!☹️😠 Try de-booed! Better still, why not Google a pronunciation guide!
The È1. I have kept mine and I have zero interest in parting with it or my E3, E300, E510, or my E620 and lastly my E30! + ++ my comprehensive battery of Pro lenses. In short, a fairly sizable cabinet full! As I expect you will have figured out by now when I bought all of the foregoing gear I was working as a pro who was well-satisfied with my Olympus kit. Unfortunately, shortly afterwards my health collapsed to the extent that I was compelled to retire before my time is up!
I remain optimistic that I will discover new ways to engage.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
David Callard.
Olympus is one af the best camera systems! And their lenses........ are amazing!!!!
Nice video. I do have some extra thoughts about the failure of the 4/3 system. When I started with the E-500 and later E-1, E-3 and E-520 I believe many photographers were very conservative. I do believe they still are. They were used to 3:2 and Nikon and Canon had a very large amount of cheap lenses from the film era. So they only had to buy a new camera and could use their current lenses. Canon and Nikon also had a patent on their AF micro motors system which gave a quicker and more silent operation. When the patent ended Olympus introduced SWD. Canon and Nikon also had way better sales channels pushing their camera's while Olympus four thirds camera's and lenses were not commonly available in European shops or recommended by the salesman. Also the noise complains started in that period and the bigger the sensor, the better. I have had sold my 300mm f2.8 a few weeks ago. Weight is its greatest drawback.
That is interesting that the SWD lenses were a patent issue.
Did you get the 300 f2.8 at full price originally?
@@TheNarrowbandChannel It was in the year 2010. The price was way lower than the RSP, I paid 5469 euro which was around 6k $ then. I bought it for it 1200mm reach. I had a E-3 at the time. When I would have bought a Canon 40D with a 500mm F4 it wasn't much cheaper and lighter. I did like the Olympus system that much that other brands were out of considation at the end. It is a great lens in sharpness, has slower AF and is heavy. If my 150-400 breaks I would buy it again, something I would not have considered with the 300mm.
Respectfully I think you have missed the point here.... No one at Olympus, could have expected the e-1 to last any longer than it did... I very much doubt any of the design department got sacked. Sensor innovation and megapixel count.... was the thing at the time. Every product, from every manufacturer, could only expect a very short shelf life.
Absolutely
You made a very good point at the end. If nobody innovates, we are just served the same old stuff.
Lucky for cinematographers, though, that Red came out with an affordable 4K camera all the way back in 2007. That forced everyone else to either reduce the prices of their HD cameras, or start making 4K cameras.
Then the Epic 5K came out in 2011. The Dragon 6K came out in 2012. Both of these cameras were smaller and cheaper than anything from Sony, Panasonic, or ARRI. The Dragon in particular gave nothing away to its competitors. All of this is many years ahead of what was happening in photography.
As a result of this innovation by Red, we have 8K cameras that can shoot RAW footage at 120fps at 17 stops of DR. These high end cameras are not cheap, but they are cheaper than their competition.
Thanks. Red is a very innovative company. I am surprised no one else has ever tried to compete with them outside of half hearted attempts.
18:05 The lens focal length doesn't get to do with the sensor, but imaging area.
It is to be exactly the measured distance to the closest focal length. So it might be a 13.6 mm or 14.05 mm, but it is rounded up to 14 mm. And this is example with a tilt-shift lenses where image circle is larger, but focal length is same. And digital cameras raw files has larger area as the edges are cropped in the processing for debayering and other things, but FOV is the 14 mm.
And 14 mm is 14 mm even if image ratio is 3:2 or 4:3, it is just cropping it differently as corners of the sensor are placed inside defined image circle in standard.
And most people don't really care about edges as in FOV, but the overall image. Why 4:3 is still considered best ratio over all others. That is why Olympus chose the 4:3 to be the one for their new digital camera, instead 3:2 from 135 format.
Olympus could have very well gone to 16:9 and we would be discussing how it is much wider FOV and so on 14mm is really like a 12mm, but then be negative about it being so much narrower vertically.
But I totally agree with the wide angle and super telephoto sides, that Olympus missed the ultra wide angle side.
Olympus was famous with their 18 mm f/3.5 Zuiko for the OM system, it was rare and even today it cost over 1000 €.
Nikon got their 18 mm f/3.5 out six years after Olympus, and Canon offered 17 mm f/4 already in 71, so about 6 years before Olympus.
