Olympus E-1 compared to Nikon D200

Robert,

First of all, I'm surprised I'm not in the picture as I'm always at that store in Escondido. I actually bought my D200 from them.

As I used to own an E-1, I'd have to say that for me, the biggest usability difference, is the lower noise @ high ISO capability and the quicker and surer AF in low light. I shot a wedding indoors with the D200 where the priest did not allow flash and I had to shoot at ISO 1600 which cleaned up very well in post processing. Plus I had the extra MP to allow some creative cropping. If I had VR lenses, I'm sure I could have shot the wedding at ISO 800 or lower. For metering and WB, I'd have to give the edge to the D200 as well. I shoot all RAW and use Capture NX. But considering the E-1 came out in 2003, comparing it to the D200 isn't exactly a fair comparison but the E-1 is no slouch. I see work from Bob Snell and Joseph Ellis on this forum and I am so impressed with their work. My photography with my D200 is not up to what those guys can do so new technology doesn't equate to good or better pictures. I have a long way to go.

George

I just got back from another camera store doing another side by side comparison between between the E-1 and the D200. I haven't downloaded the images yet; tried to be a little more careful about matching the settings between the two cameras.

I like the feel of both cameras about the same but the nod definitely goes to the E-1 as far as the logical placement and operation of the buttons (and the menus too). Adjusting the mode (P,A,S,M) on the D200 as well as the aperture settings while in A mode was, well. different. I came away really hoping that Olympus does, in fact, have an E-3 (or whatever it will be called) in the near future.

I really like the E-1 (and the E-10 before it) but would be glad to see a successor with the features many on this forum have hoped for. In addition to the E-1 body and the 14-54 lens I also have the 11-22, the 50-200 and the FL-50 flash. Interestingly, the store where I purchased the E-1 originally (the store I went to today) has severed their relationship with Olympus and has no interest in taking any of my gear in trade. The store I visited yesterday (where I had puchased the 11-22 and the FL-50) still carries some Olympus gear, but also has no interest. They all seem to be primarily selling (and buying) Canon and Nikon

It seems, according to the salesman today, that none of the camera stores in Southern California south of L.A., are any longer willing to be primary distributors for Olympus equipment; only the big box stores like Costco, Fry's, Best Buy, etc. I don't know exactly what to do with that, but on the surface it does not sound like a good thing.

By the way, in your photos, the colors in the Olympus photos do seem richer and more pleasing to the eye, but are they accurate. On my monitor anyway, the sidewalks have a warmer tone while in the Nikon image they look like stark grey concrete.

Thanks for your reply,

I see now that both you and Big GA are referring to using the Resize command, as opposed what I was doing with the crop tool to "upscale" the image. This, in a nutshell, is what has me interested in finding a camera whose images require less post processing to begin with.

As I said, I'm definitely in the amature category, and I'll be the first to admit that I haven't come close to exhausting the capabilities of the E-1 and I'm not ashamed to admit that I find Photoshop so powerful that it can be intimidating. I know that anything that you can conceive of doing to an image, you can do in Photoshop; provided you know how. There also seems to be infinite different ways to get from point A to point B in Photoshop, depending on who you talk to.

I definetely enjoy the challange of broadening my understanding and capabilities in digital photography, but at the end of the day I'd like to have an image that I'm happy with and can use as an enticement for potential customers to hire me.

Regards,
Bob

Gave my E-1 to my buddy to take a picture of us at a party (outdoors, night, with flash). He has a Nikon D50. He took the picture (came out great, sharp and well exposed) and said "did it happen?" "I'm used to hearing grrrr, bzzzt, grrr so I'm not sure it actually focused."

I noted that the E-1 was a professional camera....

;^)

George,

The folks at the Calumet store in Escondido are definetely knowlegeable and helpful (patient too)

I, too, know that a different camera is not going to make me a better photographer but I have come to learn that as good as the FL-50 is, these interior shots usually look better if you can use ambient light, which means higher ISO settings. While the E-1's 5mp sensor and noisier images at higher ISO's are not as limiting, as some would have you believe, I'm a firm believer that if someone has a better tool (hopefully Olympus soon), why not?

