Olympus E300 Sample Photos (ping Doug and anyone else interested)

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Justin Thyme, Oct 8, 2005.

  1. Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Guest

    I tried to email these to Doug, but they got bounced, so after working out
    how to upload them to my ISP, here they are for all to see. WARNING: These
    are BIG files - 4-6MB, so if you are on dialup they will take an eternity to
    download (I'm on dialup at the moment, so they took an eternity to upload).


    http://www.users.myall.net/jt/P1010125.jpg
    This one is an example of diffraction effects. It is taken at F22. At first
    I thought the blurring was caused by motion blur. However the degree and
    direction of blurring changes across the photo, and is most noticeable
    around the edges. Near the centre the image is fairly sharp. This is a
    telltale sign of diffraction limiting, as the effects of diffraction are
    greater at the sensor edge.

    http://www.users.myall.net/jt/P1010128.jpg
    Very similar subject, this time at F6.3. While this is considered less than
    optimal aperture, it is noticeably sharper than the image above.

    http://www.users.myall.net/jt/P1010097.jpg
    This is an example at ISO 1600. The exposure was 1/15th @ F5.6. Note the
    extreme amount of speckling from the image noise. While I suspect this could
    be cleaned up somewhat with noise reduction software, the overall sharpness
    would be very poor.
     
    Justin Thyme, Oct 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Justin Thyme

    Henrik Guest

    Justin,

    I wouldn't loose any sleep over which camera is better or worse, at the end
    of the day, it someone has bought something, they can either use it and be
    happy or sell and buy a better one.

    There are something good about any camera and there are something great
    about a few

    thanks for sharing

    Henrik
     
    Henrik, Oct 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Justin Thyme

    Douglas... Guest

    Justin...
    There is not a hope in hell of getting a sharp image out of a 4/3
    sensored camera at f22. You'd have the DOF you seek and a sharp image if
    you calculated the hyperfocal distance of the lens and used that. It's
    probably closer to f5.6 than f22.

    Your example of the ISO 1600 shot is more an example of low light
    photography which is not the Olympus's best situation.
    Take a ISO 1600 pic in daylight and the results will be much different.

    The use of ISO 1600 to capture speeding objects in daylight will yield
    very good results. Using ISO 1600 to shoot a night shot results in what
    you have. You'd see a marked improvement in your photography if you
    study and understand the issues of digital imaging which never effected
    film. You did not use dark frame subtraction with that shot. If you had,
    it would look a lot better.

    I have some Canon 20D "ISO 1600" shots which are as bad as your example.
    I also have some of birds in flight which are great quality. It's all a
    matter of knowing what your camera can and cannot do and how the sensor
    reacts to different environments and indeed, changes in humidity and
    temperature.

    Posting images you have not been able to take with a particular camera.
    Invites people who can, to dispute your motives. I can see now that it
    is your transition from one medium (film) to Digital ...expected that
    because the cameras look the same, they'll work the same, which is
    responsible for the poor results you got.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Justin Thyme

    Justin Thyme Guest

    And here we encounter a problem - I didn't use F22 as a means of enhancing
    DOF, I used F22 as a means of slowing the shutter to the speed I wanted. If
    anything over F8 starts to reduce the sharpness of the image, then it
    doesn't give a great range of usable apertures out of an F5.6 lens such as
    the kit lens does it? I'll admit that on 35mm if I used a sharp film such as
    techpan or panf that I'd also lose sharpness at F22 compared to say F16, but
    with most lenses you won't start seeing a dropoff in sharpness until F16. I
    haven't even touched on the extended depth of field with small format
    sensors, but this becomes an issue too unless you have superfast lenses.
    Want to shoot daylight with minimal DOF? forget it, as you'd need F2 to
    achieve what F4 would have done on 35mm, and F2 in bright daylight at ISO100
    = 1/8000th shutter speed. (Sunny 16 rule)
    1/15sec @ F5.6 @ ISO 1600 is EV5 - I wouldn't consider this very low light
    photography. Feel free to disagree with me, but this is the same as typical
    indoors lighting. I don't think it is too much to expect of a camera to be
    able to handle this.
    ISO 1600 in daylight - we've just discussed that we can't use small
    apertures. Assuming F8 is the smallest usable aperture, at ISO1600 this will
    require about 1/8000th shutter. (Sunny 16 rule again). Of course, ISO400 is
    probably a more useful speed in daylight, and the E300 isn't too bad at this
    setting. The whole point of high ISO's though is for low-light photography.
    So the conclusion we have come up with, is that the Olympus is not a good
    low light camera because of sensor noise. That is fair enough, it is to be
    expected that there will be some things a camera isn't good at. We have also
    concluded that it is not a good waterfall camera, because you can't use
    aperture as a means of slowing the shutter speed. Ok that's fair enough
    also. I'll admit that I have tried to use it in a couple of scenarios that
    it isn't real good at. I'll agree that it is a good, no - excellent, daytime
    snapshoot camera (there is a slight colour balance issue, but even film can
    have issues like that if you don't go to a good printer, I see the colour
    balance as an annoyance not a flaw). I haven't used it in a studio
    environment, but I'd suspect that it'd be a good camera in that scenario
    too. As far as a light camera for handholding in decent light goes it is
    fantastic. The dust removal system alone is a fantastic feature.
    But we have a problem then - if it isn't real good at some scenarios, then
    there is the very real situation that many photographers will have to have a
    2nd body in their kit that is good at these situations. You say i'm a film
    photographer expecting a digital to perform the same. Perhaps that is true.
    Perhaps I am jaded by the fact that I can use one film camera to do
    landscape, low light, or studio work, by just changing the film as
    appropriate. A digital body can't have it's film changed, but it does
    provide this wonderful "ISO equivalency". It appears to me however that it
    behaves more like "pushing" film rather than changing film. Is there a DSLR
    that will do small aperture work, low light work, as well as the more
    mundane daylight snapshot type shooting? From what I've seen, all DSLR's
    will suffer from these limitations, but some moreso than others. The E300
    suffers from diffraction and noise a little more than most because of it's
    small sensor. While a C/N/P/M camera might still be bad in the situations I
    have described, I am positive they won't be as bad. For example I am pretty
    sure they would be exhibiting softness at F22, but I know they won't exhibit
    diffraction rippling.
     
    Justin Thyme, Oct 9, 2005
    #4
    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.