It seems that the Olympus E-Club has been shutdown. There are no links to it any more, except the “Who is a Pro” thing you can find somewhere. On the old E-Club page, registrations are disabled, and there is no login, just this:

“Dear customer,

we apologize but this service is currently not available.

Thank you for your understanding
Your OLYMPUS Membership Team”

What, pray, My Olympus Membership Team, am I supposed to understand ? (that “Team” bit is a dead giveaway that they’re Germans, by the way. Germans LOVE teams.)

I think I’m supposed to understand you couldn’t find your arsehole with both hands and a flashlight. Or indeed with a fabulous Olympus endoscope.

There IS still a “Customer Login”, on various European pages, and it accepts my password, and it has my address, but all the serial numbers I have registered are completely gone.

This goes beyond clueless, beyond incompetent. Olympus has always been absolutely hopeless on the web site front, but they’ve really plumbed the depths now.

Unbelievable.

 

 

I’ve got lenses on the brain at the moment, for some reason. Almost certainly a form of displacement activity. Specifically, Olympus lenses. I feel like I should want a new one (not that I can afford one), and it’s like I’ve been trying to work up a desire for one. But I can’t make much of a case for anything.

Which is weird, because there are some very desirable Olympus lenses out there. Like the 14-35mm f/2.0, the 35-100 f/2.0, or the longer 90-250 f/2.8 or even the ultimate 300mm f/2.8.  But even if I had them, I don’t know what I’d do with them. The mid range lenses I’ve already got are so just so good…

I don’t think I’d have a lot of use for the 14-35. I’m already well covered at the wide end with the 7-14 (the only top-end lens I own) and the 12-60.  The extra depth of field control of the 14-35 would be fun to play with, but I can’t really imagine that I’d do anything genuinely interesting with it. Just gimmickry. The 35-100 is just not for me. Seems to be much more a portrait / events lens, neither of which I’m interested in. And it is very cumbersome. Within the range overlap, the 50-200 just has too many advantages. And the 150mm f/2.0 is probably a gorgeous lens, but too limited, although I guess with a 1.4 teleconverter on it it has some appeal. Still, again, how much real advantage over the 50-200 ? Not a lot, I imagine.

Possibly the one candidate for dream lens is the 90-250, but even then, the bulk and weight rather defeats the point of the E-System; given that the much lighter 50-200 often has to stay at home, this monster would spend most of its life in a closet.  Same goes for the 300mm, which, although the ultimate E-System telephoto, and possibly one of the best lenses ever made, ever, is not exactly portable.

I guess Olympus really slipped up by omitting to produce a bunch of barely adequate mid-range and low-end lenses, but instead making them all excellent. It seems much easier to succumb to lens envy when you’re using another system.

In April of this year I spent 3 weeks traveling around Costa Rica. Although it was not specifically for photography, quite a lot of photography got done - both by myself, and my long-suffering better half.

Costa Rica came on my radar thanks to one of Michael Reichmann’s video journals, and it has been high on my wish list for quite a while.  I’d never really photographed in sub-tropical conditions before, apart from a trip 10 years ago to Venezuela, but that doesn’t really count. Costa Rica is challenging in a number of ways. First, there’s the heat and humidity - although sometimes it’s not so hot, and sometimes the humidity gives way to torrential rain. Then there’s the sheer range of subject matter, with fast and slow moving wildlife of all sizes, landscapes, people, and all of these in often tricky lighting situations, especially in rainforests. And of course there’s only so much you can fly with and cart around.

Hummingbird: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f/3.5, 1/250sec, ISO 400, tripod

After a lot of indecision, my final inventory was as follows: Olympus E-3 body, Zuiko Digital 50mm, 12-60 SWD and 50-200 lenses, 1.4 Teleconverter, FL-36 flash with Better Beamer, an assortment of filters, including little used UV for protection and coping with condensation, a Gitzo Traveller lightweight tripod, and Ricoh GRD II compact. Remarkably this all fitted comfortably into the lower section of my new Kata backpack. In turned out that the vast majority of the time I used the E-3 / 50-200 / teleconverter combination. The tripod was rarely used.

Lizard on palm: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f/4.5, 1/1250sec, ISO 800

Clearly a big issue here was going to be the (lack of) high ISO performance of the E-3, but this has to be considered against the versatility of the lens combos, the very good in body stabilisation, very effective dust shaker and highly dependable weather proofing. And actually, the high ISO performance isn’t so bad as web forum armchair experts would have you believe.

Rainforest photography is tricky, as light levels are wildly variable, but generally low on the forest floor. This meant that handheld I was at very best at 800 ISO, more often at 1250 or 1600 with an absolute maximum aperture of f/8 with the 50-200 / 1.4TC combination. This is one of those times when the claimed “lack of depth of field” - by which critics claim the 4/3rds system cameras have too much DoF - turns into a major advantage, because when you’re trying to capture wildlife using a focal length of 280mm you need all the DoF you can get.

