Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Olympus E-3  (Read 113083 times)
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2007, 10:27:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Well today I just received an E-3 and the new 12-60 Zuiko lens for evaluation. I most certainly prefer my Mamiya 645 AFDII with a Leaf back or even film for a lot of my shooting but there are many times I need the smaller format.

Currently I have been using Canon and primarily the 5D which I am very pleased with. However I happened to walk into a camera store where Olympus was doing a demo.

I have been curious about the design of the Olympus system and I like the 4:3 format. The bodies seem well designed, I like the feel of it and the viewfinder. The dust removal system is also a big plus.

But I was very intrigued by the Zuiko lenses. I have read that they are very sharp and physically they are much smaller than the equivalent in Canon. And then they have the f2 lenses which would be great. Anyway the size issue is really important to me because I do spend a lot of time flying. In the same roller bag I currently use I could get a couple of more lenses in the same space and with a much longer reach.

So tomorrow and Thursday I will be getting some practice in with the Olympus and then Friday and Saturday it will go out on an editorial feature shoot, outdoors, indoors, day and night. So I will get back to you with my thoughts.

By the way, Olympus was really considerate about getting me a system to try out and is very interested in showing off their products. Must be something to it!
« Last Edit: December 11, 2007, 10:30:10 PM by SecondFocus » Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8884


« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2007, 11:53:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,
good thoughts, with one small disagreement

That is the essence of it, and acceptance of this might solve many holy wars between formats. But there is one exception about ISO speed because of this observation:

And that means that ISO speed can be the same in this situation, which is probably rather common in medium format work. Or to be precise, ISO speed can be at the optimal value for each camera, which is maybe 50 for ZD, 100 for the E-3.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, thanks, BJL.    You've done a lot on this forum to clarify the issue of how DoF changes with changes of format in relation to a fixed FoV and f/stop.

But notice that I wrote 'and/or ISO'. When shooting just one scene that one hopes will highlight most of the differences between the two formats, especially with regard to resolution, dynamic range and tonality, then using the base ISO of each camera and shooting a stationary subject with camera on tripod is probably the best approach.

However, when shooting a number of different scenes to get a clearer idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, there might be situations where a minimum shutter speed is required for both systems, such as a beach scene with waves crashing on rocks and seaguls flying by, in the foreground.

The larger format might then find itself at a disadvantage, producing an image which is noisier even beyond the pixel-peeping level.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 03:38:48 AM by Ray » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5130


« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2007, 11:42:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quite agreed. On this point in particular,
Quote
... there might be situations where a minimum shutter speed is required for both systems ... The larger format might then find itself at a disadvantage
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
we face the familiar if ironical situation of a medium format camera having if anything worse noise at equal ISO than one with far smaller photosites (by a factor of about four[edit!] in this case). Due partly to lack of micro-lenses, but probably also inherent in Full Frame CCD technology that offers large well capacity but high dark noise levels, and so good DR but only at lowish ISO speeds. (Which by the way is fine for me most of the time on my E-1, but not always.)

Whatever the reason, I do not think that high shutter speed/low light comparisons are what we are looking for or expecting from Quentin, partly because I think the answer is fairly easy to guess.

I am curious to learn more about what effect Olympus' change from Kodak FF CCD to Panasonic nMOS sensor type has had on DR, and so on handling of scenes with high Subject Brightness Range. Results at the [a href=\"http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result_detail.epl?id=181182]DIWA test site[/url] are superficially good, but the DR testing there looks dodgy due I think to being based on in-camera JPEG conversions at default settings: the D300 and A700 get very different DR results there, despite probably using the same sensor.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 11:47:07 AM by BJL » Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2007, 05:41:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am curious to learn more about what effect Olympus' change from Kodak FF CCD to Panasonic nMOS sensor type has had on DR, and so on handling of scenes with high Subject Brightness Range. Results at the DIWA test site are superficially good, but the DR testing there looks dodgy due I think to being based on in-camera JPEG conversions at default settings: the D300 and A700 get very different DR results there, despite probably using the same sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Olympus switched from a Kodak sensor to a matsushita sensor, not sony. The new matsushita sensors in the E-410 and E-510 have been producing some very nice results, as long as you turn down the NR in-camera or shoot raw, but the sensor in the E-3 is an even newer design with the same resolution as the E-410/510 sensor but constructed so that there's less hardware between each well, allowing larger photosites on the same area.

