641-831-0186
Photography, Audio and Acoustical Solutions, Telecommunications

Olympus E-1, A Camera Worthy

Introduction

I wanted to hold off on writing this article wanting to get past the infatuation faze of having the Olympus E-1. I also felt it was important to use the camera for the long-term to find its true weaknesses as well as its strengths. Every camera and camera system has strong points and faults and the Olympus E-1 is no exception to this rule. The surprising thing is that the strengths and weaknesses are not in the areas noted in most reviews.

First things first. What is the E-1?  The E-1 is Olympus' professional-grade DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) camera. Based on a newly designed lens mount, the camera has limited compatibility with the "legacy glass" of the OM lineage. Using a sensor format called 4/3, the shape of the image more closely matches a 5x7 or even 4x5 print format. Very similar in shape to a 645 medium-format, but a perfect match to the shape of most of our computer screens. Olympus created an "all new" camera and lens designed optimized to this format. At every step they have discouraged the use of older lenses on the E-1 (most likely to drive sales to the new lenses), but they have made available in many countries an adaptor for the OM lenses.  4/3 sensors are slightly smaller in height than APS-C digital sensors, but due to the 2x3 long format of the APS sensors, 4/3 are much shorter in width.  If you compare diagonal measurements, the 4/3 sensor is 1/2 the corner-to-corner measurement of full-frame 35mm, but about 1.7-1.8 the height.  Effectively a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera would show the field of view of a 100mm lens when mounted on the E-1.

Let's get something out of the way, right now. Using the OM-4/3 adaptor you are able to mount OM lenses on the E-1. This picture on the right was taken with an old silver-nosed Zuiko 100/2.8. I frequently use the 35/2.8, 50/3.5, 100/2.8 and 200/4 on the E-1. The results are typically outstanding, but you will need to live with a few limitations.

The E-1 is no good for sports photography?

Take a look at the picture on the left. (shot through the safety net at Wrigley Field) The hitter just nailed a pop fly down the foul line. This photo was part of a sequence and illustrates the horrendous noise, lousy DOF characteristics (you know that small sensors have lousy depth of field, don't you?) and other nasties that you'd expect from a camera that doesn't say "Canon" or "Nikon" on the nameplate. The E-1 lacks high-speed sequence shooting of 6-8 fps, but honestly now, did we ever have an effective ISO 1600 film that looked that good? (shot at ISO 800, raised one stop in post-production).

Olympus doesn't have image stabilization in the long lenses.  This shot, was taken HANDHELD with an old silver-nosed Zuiko 200/4. Is stabilization nice to have? Absolutely! I have it in my Minolta digital camera and look forward to the day when it is available for the Olympus. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to shoot pictures like this with a lens which cost me, if I remember correctly, around $150.

The noise in the image from the high ISO setting is easily taken care of with a pass through a noise removal program, but I left this one as is for illustration purposes. Oh, it was also late in the game during a very warm (90 degrees) evening and about 300 pictures taken before this point.

A characteristic of the E-1 worthy of note, here, is the "instant response" the shutter gives you. In sports photography, timing is everything and in this aspect the E-1 doesn't disappoint. The E-1 is "with you".  Of course, you may run into issues with auto-focus performance, etc., but for the most part, the system is adequate for the task. A professional sports photographer, who makes 90-100% of his/her income from sports photography is well served by purchasing an appropriate tier-1 system from Nikon or Canon, but for the rest of us, the E-1 is capable of meeting and exceeding our needs.

Another aspect of the E-1 is the color rendition. Except for a minor lifting of the brightness curve, this picture is as-is straight from the camera. Under artificial field lighting, the skin color and fabric colors tend to skew. We've all seen many, many pictures of purple/magenta skinned athletes, and this is not the case with the Olympus.

Would I like a higher frame rate? Who wouldn't?

Blooming Protection:

A major concern with a digital camera is how it handles an extremely bright light source, such as the sun in a photograph. The picture on the right was taken with the outstanding 14-54 zoom lens and shows how the imager holds up in this high-contrast scene. The rays are a little pattern like, but the results are as close to what I got with film as possible.

I've been very pleased with the dynamic range of the sensor and rarely do I ever have a photograph that has a blown highlight, and never more so than what I would have had with any film.  Film does have shoulder and toe characteristics which digital doesn't have, but the perceived latitude of the E-1 makes up for it and there is a sense of a gentle transition between the straight-line dynamic response and 100% saturation.

The E-1's exposure system tends to under-expose slightly.  Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 stop is typical. This gives the photographs a richer look and also protects against the blown highlights.

My complaint with the E-1's sensor noise is when you need to raise the shadows up in post-production. I'll get quite a bit of color noise which needs to be dealt with. I also run into the brick wall of the anti-aliasing filter which puts a damper on the maximum resolution of the lenses.

Film Likeness:

Get real!  Every camera it seems is said to produce images that are "film like". With the E-1, it takes this description to another level. When comparing specifications and color response charts you don't see much of any difference between cameras. However, how much of that similar response is native to the sensor and how much is corrected in the on-board image processing chip? The Kodak sensor used in the E-1 has a response curve that does a fine job of tracking reality.

Typically, you see an E-1 image with more neutral colorcasts in the shadows as well as a distinct clarity or even a "glow" which sheds the "aquarium look" so typical of digital cameras.

The noise structure of the sensor, coupled with a printing technique which blends the pixels a little will yield a noise pattern that looks very much like film grain.

White Balance:

A secondary WB sensor is located on the top-front of the camera. Although the Auto White Balance is excellent, it fails to satisfy me. I've spent so many years shooting slide films that I like to lock in a particular "look". This is especially true when shooting late evening or early morning when the AWB tends to skew the colorcast into the realm of "ugly". This, however, is true with all digital cameras.

