Reading mode: Light Dark

Olympus E-1 compared to Nikon D200

Go to last post
R

Robert Nickel

Active member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I primarily do custom woodworking for a living and have been using the E-1 since I bought it in December of '03 to take photos of the finished projects for my portfolio (11" x 8.5") and have been pretty happy with the results. When I started to post process the following image of a recent project in Photoshop CS2, http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66409543 , I started by cropping the image from left column to right column with a crop setting of 11" x 8.5" @300ppi. When I then zoomed in a little I started to notice rather severe jaggies (light reflection on cart handle near left column) and thought it a result of asking more than the E-1's 5mp could deliver.

Since nobody knows wether or not there will be a replacement for the E-1, and I don't really care for Canon's offerings, I thought I would check out the Nikon D-200 with it's magnesium body and 10+ mp and see if it was time to jump ship. The heft, feel and build quality seem to be pretty much on a par with the E-1 (one of the initial traits that drew me to it)

I took my E-1 with the 14-54 attached to the local camera store and they were kind enough to let me take several shots with the D-200 with the 18-70 kit lens to compare. The following images are the result;
http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66408416
http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66408301

I intentionally chose a difficult lighting situation to compare the dynamic range of the Nikon to the E-1. Now to be honest, I don't claim to be any more than an amateur and this may be attributable to "operator error" on my part, but I really don't see an overwhelming superiority to the D200's higher resolution. In fact, I was a little surprised at the amount of CA surrounding the tripod legs. I will say that the color rendition of the D200 is more accurate than the E-1 and the detail of the objects outside the windows is, in fact sharper, but I don't think it's enough to make me give up on my E-1 or hopefully, it's succesor.

Like I said, this may all be a result of me not using the "tools" properly. If so, please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Bob
 
Robert Nickel said:
Like I said, this may all be a result of me not using the "tools"
properly. If so, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
Well you could try enlarging your E1 sample to match the size of the D200 shot and then compare them, but ideally you should have used the same lens on both cameras ( A zoom preferably) and then adjusted the FL to keep the FOV the same on both cameras ...That would eliminate most variables except the possible slight differences in lens sharpness at different FL's.

BTW, whatever lens was used on the D200, it was terrible...There's a heck of a lot of CA and it seems very soft (Kit lens?)....If you had used a decent lens on the D200 it would probably blow your E1 shot away, quality wise.

Regards

DSG
--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/
 
Thanks for your reply

This was the lens that was on the D200; http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2149

It is, in fact, a "kit lens", but I was under the impression that Nikon was as well known as Olympus for the quality of there glass; the 14-54 is, in essance, the "kit lens" for the E-1 and dosn't seem to suffer from the shortcomings you pointed out.

By the way, what would be the "apples to apples" procedure for resizing the E-1 image to compare to the D200? If I did a 11" x 8.5" @ 300 ppi crop of both images in CS2, would that be right? Or would it be x number of pixels wide by x number of pixels high in both images?

Regards,
Bob
 
The Nikon 18-70 is a decent lens, but I would prefer the Zuiko 14-54 any day of the week. I like the Nikkor 17-55 though.

I have all 3 lenses, but I don’t use the 18-70mm at all.

The Zuiko 14-54 stacks up against the Nikon 17-55 pretty well, but the Nikon is a constant f/2.8, and I find it to be sharper than the Zuiko.

The 17-55 is much larger and heavier too.

--
SIGNATURE

Street photography involves attention to detail. The photographer pays attention to scenes, moments that you only recognize subconsciously. The camera is an unobtrusive extension of the eye in any given situation. Oftentimes, street photographers take pictures they feel; the photographer happens to be there and captures the mood in a fraction of a second. He freezes a moment that you will forget in the same amount of time...The photographer needs to be pretty ballsy, or simply quicker than the subject.

 
Robert Nickel said:
I primarily do custom woodworking for a living and have been using
the E-1 since I bought it in December of '03 to take photos of the
finished projects for my portfolio (11" x 8.5") and have been
pretty happy with the results. When I started to post process the
following image of a recent project in Photoshop CS2,
http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66409543 , I started by cropping
the image from left column to right column with a crop setting of
11" x 8.5" @300ppi. When I then zoomed in a little I started to
notice rather severe jaggies (light reflection on cart handle near
left column) and thought it a result of asking more than the E-1's
5mp could deliver.

