Olympus E300 image quality

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Douglas..., Nov 1, 2005.

  1. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    Flash control,
    Image quality,
    Impeccable build quality in one of the world's cheapest DSLRs. It hard
    to comprehend that such things all go together. They do.
    http://www.auspics.com/RAWs/cat_crop
    Top right hand corner for EXIF information.

    SO what actually do you compare these cameras with? A 20D is 2.2 times
    the cost so do you compare it on price?
    A 350D is 1.5 times the cost and the same pixel count. Sadly it's images
    with the kit lens are a long way off the Oly's.
    What about a Nikon 50D? Lens quality of the Oly is still better although
    I haven't seen images from one.

    Maybe Olympus have created a camera which didn't sell at it's intended
    price and now the price has dropped, is in an amazingly unique situation
    where it's low light performance is probably the worst - except for
    Sigma of any DSLR but it's general ability and image quality under all
    other conditions is absolutely up there with the best.

    Where do they go from here? Will the E500 go head to head with the soon
    to be D200? I hope so because I have come to like these cameras far more
    than my 4x more expensive Nikon. I would have saved myself about $8000
    If someone could have told me a year ago about these cameras.

    Sadly everyone in these groups seems to thing anything without "C" or
    "N" starting the name is to be scorned... Not so these critter. Maybe
    when the E500 I ordered turns up, I can comment further. One of my
    clients is resigned to buying D200 so we'll have some real world
    comparisons of them soon... As opposed to reviews.

    I'm about to do the unthinkable on Saturday... Shoot a Wedding with an
    E300! :). Sure, I'll do the job with the D2X but I'm pretty sure the
    Oly can go head to head for a lot of the shots so I'll double up and see
    if it really is as good as I think. More on this next week!
     
    Douglas..., Nov 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Douglas...

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Douglas... blithers:
    http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/msg/5ebe853d4bb8a4a0?dmode=source&hl=en

    Aren't you the idiot who claimed some months back that a P&S camera
    could record more detail in the "shadows" than a full-on dSLR? And
    even presented images as proof of this remarkable claim?

    Said images that showed the P&S was given 4x the light as the dSLR?

    Do you remember that? Or do these memories cause you pain, and you'd
    rather people just not dwell on the past like this?

    Can we expect that level of incompetence when it comes to your "real
    world comparisons" you allude to, above? Or will you manage to do
    worse this time around?
     
    eawckyegcy, Nov 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Douglas...

    Stacey Guest

    I did and got FLAMED for even considering this was a "usable" camera.
     
    Stacey, Nov 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    Yes but really Stacey... Your views were/are more than just a little
    radical. If you'd have backed up your ravings with images, I might have
    listened.
     
    Douglas..., Nov 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Douglas...

    Rich Guest

    She has.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Douglas...

    Stacey Guest

    Because they aren't pro-C/N? That I feel ISO 1600 isn't that useful for most
    people? That the noise from 4/3 at even ISO 800 isn't a problem in prints?

    Like these samples I've posted regularly?

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fly.jpg

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/couple.jpg

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/zduckweb.jpg

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/orange14x.jpg
     
    Stacey, Nov 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    So... These are Photoshop images. Not camera images Stacey. Whatever
    value I might have gained from seeing any of them to make a decision
    about a camera is lost with the extensive manipulation you performed on
    them.

    You can't expect anyone to believe these came out the camera. For
    starters you've got the camera set to low saturation and soft contrast
    but none of these images are anywhere near those settings. You've taken
    a flat, dull looking picture with weak colouration and given it the
    works in Photoshop. Nothing wrong with that, I do it all the time but I
    never present those pictures as being anything other than manipulate ones.

    This is exactly why I said you were a radical. You present thee pictures
    to support a camera brand when they should be in support of Photoshop.
    For someone from your background, I would have expected a little more
    honesty in presentation.

    Precisely what is wrong with camera original images to discuss the
    merits or otherwise of a camera? Pretty serious manipulation to get the
    pictures you now claim are camera images. They might have originated
    from a camera but they owe their existence in the form they are to
    Photoshop and your skill with the software.


    --- Quick Summary ---
    File: couple.jpg
    Exposure Time: 1/50 sec
    F-Stop: F3.5
    ISO: 100
    Lens: 200.00 mm
    Date: 2005:05:07 18:54:39

    --- EXIF Data ---
    Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
    Make = OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
    Model = E-300
    Orientation = Normal
    XResolution = 314.00
    YResolution = 314.00
    Resolution Unit = Inch
    Software = Adobe Photoshop 7.0
    Date Time = 2005:05:08 02:59:46
    Exif Offset = 264
    Exposure Time = 1/50 sec
    FNumber = F3.5
    Exposure Program = Aperture priority
    ISOSpeed Ratings = 100
    Exif Version = "0221"
    Date Time Original = 2005:05:07 18:54:39
    Date Time Digitized = 2005:05:07 18:54:39
    Exposure Bias Value = 0/10
    Max Aperture Value = F3.0
    Metering Mode = MultiSegment
    Light Source =
    Flash = Off, surpressed
    Focal Length = 200.00 mm
    User Comment =
    Flash Pix Version = "0100"
    Color Space = sRGB
    Exif Image Width = 800
    Exif Image Length = 590
    File Source = "."
    CFAPattern = "."
    Custom Rendered = Custom process
    Exposure Mode = Auto
    White Balance = Manual
    Digital Zoom Ratio = 100/100
    Scene Capture Type = Standard
    Gain Control = None
    Contrast = Soft
    Saturation = Low
    Sharpness = Hard
    Focal Lengthin35mm Film = 900.00
     
    Douglas..., Nov 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Douglas...