An aspect of the Olympus E-10, E-20 and E-1 is the color of the WB correction. The WB is a red-blue correction which I find problematic at times. Most cameras are more orange than red in colorcast when going towards the "cloudy" settings. This is an area where I prefer the WB correction in the Minolta more than the E-1.

In this cityscape photograph, another issue comes to light, so to speak.  The WB setting is manually set on "cloudy". I used this setting to give the sky the "electric blue" look without going nuclear! Unfortunately, the various florescents, sodium vapor and other types of lights take on a somewhat unearthly color. A Canon 20D would have addressed this mixed lighting much better as would Fuji Reala in the film world.

14-54 Kit Lens:

Except where otherwise noted, the pictures on this page were taken with the 14-54 zoom lens. This lens is somewhat a mixed bag. It is remarkably corrected and has little distortion (see cityscape photo), but does have a slight bit of falloff in the corners which reveals itself at certain focal lengths. I would prefer that the lens be a constant aperture F2.8, but it's a fantastic lens which is well balanced with the camera.

Skintones:

The photo on the right is totally unprocessed. It was a grab shot taken while I was up on the platform adjusting their positions. As proof to the unprocessed nature of the photo, somebody's tripod (not mine) is lurking in the background. I include this picture here because of how the camera captures the skintones of varying complexions as well as maintaining color accuracy--the flowers and dresses are perfect. This photo isn't a world-class wedding portrait, but serves as an excellent illustration as it shows the tones from highlight all the way through to shadow.

Handling:

The E-1 is on the heavy side. The weight is something I haven't quite gotten used to yet. It's fine for professional use, but when I want to just have a camera with me, I find I still grab the lighter (and smaller) Minolta A1.

When mounted with a legacy lens, the camera is "stop-down" metering. A real pain sometimes, but not an issue when you aren't in a "Point and Shoot" mentality. There is a minor issue with exposure metering and legacy glass:  When outside the F5.6-F11 range, there is error due to the small mirror and viewfinder light path. With the E-1, you'll see just how good some of your "favorite" lenses really are. Some are limited by the Anti-aliasing filter, others don't have a shadow of a hope of producing sharp results.

Viewfinder and Monitor:

Every reviewer grouses about the two-step histogram display. At first I was bothered by it too. In fact, the entire image-review functionality of the camera appears retarded. Over time, the brilliance of the design starts to show. I do have a problem with the delayed display of the image--as it will not appear until after the image or burst of images have been written to storage. Konica-Minolta's instant review during file write shows that this need not be the case. Another complaint I have with the review is when zooming in to the maximum 4x magnification, it is apparent that the displayed image is unsharpened. It is difficult to judge critical focus in the review image. An offset to these complaints is the brilliant zoom in/out design of the control wheel. Zooming in steps through 2x, 3x and 4x, but going the other direction instantly takes it back to 1x. This also applies to index view where a single click in the opposite direction goes 1x with the selected image.

The viewfinder of the E-1 is definitely smaller than that seen in an Olympus OM body, but due to the optics and high-point design, it is neither "distant" nor difficult to compose or focus on. For those familiar with the various OM viewfinders, it is close to a 2-series screen in brightness, but more like a 1-series screen for the appearance of the matte surface. The screen is easy to manual focus on. Olympus did make the viewfinder image 100%. There is no need to check the review image to see what the "real image" is. This also contributes to less time in front of the computer cropping images.

Summary:

The E-1 has exceeded my expectations and hopes. Much has been written about the sensor noise, sensor size/shape, autofocus speed and lack of megapixels. As a weekend warrior wedding photographer, event photographer and generalist, I occasionally bump into these limitations, but not enough to worry about. A commercial photographer will need higher pixel counts, a sports photographer needs higher frame rates and clean ISO 3200 performance and lens stabilization. For those concerned with these issues, please go buy a Canon and be happy. If your business is people photography, the E-1 should be on your shortlist of cameras. I am totally satisfied with the in-camera images. The E-1's sensor format so closely matches the common print sizes that you can print straight from the camera file without any post-processing or cropping. The error rate is also diminished greatly too. Whenever I'm shooting with a 35mm camera I'm typically challenged with making a 8x10 print as I've composed the shot using almost the whole frame.  Oops! The E-1 handles and is about the same dimensions like a modern 645 camera. I tend to believe that the E-1 is a medium-format portrait/event/wedding photographer camera more than a 35mm replacement. For portraiture, the E-1 easily produces outstanding enlargements in the 20x24 size with no post-processing--it just requires a good interpolator engine. Labs, such as Millers, are well versed in getting the most out of digital files and these prints are good enough. If you shot portraits with 6x7, you might prefer a little more resolution at this print size, but anything 11x14 and under is usually a no-brainer.  Technique is more important than pixel-count.

I do look forward to the next version of the professional E-x line. Time marches on and the competition has introduced some brilliant features and capabilities. The E-1 has dated specifications, but is no less a brilliant piece of engineering. I believe that a few years from now certain cameras will maintain a tight following and will continue to hold value.. The E-1 will most likely be in that category. Yes, I'd like more pixels and faster performance--that's why I'm so interested in the next camera, but this camera is earning money and consistently produces better images than I ever was able to with ANY film camera of any format. Hopefully, Olympus will bring back a two features from the OM line which I miss:  Real-time OTF (off-the-film) exposure/flash control and multi-spot metering. Shoot, I'd be happy if they gave us instant spot-metering with the AEL button.

I absolutely enjoy using the E-1. The camera encourages you to shoot with it. The self-cleaning sensor actually works. With over 6,000 images and a couple hundred lens changes, I have yet to clean the sensor and I have only one five-pixel 10% spec  that is only visible at F22. 'Nuf said?   (Ken Norton, Revised 7/20/05)