E-300 Newbie woes

if at first you dont succeed

... sincerery, it is almost impossible to see any CA there, maybe due to the halos/artifacts introduced by heavy resizing. Would you like to post a 1:1 original size crop (400x600 or so), possibly without applying further compression? (BTW: did you save them as SHQ jpeg?).
--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five, New Companion E-Threehundred
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

Yeh, to see it you'll have to show us full size 'crops' (or 100% crops)

I went to a site yesterday about the E-300 and fringing... it may make you feel better? I used to listen to this Physicist Lecturer but nah...who buys very similar Olympus cameras, repeatedly? E10 and then the E20, C5050 and then the 5060... (I haven't kept up to date with the site's models)

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/e300-fring.html

"Purple fringing", often occurring at high-contrast transitions, is a common problem experienced with digital cameras. It results from charge spillage (and some other interactions) between neighboring photosites, when a photosite generates more photoelectrons than it can handle.

This effect is superimposed (and therefore often confused with) the chromatic aberration, which is a flaw of the lens itself, and which exhibits somewhat similar symptoms."

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I see this, if you have dark branches in a near-white sky with redish fringes one side and greeny-cyan the other... that's the Chromatic Aberation.. where the lens hasn't formed the different wavelengths of light onto the image plane correctly (think prism).

The other type, 'Blooming', is light overspill into neighbouring photosites, we see this around streetlights, on foil, sunlit waves, chrome highlights...

His end of article paragraph will help you sleep at night:

"While the purple (and green) coloration along the tree trunk is quite easy to see in this magnification, I wouldn't worry much about it: it will be barely visible in prints below 12x16" (30x40 cm). Instead of worrying about it, go out and start taking pictures."

For such a exact scientist-type guy, his lumping all thew purple artifacts under the term 'purple fringing' is not helpful.. and could be seen as deceitful. If I see reddy/purple to greeny/cyan fringes either side of a dark object, I take that as CA! Where the lens hasn't managed all the wavelengths! as I've never seen greeny/cyan 'blooming'!

I remeber his review of the C5050 lens... (I paraphrase here) You only see bad fringing "on hopelessly overexposed skys". We'll I have one and er... look at anything 'contrasty' at the 35/ƒ1.8 end of the range. I'll get off me soapbox now.

My best

--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y6/001-spanky/

Just a few that have 'some interest' to them that were on the comp when I made the gallery.. my 'best' are 'prints'! I print rather than show (via web).

Your right, apologies

Heres a crop of full size photo. Around rocks is bad and some horrible green noise in the water highlights.

the more sharpening that is done the worse the fringing gets



cheers

Have you ever used a digital camera before?

In my opinion this will definitely not be a problem as there is hardly any fringing.

1:1 on the screen is like looking closely to a print of 40"x30" if I am not wrong...

In actual fact I was astounded to read in the dpreview review that they couldn't make any 'CA' type aberations appear with the E300. I tried out an E300 in a shop and it had really obvious purple aberations on metal objects in the scene. My friend had his E1 with him (this was before I had an E1 also) and we did a comparison shot - minimal purple nastiness in comparison. The E300 we tested was a CA magnet, it created it where it really shouldn't have been.

Incidently, I feel like when I first got my E1 I never saw any fringing, now I see it all the time, like most digital cameras it's especially bad indoors when bright light is streaming in from outside. But then it's certainly not bad.

paulbod2 said:

1:1 on the screen is like looking closely to a print of 40"x30" if
I am not wrong...

Click to expand...

Even a little larger, at std 72 ppi monitor resolution!

That means: more MP in the sensor produce larger "1:1" image on the monitor, and make CA more visible. CA is an optical phenomenon and is relevant to the LENS! Therefore I can just laugh when someone says E-300 is worse tham E-1 for CA: mount the same lens, and they will be affected by exactly the same CA.

BTW: take the time to make a camera search in PBase, look for "Canon EOS 1Ds Mk2 " and you will be astonished by the number of pics there (10,000+$ gear!) affected by very bad CA!

I see many people here confusing CA with "purple fringing": it is a completely different phenomenon, producing similar but not identical effects: due to CA, you see a red contour on one side, and a green one on the other. PF is the same magenta halo all around.

That said, based on my experience neither CA nor PF are a serious problem with E-300. About the swan pic shown here: i wonder which camera used in the same way would produce a better result.
Ciao.
--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five, New Companion E-Threehundred
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

Aiaiaiai have you ever printed such a large print at all? First of all, you never print at 72 dpi, the printer interpolates it which also makes a difference. Next to that... who in his right mind would put his eye directly on a print anyway. The larger the print, the further you stand away from it. You don't complain about the shadows caused by the non-heterogeneous structure of an oil painting, do you?

Thanks for all your comments guys,

You all think I am being too critical and your are probably right its just that the 40-150 lens seems to show the problem a lot more that the the 14-45

but even then the problem I am sure will not show in real life situations as you suggest.

Thanks all