My previous statement was probably too emotional. I was a bit annoyed that no downsides were mentioned. If I were to evaluate the E300 calmly again, it is a fantastic camera, primarily due to the Kodak CCD matrix, which gives beautiful photos and beautiful colors, unlike today's boring CMOS matrices. Kit lenses are good in terms of sharpness and colors, but you can only get nice bokeh at long focal lengths. That's it, I have a fondness for this camera, I took a lot of beautiful photos with it, but you have to try hard, the matrix is demanding. I still shoot with it because I really like CCD sensors.
I'm going to have to run a multi-test soon as I have a lot of Olympus cameras now. I was lucky enough to buy the E-300 for a very low price, complete with two quality kit lenses and even documentation, first party flash and first party bag for £50. I later picked up an E-500 with two kit lenses, sold the lenses seperately to make the camera free. Same again for the E-30 - a lovely late four thirds camera by the way. I have been lucky enough to gradually find the higher grade zoom lenses at a great price and have both the 35mm and 50mm macro lenses as well. What I have found is that the E-300 especially is a bright day camera. It's the camera to take out on a bright sunny afternnon when you might otherwise think it is too harsh a light. In those conditions the pictures are very often outstanding. I have had some success with the golden hour, but I feel that this is no better than any other body. Overcast days do it no favours and then I often leave it behind. I suspect that later micro four thirds cameras are actually just as good. I have the E-M1 mk i and mk ii so I reckon I will do some tests and see if I can make a more scientific judgement.
I bought the E-300 new in 2005 It was en is in my perspective a better camera then the canon and Nikon you could buy in the Netherlands at that time. It cost around a 1000 euros. 19 years later i still use it and is in very good condition . The image and build quality is way better than the other cameras of that day in that budget. Now I've got three of them. And also the E-330 the 410 and the 420.
After using Mnolta since the 1960s I bought into Sony but soon moved to the Olympus z3030 for a while, which I still have. Then I bought into 4/3 with the E330 It had what I wanted with the then new option of live view. Something that was decried by all and sundry on photography web sites the time and now is standard on all cameras, the only preshot view available on many, how things change and how far ahead of the world was Olympus. I also have besides the standard kit lens zoom a 9-18mm and 50-200mm, I sold the 40-150mm later. The E330 I still have. I bought a E30, a beautiful piece of equipment, as my main camera and that took over. Leaving the e330 on the shelf, where it still is, though I sold the E-30 and moved to M43 when it came out. I still use the wide and tele 43 lenses on my EM1 after using them on the EP2, the EM5, though the wide stutters a bit on focus, a contact problem in the lens, which I keep telling myself to fix every time I take it home after using it.
@@Mr50mmish A good answer. But in my case all my silicone and software based equipment is and always has been up to date or the level I want it to be, I have 50 years plus in IT. And in 4/3 and M43 for all their existence.
I have used Olympus M4/3s cameras for 11 years. I normally use the OM-1 with the 12-40/2.8 + 6 other M4/3s lenses. However, I have just ordered a kit with the Olympus E-400 (10 MP CCD) and 17.5-45 +40-150 lenses from the UK for a reasonable price. I know that I will probably get a little annoyed by the slow older technology, but I am still looking forward to try it out.
Oh, congrats on the buy! Hope you like the e-400! Haha I hope you not that annoyed with the older tech, maybe it'll be refreshing rather than frustrating.
Actually the 2 kit zoom lenses are easy to find. They are also pretty good lenses. They aren't $2000 Sony GM level or Zeiss Otis/Batis lenses but they provide very nice images that are more than adequate for small prints and online posts.
Heya, cool review, I do love this camera. I have one question -- did you create a camera profile in your post software with a Macbeth chart? I have a few of these E-Volt CCD Olys and it was a night and day difference in post after creating a tuned-in profile for Lightroom for each camera using the PassPort2 Macbeth chart and software plugin. It was an especially noticeable difference with my two E-300s -- way more accurate colors, much better highlight retention and shadow detail. It makes the RAW files way nicer to deal with in post! I found this especially true for the E-300.
After 30+ years working with the Canon FTb/F1/F1n the E300 was my first digital camera when I moved from 35mm film. Lovely colors and a big change from the 6x7 camera I was using at the same time.
