I bought the E1 back in the day and it is my daily camera. I been banging away with it for 2 decades almost and it has never once missed a beat or had a single fault. I have a couple of years ago bought four new batteries for it so i get a while day shooting. Im not sure if i need to update a newer camera to get more pixels but a4 prints is al i do and are super fine. Well done olypus
That's great! Built to last! If you ever need to do larger prints, you can always just use Adobe's Super Resolution (or a similar tool) to make a 5mp file a 20mp file! I did a text on that and the results were great!
Hi just got myself an E500 first thing that stands out is the colour is markedly different to the E1, and the different colour options for JPEG make it a very nice proposition. I shoot RAW+JPEG, and process the RAW in monochrome, and the JPEG in colour, then blend the two together - very nice results.
@@kevinlui8601 Depends on what is your definition of a HDR photograph. For me they look like properly exposed photographs with good dynamic range and excellent colour.
Hi! It's good to see new videos about this old, obsolete format cameras. However there was some little mistakes about the cameras viewfinders: the 3xx series have Porro-type mirror (not prism) viewfinder. And only the E-1, E-3, E-5 and E-30 have pentaprism viewfinders, the others have pentamirrors. However their mirrors are in the upper region for quality. Just keep up making great videos! Have a nice day :)
Hey thank you for the feedback! I'm glad you enjoyed the video! I did mention the E-300 has a penta-mirror which was a mistake. To your point, it has a side mounted Porro Finder. On the flip side, DPReview does list the E-500 as having a top mounted Pentaprism! Definitely a struggle sometimes to find the right info but I'll do my best! Thank you for watching and have an awesome day!
Hey, once again you touch on the topics that I love. I have the e300 which I adore and as another commentator has pointed out, the rangefinder style shooting experience is why! I have very recently acquired an e500 and I may have to choose which one to keep as I just have too many cameras. So far the e300 is winning in spite of the improvements to the e500. One thing to note is that as long as you have the appropriate USB cable (and Olympus has kept this cable going for a long time, so not hard to find) OM Workspace will detect the camera and provide the firmware updates. Before watching any of these videos it was the first thing that I did and I keep being surprised when firmware is raised as an issue as it was so routine and easy to do.
It's interesting that you mention having to decide which one to keep as that was a thought that crossed my mind yesterday. It's hard to justify keeping both when under the hood, they are virtually the same camera. Yet, they each feel unique!
The E500 has more options to filter black and white within the camera (you can set, red green yellow orange filters), you can custom balance your color profile witch you cant on the E300, you could have the E300 for color and the E500 for B&W ready to go. I also notice a difference in metering. And you can set an ISO limit in auto settings I believe on the E500. Which you can't on the E300. (And yes the E300 due to the very different internal build, is twice as heavy :-) , the menu is extremely basic, much more useful on the E500. Both are very close with regards to image output. Often I find the E300 jpgs out of cam, slightly more contrasty and a bit more predictable.
Yeah I agree with all that. The E500 is definitely intended to be the step up from the E300. The menus and level of control that are available in the E500 are better. I'd agree that image output is pretty much the same with RAW files. While the E300 is a fun camera, I do find myself using the E500 much more often because of the better overall experience
I have the E1 with the same tiny screen on the back. I only use it for the menu settings, and checking the histogram. That is all I need to operate what is a lovely camera.
Great video about two still very usable Olympus cameras Colton! I think the one thing you left out is the shooting experience. Because of it's rangefinder style placement of the viewfinder it has quite a different shooting experience from other DSLR cameras. I guess if you would choose the E-300 over the E-500 it would be because of the shooting experience (apart from maybe price, but to my knowledge they cost about the same). Subscriber 501 by the way 😊
Welcome to the team! 🥲 we're glad to have you! Yes, you're right about the shooting experience. Even in things like the way the grip feels in your hand. I much prefer the physical body of the E300 while also appreciating some of the creature comforts of the E500. Price wise they do seem to be about the same and both can be found fairly cheap! (unlike the E400 😬) thanks for watching! Are you using one (or both) of these cameras?
I had the E-300 when it was first released and I paid premium price for the body and the kit lens. I played with it and kept for 6 months then sold it on eBay for the retail price that I paid. Fast forward years later, I saw the E-300 body in eBay asking price was $50. I purchased it right away and bought a used kit lens for $40. Both are working fine.
Hi! Nice vid and good to hear someone talking about these dinosaurs. I've an E300 that I've owned from 2005; a low milage 510 and, ditto 620; and a well loved E5. All but the 520 have the dual-battery grips. I use Olympus 4/3rd glass, various Takumars, and some oddballs like an MTO550 f8.5. What I'll say about the 300 is that, for all its apparent shortcomings, it's a ton of fun to shoot with. Maybe that's because of its limitations.... I love to use it with the vintage glass because it seems to work so well with the character of those lenses. Yes, no live view. I don't care. I'm full manual, i focus wide-open, and I only shoot it in good light - it's never left 100 ISO. Anything longish, I put in on a tripod. It's a freak of a thing and everyone should own one. The 510 I find dull and uninspiring, although it's grip is quite good. Maybe that's why it's sitting in a box with 6k clicks on it waiting for me to sell it. The 620 is competent but nerve-wracking to use if there's moisture in the air. It is, however, a choice little thing to wave around doing ICM. The E5 is as good and rugged as 4/3 gets. I think what I like most about these cameras as a group is that the tech features are sort of there, but they're not advanced enough to wholly depend on if you want to get the best from the lenses and sensors - those results come from manual control.
