Nice macro shot of a wasp

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wow...superb....
     
    Steve Franklin, Jun 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. So where is all the noise these E300's are supposed to generate?
     
    [email protected], Jun 3, 2005
    #3
  4. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jun 3, 2005
    #4
  5. RichA

    dylan Guest

    Looks like it been noise reduced by resizing etc and then sharpened, if you
    look closely at the flower there are signs of noise, but still a pretty good
    picture at this size
     
    dylan, Jun 3, 2005
    #5
  6. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    It is an absolute certainty in the mind of people who haven't ever
    used the E300, for example Alan Browne.

    It is also to be found on digital photography web sites that are not
    sponsored by Olympus, such as dpr*****.com, often quoted or used as a
    source by people who know next to nothing about photography to make
    "authoritative" statements on here about equipment they haven't ever
    used, for example ...

    .... I'm sure you can guess.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 3, 2005
    #6
  7. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Used it? yes. Much? No. Liked it? Too small, dim viewfinder.

    Opinion on noise : dpreview graphs. The E-1 in particular; the E300
    ain't great either.
    Lack of advertising might indicate another problem:

    "Those bastards at dpreview are daring to tell the truth about our noisy
    Olympus camera. Pull the advert dollars!!!"

    It rubs that way more than the opposite...
    My statements regarding noise and the 4/3 system are clearly in regard
    to future higher density models with the small sensor size. But Tony
    Polson is a great expert at quoting out of context, selective snipping
    and plain old sniping at those who disagree with him. Or who have
    caught him in one of his numerous truth bending episodes:

    -Paris Match cover from the 1970's. Show it Polson.

    -.E-1 with 8 Mpixel sensor (BWAAHAHA)
    .Consumer version of E-1 with 5 Mpix. (Bwahahha)
    .ordered an "E-2" (Bwaahahsh).

    -Generalities on aperture size and sharpness

    -50 rolls of film per average *week*

    -Says Nat Geo Field Guide is greatest thing since sliced bread
    (In "gushing" terms, pathetic really)
    -Then says it sucks ... which is it Polson?

    ... etc. ...

    Tony Polson: it is long past time for you to post proof that you have
    any talent approaching your claims.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 3, 2005
    #7
  8. RichA

    Sheldon Guest

    Sheldon, Jun 3, 2005
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Not my shot, but similar questions were asked of the shooter!
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Ahhh, Feel better now?
     
    [email protected], Jun 4, 2005
    #10
  11. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Perhaps, but how can you really tell from this tiny image how sharp the
    lens is? Even a fairly dull lens at 8MP can be CA-corrected, downsized
    like this, and sharpened into aliasing. Contrast and saturation are
    easy to boost with digital.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 4, 2005
    #11
  12. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Dowsized away, or filtered before downsizing. Perhaps this wasn't at
    ISO 1600 or greater, as well.

    Are you really this dull?

    This image is proof of nothing.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 4, 2005
    #12
  13. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    No. Where it comes to Polson there is never relief. Regardless of our
    differences Dougie, I consider you a valuable contributor to this NG and
    photography. Tony Polson is a blowhard who has never shown even a shred
    of capability despite various claims and implied capability.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 4, 2005
    #13
  14. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Damn right! The ONLY thing that matters in digital photography is 100%
    crops straight out of the camera with zero post processing!!

    Why even bother to look at the actual full image processed at all, we all
    know "processing" is cheating, noise at high ISO's is the only thing to be
    concerned with and the actual image itself isn't what we shoot for anyway.
    It's just about shooting test shots to prove our camare choice is "worthy".

    Sheeze you guys are TOO much!
     
    Stacey, Jun 4, 2005
    #14
  15. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The discussion was about the quality of a lens; the image given is not
    capable of showing much about its quality.
    I would, but I'd have to print it, to see all the original pixels. My
    monitor gets a bit soft going above 1400 by 1050, and I don't think it
    would synch to an 8MP screenmode at all, even if it was interlaced. I
    did manage to make a 5MP interlaced mode for my Sony F707.
    It depends on what the outcome is being presented as. To downsize an
    image to demonstrate optical sharpness is deceptive, to say the least,
    and so is linking to such an image to demonstrate sharpness of the lens.

    The contrast of the lens can't be demonstrated, either, if the
    saturation is way above default, or the contrast has been boosted.
    It's very important to many people when discussing a camera's
    capabilities.
    What's just about this?

    There is nothing that "it is all about". You have major philosophical
    issues.
    I am only one guy.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 4, 2005
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    But how "downsized" is the image? The camera lens front was 5" away
    according to the photographer.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 4, 2005
    #16
  17. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    I'm sure it is when the image itself is never going to be worth viewing on
    it's own merits... Noise issues and technical details is ALL there is left
    to focus on.
     
    Stacey, Jun 5, 2005
    #17
  18. RichA

    Matt Clara Guest

    I haven't been following TP much in the last year or so, but then, I haven't
    seen him around until recently, either. I must say, however, I've never
    heard Tony claim he's a great photographer. I've heard him talk about
    equipment in a knowledgeable manner, and I've heard him claim to make a
    living from photography. Neither of those necessarily add up to talented
    photography. I therefore don't understand anyone's _need_ to see Tony's
    photography. Logically speaking, if he says something about equipment, and
    it's true, what does it matter whether he can take a picture or not? He
    could be blind, for all I care. If the information is valid, that's all
    that matters. Yeah, he's pissed me off in the past, too. But he's just
    another part of the usenet landscape, same as you and me.
     
    Matt Clara, Jun 5, 2005
    #18
  19. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I don't care how artistic anyone here is or isn't, for the purposes of
    these discussions. This is a technology newsgroup, and someone who
    shoots charts has no more or less to say here than anyone else.

    *YOU* are trying to turn this technology-based newsgroup into an
    artistic competition.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 5, 2005
    #19
  20. In the not to distant past I tried to demonstrate image quality with a
    web image. I followed the advise of one of my clients who is a web
    developer and it all went haywire when jokers here who have to opinion
    that if you can't post the original, you are somehow cheating, gave me a
    hard time. How you post a 150 Mb 'original' file has not yet been posted.

    This image is no different. It is clearly over life size picture (or
    there are some killer bees out there). The black area should have some
    noise in it if what all the nerds are saying about Olympus being noisy
    cameras is correct.

    To listen to some of you, I got the idea any picture shot with a E300
    over 100 ISO was a total waste of effort due to the noise of the sensor.
    From my examination of that image I'd say the noise is from the nerds,
    not the camera.
    Unless...
    1. The bee was dead.
    2. The camera had been in the fridge all night.
    3. Someone found a new way to light macro shots at low ISO.

    Otherwise, I'm trotting on down to my local camera store in the morning
    to shoot a few frames on a E300 and see for myself. If they ain't as
    noisy as you lot have been claiming, I'll buy it and use it for an
    upcoming assignment and let you all see the pics. Hell. If Stacey uses
    one it can't be all that bad, eh?
     
    [email protected], Jun 5, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.