That is awesome, do you by chance still shoot the e-300? And what 6x7 cameras did you use? I was actually just thinking back to when I started doing photography and I had forgotten until some 30 minutes ago that I had an RZ67. I wish I still had it.
I own an E-300, and yes it can make magic. Now mind you, it’s a very flawed camera by today’s standards. The auto white balance does not always work well. Poor high-ISO performance, slow AF, poor low light AF performance. Tiny viewfinder, like looking down a tunnel. But… beyond all that, sometimes amazing things happen with it. The colors and the look it produces are unique to the camera, different from the E-1, and E-500 despite them all having Kodak CCD sensors. Sometimes you get Kodachrome from the E-300, and then I’d be on cloud nine.
I have the e500 and I don't even bother with processing the RAW files as the JPG colors are so nice straight out of camera. IMO, the e500 likes a lot of light in order to create its saturated colors. This would not be the camera I'd take out on an overcast day.
Nice, I just personally don't click that much with the output of the E-300. Raw or JPEG. I am more inclined to shoot the raw as I'll be able to get it closer to how I like the output. I will be honest I didn't play that much with the out of camera JPEGs, I tried, but I quickly ended up switching it back to RAW. That's just me though I'm habitually in my editor. Been like that for almost 16 years.
I didn't know about this camera or it's history. The batteries and compact flash card, make it less desirable for me personally but the image results and fact it is olympus make up for that somewhat... I've added your channel, hopefully you'll connect with another retro photographer 📸
Is it the CCD sensor or the combination of the CCD sensor and olympus color processing which excites people about the olympus 4/3 cameras? Hoping yo comment on the E1 and E5. Thanks,
It is probably a bit of both. I the Kodak CCDs are kind of unique in that in this era they only lasted 1 generation. Although personally the combination of the 1 don't quite excite me the way the other people enjoy the cameras. I think the excitement might be more valid when dealing with out of camera JPEGs where I think it's more Olympus/kodak color science more than the CCD alone.
I have this camera and its successor, the e-330. I enjoy shooting the e-330 much more. It has a very unique live view mode and a tilting screen. You can shoot it like a mirrorless camera with snappy auto focus and its color science is really nice. Different to the E300. Colors aren't as punchy but they're beautiful in their own way. Well worth reviewing (hint hint). Really enjoyed your review and looking forward to checking out your other reviews of retro cameras. Subscribed 👍
Haha, I have been looking at the E-330! The live view mode was very intriguing, it uses a secondary sensor to maintain AF right? Conceptually awesome and I think Sony ended up adopting a similar technology later on when they made DSLRs. If I can find an E-330 for a good price I'll definitely be doing a review, maybe a side by side comparison. Thanks!
@@Mr50mmish yes it uses a semi translucent mirror, robbing the viewfinder of 20% of light and sending it to a separate tiny ccd sensor which gives you the live view feed. This means the camera can auto focus in live view, which I believe no other dslr could do back in the day without dropping the mirror. That usually resulted in you missing the shot as the camera gives you a brief blackout. The biggest draw back is that it makes a small, dark finder even darker. This is offset (in my eyes at least) by the great auto focus in live view which allows you to make the most of the tilting screen. Lots of fun to shoot.
Adapted for om mount manual lenses is great fun. Have an olympus zuiko mc aouto-s f1.4 50mm. But a bit annoying to have to select shutter spd option when in manual mode, not sure why shutter is not first option for command dial by deffault.
@@StephenStrangways Oh yeah, had to check on the e300 why I don't use shutter priority. And I'm reminded. The reason I don't use shutter priority is because the metering isn't displayed anywhere in that mode or even aperture priority. So I'd prefer the metering to help with proper exposure in manual mode even if it means an extra button press.
Mr 50mm like your slightly drool presentation style and dry sense of humour. You cover most of the bases pretty well. Unlike other youtube enthusiasts you temper expectations based on the quality of the images produced by the Olympus E-300. No rabbits coming out of your hat. Must say you are a harsh marker though. Your first displayed image worked very well IMHO, must have been the blue sky. The CCD V CMOS sensor technology shootout. With few exceptions the industry has decidedly gone down the CMOS pathway. Cheaper cost of production for the CMOS sensor was reportedly a driver of that shift. Reminds you of the Betamax v VHS video format war. Scutterbutt at the time suggested VHS had more porn titles available leading to its acceptance! Whilst Betamax had a reputation as having ‘superior’ quality, it was the affordability of VHS which drove consumer choice. Video tape had its moment in the Sun soon to be eclipsed by DVD, Blu-ray etc. So with few exceptions the CMOS hegemony was complete. Comparing similar images from a Pentax K200d with a Pentax Kr recently. l found Kr CMOS sensor compared more than favourably to the 200d CCD. Yes a later DSLR with the benefit of technological advancements. But colour science involves more than simply sensors, processors and lenses need to be considered too.