Yes! Thank you for watching and for sharing a bit about your experience with this series! I agree about the E-300. It's fun to use because it almost feels a bit like a film camera. The LCD on the back is almost useless so you just have to trust your skills. But the E-300 is definitely a lot of fun to take out. I also like the E-500 because its basically the same camera/same sensor but a tad more useful for studio work. I don't have any other Olympus but I'm curious how a late model Evolt or OMD would compare as far as color science goes.
@@ColtonMatocha Hello again. I think the LCD on the 300 is only useless if someone thinks it's function is to look at an image. For me, it's strictly where the menu is - that way I avoid being frustrated! So, it's very like a film camera in that I've no idea, other than composition, of what i've got until I download. And that includes focus too as I've nearly always got a piece of fast vintage glass on it - say, a Takumar 50 1.4 or 55 1.8. My Takumar 150 f4 can also be really good, but although it's slow, it's really sharp. Anyway, you get that film era rush when you've actually nailed the focus through that horrible little viewfinder - a sense of satisfaction that I don't get with Live View cameras. Re the colour thing.... I feel it is different with the CCD sensor, and in a way that works really well with softer focus / dreamy shots with great bokeh of natural subjects (and ICM shots too). I like the camera a lot because it's limitations give opportunities that the others don't. Cheers.
@@luzr6613 yeah that's true. It's nice to have the menu available. Even the larger LCD on the E-500 is limited when outside because the screen is too dim so you can't really tell if you're nailing the shots or totally missing them 🤣. Overall I agree that there is an opportunity to have a more film-like experience with these cameras from a shooting standpoint! It would be interesting to try a camera with one of Kodaks medium format sensors like the Pentax 645D.
@@ColtonMatocha That Pentax is a camera I'd love to try - got a bit of a thing about it (and Pentax). Maybe when the bank balance recovers.... Off to work - have a great day.
I own both of these. When I compare them, what I like about the E-500 is its conventional dslr body and controls. It’s just way more modern and seems right at home next to my 15 years newer Nikon dslr. But the E-300? I don’t know why, but I seemed to get a lot more shots with that with really pleasing looks and colors. Yes, the auto white balance is terrible. Yes, there’s like no exposure latitude. But when I would nail a shot, it would really sing. I know that others have tested the two cameras side by side and have found no difference between the image quality. But that wasn’t my experience.
Yeah that's valid! The E-300 is a great camera too. The funky design is also pretty fun tbh. Feels like a film camera to some extent. I tend to reach for the E-500 usually, but I always get great shots when I use the E-300 too!
@@ColtonMatochaThe E-300 body looks chunkier than it is, the grip is also way better than it looks, and the body is built tough. It’s too bad none of the other brands made bodies that shape. For some reason cameras that look like they have pentaprisms sell best. Look at today’s mirrorless bodies that still have fake pentaprism humps.
@@ditto1958 Yeah I think the Pentaprism layout seemed more professional and fast forward to today where the camera industry has circled around a theme for how cameras should look. Most cameras look the same today in layout vs the wild west that was early digital.
Where is it possible to find the right rings adapter in order to use the vintage lenses as M42 screw mount lenses or also Nikon F mount lenses with these cameras?
@@ColtonMatocha Thank you. Just to clarify I would like to use my vintage lenses with the E-300. I suppose that micro 4/3 rings cannot fit to 4/3 cameras.
@@sergiopirozzolo9581 yeah that's correct. Despite the names being similar they're different mounts. I've never tried adapting lens to the E-300 but the process is the same. I'd search for like "Nikon F to Four/Thirds mount" and see what comes up! (Just make sure its not "micro" four/thirds)
Yeah I can understand that. The most glaring issue for me is how few iso options there are. The jump from 200 to 400 is a lot. And then you go from 400 to 800 which is just such a wide gap.
@@ColtonMatocha I'm embracing the grain as a sign of it being "real". What really ticks me off is the lens selection and options. Too small, too expensive, and you can't adapt much. I'm just happy the 35mm I found was cheap enough. Still, there's something I really enjoy about using it.
@@sklba632 The 35mm is one of my favorite and a common one to find at a reasonable price. The 14-54 can be found at a semi reasonable price as well, but I agree that the prices on the used Olympus lens are still pretty high for a discontinued system.
I will get one of those eventually, Sadly I broke my E3 , now only have E400 working, but I have 8 4/3 lenses + the MF adapter for the Zuiko MF lenses.