Here is a simple rules:
1) Never, ever, overlook or abandon a casual camera owners, you thrive from there.
2) Never, ever, create a larger bodies even when a loud audience demands so.
3) Never deliver later some of the special lenses, like ultra wide angle, super telephoto and tilt-shift lenses, but do it ASAP.
And today on the mobile era, all that is more true than ever. Smartphones offer UWA and normal lenses, but can't compete on super telephoto lenses.
And smartphones are always lighter and smaller than any camera, why you need to make it light and small, like GM1 or E-PM2.
The best body size for SLR like body is E-M10 Mk2.
And never take a swiveling screen, always opt to tilt screen, or if really want to do something great, then Fuji X-T2 like screen hinge that offers all best for anything photographer requires.
Olympus went over again by producing E-M1 II and E-M1X was just continuity to it, as it was like E-M1 II with HLD-9. Way too large. The way to fix that mistake, would have been to produce E-M10 Mk4 that would have been exactly like E-M1X, so same sensor, same readout speed, just smaller cache, two processors instead four, and by all means be as much possible the tiny package of the larger one.
Same is with PEN-F, way too big. they should have pushed it to something like E-PL6 and call the day. Tiny, tiny, tiny... That was the thing...
13:10 the Olympus had ended the 4/3 lens manufacturing only in 2017, two years after E-M1 II and E-M1X.
The lens sales were crazy high up to the 2016, when it became lower, but still higher demand than production and Olympus cut the pre-order list short regardless the profitable production.
Always had a weak spot for Olympus all the way since the E10/E20, E1. But actually waited all the way to buy a E5 body + Panasonic lens; Panasonic 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH MEGA OIS LEICA D VARIO-ELMAR. That was an awesome combo and use it a lot for all-around press photography. Iso range was limited but having a high quality 28-300mm reach + the E5 body did gave awesome photographs. Sold it later on voor m43 + my Canon system at those years. M43 compact and handy but it didn't gave me that E5 quality somehow.
I do have E1 for probably 2 years now and love to use it with OM lenses, especially 50mm f2 in OM mount, recently I got a bargain on 35-100f2 and also got 50mmf2 macro in 4/3 mount and 7-14f4, hence I just order another e500 body🙈.
Love the video, definitely wouldn't pay 2k for E1 back in the day, I guess payed around 60USD.
I have too many Olympus cameras and lenses now from 5x 35mm OM bodies ,2 x half frame penF, 2x 4/3 to the latest 3x m4/3, also some point and shoot mju, but the E1 has always the special place and I use it regularly , photography is not about Mpx.
@mrstrangelight do you need an adapter to Mount OM mft on an E1? If so can you name the product and manufacturer?Are your OM lenses micro four thirds?
Great info, brilliantly delivered. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Cool video! I skipped the E-1 and started with the E500 > E510 > E30 > E3 > E5. Of which I still have the E500. I just sold a very nice E5 system with many pro lenses for about $2200 on Ebay, still holding it's value. Love the colors of the old CCD sensors. I always considered the EM1X as THE replacement for my beloved E5 with a grip. Cheers!
Wish i could have bought your E5. I saw an ugly one i could probably afford. Has 170,00 clicks but since i wont use it much the clicks do not matter to me. They have really held value.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel Yes, even now I miss the E5, My E5 had 4000 clicks!! but after my back injury, almost all of my cameras and lenses are on the chopping block, including the big Nikon's and those wonderful PF lenses, however, I will be buried with my OMD kit with all the pro lenses and the EM1Xs, and EM1s, and then me and my cameras will be inside my 2004 Mercury Marauder under a freeway, with my hands taped on the steering wheel to be found in a 100 years ... heehee
@@ridealongwithrandy 4000! That's 116,000 less than mine. Wish we could have swapped! 😂
I remember the belief at the time being that the incident of light had to hit the sensor at a right angle. I remember even Leica saying a digital M would be impossible due to the oblique angle light hit the sensor due to the short flange distance. So with the E system being built digital only, they could design the lens to hit the sensor in an optimal way... so I guess this in one reason for the long flange distance.
Yes they really emphasized that and it was true back then that the light had to come straight on. Only in the past few years have other companies finally embraced this too. The long flange distance though is not needed to do that. Look at how short the flange distance is on the new cannon R system and they have been designing all their new lenses with that in mind.