The E-300 is getting a pretty big amount of attention, if you are looking for that kodak sensor, I'd honestly look at the E-500. Same sensor, more traditional DSLR build, but way cheaper, not as much hype and honestly ergonomics are probably a bit better on it.
Owned the E500. Was awesome in good light. A little bit slow compared to nikons, but the colors. ;) Low light? Well, the rest of the world really moved forward.
I remember when the E300 was first released, I was an Olympus OM film system owner looking for a painless way to 'go digital'. I remember disappointment at the small sensor (knocking out much future for my old Zuiko lenses even if an adapter was available). And the tiny viewfinder image, compared to what I was used to. I dont think reviews in general were all that enthusiastic either. What's changed?
Haha so yeah the technical issues didn't magically go away but I think it's the appreciation of Kodak CCDs that's the thing with the e-300. It was one of the few Kodak sensors are reasonably accessible without stepping into medium format world.
E500-510 smallest DSLRs I ever used. 4/3 impressed in 2005 and so an E500 instead of a "Rebel" Traded in E510 and lenes, June 2013, for Pentax K5-iis and lenses. Also promising, but.
Pentax all traded away at end of 2017 to go NIKON. Mostly walk around travel and street--ish archtectural. New Nikon Z is more suited for me than that DSLRs! Trading some of my Nikon DSLR and SONY (APSC) E to cover some cost of Nikon Z change. @@Mr50mmish
You failed to mention the camera (and/or it's successor) uses the flash as a focus assist. It annoys the heck out of my colleagues when it "razes" them with multiple brief high intensity light. This is my standout memory of this camera 😢
Yeah the lens prices kind of put a damper on the fun, but on the plus side if you got the Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds adapter the pancake performs pretty well on modern cameras, it just becomes less of a pancake with the chunky adapter haha.
I have this camera among hundreds of others. I practically started digital photography with this model. For me, the Olympus E-300 is not pure magic at all. It has very large color distortions, purple tint appears in the shadows. Huge noise, only ISO 100 is practically useful. The viewfinder is microscopic, you can barely see it, it hurts your eyes after a while of shooting. The unfortunate size of the sensor makes it difficult to get a wide angle. Using old lenses is pointless, because 50 mm becomes 100 in this camera! mm. The lenses for this system had terrible bokeh and many optical flaws. Bokeh is poor. This was due to the fact that, for example, a standard 50 mm lens was used in this system as a 25 mm lens, what is a wide-angle lens. And it had all the optical defects of wide-angle lenses. This system finished Olympus.
Keep your eyes peeled for the 50mm f2 macro. No, it's not wide angle by any stretch of the imagination (100mm f4 in full frame terms) but that focal length/aperture combination is amazing for portrait photography. Tack sharp and beautiful rendering of out of focus backgrounds. These old sensors really appreciate the f2 as well. They're not cheap but they're not ludicrous like some 4/3 lenses and they don't depreciate so you can always get your money back if you decide it isn't for you .
@@protonpillpopper1I don't have to do such things, I just make a crop from the FF sensor and I have the same thing, with better dynamics. I used Olympus 4/3, I still have it today and this system doesn't present anything interesting. Only problems. I have a hundred other cameras, in different systems and formats, and each of them is better.
@@jarosawzon4272 I shoot 4/3 cameras from time to time for the same reasons I shoot my Pentax Q or Sigma SD-14. There's no arguing with "Full frame is best". It's the truth, but I enjoy other systems too. It's rewarding getting a stellar image out of a flawed obsolete system. The idea of turfing every old camera I own (like you, I believe I have somewhere near 100 of them now) and replacing them with a modern soulless full frame that will deliver perfect pictures every time sounds boring. Maybe if my livelihood depended on it but not while it's my hobby.
