Olympus or What?

The following article has grown out of a post I contributed on another blog.

Back in the days of film, I shot with Nikon but switched to Olympus with the advent of digital. My first Olympus actually came to me as a gift. My father discovering that we had no working camera when my last Nikon quit, and with babes, a new mortgage, and no money to replace the Nikon, was kind enough to send me his old Olympus D600L.

That first Olympus, which I still own and which still works, was a simple camera with a 3x optical zoom and a 1.4 Megapixel sensor. In additon to a rather nice lens and a comfortable all in one design, it could handle smart media cards with a massive maximum storage capacity of something like 8MB.  What that meant was that I could save up to approximately 12 jpegs on the card before it was full. Not bad really, and while not as good as the 36 exposures that I could fit on a roll of Kodachrome, it was every bit as good as the number I could fit on a roll of 127 film with the first camera I ever owned, a Kodak Brownie Starmite. Of course, the best thing about my new Olympus was that I could take photos again, including pictures of my young children and it was capable of producing some very fine images - a good tool for the time!

A few years after starting out with the D600L, I finally found myself with enough extra cash to buy a new camera - no not enough for one of the C7070 Wide Zooms I was lusting after, but enough for a new line of inexpensive cross-over digitals, the SP-500 UZ. Once again, Olympus didn't disappoint. While this camera was little more than a point and shoot with a decently versatile lens and a pseudo slr style, it proved reliable and very capable of gathering light in a most appealing way. I took this light little camera everywhere I went and took thousands of photos until I dropped in onto a cement sidewalk damaging the case but remarkably failing to kill it.

As it turned out, that accident proved rather fortuitous because my wife seeing the horror on my face and realizing how important photography was to me, suggested that it would be OK if I purchased a replacement. What joy! What luck! I was very quickly lusting after a lovely Canon 40D. Once again, however, the price seemed a little beyond my limited budget. Then I noticed that one of the big American camera stores was hosting a very appealing sale on the Olympus E-330. While I knew little about the model, the style instantly appealed to me, recalling images of that C7070 that I'd wanted a few years earlier. Besides, it was a two lens kit for little more than I'd paid for the SP-500 UZ. My Visa was out before you could say, "check that exposure," and within a couple of weeks, I found myself in possession of a brand spanking new E-330.

Like the two cameras before it, the E-330 proved to be a solidly reliable beast, but unlike the previous cameras, getting exceptional images was more of a challenge.The E-330 was very slow to focus in poor light and no speed demon in good light, a drawback that was compounded by the two rather under impressive kit lenses that came with the camera. I soon found myself frustrated with the soft out-of-focus images and blown highlights that seemed to characterize many of my imaging attempts. The fact that I liked to photograph wildlife, where a quick accurate focus lock was essential, made matters even worse. Finally, there was the very small viewfinder and a sensor that couldn't really do anything above 400 ISO.

The thing is, once you've purchased the beast with the somewhat reluctant blessings of your wife, you are obliged to make it work, or look forward to a future in which the words, "upgrade my camera" would never be received positively again. I soon learned to set the exposure compensation to underexpose all my outdoor shots by at least a third stop, which fixed the blown highlights, and after replacing the kits lenses with a 70-300mm, a 9-18mm, a 14-54mm and a 35mm macro, solved most of the other problems. Though it could never be called a speed demon, by any stretch of the imagination, the E-330 began to work for me and produced some exceptional images.

If the E-330 had any real strengths it was the reliability and compact nature of the camera. I took the E-330 everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE! During the time that I owned that model, I spent half a year working in an experiential education class that specialized in long outdoor adventures. My Olympus went on snowshoe hikes into the back-country for days at a time with temperatures that never rose above -20 C. It hung around my neck as we built quinzies (igloo like sleeping accommodation) and rested beside my sleeping bag at night. It journeyed on a 400 KM bicycle trek bouncing around in one of my pannier bags as I peddled mile after mile of rutted northern highway through blowing snow, wind and rain. It accompanied me on a mountain hike that lasted a day up into the alpine, and a trek back to an wilderness cabin in which it rained so hard that my camera bag wound up as wet on the inside as it was on the outside. I dried my camera gear on a log ledge about three feet from a roaring wood fire in a cabin where wet people and gear meant the humidity was probably 250%; if it was any cooler, it would have rained inside the cabin!

Having thrown everything possible at that camera and its lenses, it still works to this very day, and works quite well. I have never ever had to clean the sensor which, given that I am constantly changing lenses, speaks volumes for the Olympus sensor cleaning system. I think I can honestly say that I have never owned a camera, and am unlikely to ever own a camera as ruggedly reliable as the E-330.