Since nobody knows wether or not there will be a replacement for
the E-1, and I don't really care for Canon's offerings, I thought I
would check out the Nikon D-200 with it's magnesium body and 10+ mp
and see if it was time to jump ship. The heft, feel and build
quality seem to be pretty much on a par with the E-1 (one of the
initial traits that drew me to it)

I took my E-1 with the 14-54 attached to the local camera store and
they were kind enough to let me take several shots with the D-200
with the 18-70 kit lens to compare. The following images are the
result;
http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66408416
http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66408301

I intentionally chose a difficult lighting situation to compare the
dynamic range of the Nikon to the E-1. Now to be honest, I don't
claim to be any more than an amateur and this may be attributable
to "operator error" on my part, but I really don't see an
overwhelming superiority to the D200's higher resolution. In fact,
I was a little surprised at the amount of CA surrounding the tripod
legs. I will say that the color rendition of the D200 is more
accurate than the E-1 and the detail of the objects outside the
windows is, in fact sharper, but I don't think it's enough to make
me give up on my E-1 or hopefully, it's succesor.

Like I said, this may all be a result of me not using the "tools"
properly. If so, please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Bob
Click to expand...
IMO the 18-70 doesnt deliver the full potential of the D200 - I guess thats the problem with high res sensors. My 85 1.8, my Sigma 150 2.8 (now sold) and my 70-200 VR does a better job.

Here is a sample from the 85 - first the whole picture, than 100 percent crops (jpeg left, RAW right)





Here is a sample with the Sigma 150. First the whole picture, then a heavy crop.





--

http://www.pbase.com/interactive
http://tri-xstories.blogspot.com
 
Would that not be saving the cropped area in PS at 300 ppi?

To be honest, If I process the original raw image in the Olympus Viewer software it seems a little less "pixelated" than with Photoshop, but it's almost painful to use the Olympus software.

Thanks,
Bob
 
Perhaps Nikon does itself a disservice by using the 18-70 as the choice for the primary kit lens.

Your shots are indeed sharper. Do you find that the colors from the D200 are closer to what you remember in the scene than Olympus? I have always liked the colors that Olympus cameras deliver, especially with people, but when I look at the interior shots, like the wall unit in the first photo, the colors in the room seem to be warmer than I remember; easily correctible, just different.

Regards,
bob
 
Robert Nickel said:
Perhaps Nikon does itself a disservice by using the 18-70 as the
choice for the primary kit lens.

Your shots are indeed sharper. Do you find that the colors from the
D200 are closer to what you remember in the scene than Olympus? I
have always liked the colors that Olympus cameras deliver,
especially with people, but when I look at the interior shots, like
the wall unit in the first photo, the colors in the room seem to be
warmer than I remember; easily correctible, just different.

Regards,
bob
Click to expand...
I dont have an Olympus. I have noted though that Olympus owners seems very happy with the colors from their cameras.

As for the D200, I think it has very realistic colors, better than the colors from previous Nikons like the D100, D70 and even the D50 (which also is good).
--

http://www.pbase.com/interactive
http://tri-xstories.blogspot.com
 
Robert Nickel said:
I intentionally chose a difficult lighting situation to compare the
dynamic range of the Nikon to the E-1. Now to be honest, I don't
claim to be any more than an amateur and this may be attributable
to "operator error" on my part, but I really don't see an
overwhelming superiority to the D200's higher resolution. In fact,
I was a little surprised at the amount of CA surrounding the tripod
legs. I will say that the color rendition of the D200 is more
accurate than the E-1 and the detail of the objects outside the
windows is, in fact sharper, but I don't think it's enough to make
me give up on my E-1 or hopefully, it's succesor.

Like I said, this may all be a result of me not using the "tools"
properly. If so, please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Bob
Click to expand...
Hi Bob,

Thank you for posting the images. I own neither Olympus nor Nikon but the deceased KM so I am not familiar with the cameras in question. With that in mind, to me there is distinct difference in the WB between the two shots (yellow cast in the E-1). Also, there is significant difference between the two exposures (E-1 looks underexposed). Yet, when adjusted the E-1 shows denser colours and better micro contrast . Looks like the lens is superior, probably the in-camera software contribute as well... not sure.

Best regards
Ivor
 
I'm more or less self-taught on Photoshop (and post-processing in general) so I'm sorry if I don't have the semantics exactly right. The original .orf measured 2624 x 1966 pixels. the final cropped image, http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66415383 , measures 3300 x 2550 pixels, so I assume that's what your referring to by "upscaling"

Regards,

Bob

P.S.- I forget what it is you do so the image displays in the message instead of a link.
 
Robert Nickel said:
Thanks for your reply

This was the lens that was on the D200;
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2149

It is, in fact, a "kit lens", but I was under the impression that
Nikon was as well known as Olympus for the quality of there glass;
the 14-54 is, in essance, the "kit lens" for the E-1 and dosn't
seem to suffer from the shortcomings you pointed out.