If you take a 12mp 1.5x sensor and cut it down to the size of a 4/3 sensor, you're left with about 10mp, so I suspect that the photosites on a 12mp 1.5x sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are probably quite comparable. Maybe I'll look up the exact sizes sometime.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5130


« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2007, 08:48:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Olympus switched from a Kodak sensor to a matsushita sensor, not sony.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know: I said Panasonic, not Sony, that being the brand name commonly used for Matsushita products.  (Aside: Matsushita also made the CCD sensor for the original Canon 1D.)
Quote
If you take a 12mp 1.5x sensor and cut it down to the size of a 4/3 sensor, you're left with about 10mp, so I suspect that the photosites on a 12mp 1.5x sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are probably quite comparable.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 10MP Panasonic LiveMOS 4/3" sensors have pixel spacing of 4.75 microns, which would give about 16.5MP in the "1.5x" format of Sony sensors, 14.6MP in Canon's EF-S format. The new 12.2MP Sony CMOS sensors have about 5.5 micron pixel spacing. So 16% difference: fairly close I suppose.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8884


« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2007, 01:20:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whatever the reason, I do not think that high shutter speed/low light comparisons are what we are looking for or expecting from Quentin, partly because I think the answer is fairly easy to guess.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
This might be the surprise that Quentin has in store for us   . He mentioned that the ZD (with appropriate software) had a remarkable ability to recover highlight detail.

Having recently had a bit of a stoush with some of the MFDB guys in the thread comparing the 1Ds2 with P21 and ZD, where I was mildly critical of the methodology, I'm beginning to believe that much of the bad press about the high noise of MFDBs at high ISO is due to the fact that many users of MFDBs have migrated directly from MF film to MFDBs, and have not thoroughly investigated the potential of the miniature 35mm DSLR.

This impression is reinforced when experienced photographers like Edmund present seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 400 and 800 and complain about noise in the shadows.

Here's one such ISO 400 shot from Edmund which looks to me as though it's as much as 3 stops underexposed. Although the amount of EC correction shown in ACR is pushing only +2 stops, in relation to ETTR one should be counting from minus 1EC and possibly less. An ISO 400 shot underexposed by 3 stops is equivalent to using the camera at ISO 3200.

So what we're really seeing here is a P45's attempt at ISO 3200. Not bad really   .

[attachment=4231:attachment]
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2007, 05:51:48 AM »
ReplyReply

All will become clear over the weekend after the tests have been done  

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2007, 04:38:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I know: I said Panasonic, not Sony, that being the brand name commonly used for Matsushita products.  (Aside: Matsushita also made the CCD sensor for the original Canon 1D.)
The 10MP Panasonic LiveMOS 4/3" sensors have pixel spacing of 4.75 microns, which would give about 16.5MP in the "1.5x" format of Sony sensors, 14.6MP in Canon's EF-S format. The new 12.2MP Sony CMOS sensors have about 5.5 micron pixel spacing. So 16% difference: fairly close I suppose.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow, I somehow misread panasonic as sony... I'm not quite sure how that happened.

It's interesting to hear the exact numbers regarding the pixel pitch; however, I recall reading that the sensor in the E-3 was redesigned for a larger pixel size as compared to the sensors in Olympus' consumer DSLRs. Are the numbers above for the consumer sensors, or the E-3 sensor?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5130


« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2007, 08:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I recall reading that the sensor in the E-3 was redesigned for a larger pixel size as compared to the sensors in Olympus' consumer DSLRs. Are the numbers above for the consumer sensors, or the E-3 sensor?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All four of the 10MP 4/3 models of this year have the same 4.75 micron pixel pitch. (Same 3648x2736 pixel count, same effective region dimensions of 13x17.3mm). The claim you have read seems to be a misunderstanding of a statement by Panasonic about having reduced the space taken up in each photosite by processing circuitry compared to last year's 7.5MP LiveMOS sensor in the L1 and E-330, so that the space for electrons is about the same despite the smaller total area of each photosite. So that is not at all a claim about differences between the sensors in the four 10MP 4/3" model released this year.