It was never called a full-frame system... the sensor was a full frame transfer CCD, as opposed to an interline transfer CCD. The CCD sensor was called a Full Frame Transfer (FFT) CCD. It had nothing to do with the sensor size and the image circle from the lens.
This is partially true. Looking back at archives some articles have actually been modified and edited to fit the modern definition of FF. When I read my hard copies from magazines about the E1 they refer to it as FF just as it should be. Something I hate is that this terms definition was changed because it is confusing. The old definition worked and was not confusing. Now that medium format digital sensors are becoming a thing is 35mm still FF? Or is it cropped compared to say a medium format?
The words Transfer CCD is an older term that was once applied to all CCD sensor but has been lost or deserted in use because it takes too long to say. The transfer refers to how each line of piles transfers its charge to the next as the sensor is read off.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel going back the original Olympus press release, it was always a "Full Frame Transfer CCD" but some magazine writers misunderstood what that meant.
The term "full-frame" for a 24x36mm sensor had already been used a year prior to the E-1 for the Kodak DCS Pro 14n, and two years prior for the Contax N Digital, as you can read in their press releases.
Nothing was ever called just a "transfer CCD." Terms like interline transfer, frame transfer, full frame, and full frame transfer were used to describe how they transferred data, and how large their light-sensitive area was, and whether or not they required a mechanical shutter. No doubt Olympus hoped that calling it a "full frame transfer CCD," which was technically accurate, might confuse some buyers into thinking it was the same "full frame" as cameras with 24x36mm sensors. It worked with a few clueless journalists, at least. But the definition you gave was never correct nor intended by Olympus or Kodak.
You will notice that none of those magazine writers were ever criticized for calling it full frame. Today they would be because the definition has changed. Look at older magazine and they do not even call them cropped sensors. Instead they are called sub frame cameras. if a sensor was 24x36 back then it was called 35mm period. Just do some reading of old books and you will see what I mean.
And I have the printed Contax N digital brochure. It says it's a full frame camera because the sensor fully fills the image circle of the lens mount. Too bad that camera did not take off. But at 10,000$ I can see why it would not. Even today they are expensive. Maybe someday I can afford one for the collection. I love contax stuff.
Oh and one thing thy introduced with the Contax N digital was a lens adapter that allowed 645 lenses to be used with it which then made it a cropped sensor lol.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel you're going to need to give an exact quote from the Contax N brochure you have, because everything I have from them calls it "35mm full frame" or "full frame 35mm." Maybe you have some magazines where the writers were confused, but the companies making the cameras never were, and from at least 2002 you had companies like Contax, Kodak, and Canon using the term "full frame 35mm" in press releases and brochures.
Do you like the colors out of the old camera better? I heard people like CCD better at low ISO.
Color was the same really. More contrast though.
It's funny how people had different views regarding the E1, personally I had 2 mainly for studio work shooting Portraites and Model portfolios in London. I had the canons and 6 x 4.5 digital cameras but for skin tones none could match the E1's.
The E1 does make a good audio cameras. But in wall outlet port made all day shooting easy and you could tether through firewire 400 back when that was a port you had. lol
I agree and saw the same issues. Lens selection was pretty poor. With the smaller size of the mirrorless system, I would love to see them build a 35-100mm f/2. If I would get back into event photography, I could see myself getting one.
Thanks for sharing. F2 is fast and would be nice if it could be used in astro wide open.
Would love to get my hands on one, but damn they're like $300+ USD
Yes they started going up in price about three years ago.
interesting comments. Recently I have picked up an E-300 and and E-1. Subbed.
Thank you. I do not normally do content like this but i will in the future be collecting more of the 4/3rds glass. Maybe ill finally pick up an e5
Up to this day the E-1 has the best ergonomics of any DSLR. I use it (when I have the spare time to shoot), as well as my E-3, more or less like film cameras. I have them set up at single shot and no preview. I know their limitations, I try to take it slow, get my desired result and to do as little post-processing as possible. And I've never felt like I've been constrained by the wide angle capabilities of the 14-42 I started with on my E-410. The 11-22 was a huge step up for me and I still haven't mastered it, the way I would want to. The 7-14 is still a butt-load of money for me to consider buying.
I have to mention that all of the old 4/3 lenses perform even better on newer m4/3 bodies with phase-detect-AF.
I too loved the E1 ergonomics. Its one camera I probably trust using in the dark more than any other.
Great history and analysis on the E-1👌
Glad you liked it and thanks.