@@protonpillpopper1Another disadvantage of this 4/3 system due to the size of the sensor is that the better lenses are very expensive and complicated, while their FF counterparts are basic lenses and are very cheap. The first example is the one you gave. The equivalent of the expensive 50mm f2 in 4/3 is the cheap 100mm f4 in FF. The same applies to the popular fifty. The FF 50 mm f 1.8 is the cheapest and very good lens. In 4/3 it would have to be a very expensive 25 mm f 0.9!!! Additionally, since it is a wide angle lens, it would have all the disadvantages of these lenses. The popular fifty in FF is completely free from them. This situation applies to all lens categories. Besides, tell me, why would I spend a lot of money on a very expensive lens and then shoot with it on a small 4/3 sensor and get poor results?
@@jarosawzon4272 Horses for courses mate. I have a number of full frame cameras and I agree they're wonderful for portrait photography. Great for landscapes too. Wouldn't dream of using them for wildlife photography as they can't compete with crop sensor cameras for reach. Wouldn't shoot macro with them either as you have a noticeably deeper depth of field with crop sensor cameras. Full frame isn't as good for pictures of dinner and drinks with friends for the same reason. Shooting with a 24mm f2 on APSC will give you both the same field of view and light on the sensor as 35mm f2 would on a full frame. Both will give decent separation of the subject from the back ground with APSC having the added benefit of being able to capture more than 1 person in focus at a time.
My previous statement was probably too emotional. I was a bit annoyed that no downsides were mentioned. If I were to evaluate the E300 calmly again, it is a fantastic camera, primarily due to the Kodak CCD matrix, which gives beautiful photos and beautiful colors, unlike today's boring CMOS matrices. Kit lenses are good in terms of sharpness and colors, but you can only get nice bokeh at long focal lengths. That's it, I have a fondness for this camera, I took a lot of beautiful photos with it, but you have to try hard, the matrix is demanding. I still shoot with it because I really like CCD sensors.
I'm going to have to run a multi-test soon as I have a lot of Olympus cameras now. I was lucky enough to buy the E-300 for a very low price, complete with two quality kit lenses and even documentation, first party flash and first party bag for £50. I later picked up an E-500 with two kit lenses, sold the lenses seperately to make the camera free. Same again for the E-30 - a lovely late four thirds camera by the way. I have been lucky enough to gradually find the higher grade zoom lenses at a great price and have both the 35mm and 50mm macro lenses as well.
What I have found is that the E-300 especially is a bright day camera. It's the camera to take out on a bright sunny afternnon when you might otherwise think it is too harsh a light. In those conditions the pictures are very often outstanding. I have had some success with the golden hour, but I feel that this is no better than any other body. Overcast days do it no favours and then I often leave it behind. I suspect that later micro four thirds cameras are actually just as good. I have the E-M1 mk i and mk ii so I reckon I will do some tests and see if I can make a more scientific judgement.
Awesome! When you do the test drop a link in the comments! I'd love to see the results! Oh the 50mm macro looks very awesome, how do you like it?
I bought the E-300 new in 2005
It was en is in my perspective a better camera then the canon and Nikon you could buy in the Netherlands at that time. It cost around a 1000 euros.
19 years later i still use it and is in very good condition .
The image and build quality is way better than the other cameras of that day in that budget.
Now I've got three of them.
And also the E-330 the 410 and the 420.
That's awesome! A nice selection of Olympus bodies!
After using Mnolta since the 1960s I bought into Sony but soon moved to the Olympus z3030 for a while, which I still have. Then I bought into 4/3 with the E330 It had what I wanted with the then new option of live view. Something that was decried by all and sundry on photography web sites the time and now is standard on all cameras, the only preshot view available on many, how things change and how far ahead of the world was Olympus. I also have besides the standard kit lens zoom a 9-18mm and 50-200mm, I sold the 40-150mm later. The E330 I still have. I bought a E30, a beautiful piece of equipment, as my main camera and that took over. Leaving the e330 on the shelf, where it still is, though I sold the E-30 and moved to M43 when it came out. I still use the wide and tele 43 lenses on my EM1 after using them on the EP2, the EM5, though the wide stutters a bit on focus, a contact problem in the lens, which I keep telling myself to fix every time I take it home after using it.
Hmm have you checked if the lens has a Firmware update? That might improve things on the MFT cameras!