Despite its durability and the excellent images I was able to get in ideal lighting conditions, the dismal low light performance, both in terms of acquiring a focus lock and in terms of image noise, eventually propelled me towards another investment. Once again I started looking for a new product. This time, Canon had just released the 60D and Nikon the D7000. I liked the look of both but now I had another problem: a rudimentary but expensive collection of Olympus lenses - both the greatest asset and the greatest trap of the dSLR. In the end, I purchased an Olympus E-30.

Like the E-330, the E-30 has proven solid. The focus is much better, the low light performance better, the body quite close to perfect in it design and proportions, but somehow, it doesn't have the character or personality of the previous models. It felt like an attempt to compete with the big boys on their own turf and in doing so, it lost some of the quirky idiosyncrasies of previous cameras.

Ultimately, every camera represents a compromise and every camera is different. From the creative standpoint, this is a good thing since it allows us to find a tool which best reflects our own creative goals. It’s a real shame that so many photographers fail to recognize this. A great artist will use a stick if it allows him or her to express a unique vision not attainable with a sable haired brush, but the art magazines might run pages of detail on why a particular brush brand provides the better quality tool.

I am primarily a landscape photographer and have used Olympus cameras for years because no matter where I hike or how rough the conditions, I have never been let down by a failed camera. This was not the case when I shot with Nikons back in the days of film. Two of them died irrevocably at the most inopportune moments, one while I was beginning a once in a lifetime trip overseas, the other by a drop similar to the one that only wounded my SP-500 UZ a number of years later.

Olympus cameras I have owed over the past couple of decades, from left: D600L, SP-500 UZ, E-30, E-330.

Beyond their reliability, Olympus cameras have traditionally offered me three more advantages: 1) due to their reasonable dimensions and weights, I can carry a body and three lenses over long distances, which is important when one has to hike over hills and up mountains to reach his shooting locations; 2) the smaller Four-Thirds sensor used in their dSLRs and Mirrorless Compact System Cameras means a larger depth of field at all apertures, which is often a plus when shooting landscapes, and; 3) the two-times crop factor means that I can shoot the wildlife I want using more compact and less expensive long focal length lenses.

Despite all the advantages noted above, I have never been fully satisfied with the dynamic range of the Panasonic sensors that Olympus has used for the past several years. In fact, as other cameras, especially Nikons and Sonys, have incorporated sensors with better and better dynamic range, I have found myself becoming less and less satisfied with my own gear. The result is that lately I started looking again.

Of course, one hears so much commentary on the advantages of Canon and Nikon products that the reality can be a bit of an eye opener. I spent a good part of a day last week handling products from both makes at my local photographic store. I was expecting to be thoroughly impressed,especially with the Nikon D7000 which seemed to sit in the sweet spot where my budget and feature set requirements coincide. Of course, numerous glowing reviews haven't hurt either. Unfortunately, the hands-on impressions provided something different. In truth, I came away feeling disappointed. The Nikon D7000, which I had gone down to look at, and Canon 60D which seemed a good back up plan, both failed to impress me when examined in person. While each unit had some standout features, either technically or in terms of usability, neither handled as well as my E-30. The Canon felt cheap to me. Its rear buttons and controls, in particular, were disappointing and the D7000 seemed even worse but for completely different reasons.

There is no doubt that the Nikon D7000 has a very capable sensor and has been highly lauded in the media of late. But in my opinion, it has one of the most uncomfortable grips I've ever had the misfortune to hold. The viewfinder was disappointingly busy, and frankly, the lens mounting system was the worst, by feel, that I have ever tried. While the mechanical connection affected by the bayonet mount is probably hardly changed from the excellent system that was used during the late 70's and 80's, the addition of the side mounted electrical contacts used in today's cameras meant that the action of changing lenses was no where near as smooth as it is on the Olympus E system cameras. In fact, Nikon's lens mount made the Canon's system feel quite slick by comparison.

So what did I decide to do? In the end, the only camera I tried that impressed me with its good design was the Canon 7D. While it was a bit more than I wanted to pay, and while it is bulkier and heavier than one would hope for in a dSLR camera, and while its sensor is arguably less capable than those in the Nikons and Sonys, it was by far the most pleasant to handle and the most solid feeling, attributes that cannot be overlooked - craftsmen everywhere will tell you that a good tool always feels right in the hand!

I have a 7D on order.

What worries me now is whether the 7D will match the glowing endorsements and media hype one reads on-line. I have no doubt that it will excel in all the areas where my previous cameras fell short, but how will it compare in the areas where they excelled? I hope the reality proves as good as the hype. For the price, it should be about twice as good as my E-30. Of course, if it does disappoint, I can always resell it and chalk one up to experience before I invest too heavily in Canon glass. I'll have to let you folks know how it works out once I've had it for a while. Stay tuned. More to come...