You also forget here, the scorn and ridicule placed on 4/3 cameras and later M43 cameras by the likes of Canon and Nikon. Very little directly but by their dealers and their rabid fanboys. True it did not apply so much to the E1 but as Olympus started evolving new features that no one had seen before, the angst was unbelievable. Especially in the American market place and online forums aimed at the general market, not the professional photographers, as all the manufactures recognised that professional sales are small compared to the general market of amateurs, hobbyists and wannabees, especially the wannabees. The fact that many on the forums had never personally seen, let alone handled an Olympus was in many cases very clear. Example, live view was something invented by the devil and had no place on a real camera used by a real photographer, or wannabee. IBIS was the same. Just two of the things that Olympus ran with and got decried for. Yet today try selling a camera today without them and other Olympus inclusions. And another angst they had, the tiny sensor cannot gather any light they insisted, quoting their exceptional knowledge of the laws of physics from the back of a cigarette packet, as they proudly show images taken on their phones.
One reason the likes of Canon and Nikon never introduced a proper digital camera is that they had done such a job on Olympus they were scarred that any such offering by them would be seen as being a flop. A flop for the reasons they themselves created initially white anting Olympus in the US public eye, which then of course spread world wide. They had promoted the self defined superiority of their old concept DSLRs.
Make no bones about it Canon and Nikon have been instrumental in the demise of Olympus. Kill the E1 and that kills the family. But yes you are right about the wide angle lens being a problem its one I have had problems with myself. Even though I have the old 9-18mm it was late coming. Luckily today some Chinese companies are making some very good ultra wide rectilinear primes for the M43 and other digital cameras. I just need to save my pension to get one.
You make some very valid points; however, the E-1 has rightfully become a cult-classic! Glad I still have mine, as they are going for ridonkulous prices on eBay, due mainly to the "magic" of the Kodak CCD sensor -- which DOES produce some stellar colors and a very film-like feel. I stuck with Olympus and still pull out my E-1 and E-30 when the mood is right :). cheers! Great video.
It sure is a cult classic now. They are fun to use too.
Just wondering why you use mirrorless for astrophotography? Is it so you don't have to hook up a laptop to a camera?
Was watching other astrophotography channels those cameras are a lot different and they use fans inside of them. Also I heard CCD is better for stars but CMOS is better for planets but one guy I think he's from Australia said CMOS is catching up with CCD.
You must be watching some older stuff. CMOS has surpassed CCD in every way. Ya there's a few custom made and one of a kind CCDs out there but they are one of a kind cameras. Usually custom made for an exact task and cost at least 6 digits or more.
I actually do primarily use CMOS cameras with pelter cooled sensors. They can drop the sensor temp by 40C. I really only use my mirrorless cameras for fun and experimentation.
So cool to get to see you in your work environment. Or ... is it? I mean, so different, right? Makes you look all edgy and "Zeitgeist" whereas your usual content's background seems so grounded. Both worlds, I guess. Like myself - Design Office at day, family at ... every other time of the day :-)
Thanks for the edutainment and kind regards from Germany
Thank you Simon. Ya work is pretty funky place. We like to have fun there!!
I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself thinking the failure of the E-1 is what stopped Canon and Nikon to make from-the-ground-up digital systems.
This is absolutely not the case. If the E1's failure had anything to do with it, it was maybe a minor reassurance but nothing more.
Canon made the EF mount with the intention of going digital with it in thd future. Nikon went digital without changing the F mount because there was no point doing so. Creating a whole new system with new lenses is a HUGE task and investment for any camera company. If you have the ability to keep customers within your brand by making the switch to digital as painless as possible by allowing them to keep their lenses as they switch, you're assuring yourself a healthy customer base. I mean this is not rocket science and the failure of thd E1 was just one more proof to show Nikon and Canon that the course that they have been on for years was the correct one.
The Z and RF systems were introduced as mirrorless technology was taking over DSLR tech, not because the wraith of the E1's failure finally dissapeared.
As for the EF-M system, the goal was to make the smallest consumer APS-C ILC on the market to put some competiton to Sony and their NEX cameras that were eating the consumer DSLR market. I know the narrative you give as why camera companies "waited so long" is nice as it gives the E1 importance. But you need to look at facts.
Cannon by their own documentation stated the EF system was to create an AF system. It was done before Digital was only a lab experiment. My conclusion though is just as much speculation as yours.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel digital cameras were a "lab experiment" in 1975... By 1980 if you were in the camera industry and didn't think digital cameras would soon hit the market you would have been considered a fool. Canon released the EF mount in 1987, and the first consumer digital camera was released in... 1988. The first digital back was released in 1991. The goal in the short term was to create an AF system : yes.