@@Mr50mmish A good answer. But in my case all my silicone and software based equipment is and always has been up to date or the level I want it to be, I have 50 years plus in IT. And in 4/3 and M43 for all their existence.
I have used Olympus M4/3s cameras for 11 years. I normally use the OM-1 with the 12-40/2.8 + 6 other M4/3s lenses. However, I have just ordered a kit with the Olympus E-400 (10 MP CCD) and 17.5-45 +40-150 lenses from the UK for a reasonable price. I know that I will probably get a little annoyed by the slow older technology, but I am still looking forward to try it out.
Oh, congrats on the buy! Hope you like the e-400! Haha I hope you not that annoyed with the older tech, maybe it'll be refreshing rather than frustrating.
Actually the 2 kit zoom lenses are easy to find. They are also pretty good lenses. They aren't $2000 Sony GM level or Zeiss Otis/Batis lenses but they provide very nice images that are more than adequate for small prints and online posts.
Yeah I have the 14-45 just don't have the tele. But I do prefer the 35mm macro on it the most!
Yes, I think that one is good on the camera.
Heya, cool review, I do love this camera. I have one question -- did you create a camera profile in your post software with a Macbeth chart? I have a few of these E-Volt CCD Olys and it was a night and day difference in post after creating a tuned-in profile for Lightroom for each camera using the PassPort2 Macbeth chart and software plugin. It was an especially noticeable difference with my two E-300s -- way more accurate colors, much better highlight retention and shadow detail. It makes the RAW files way nicer to deal with in post! I found this especially true for the E-300.
Thanks! I didn't create a specific profile for the camera! But it is something I'll have to look into!
After 30+ years working with the Canon FTb/F1/F1n the E300 was my first digital camera when I moved from 35mm film. Lovely colors and a big change from the 6x7 camera I was using at the same time.
That is awesome, do you by chance still shoot the e-300? And what 6x7 cameras did you use? I was actually just thinking back to when I started doing photography and I had forgotten until some 30 minutes ago that I had an RZ67. I wish I still had it.
I own an E-300, and yes it can make magic. Now mind you, it’s a very flawed camera by today’s standards. The auto white balance does not always work well. Poor high-ISO performance, slow AF, poor low light AF performance. Tiny viewfinder, like looking down a tunnel. But… beyond all that, sometimes amazing things happen with it. The colors and the look it produces are unique to the camera, different from the E-1, and E-500 despite them all having Kodak CCD sensors. Sometimes you get Kodachrome from the E-300, and then I’d be on cloud nine.
I have the e500 and I don't even bother with processing the RAW files as the JPG colors are so nice straight out of camera. IMO, the e500 likes a lot of light in order to create its saturated colors. This would not be the camera I'd take out on an overcast day.
Nice, I just personally don't click that much with the output of the E-300. Raw or JPEG. I am more inclined to shoot the raw as I'll be able to get it closer to how I like the output. I will be honest I didn't play that much with the out of camera JPEGs, I tried, but I quickly ended up switching it back to RAW. That's just me though I'm habitually in my editor. Been like that for almost 16 years.
I didn't know about this camera or it's history.
The batteries and compact flash card, make it less desirable for me personally but the image results and fact it is olympus make up for that somewhat...
I've added your channel, hopefully you'll connect with another retro photographer 📸
Compact flash can be annoying but I've been using some SD card adapters! Thanks for the add!
Is it the CCD sensor or the combination of the CCD sensor and olympus color processing which excites people about the olympus 4/3 cameras? Hoping yo comment on the E1 and E5. Thanks,
It is probably a bit of both. I the Kodak CCDs are kind of unique in that in this era they only lasted 1 generation. Although personally the combination of the 1 don't quite excite me the way the other people enjoy the cameras. I think the excitement might be more valid when dealing with out of camera JPEGs where I think it's more Olympus/kodak color science more than the CCD alone.
I have this camera and its successor, the e-330. I enjoy shooting the e-330 much more. It has a very unique live view mode and a tilting screen. You can shoot it like a mirrorless camera with snappy auto focus and its color science is really nice. Different to the E300. Colors aren't as punchy but they're beautiful in their own way. Well worth reviewing (hint hint).
