Reading mode: Light Dark

Olympus E-300 or Pentax *ist DS

Go to last post
From your composite, it looks like the Oly applies more noise reduction (smoothing) that the *ist. The tip-off on this is the sharpness of the queen's eye.

Which trade-off are you willing to make? Rougher noise or smoother features. You can probably go either way you want in RAW.
Sergey Todorov said:
Sergey Todorov said:
Noise question. Why is the DS noise level considered to be lower
than that on the Olympus E-300, when I'm looking at the images in
the DPReviews the queen (or whoever that is) head image from the DS
appears to be noticeably noisier than that of the E-300 at the same
ISO levels. I made a composite comparison screenshot with quality
set at Maximum. You can see it here:



Is it just me or is the background behind the queen's head noisier?
And the detail in the crown is just not there, is this due to the
poor quality of the JPEGs?
Click to expand...
BTW I'd like to re-ask this one.. I would like to still consider
the DS but this question of mine gets systhematically avoided...
Can someone please elaborate on the subject? If there is some
logical explanation here, of course :) Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how many other DSLR owners thought that and found out how much better RAW is (without even knowing which cam you have!)?
Sergey Todorov said:
Alex123 said:
When buying DSLR you should mainly think about lenses. You will
overgrow kit lenses in first 2-3 month. With Pentax you will have
tons of lenses available from local stores or used. USSR lens and
SLR camera producers selected Pentax 42mm standard as main 35mm
lens standard. So you may buy lenses with excellent optical
performance to be used as manual lens on Pentax *ist DS body.
Pentax supports manual lenses better then any other brand. I think
that the whole price of ownership for you will be less if you will
go with Pentax.
(I am not talking that: - ergonomics of Pentax *ist DS is several
times better then E300; - ist DS has pentaprism where E300 has
pentamirrow.)
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you - I quite liked the pentaprism on the
*ist, but the viewfinder on the Olympus was top notch too when I
was checking it out.

About ergonomics I think it's a more subjective matter and I quite
liked the feel of the Olympus in my hand.

The JPEG quality of the Pentax still bugs me and I don't think I'll
shoot all RAW.
Click to expand...
 
I found I get get the added sharpness by bumping up the sharpness setting a notch for JPEG. Soft JPEG's with the DS are no longer an issue then. RAW does not add much additional sharpness at that point but it helps to better capture the light. Contrast and shading are significantly better with RAW but the file sizes are 3-5 times bigger. As soon as I get some more memory, I will be shooting a lot more RAW.
 
It's calling a spade a spade.
--
shinndigg
 
Are you suggesting people don't need ISO settings above 800?

If so that's a very narrow-minded view. Perhaps you don't. I do, frequently. Even when I finally get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 I'll still be pushing the ISO hard because the situations I'll be shooting in will call for it. Stuff like gigs, street photography at night/dusk - conditions that require every last bit of sensitivity and light gathering ability.

--
-Andy
http://www.caerphoto.com
 
Steve said

"I wouldn't judge the focus ring on the XT/D50 by the kit lens, as you will most likely replace these lense anyways as most people do."

That brings up another interesting point about the (cheap, junky) kit lenses sold with the DRebel, XT and (surpisingly) 20D kits. SOOOO many Canonites simple say 'if you don't like the kits lens, buy another (presumably more expensive) lens. Why, oh why would Canon sell a lens that is so cheap and apparently so unworthy of such fine cameras? Hmmm???? Maybe its the old 'bait and switch' sell. My brother bought the 20D, fine camera, and he didn't even THINK of using the kit lens. Bought a Tamaron 17-35. Never even used the plastic mount kit lens. I asked a coworker who also bought the 20D and asked him last week if he ever used the kit lens. Same answer. He said it's NEVER EVEN BEEN ON THE CAMERA!!! I guess Canonites are soooo mucher smarter than the rest of us, what, buy a kit, never even use the lens provided, and spend MORE money for another lens.

