Since its debut in the fall of 2007, the Olympus E3 DSLR has been the object of my tech-lust. I've been shooting an Olympus E500 since early 2006 and have built up a fairly decent stable of Zuiko digital lenses that would work well with the E3. I also have an FL50 external flash that would work with the E3. Sitting at the top of the Olympus DSLR lineup, the E3 is a natural progression as my photography improves and I start to push the limits of my E500 (which I love, by the way).
That said, I'm beginning to rethink my commitment to Olympus. It all started when I read this post at Luminous Landscape. I am a big fan of this site and consequently place more credence in their insight than I might a review I find at Amazon. This review reinforced what's been nagging me for quite a while - the E3 just doesn't have the chops when you compare it against the other top-of-the-line cameras from Canon and Nikon.
First, the jump from 8 megapixel (my E500) to 10 megapixel (the E3) just isn't as great as I'd like to see when transitioning to a new body. Although I'm not a pixel chaser, I do like printing large prints - one of the few areas where additional megapixels really make a difference. Additionally, the E3 is capable of shooting only 5 frames per second. Respectable, but not top-of-the-line. Finally, the 4/3 sensor in the E3 (and the E500, for that matter) is just not great at higher ISOs. My kids are into swimming - a very challenging environment for shooting action shots. Having the option to boost ISO would really make my life easier. As it is, I have to resort to external flash - which is not great due to the glare you get off the water. I've also read some not-so-great information about the tendency for the camera to hunt when focusing in low light - a killer if you're trying to shoot action shots.
That said, the E3 has much to make it attractive. First, they've built image stabilization into the body. Therefore, every lens you strap on is going to benefit. Second, the E3 has a live-view, articulating LCD. This would be awesome for taking shots overhead, close to the ground, etc.
At the end of the day, it really comes down to what type of photographer I want to be when I grow up. If I'm shooting in a controlled environment (studio, outdoors in full light, etc.), I could probably get by with the E3. But if I want to venture into more challenging stuff, like sports/action/event photography, I'm thinking I'd be better off investing the cash in a camera that is more suited to the task, like the Nikon D3 or even D300. Of course, you're talking quite a jump in price: the D3 is just over $4k at Amazon.
I don't have the answers yet, but the fact that I'm even second-guessing my commitment to the Olympus lineup is interesting. Looks like I need to start doing my homework.