But then why is the mount so wide compared to others on the market at that time? It has no effect in the viability of an AF system at all. The answer is : because digital was the long term goal.
Digital sensors are, unlike film, not flat. each photosite (especially on those early digital sensors) were like wells. The more acute the angle of the light rays was, the more light loss and vignetting you would get in your image, so having a larger mounts allows for different lens designs that allow you to correct the light ray path without making the lens overly big, especially when it comes to wide angle lenses.
You can't take Canon's statement at face value here. They were well aware of the incoming digital era and were preparing their lens mount for it. Otherwise they would have done the exact same thing as Nikon did, aka re-use the FD mount and transition to digital with it. There was more than enough space for the AF system to take place (flange is 42mm, EF flange is 44mm. Not that different)
4/3 @14mm has a horizontal field of view of 63,4°. With FF, 29mm is 63,6°, and 28mm is 65,5°, so it falls more on the 29mm side than the 28mm, but your claim that it is more like 30mm is not true.
@11mm, the horizontal field of view is 76,4°. With FF, 23mm is 76,1° and 22mm is 78,6°. So you are correct that it feel slightly narrower than a 22mm, but the difference is smaller than 1mm, as it is wider than 23mm. Also, I have this lens and it definitely does not feel like a 24mm lens.
| do agree that 4/3 failed as a system, but it was for different reasons.
1. Getting market share from Canikon, who were entrenched with huge lens libraries that were already on people's bookshelves was always going to be an uphill battle.
2. The rate of release for new lenses and cameras initally was very slow
3. Reliance on zooms right when bokeh became THE THING. Most photographers do make the use of prime lenses, complete lack of them was unacceptable.
4. Pricepoint of some of their lenses and cameras was baffling high
5. Why are the top-of-the-line cameras and lenses so large? Ridiculous.
6. In late '00s they had literally the worst sensor performance. It was so bad, that a 2003 Canon 10D has the same DxOMark score as the Olympus E-5.
I quite agree with your statement, the lack of wide-angle lens is only a small part of the reason
Hi Edmund. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this up. I always appreciate seeing others opinions because I often learn from them.
Here are my responses.
1. I remember at the time when digital was a thing many photographers changed lens mounts. It was actually strange to see because so many that I knew were absolute die hards on a particular brand just dropped everything because of digital.
2. agree all the way.
3. Reliance on zoom I agree. Though the bokeh thing did not really become a thing till about 5 years after the E1. Least I never heard anyone say anything about it.
4. agree!
5. agree the 7-14 f4 was huge! There were faster f2.8 lenses in the same range for 35mm.
6. it was not the best but it was at least close. All the reviews I remember and many you can still go back and ready did not hound the system for this. I agree thought they should have made a better sensor for the camera though. The e20 had 5mp and to not jump up even a little considering they were switching to s sensor that was vastly larger.
Strangely, you fail to mention the bad high ISO performance of the E-system. For me, this was a dealbreaker. I bought an E-1 as late as 2006 and used it professionally in photojournalism for about two years. Coming from primes in film photography (Pentax with Super-Multi-Coated Takumars, those little sweeties), with 28mm as my main tool, the 14-54mm wasn't too bad. At one point I too, for some reason, thought I needed to go wider and had sleepless nights over getting a 7-14mm, which was very expensive at the time. I thought better of it and got a Canon 5D. Main reason: underwhelming high ISO performance on the E-1, getting quite bad from 800 onwards, sometimes 400. A shame, because I liked the camera a lot.
I never cared for zoom lenses and after another five years of shooting way too wide with the 17-40mm mostly @17mm, ten years ago I bought a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZE. The great feeling of shooting primes returned and today I use its big brother the 35/1.4, next to a 25/2, a 50/2 Makro Planar and a 135/2 APO Sonnar (all ZE's) on a 5D mark 2. It's heavenly.
I never got rid of the E-1, though, and revived it two years ago by buying a 50-200mm for a steal, now using this combination just for fun. And lo and behold, it performs quite well, if you operate within its limitations. I'm contemplating getting a E-5 for better ISO performance, but I don't think I should do it. It could never match my Canon/Zeiss output in any way and investing anything more in a dead system seems moot. A shame, again!