The "10MP High Speed LiveMOS" sensor in the E-3 does seem to be different, if only in supporting a higher frame rate. Some dynamic range tests based on JPEG's show distinctly higher DR, but that might well be an artifact of JPEG conversion: the E-510 and E-410 seem to use a rather high contrast default tone curve, giving more "punchy" images but lower measured DR. Optimistically, Panasonic might have continued to refine the sensor design a little in the intervening six months, since it had to make some changes anyway, to support a higher frame rate.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2007, 10:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

For various reasons, I have not had the time to undertake as full a test as I'd like, but here

http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4002795#232900466

Password is formatbattle

are the results of a quick test.  Unsurprisingly, the ZD wins out.  I was not that convinced by the by the sharpness of the loaner 14-54mm lens on the E-3 compared with the ZD's 55mm prime, so I may redo the test at a later date.  Its all very unscientific and similarly somewhat unsurprising.

The ZD has had no sharpening applied and the crops are native resolution, whereas the E-3 samples were rezzed up to approximately the same size as the ZD (allowing for the fact that the fields of view were not perfectly matched).

Quentin
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 04:43:53 PM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8884


« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2007, 04:01:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quentin,
As you say, the 100% crops show the ZD image as being clearly more detailed and sharper. No surprise here. One would expect a sensor with double the pixel count and 8x the area to have a significant resolution advantage.

What we need to take into consideration is the print size that these 100% crops (and uprezzing in the case of the E-3) represent. At 300 ppi the print might only be about 14"x18", but on the monitor with a far lower resolution than 300 ppi I think those 100% crops represent a print size of about 3ftx4ft.

Downsampling each crop to 150ppi with bicubic sharper, representing a print size about 1/4 the area (18"x24") the differences are quite marginal, although the ZD crops still have an accutance edge.

Anyone disagree with my figures?  
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2007, 06:40:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice comparison - no surprises but my wife's E3 beats the snot out of my 40D - LOL. Actually I'm really impressed with the E3 and 12-60mm. I wish my 40D would come close for sharpness but it's really no contest. I suspect the E3 is just out-resolving the 40D and definitely has more accurate autofocus, at least in the case of my copy. I'm going to get her a 70-300 and probably a Sigma 135-400 for it after Christmas. I'm looking forward to comparing it to my Sigma SD14 in terms of IQ.

Best regards,

Lin

Quote
For various reasons, I have not had the time to undertake as full a test as I'd like, but here

http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4002795#232900466

Password is formatbattle

are the results of a quick test.  Unsurprisingly, the ZD wins out.  I was not that convinced by the by the sharpness of the loaner 14-54mm lens on the E-3 compared with the ZD's 55mm prime, so I may redo the test at a later date.  Its all very unscientific and similarly somewhat unsurprising.

The ZD has had no sharpening applied and the crops are native resolution, whereas the E-3 samples were rezzed up to approximately the same size as the ZD (allowing for the fact that the fields of view were not perfectly matched).

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Lin
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2007, 06:50:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, Lin,

I think the E-3 is an excellent camera, well thought out, a delight to use and at least as good as its semi-pro cousins from Canon and Nikon.  There is more to a camera than the obsession with resolution that seems to infect almost every discussion about digital cameras.  I also wonder though what the end game is for the four thirds format.  I think its finest days are still to come.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Frank B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2007, 09:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, Lin,

... I also wonder though what the end game is for the four thirds format.  I think its finest days are still to come.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hope so, as I returned to Olympus a couple of weeks ago with the E-3 and ordered the 12-60 today.

Thanks for your comparison pictures.  I'm pleased with how the E-3 did in your test.

Hi Lin!
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2007, 10:03:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey Frank,

I think you will be pleased - I know I've got camera envy every time I pick up Sherry's E3!

I bought it for her because we are contemplating a trip to Africa next year to shoot Mountain Gorilla and the four thirds telephoto boost with lightweight lenses was very attractive but I've been blown away by the image quality and sharpness. It's the closest thing to my Sigma SD14 that I've used for sharpness and it seems to be an excellent all-around tool.

The 12-60 is really a versatile lens with only a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end which is easily correctable and there is almost no CA. There is a tiny bit of corner shading (vignetting) at 60mm but that too can easily be handled.

I think Olympus had hit a home-run with this one.

Best regards,

Lin

Quote
I hope so, as I returned to Olympus a couple of weeks ago with the E-3 and ordered the 12-60 today.

Thanks for your comparison pictures.  I'm pleased with how the E-3 did in your test.