    Stacey Guest

    So sharpening and maybe a level adjustment is "extensive"? I always shoot
    RAW (developed in studio, downsampled in PS) so it's kinda hard not to
    process them. There are plenty of example of out of camera jpegs if that's
    what you shoot. Most people using dSLR's don't.
    All most of these got was sharpening after downsampling (ultrashapen pro),
    no color/saturation adjustments at all. Believe whatever you'd like!
     
    Stacey, Nov 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    Stacey... The Exif data in your image says it was edited in Photoshop 7.
    Maybe a level adjustment is hardly allowing for the camera's own ability
    to produce an image, is it? If you'd used other programs as well as PS,
    The EXIF would say so. Is this image Studio Pro you are talking about as
    the developer?
     
    Douglas..., Nov 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Douglas...

    Stacey Guest

    It was shot as a RAW file and this RAW file was developed in Olympus studio
    1.3 so any camera settings in the exif file are meaningless. The only in
    camera setting this RAW converter looks at is WB. I use the default setting
    of the RAW converter for saturation and contrast etc except I normally use
    the false color adjustment set to 6 and use the high function converter in
    aRGB color space. I convert to sRGB for web display images.

    I did NO color adjustments to these images, at most a levels adjustment and
    some sharpening in PS7. If you call that extensively edited, I guess you'll
    think these are. I posted these as examples of what this camera can
    produce, you don't think an E300 can produce images like these? I never
    claimed these are "straight from the camera jpegs" and have comented
    several times if you want good images from an E300 you need to shoot RAW.
    ??? I use RAW so I can adjust things in post processing, isn't that why we
    shoot digital to start with? Also shooting RAW with an E300 (using studios
    high fuctiion converter) produces sharper images as discussed at DPR and
    elsewhere. the in camera jpegs can have some smearing issues in some images
    with fine details. I suppose I could bracket with different
    contrast/sharpness adjustments and end up at close to the same place but
    why would I? I'd still have to downsample them for web display using
    something so that would be cheating as well?
    No it doesn't as this is the -OLYMPUS RAW DEVELOPER- in their studio
    software package which then hands the file to PS7. Like I said because it's
    a RAW file, the in camera settings as far as contrast and saturation are
    meaningless. I shoot RAW and the lowest rez jpeg to have a "thumbnail" to
    see if the captured image is worth fooling with and to make looking through
    folders easier as ORF's aren't supported in lots of software. The camera
    settings produce a good idea of what's "there" in this small jpeg, that's
    why I use those settings.


    I suppose what I'm getting at, if you can't use PS and refuse to spend any
    time editing your images, go look at the review sites for samples of what
    lazy people can get straight from the camera. The images I display are
    examples of what anyone can get using an E300, the olympus studio software
    and some minor "touch ups" in PS that I'd do on any camera I use before I
    display them.
     
    Stacey, Nov 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    I'm more than just mildly confused here Stacey. The E300s I bought have
    Olympus "Master" 1.0 software with them. I had to upgrade this 3 times
    before I got to upgrade the camera firmware. I can't find anywhere I can
    "upgrade" this to Studio. Worse, searching the Oly Australia web site
    for Olympus Studio 1.0 produced: Sorry! We found 0 results for your
    search. Please try changing your search.

    Ahh huh! Olympus America is where it's at. My, my there is a lot of
    stuff here. Don't get me wrong Stacey, I have always admired your work.
    I just couldn't see how you could produce those images with the software
    that came with my cameras. Raw Shooter is pretty good and given the use
    of a tripod and mirror delay, I've no doubt those example images could
    be equaled with it but certainly not with Olympus Master or Adobe RAW.

    This is sadly not what someone purchasing a E300 wants to hear. The
    first 50 shots I took almost saw the camera heading back to Oly! I'm
    pulling in the Studio software as I write. In a day or so I'll post the
    results and those of another RAW developer.
     
    Douglas..., Nov 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Douglas...

    G.T. Guest

    You're so full of shit. They're just photos. You can't say anything about
    the processing without seeing the RAW files first. If you don't know how to
    use your tools it doesn't mean that Stacey is clueless, too.

    Greg
     
    G.T., Nov 4, 2005
    #12
  13. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    But your reply does mean you are clueless, fuckwit!
     
    Douglas..., Nov 4, 2005
    #13
  14. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    Interesting thing about these RAW converters Stacey... They both do the
    same sort of conversion. Perhaps Raw Shooter moves a little towards
    green in it's colour interpretation but otherwise... An image I just
    developed with both programs and stitched together with Photoshop
    probably best describes how close they are.
    http://www.auspics.com/RAWs/oly_rawshooter
    click the image a second time and it grows.

    Olympus Master, from my playing around with it doesn't have the ability
    to manipulate an image in the way Studio and Raw Shooter does. This is
    what led me to disbelieve you got those images from the camera. I
    apologize for for that.
     
    Douglas..., Nov 4, 2005
    #14
  15. Douglas...

    Stacey Guest

    Douglas... wrote:


    You do know about the "edit hack" for developing RAW files using master
    don't you? It's not as useful as the Studio software RAW converter but it's
    free.
    Honestly the Studio high function RAW converter has the same color rendition
    as the in camera jpeg engine, just better sharpness. The color is why I
    bought this camera and don't want to tame it using a generic RAW converter.
     
    Stacey, Nov 4, 2005
    #15
    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.