In comparision, the kit lenses that come with the Evolt are generally considered excellent, much better than most, especially Canon's kit lens. They repeatedly recieve excellent reviews. You yourself said it, Steve. Here>

"Oly lenses have always been top notch - no question about that."
in this thread: forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=14523610

As regards comparisions, check my previous line in this very thread that shows Phil's test results for the Canon lenses as well as Nikon and Oly.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page20.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page19.asp

If by chance Sergio, you were to choose the XT (not a bad choise), get the body only and purchase another lens.
--
shinndigg
 
I have been surprised to find that I need high ISO a lot more than I thought I would. A lot more often than you realize, you need to take a photo in low light and stop the action. This past weekend I shot some photos in a church with less than good light. A flash would have been obnoxious as could be. I ended up shooting ISO 1600 shots with a 50mm prime at f2.8 1/25 second. It was not fast enough to stop things like blinking eyes and small head movements from hurting otherwise good shots. I should have used ISO 3200 and a faster shutter speed.

BTW - I turned my noise reduction off. If I need any, I run it through NeatImage at 1/2 - 1/3 strength.
 
shinndigg said:
Steve said

"I wouldn't judge the focus ring on the XT/D50 by the kit lens, as
you will most likely replace these lense anyways as most people do."
That brings up another interesting point about the (cheap, junky)
kit lenses sold with the DRebel, XT and (surpisingly) 20D kits.
SOOOO many Canonites simple say 'if you don't like the kits lens,
buy another (presumably more expensive) lens. Why, oh why would
Canon sell a lens that is so cheap and apparently so unworthy of
such fine cameras? Hmmm???? Maybe its the old 'bait and switch'
sell. My brother bought the 20D, fine camera, and he didn't even
THINK of using the kit lens. Bought a Tamaron 17-35. Never even
used the plastic mount kit lens. I asked a coworker who also bought
the 20D and asked him last week if he ever used the kit lens. Same
answer. He said it's NEVER EVEN BEEN ON THE CAMERA!!! I guess
Canonites are soooo mucher smarter than the rest of us, what, buy a
kit, never even use the lens provided, and spend MORE money for
another lens.
In comparision, the kit lenses that come with the Evolt are
generally considered excellent, much better than most, especially
Canon's kit lens. They repeatedly recieve excellent reviews. You
yourself said it, Steve. Here>

"Oly lenses have always been top notch - no question about that."
in this thread:
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=14523610
As regards comparisions, check my previous line in this very thread
that shows Phil's test results for the Canon lenses as well as
Nikon and Oly.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page20.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page19.asp

If by chance Sergio, you were to choose the XT (not a bad choise),
get the body only and purchase another lens.
--
shinndigg
Click to expand...
Thanks! Will keep it in mind as an option :)
 
Greg Henry

As regards purple fringing, note what Phil said about Ol: "Purple Fringing (Chromatic Aberrations)

We hunted long and hard through the several hundred samples we shot with the E-300 and 14-45 mm to find some with purple fringing, but to no avail. The first sample below is as close as I could get, interestingly the branches which are contrast against the over-exposed sky appear to have been processed (built-in purple fringing removal?). "
Here is the review page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page20.asp

Now, note what he said as regards the Canon kit lens that comes with the DRebel, XT and 20D: "Purple Fringing (Chromatic Aberrations)

The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some chromatic aberrations near the edge of the frame at full wide angle (18 mm). While not as objectionable as seen on some consumer digital cameras it could still be visible as a five to six pixel wide band along the edge of dark detail against an overexposed sky."
Here is the review page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp

As regards sharpness, Phil said: "Olympus EZ 14 - 45 mm F3.5 - F5.6 (28 - 90 mm equiv.)

The E-300's Kit lens performs quite well, exhibiting good sharpness at wide angle, a little softer at telephoto. Obviously it's a little soft at maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good resolution. Note that the resolution bars are actually larger at 14 mm because of barrel distortion. "

And about the Canon: "Canon EF 18 - 55 mm F3.5 - F5.6

This lightweight 'consumer' lens performed remarkably well considering its relatively cheap price ($100 included with the EOS 300D). It's clearly a little soft at maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good resolution at wide angle and average resolution at full telephoto. It's not going to break any resolution records but overall it's a useful, light and relatively good lens."