Hi Matt. Thanks for your story. I like reading these. So I did not mention ISO performance because when the E1 was launched in 2003 is was at par with any other camera of its time. If you read reviews about it that were done when it was launched you will see that reviewers never complained about it either. Cameras were improving very fast back then though. A camera was often out of date just one year after you bought it. So that is why I do not consider the E1 a failure there. For example when you bought the E1 Olympus had come out with the E400 which was 10MP and performed much better in lower light. That was also a shame though and was a problem with the entire system. Olympus would often come out with low $$ cameras that had better sensors than the high $$$$ pro models. Made a lot of professionals mad because they felt like their gear was outdated.
The best colors, better than Kodak KAF sensors, especially in bad weather have Olympus cameras with the general name "Camedia" until February 2005. They have Sony TV CCD sensors with crystal admixtures that "conquer" colors.
The largest sensors of this type are in the DSLR E-10/20 and that's why they cost $ 2,000, 25 years ago.
Olympus chose for DSLR cameras 4/3, cheaper Kodak matrices.
If not for this, he would have to add "1" to the front of the camera price.
Since 2007, Panasonic CMOS has entered, but this is a complete shoddy, for fans of "smart" phones.
Debuted. Ouch
Never has E1 was $150 new, not then not now.
You missed the fire sale they had on Ebay. There were selling them factory sealed boxes for 150$ I bought one of them.
I still use my e-5 I love that camera. The colors are amazing.
Agreed. And the files are SHARP. The ergonomics were the best of any camera I have ever used. The BEST. The main limitation is how fast the files fall apart when pushed, you have to stay at or under ISO400. Any higher and you risk banding issues. If Olympus had released an E-6 with the 16MP Sony sensor that went into the E-M5, I would probably still be using an E-6 day by day. The 12-60mm is an amazing lens, so is the 50mm macro. Even the affordable 50-200mm is really good.
I have wanted one of those for a long time. They never seamed to go down in price though on the used market. I think because anyone with those lenses that camera was the finest thing you could get and they all hung on to them. You are lucky to have one.
@@thedarkslide They did have an E7 in the works with the 16mp sensor. But they deserted it to go MFT. And yes the three lenses you name are amazing lenses. I have all three of them now.
I can't stop loving my E5 either. Respect its limits, and it gives results. I use it day and night in harsh environments and it keeps working. Last week the Tasman Sea claimed the rubber off the grip, but aside from that.... 120k clicks. It's at a point now where i'll pick up a low mileage spare for when the inevitable happens, because what else will i do with all the glass? With the battery grip, she's a lovely big lump of a thing.
Um.. I had the 7-14mm F4 in 2005 and still have it to this day.
Yes 2 years after the launch of the E1.
They did do the 7-14mm f4 SHG
Yes it was about two years latter but way to late. By then no one had any interest in the system. And other manufacturers had come out with wide and fast zooms that cost a lot less and were actually smaller. Again the flange distance made the wide lenses bug.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel the system was lacking on what was available and yes SHG lenses where far to expensive but extremley good but still to expensive,
SWD lenses should have come out much sooner as well so all over the place, all SHG lenses should of all had as standard but later came out so only 14-35mm f2 of the line up of SHG line
From memory only the 14-35mm f2 and the HG 12-60mm f2.8-4 where only ones with SWD
Considering the SHG lenses where so expensive they should of all had SWD but must have not produced SWD in the first few,
14-35mm f2 SHG and 12-60mm f2.8-4 must have been later cant remember to have SWD,
Never used SHG lenses without SWD so not sure if they where still pretty quick must be focus speed of 14-54 or faster but just not SWD
@@nickhaswell6011 It was disappointing that they never did update all the lenses with SWD. Could have been a selling point if not to make the system more interesting but also to get first buyer users like myself to upgrade which I did with the 14-54mm and thus they could have made more money on essentially the same lenses.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel yes totally agreed
De butted ?
That is becoming an archaic word.
I think you're talking a lot of crap !!! You're comparing a len that 20 years old with a lens of today .... like comparing tvs of 20 years ago with tvs of today !!! Apples and oranges e1 was a great camera of the day ... i have e1 e3 e5 e500 e510 e420 e300 and most of the 4/3 equipment... other that the iso / noisy image in low light they produced great photos !!!
Thanks for the view but i never said they were optically bad in this video. In fact the 50mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses of this century.
Take a holidays
Amen
Drugs are bad.
Agreed.
Get a drink of water