Really enjoyed your review and looking forward to checking out your other reviews of retro cameras. Subscribed 👍
Haha, I have been looking at the E-330! The live view mode was very intriguing, it uses a secondary sensor to maintain AF right? Conceptually awesome and I think Sony ended up adopting a similar technology later on when they made DSLRs. If I can find an E-330 for a good price I'll definitely be doing a review, maybe a side by side comparison. Thanks!
@@Mr50mmish yes it uses a semi translucent mirror, robbing the viewfinder of 20% of light and sending it to a separate tiny ccd sensor which gives you the live view feed. This means the camera can auto focus in live view, which I believe no other dslr could do back in the day without dropping the mirror. That usually resulted in you missing the shot as the camera gives you a brief blackout.
The biggest draw back is that it makes a small, dark finder even darker. This is offset (in my eyes at least) by the great auto focus in live view which allows you to make the most of the tilting screen. Lots of fun to shoot.
Adapted for om mount manual lenses is great fun. Have an olympus zuiko mc aouto-s f1.4 50mm. But a bit annoying to have to select shutter spd option when in manual mode, not sure why shutter is not first option for command dial by deffault.
Have you tried shutter priority mode with a manual lens? That works with some single-dial cameras, but I'm not sure about the E-300.
@@StephenStrangways Oh yeah, had to check on the e300 why I don't use shutter priority. And I'm reminded. The reason I don't use shutter priority is because the metering isn't displayed anywhere in that mode or even aperture priority. So I'd prefer the metering to help with proper exposure in manual mode even if it means an extra button press.
Maybe you just need to test it in better weather.
Mr 50mm like your slightly drool presentation style and dry sense of humour. You cover most of the bases pretty well. Unlike other youtube enthusiasts you temper expectations based on the quality of the images produced by the Olympus E-300. No rabbits coming out of your hat. Must say you are a harsh marker though. Your first displayed image worked very well IMHO, must have been the blue sky.
The CCD V CMOS sensor technology shootout. With few exceptions the industry has decidedly gone down the CMOS pathway. Cheaper cost of production for the CMOS sensor was reportedly a driver of that shift.
Reminds you of the Betamax v VHS video format war. Scutterbutt at the time suggested VHS had more porn titles available leading to its acceptance! Whilst Betamax had a reputation as having ‘superior’ quality, it was the affordability of VHS which drove consumer choice. Video tape had its moment in the Sun soon to be eclipsed by DVD, Blu-ray etc.
So with few exceptions the CMOS hegemony was complete. Comparing similar images from a Pentax K200d with a Pentax Kr recently. l found Kr CMOS sensor compared more than favourably to the 200d CCD. Yes a later DSLR with the benefit of technological advancements. But colour science involves more than simply sensors, processors and lenses need to be considered too.
Thank you Chris typo alert droll rather than drool.
Now impossible to find - there is an E-300 buying craze out there.
The E-300 is getting a pretty big amount of attention, if you are looking for that kodak sensor, I'd honestly look at the E-500. Same sensor, more traditional DSLR build, but way cheaper, not as much hype and honestly ergonomics are probably a bit better on it.
Owned the E500. Was awesome in good light. A little bit slow compared to nikons, but the colors. ;)
Low light? Well, the rest of the world really moved forward.
Haha I think with modern NR it can punch a bit better at high iso :)
I remember when the E300 was first released, I was an Olympus OM film system owner looking for a painless way to 'go digital'. I remember disappointment at the small sensor (knocking out much future for my old Zuiko lenses even if an adapter was available). And the tiny viewfinder image, compared to what I was used to. I dont think reviews in general were all that enthusiastic either. What's changed?
Haha so yeah the technical issues didn't magically go away but I think it's the appreciation of Kodak CCDs that's the thing with the e-300. It was one of the few Kodak sensors are reasonably accessible without stepping into medium format world.
E500-510 smallest DSLRs I ever used. 4/3 impressed in 2005 and so an E500 instead of a "Rebel" Traded in E510 and lenes, June 2013, for Pentax K5-iis and lenses. Also promising, but.
Oh the K5 series is awesome! Hope you are still enjoying yours! I only recently tried Pentax DSLRs.
Pentax all traded away at end of 2017 to go NIKON. Mostly walk around travel and street--ish archtectural. New Nikon Z is more suited for me than that DSLRs! Trading some of my Nikon DSLR and SONY (APSC) E to cover some cost of Nikon Z change. @@Mr50mmish
Don't forget the Digilux 3.