As regards image quality for the Evolt: " Overall Image Quality / Specifics

With its eight megapixel sensor the E-300 becomes the highest resolution 'affordable' digital SLR, and our resolution tests show that it's certainly better than a six megapixel, perhaps not quite as detailed as the more expensive Canon EOS 20D. Color balance appears good, if sometimes a little over-saturated, it's up to the individual to tune his camera to his settings"

Comparing the XT and the Evolt noise levels teh best thing to do is LOOK at the tests here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page19.asp

Phl comments that there is a noticable difference between the 2. after looking at the 2, I don't agree (which is my pregrogative). See for yourself. I my few months of experience with the E300/Evolt, I have found that noise isn't an issue from 100-400. At 800, depends. I dark shadows, it is an issue. ISO 1600 is unusable. PERSONALLY, I haven't had the need for 1600, but that is me. One of the things I like from Canon is the excellent images at higher ISO's. However, the Pentax goes to ISO 3200 and maintains very good quality, though maybe lacking some detail probably due to heavy in camera processing.
Taht's my 2cents worth (again).

--
shinndigg
 
Sergey

Sorry about misspelling your name. Just a comment: I am certain you didn't know what you were in store for when you asked for opinions about cameras. I feel sorry for you, what with all the insults and some people bashing the cameras you questioned about. In my opinion, for what it's worth, whether youo choose Olympus, Pentax, KonicaMinolta, Nikon or Canon, you can't go wrong. To reiterate a point I tried to make earlier, each has it's strenghts and weaknesses

OLY has nice colors out of the camera, excellent image quality (despite what some have said) and excellent kits lenses (both the 14-45 and 40-150),

PENTAX maintains fine images at higher ISO's (unlike some may have said) as well as good ergonomics and excellent legacy lenses,

NIKON has excellent image quality (again at high ISO's) as well as an excellent kit lens
KONICAMINOLTA also has excellent image quality and the in-body Anti-shake

CANON (XT) produses excellent images up to ISO 1600 and fine lenses apart from the kit lenses

Am I missing anyone?
Again, I feel kinda' sorry for you with all the camera bashing
--
shinndigg
 
Superior? Not. Have theri strengths, yes. As well as weaknesses.
--
shinndigg
 
I'm glad you read up on all the reviews - they are certainly informative. However, I'm relaying MY experience with the camera.

One example of several CA appearanced I experienced:



An example of several odd color casts experienced regardless of settings (this is a tan/reddish fence by the way):



An example of details not by chart, but by looking with your eyes (lack of fine details - a bit of a patch-work type of appearance:



This using the kit lens. In-camera processing with firmware vesion 1.3 (updated).

Thank you.
 
How large of a crop is the first shot? It appears much more than the 'usual' 100%. The second shot appears to be a WB problem. If you can recall, were you using a polarizer? A polarizer can, as I sure you are aware, can throw of Auto WB. When I use my polarizer, I set the WB to whatever setting is appropriate. As regards the last shot, ??? The only reason I bring these things up is that I heven't had these difficulties. BTW, how long did you have the E300?
--
shinndigg
 
Just need a bigger mem card - use the raw tools that came with the cam (or the very good RSE - free)

RAW is more than sharpening...if anything, I think its more about exposing to the right (dynamic range and noise benefits) and being able to 'save' highlights on the edge.
K1000Photographer said:
I found I get get the added sharpness by bumping up the sharpness
setting a notch for JPEG. Soft JPEG's with the DS are no longer an
issue then. RAW does not add much additional sharpness at that
point but it helps to better capture the light. Contrast and
shading are significantly better with RAW but the file sizes are
3-5 times bigger. As soon as I get some more memory, I will be
shooting a lot more RAW.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, you are right. I have used ACR 3 and it is great. Phil showed that a RAW photo from a DS has considerably more sharpness than a JPEG at defaults. Who uses defaults? I use natural tone and +1 sharpness and get the same level of sharpness from RAW as JPEG. In other words, I get sharp JPEGS. RAW is a lot better but it is in the handling of contrast . It gets the light even better than JPEG.

 
K1000Photographer said:
Yes, you are right. I have used ACR 3 and it is great. Phil showed
that a RAW photo from a DS has considerably more sharpness than a
JPEG at defaults. Who uses defaults? I use natural tone and +1
sharpness and get the same level of sharpness from RAW as JPEG. In
other words, I get sharp JPEGS. RAW is a lot better but it is in
the handling of contrast . It gets the light even better than JPEG.

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top