By the way, what would be the "apples to apples" procedure for
resizing the E-1 image to compare to the D200? If I did a 11" x
8.5" @ 300 ppi crop of both images in CS2, would that be right? Or
would it be x number of pixels wide by x number of pixels high in
both images?
Click to expand...
I used to think it would be fairer to compare images from different cameras at their native sizes (As you have done) but many people argued that the smaller one needs to be enlarged to the same size as the larger one or its simply not a fair comparison...Because if you downsize the larger one to match the smaller one you would be throwing away a lot of detail from the larger image and the smaller one would have an unfair advantage.
I resisted but in the end I called their bluff and posted a side by comparison
of an Sigma crop upsized to the same size as a crop from the native sized
D200 shot...It was virtually a perfect match!

...However to get such close results, variables, such as differences in lens quality, sharpness and the difference in FOV due to different sized crops had to be elimated to make the test fair, so the exact same lens was used on both cameras (A Nikon zoom) and the target (a large building) was framed the same on both cameras.
Unfortunately I cant post them here as they are not my pictures.

Regards

DSG

--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/
 
Robert Nickel said:
I'm more or less self-taught on Photoshop (and post-processing in
general) so I'm sorry if I don't have the semantics exactly right.
The original .orf measured 2624 x 1966 pixels. the final cropped
image, http://www.pbase.com/b_nickel/image/66415383 , measures 3300
x 2550 pixels, so I assume that's what your referring to by
"upscaling"
Click to expand...
LOL .... yea ... but HOW DID YOU DO THE UPSCALING

(and as a matter of interest ... you say you 'cropped' did you REALLY crop, or are you confusing crop with upscale ? if not, what size was the crop)
 
I opened the image in Photoshop using ACR 3.4, adjusted the settings to my liking, clicked open, selected crop tool set to width 11" height 8.5" resolution 300 pixels per inch. Selected the area that you see in the final image, hit enter; voila.

I hope that is the explanation your after because just using the word "upscaliing" over and over doesn't make it any clearer to me
 
Hi,

I used to use both, E-1 and D200 for some times. Different lenses and so on. Sorry, also the D200 is a real good cam for the money, the image quality is much worse than the E-1. Starts up with the colors and ends up with details. One point is of course that the Oly-lenses from the pro and top-pro series are much better than the stuff you get from Nikon.

--
--------------------
http://www.stock4u.de
 
Robert Nickel said:
I opened the image in Photoshop using ACR 3.4, adjusted the
settings to my liking, clicked open, selected crop tool set to
width 11" height 8.5" resolution 300 pixels per inch. Selected the
area that you see in the final image, hit enter; voila.

I hope that is the explanation your after because just using the
word "upscaliing" over and over doesn't make it any clearer to me
Click to expand...
The upscaling is happening when you set the image resolution. I use Photoshop 7.0 and there is a checkbox that says "Resample Image". This enables the upscaling. When checked, a list box becomes available and there are different upscaling algorithms available there. You want to use something like "Bicubic" and stay away from "Nearest Neighbor". I think the newer versions of Photoshop have some algorithms that are better than "Bicubic". Those would probably be preferred.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
I tried out a D200 with a bad quality lens in a shop. I don't know what the lens was but it started at 24mm (equivelent 36mm on nikon). It had image stabilisation so I think there's a good chance it was the £529 (in jessops) nikon 24-120mm f 3.5-5.6. The dreaminess wide open and in areas out of the depth of field was horrendous, it looked kind of stretched and warped and strange at the edges and it had a lot of CA.

This is D200 with 24-120, F8, equivelent 36mm. Both are blown out I know, I would have done it darker only the D200 one was done without consulting the blinking highlights as I couldn't work out how to get them and I did the E1 picture at the same exposure. From raw, with a bit of unsharp mask after resize.



E1 with 14-54, f 8, same exposure (though not taken at exactly the same time) 36mm equivelent



100% crops, unsharpened



It was only a bit sharper than the E1 per pixel at f 8 but ten megapixels really renders so much more detail. I noticed it a lot more on the street scene with the d200 at f 8 than I had trying out the 5D vs my E1 inside a shop. Things that are tiny and fuzzy in the distance on the E1 are suddenly huge and much clearer. It kind of depresses me looking at the comparison shot I made at f 8 with the same exposure, just because the difference in resolution and the size of the picture means you get much more detail.

I don't agree about the colour of the D200. I much prefer E1 colours, not that I really took any pictures where you'd notice a huge difference.

As with all cameras, the E1 is far nicer in terms of the feel and quality of the build and the ergonomics of the layout and the buttons and menus. The D200 is not really that nice to hold and the interface is incredibly hard to understand - even the person showing me the camera couldn't find some of the settings for things that should have been intuitive.

The D200 viewfinder is only slightly bigger than the E1's and it has slightly annoying markings on it the way it was set up.

The noise is about comparable to an E1 in RAW (in jpeg there's an attempt to hide the noise with painterly smeariness), only of course with the picture being larger the noise isn't quite as much of a problem. That said, the ISO 800 and 1600 samples my friend took with it didn't look very good even downsized to E1 size.
 
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