Hi Lin!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Lin
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2007, 03:21:20 AM »
ReplyReply

An obvious point, but worth mentioning, is that the test shots were taken in "ideal" conditions for the Mamiya- tripod mounted, and in the case of the Mamiya, with mirror lock-up.  there is quite a lot of mirror slap on the ZD that can take the edge of sharpness at moderate shutter speeds.  Its not ideal as a hand-held camera unless you are pretty carefull.

The Oly, on the other hand, excells hand-held because of its IS and handling.  Its more versatile than any other camera I have used.

Quentin
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 03:21:38 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4038



« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2007, 05:46:04 AM »
ReplyReply

As I'm getting quoted as an "experienced photographer"  I might as well update my take on this. My first P45+ was indeed broken. The new one can take images *by streetlight* which would be suitable for full-page magazine use.

I would say that ISO 1600-2500 is now quite decent, although my first impression is that 400 on the old broken back was in some ways smoother. The bad press that MF backs have had for low-ISO seems less due to noise, than to various other issues like banding which can vary a lot from sample to sample; all backs seem ok at ISO 100.

I can handhold the Mamiya decently to about 1/20, with an 80mm, and the huge sensor does make up for a lot for the remaining noise, compared to something like an M8.  Also lights in the frame retain coloration, which is a big plus in night and available light images. Where my Canon would really beat the Mamiya is with the fast and sharp F1.2 lens - it's more the choice of lenses that creates the camera speed than the sensor. Reading the specs shows the P45+ sensor performs much like the one in the Canon 20D, which was quite good for its time, and I's day compared to APS you can tack on at least another stop for the fact that you have so many pixels to average over.

Maybe my complaints seemed overloud at the time, but I do find it interesting that after all those lectures about underexposure, swapping the back got me one that actually performs pretty much as I expected

Edmund


PS. As this is an Oly thread, let me say that what the Oly really lacks are a couple of fast tiny lenses, eg a 35 equivalent a 50 and an 80. Drop those in your pocket and you have a nice backpack camera, which a lot of the original Olympus SLRs were renowned for.

Quote
BJL,
This impression is reinforced when experienced photographers like Edmund present seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 400 and 800 and complain about noise in the shadows.

Here's one such ISO 400 shot from Edmund which looks to me as though it's as much as 3 stops underexposed. Although the amount of EC correction shown in ACR is pushing only +2 stops, in relation to ETTR one should be counting from minus 1EC and possibly less. An ISO 400 shot underexposed by 3 stops is equivalent to using the camera at ISO 3200.

So what we're really seeing here is a P45's attempt at ISO 3200. Not bad really   .

[attachment=4231:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 05:50:00 AM by eronald » Logged
Frank B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2007, 09:15:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
Edmund
PS. As this is an Oly thread, let me say that what the Oly really lacks are a couple of fast tiny lenses, eg a 35 equivalent a 50 and an 80. Drop those in your pocket and you have a nice backpack camera, which a lot of the original Olympus SLRs were renowned for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree.  Hopefully, Olympus will offer these lenses in the future. There are some non-Olympus choices though.   Currently you can get a Leica f1.4 25mm (50mm Eq), Sigma f1.8 24mm (48mm Eq) and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (60mm Eq).  They are somewhat heavier though than their 35mm Eq lenses.
Logged
Frank B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2007, 09:19:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Lin, thanks for the info on the 12-60.  I should get it Tuesday or Wednesday.  The E-3 does make a lot of sense for your trip to Africa.  

Regards,

Frank
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 17, 2007, 12:42:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

You may think you can handhold a Mamiya at 1/20 sec, but you need to be very well braced, and even then, you are using it outside its comfort zone.

Similarly, what on earth would you want to shoot at high ISO with a P45, or any MF back for that matter?   Horses for courses, my dear Edmund     Thats why we have two shoulders - you sling the MF over one, and the high ISO demon over the other.

Don't even ask what you then do with the 8x10 view camera.

But back on subject, it is lens choice that makes or breaks any system, and the lack of truly fast primes is a serious Olympus weakness.  However, I recently purchased the Sigma 30mm (60mm equiv on 35mm) F1.4 and its a decent lens, although it can hunt a little in low light when focusing.  Its sharp wide open - unusual for an independent lens.

Quentin
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 12:43:16 PM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad