Quote from Popular Photography's review of the Oly E-510

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Jul 23, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    "The camera has less image noise raw at 1600 ISO than its JPEGs at 100
    ISO."

    I'm assuming here something went wrong with their testing and they
    somehow magnified JPEG artifacting (never a real issue with Olympus in
    the first place) and presumed it was actually noise?
     
    RichA, Jul 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Heard of Occam's Razor?
    I'm assuming they made a typo - and got it the wrong way around.
     
    frederick, Jul 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    babaloo Guest

    Versa vice, vice versa.
    Who cares.
    Although I would not take Pop Photo reviews as the word of God I think the
    most important statement in their review is that Oly 510 image stabilization
    provides only one stop of compensation.
    One measly stop.
    Having used a number of high end EVF cameras image preview, IHMO, is almost
    as worthless as histograms and any on-camera LCD screen for actually making
    any judgments about image quality. None of these things tell you reliably
    what detail there is in highlights or shadows and can mislead about whether
    the image is even focused.
    Image stabilization, particularly of the 2-3 stop variety, by contrast is
    quite valuable no matter who you are.
    I don't believe one stop of image stabilization can compensate for some of
    the other problematic issues with the 4/3 system.
    To each his own.
     
    babaloo, Jul 23, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bengt C Guest

    JPEG artefacts *is* an issue with Olympus. If you don't think so, it
    only shows you have no first hand experience of other brands. (I bought
    a E-410 but returned it within 3 weeks for several reasons. The shop
    was kind enoght to have a EOS 400D instead.)

    Olympus has three quality levels "super high", "high" and "standard".
    Canon only have two; "fine" and "coarse". Canon "coarse" produce JPEGS
    size-wise comparable to Olympus "high" quality. The difference is Canon
    artefacts are hardly visible but they are certainly not difficult to
    see in the Olympus files.

    This is only one of several Olympus shortcomings. The most noticable is
    extremly poor low-light performance. The difference is huge in reality
    and not easily percieved when reading internet reviews. The dpreview
    test is particulary missleading here.
    /Bengt
     
    Bengt C, Jul 23, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Yes, but why even state that 100 ISO noise is lower than 1600? It's
    too obvious to mention.
     
    RichA, Jul 23, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No, I've used Nikons pretty extensively, from the D40 to the D200
    anyway.
    And yet the reviews are all saying the new Olys have comparable noise
    to the current Canons and Nikons.
    I compared the E-410 to a older Nikon D50 and found it's noise (the
    E-410) to be at least twice as prominent at 800 and 1600.
     
    RichA, Jul 23, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bengt C Guest

    Yes, that is very strange. Because in reality (which is what I care about)
    the difference is huge. I suspect dpreview.com flood their subject with
    studio light when shooting at 1600 ASA. Instead compare the "still life"
    scene (1600 ASA version) at imaging-resource.com Look at the shadows.
    They will give you a hint about the E-410's available-light performance.
    Note I wrote "hint", reality is even worse.

    Frankly, I can't imagine that beeing the case (see below). Perhaps you
    had the noise filter at its "standard" setting. In that case, E-410 should
    be compared with a 3 MP camera, as that is about the resolution you get.
    (Same thing happens with Canons kit-lens at large appertures.)

    I compared my new E-410 with my friends new D80 at a get-together event.
    Typical indoor situation, same exposure, no flash. The difference was
    striking to the D80's advantage. I have compared the E-410 with the
    EOS 400D, which I replaced it with. I cried out loud, when I saw Canons
    low light perfomance and compared it to the Olympus.

    I discussed this (before buy) on usenet and somebody posted a URL to
    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/misc_images (I belive it was "andersonrm"
    himself) There are a few available-light snapshots of people visiting
    some kind of photo exibition (I think). As you can see, the D50 (and D80)
    shoots has substantialy less noise than the one from E-410. Some other
    poster bashed the comparison. With my first hand experience of E-410, I
    can now testify the comparison is perfectly valid. This very much shows
    what available-light results you get with Olympus compared to Nikon/Canon.

    If you only shoot under bright conditions, the E-410 produce very good
    results though.
    /Bengt
     
    Bengt C, Jul 23, 2007
    #7
  8. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Still wrong way around? It wouldn't surprise me if the article should
    have said that the images had more apparent noise raw at iso100, that
    jpeg at iso1600 with n/r. For example, DPReview with the 410 say:
    "The E-410's default Noise Filter setting keeps visible noise to an
    absolute minimum at the expense of image detail which is frankly heavily
    blurred"
     
    frederick, Jul 23, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    Tom Ross Guest


    Have you used any of them to take snaps of the displays at Henry's?



    TR
     
    Tom Ross, Jul 23, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    frederick Guest

    frederick, Jul 24, 2007
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No, just your nude wife.
     
    RichA, Jul 24, 2007
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    At 800 ISO, noise is evident on 8" x 10" printed images. Not so with
    some cameras I've seen prints from.
    Not exactly pixel-peeping.

    800 ISO Nikon D50:
    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/78266458

    800 ISO Olympus E-410, same conditions:
    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/78266429

    Before you ask, the Paint Shop Pro I was using didn't show the Nikon
    ISO in the EXIF.
    I did the same comparison with a Nikon D40X, pretty much the same
    result.
     
    RichA, Jul 24, 2007
    #12
    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.