Digital cameras capture water (on image) poorly?

I was just looking at a review of the Olympus E-1, a D-SLR. It is one
of the first, if not the first, cameras to use the four thirds system
developed by olympus, kodak and fujifilm. I think this system is meant
to be like a next generation state of the art digital or something.
Anyhow, I looked at some of the test images and it struck me how it
seems digital cameras capture the image of water quite poorly. This is
an impression that i had for some time and it doesn't seem the four
thirds system is any better.

I know it may not be fair to judge by a small image, but even a small
scanned and compressed image from a film camera looks way better. The
images i took with my minox a week or two ago look way way better.

Look at these...

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e1-review/P1158519-pp.JPG
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e1-review/P1158509-pp.JPG

I really can't say i'm impressed :-/

 

Hi Mike,

I use a DSLR (S2) and I've shot dozens of similar images to the ones you
used as an example. You can see heaps of water images at
www.surfworx.com.au - Overall I'm stoked with how the DSLR captures water, I
think to do it well, a couple of things bear consideration.

The sample images you refer to, I'd say were shot in overcast conditions.
Lens speed then becomes a bit more critical, it looks like those have been
shot at around F8 - good Depth of Field, but when the skies are grey, a
faster aperture is required.

DSLR's do a great job, but any DSLR is only as good as the lens you fit to
it.

Cheers,

Derrick

 

go to: www.myfourthirds.com
it's an image-website with E-1 pictures, many of which have water in
them.

I own the E-1 and it's an impressive piece of machinery. Especially the
lenses are great. Build-quality and ergonomics of the E-1 are second to
none.

Not such nice pictures, but it's more of a light-problem than a
camera-problem I think.

Lourens

 

Yuck. A Flash animation intro, and the non-Flash version is a dead
link. The images also come out small on my screen (postcard size on my
21" flat Sony at 1600x1200) on a white background, which makes them
look rather drab.

And a bit of contrast stretch in Photoshop wouldn't hurt.

<snip>

 

The Fuji S2 however has a SuperCCD sensor, which records bright spots
separately, thus improving highlight detail. The E-1 lacks SuperCCD.

Highlight burnout is a big problem with digital sensors, and it appears
that these images have been deliberately underexposed to preserve the
highlights, making the remainder of the (non-white) water look murky.
If you stretch contrast, it blows out the highlights, but many people
may prefer an increased-contrast look.

 

Nah, you're thinking of the SuperCCD SR, which the S2 doesn't have.
"SuperCCD" basically means that the sensors are positioned in a
different array configuration to get more resolution in certain
cases. Only the SR, as in the Fuji S3, has dual photodiodes to allow
recording at two different sensitivities.

Actually, it all looks murky.

but no more so than with film...

 

The pictures i took a week or two ago with my tiny minox 35 of a lake captured
the water on film, shadows and reflections on ripples and waves,quite
beautifully.

 

That's great. And since this is a 35mm group, let's leave it at that.

 

Thanks for the correction.

Most print film actually can record a huge amount of highlight detail,
though it's usually only visible with a scanner, not in prints.

 

Most print film actually can record a huge amount of highlight detail,

take advantage of the wide range. Some of the Agfa papers come out really
well. Bob Hickey www.pbase.com/bobhickey/galleries