Haha, I actually did forget about that camera, it's super cool though and now I'll be keeping an eye out for it!
And the Panasonic DMC-L1! That's 4 DSLR cameras that use the side-swinging mirror and porro finder.
Picked up the e500 for its much more usable ovf and lcd. Also cheaper!
Yeah that's a good call! Hope you like it!
You failed to mention the camera (and/or it's successor) uses the flash as a focus assist. It annoys the heck out of my colleagues when it "razes" them with multiple brief high intensity light. This is my standout memory of this camera 😢
Ah. I did indeed forget about the focus assist strobes.
I’ve wanted one of these for a while but the scarcity and price of the pancake lens puts me off 😕
Yeah the lens prices kind of put a damper on the fun, but on the plus side if you got the Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds adapter the pancake performs pretty well on modern cameras, it just becomes less of a pancake with the chunky adapter haha.
The entire GDP of Canada? Ouch!
Maybe even more!
I have this camera among hundreds of others. I practically started digital photography with this model. For me, the Olympus E-300 is not pure magic at all. It has very large color distortions, purple tint appears in the shadows. Huge noise, only ISO 100 is practically useful. The viewfinder is microscopic, you can barely see it, it hurts your eyes after a while of shooting. The unfortunate size of the sensor makes it difficult to get a wide angle. Using old lenses is pointless, because 50 mm becomes 100 in this camera! mm. The lenses for this system had terrible bokeh and many optical flaws. Bokeh is poor. This was due to the fact that, for example, a standard 50 mm lens was used in this system as a 25 mm lens, what is a wide-angle lens. And it had all the optical defects of wide-angle lenses. This system finished Olympus.
Keep your eyes peeled for the 50mm f2 macro. No, it's not wide angle by any stretch of the imagination (100mm f4 in full frame terms) but that focal length/aperture combination is amazing for portrait photography. Tack sharp and beautiful rendering of out of focus backgrounds. These old sensors really appreciate the f2 as well.
They're not cheap but they're not ludicrous like some 4/3 lenses and they don't depreciate so you can always get your money back if you decide it isn't for you .
@@protonpillpopper1I don't have to do such things, I just make a crop from the FF sensor and I have the same thing, with better dynamics. I used Olympus 4/3, I still have it today and this system doesn't present anything interesting. Only problems. I have a hundred other cameras, in different systems and formats, and each of them is better.
@@jarosawzon4272 I shoot 4/3 cameras from time to time for the same reasons I shoot my Pentax Q or Sigma SD-14. There's no arguing with "Full frame is best". It's the truth, but I enjoy other systems too. It's rewarding getting a stellar image out of a flawed obsolete system. The idea of turfing every old camera I own (like you, I believe I have somewhere near 100 of them now) and replacing them with a modern soulless full frame that will deliver perfect pictures every time sounds boring. Maybe if my livelihood depended on it but not while it's my hobby.
@@protonpillpopper1Another disadvantage of this 4/3 system due to the size of the sensor is that the better lenses are very expensive and complicated, while their FF counterparts are basic lenses and are very cheap. The first example is the one you gave. The equivalent of the expensive 50mm f2 in 4/3 is the cheap 100mm f4 in FF. The same applies to the popular fifty. The FF 50 mm f 1.8 is the cheapest and very good lens. In 4/3 it would have to be a very expensive 25 mm f 0.9!!!
Additionally, since it is a wide angle lens, it would have all the disadvantages of these lenses. The popular fifty in FF is completely free from them. This situation applies to all lens categories. Besides, tell me, why would I spend a lot of money on a very expensive lens and then shoot with it on a small 4/3 sensor and get poor results?
@@jarosawzon4272 Horses for courses mate. I have a number of full frame cameras and I agree they're wonderful for portrait photography. Great for landscapes too. Wouldn't dream of using them for wildlife photography as they can't compete with crop sensor cameras for reach.
Wouldn't shoot macro with them either as you have a noticeably deeper depth of field with crop sensor cameras.
Full frame isn't as good for pictures of dinner and drinks with friends for the same reason. Shooting with a 24mm f2 on APSC will give you both the same field of view and light on the sensor as 35mm f2 would on a full frame. Both will give decent separation of the subject from the back ground with APSC having the added benefit of being able to capture more than 1 person in focus at a time.