Forest detail: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f2.8, 1/100sec, ISO 800

At 1600 ISO, noise clears up nicely using Nik DFine 2.0, at fairly subdued settings. Below that, if the exposure is ok, noise really doesn’t tend to be much of an issue, especially in prints.

In most cases, missed shots are my own fault, but I did lose a few, including one which would have been a 5-star, due to the 50-200 refusing to autofocus. Sometimes it just gives up, and only kicking it back into life with a twist of the focus ring, or in extreme cases, power on-off, gets it going again. It can be really frustrating. It isn’t the camera, as it does the same thing on the E-1, and I don’t think it is a fault specifically with this copy. I’m considering trading it in for the SWD version, hopefully that will be better. One thing that I would like to see on the 50-200 is a focus range lock, but I guess at the price that’s a bit too much to expect.

Young capuchin monkey: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f3.5, 1/60sec, ISO 1600

I’m not a fanboy for any brand in any field, and I’d be the first to switch to a different make if there was a good reason, and I could afford it. But I have no reason to. So called “full frame” systems - Sony especially, for me - are kind of attractive, but honestly, if I’m going to get into that, I’d rather hold out for something like a Pentax 645D. Even while people are expressing doubts about the future of Four Thirds, it seems that with the maturing of sensor technologies it really is coming into its own. Actually it really occupies its own niche, way above small sensor cameras, way below full frame, and distinct from the sort of in-between, neither one nor the other APS-C systems. With Olympus Four Thirds you get beautifully built camera bodies packed with - in general - features that are actually useful for photography, and you get access to world-class lenses, and very high quality optics even at the entry level. And you get remarkable versatility.  If you really get hung up on these things, yeah, you get more noise than larger sensor cameras, but honestly, if you are going to fret about that stuff, you’re probably not principally concerned about making photos.  It is notable that there are considerably more “pro” or “serious” photographers using Olympus than is generally believed. The thing is they tend to just get on with photography and stay away from the fanboy-dominated gear forums (for example, Neil Gaudet, who’s blog I’ve just discovered).

Juvenile green iguana: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f4.9, 1/320sec, ISO 800

I hope Olympus do release an upgrade to the E-3 - there certainly is scope for it, although beyond that I do wonder if we’ve reached a bit of a peak. The camera industry in general, at least at the DSLR level, seems to be coming out of the rapid obsolescence cycle it has been in in the last 6 or 7 years.

I’m sure I could have taken equally good (or rather “average”) photos with a different camera system, but I really doubt if it would have been quite so trouble-free and flexible.

Basilisk: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f4.9, 1/320sec, ISO 800

Weird, isn’t it ? For years, Olympus release a fantastic series of DSLRs coupled with superb lenses, and they get either damned with faint praise, or reviews which focus on weaknesses which are completely irrelevant to the vast majority of real world photographers. Then they bring out a neither here no there, seriously compromised but pretty gewgaw, the E-P1, and, hey, it’s “welcome Jesus Camera”.

Here’s how I see it: a small DSLR with the mirror and viewfinder lopped off, coupled with a small zoom lens, which, when switched on, is actually not a lot smaller (and arguably considerably more distracting) than its “full size” brother. It introduces the confusion of two parallel and essentially incompatible lens ranges (yes, you can bolt the ZD 7-14, 50-200, or indeed 300mm on the front of the E-P1, but for heaven’s sake, why??). It produces seriously distorted images which can only be corrected in-camera, baked into JPGs, or in Olympus’ own awful Studio software. And it skirts with being seriously over-priced.

Addressing the issues like the viewfinder and producing the promised “pro” version is most likely going to produce something only marginally smaller than the E-420 or E-620.

Ok, I get the plus points: it has workable Live View (which is just as well), it’s pretty, and you can stick all sorts of exotic, obsolete and expensive lenses on the front and get results almost as good as the kit zoom.

Hopefully having failed to make much money from an excellent series of E-System cameras thanks largely to the pixel-peeping mindset prevalent with all reviewers, Olympus will now cash in big time on selling this new set of Emperor’s clothes to the same people, and then invest the proceeds in a worthy successor to the E-1. Yes, I know, you’ve also got a tower in Paris you can sell me.

—-

I want a small camera with interchangeable lenses, but I don’t want a crippled DSLR with the top sawn off. The original PEN, and the half-fram Pentax mini-cameras actually compromised by using a smaller format. We’ve heard enough about with the 4/3 format is equal to APS or even “full frame”, and in most cases I agree. So, why not go to the logical conclusion and use a “half 4/3”, larger than the standard digicam, but smaller than DSLRs ?  Then we could see a genuinely small system camera. My feeling is the only company with the guts and vision to try this is Ricoh. Now there’s a thought - a Ricoh GR-D with interchangeable lenses. Yes please!

A few days ago I returned from a 9 day journey around a wintery, snow blown Iceland in the company of nature photographer (and crippled 4x4 driving maestro) Daniel Bergmann. I was using the Olympus E-3 seriously for the first time, and could compare it alongside Daniel's Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII.

On my previous 4 trips to Iceland I used the E-1, and shot over 4000 frames, of which at least 3 are quite nice. The E-1 took everything Icelandic weather could throw at it, and just shrugged. It never missed a beat, and never picked up any sensor dust. However, its 3 point auto focus was far from ideal for wildlife, and the 5 Megapixel sensor was a bit limiting. So, now was time to hand over to the E-3 with 10 Megapixels and a totally new state of the art AF system, not to mention in-body stabilisation.



The weather was again up to the challenge, and the E-3 had to put up with the elements, although not to the extent the E-1 has gone to. However, it looks like it is well up to the standards of its illustrious predecessor. Temperatures were between -10 and +5, usually around -2. And it snowed. A lot.

The viewfinder on the E-3 is fantastic, and nobody should have any trouble with manual focus. In theory, Live View should also be useful, but to be honest, on at least half of my attempts to use it, I gave up, as the screen simply wasn't readable enough. The screen is one area where the EOS 1Ds blows the E-3 out of the water. The Canon's screen is simply gorgeous, and usable even in bright light. The E-3's is adequate, but frankly it should be a lot better. Having said this, I did not use the auto brightness adjust feature, which might make things better, but on the other hand, it screws up colour reproduction. Anyway, I did get a least one shot with Live View that would have been very tricky without it.

I also notice that the screen brightness seems to suddenly jump or fall a few notches, in all modes (playback, menu, info). This may be a fault, or an undocumented feature. Classify under mildly annoying, for now.

I quite frequently made long exposures, using either an infrared blocking filter or a Singh-Ray Vario-ND filter. I noticed that the camera makes a very pronounced noise (the audio kind) when the mirror is up. Again, I'm not sure if this is normal or not. Actually, it may well be because I forgot to turn IS off... Long exposure performance with the E-3 is simply exceptional compared with the E-1. However, I cannot recommend the Singh-Ray filter, as it introduces some very nasty colour shifts and irregular darkening. This is partly due to the design, based on two polarisers, but frankly, it is way over-priced and clumsy to use. It seems worse on the E-3 than the E-1 or E-400, but it isn't brilliant on them either. I'll be sticking to B&W NDs in future.



Given the specifications, and the temperatures, one thing that really surprised me was battery life. And not in a good way. The E-3 munched its way through 3 fully charged BLM-1s, for 750 frames. Two of these batteries were brand new. I did not indulge in anything like excessive chimping, and set review time to 2 secs when I was unsure of exposure, or off otherwise. Not impressive.

Speaking of exposure, that is another area Olympus needs to look at. Spot metering works fine, as it should, but ESP metering is really all over the place. Very inconsistent and very sensitive. Ok, so snow and ice are not easy targets, but getting 2 stops over exposure on snow is pretty impressive... not to mention following up with 1 stop under on a nearly identical scene. This is not news to me - it is equally hopeless on the other 2 cameras.

Auto Focus, on the other hand, is dramatically better. Using the 50-200 (non SWD) I did get some hunting, but nothing like with the E-1, where hunting is the norm, and acquiring focus is a rare event. I usually used a single, central focus point. Panning on moving targets worked far, far better than anything I've used before.

The ergonomics are not as good as the E-1. No contest. The loss of the mode dial is bloody stupid, and the dual-purpose direct buttons are a pain in the posterior. Remembering which button & dial combination to use for shooting mode or AF mode is neither intuitive nor a pleasant user experience. Otherwise the handling is ok, but I do not find the position of the shutter release to be quite right. It is an ok camera to use, but it has lost the fluidness of the E-1.

As for using it with gloves, well it depends on the gloves. With North Face windstopper trekking gloves, it is pretty tricky, although not impossible. With LowePro photographer's gloves - which are fine at -5C - it is absolutely not an issue.

Compared to the EOS 1Ds MkIII, the camera is noticeably smaller, but the weight feels similar. The EOS is lighter than it looks, and the E-3 heavier than it looks. Obviously the EOS delivers much higher resolution, but the difference between the two in terms of lens performance is impressive. The ZD lenses simply do not vignette, and are sharp right into the corners, wide open. On the other hand, the 1Ds delivers a degree of vignetting and corner softness that will have 'em drooling on Flickr 😊. However, as mentioned before, the 1Ds has a truly fabulous screen.

I used three lenses, the 14-54, 50-200 and 7-14. This was also the first time I used the 7-14 seriously, and I was very impressed. It delivers an incredible sense of depth, almost three dimensional, and controls flare extremely well. An expensive lens, but worth it.



So, in conclusion, there is much to like about the E-3. In terms of delivering images, it is a huge advance over the E-1. In terms of ruggedness and all terrain capability, it is equal. But in terms of ergonomics, well, sadly, it doesn't quite hit the same heights of perfection.