Regards,
Bob

--I shot a couple shots through the new Sony and the E-1.

Both have their own attributes but what you cannot ignore is the increased resolution and the improved dynamic range of the Sony. I shot the shots in a store and part of the shots was of a window looking out into the street. The bricks (light grey) on a building with the Sony still had detail. The E-1 image showed them as blown out white. If you work within the limitations of the E-1, you can do some decent work, but no amount of electronic or software trickery can subsitute for dynamic range.



-Rich
E-1, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, OM24mmf2.8, OM50mmf1.8,
OM135mmf2.8, OM100-200mmf5, OM300mmf4.5, SHLD-2,
FL-20.

Pardon the trolling reply...

Though I do not own a Oly, I do a D200 and Kodak SLRn. I noticed your post, looking to see if Jono had posted another gallery. I've come to really like his work, and believe he might be a good one from which to get a reply. He has both a D200 and Olympus. I've found, not only his photography, but his assessments, very true to the mark.

From my own perspective, one thing you may notice with the D200 is the need to sharpen your images a bit more than normal. For reasons beyond my understanding, the default settings tend to make the images look a bit soft.

Another is the color. Though many like it, as I compare it to my Kodak, the Nikon looks 'compensated' in some way. As with many Oly owners, I've come to like the colors from my Kodak, as they their Oly's.

Best of luck.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.

Robert Nickel said:

Thanks for your reply,

I see now that both you and Big GA are referring to using the
Resize command, as opposed what I was doing with the crop tool to
"upscale" the image. This, in a nutshell, is what has me interested
in finding a camera whose images require less post processing to
begin with.

Click to expand...

When you use the crop tool, you normaly ... er .. crop! i.e. reduce the image size.

You seem to be using the funny options available to also do an automatic upscale at the same time. This could be bad - probably depending on the version of software you are using. IIRC, early versions did a simple upscale. if you use something like bicubic smoother, you should NEVER end up with jaggies, the image just gets softer the more you upscale.

As crappy lenses also have an effect on the sharpnes/softness of the pic, its quite possible that an E1 with the 14-54 will give a very similar result to a D200 with an ordinary kit lens.

if you want to upgrade to a higher megapixel body, be prepared to shell out for equivalent lenses to take advantage of the res.

For what you are doing the E1 should be fine.

The D200 is a "better" (more modern) camera in ways that are probabaly not useful to you. Fundamentally, it has more computer horsepower, so everything is faster, plus review functions are better. For static objects, who cares?

Your comparison is invalid because the 14-54 is only a "kit" lens in the sense that Oly shipped it with their pro camera. "Kit" lenses are normally milk bottles that keep the price down (and generate a sale later when the punter twigs you can't REALLY buy a proper dSLR for $500). The oly "kit" lens is the 14-45. The 14-54 is what people upgrade to.

Your jaggies came from poor editing skills. That's not a dig - you've said your're not interested in PP, and why should you be?

There are a million ways to anything in CS2, as you've noted, so here is what I would do:

Develop in ACR (as you have been).

Set the marquee tool to a fixed aspect ratio and crop out the part you don't want.

Then resize. There are loads of ways of resizing, try them out. I like resize bicubic sharper. But that may give you the jaggies you don't like. Suck 'em all and see.

Save your money.

Oh and according to Spain's previoulsy reliable top internet mag, the E3 IS coming, for sure. Mock up at Photokina.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

rander3127 said:

If you work within the limitations of the E-1, you can
do some decent work, but no amount of electronic or software
trickery can subsitute for dynamic range.

Click to expand...

In other words, the A100 "Bionz" really works for dynamic range? You critisize one area of my E-1 which I like... Its dynamic range.

Betvingar

I'm finding out through you and others that the way I chose to "crop" the image in Photoshop was probably not the best way to get the desired result. I will try the resizing with bi-cubic interpolation, as suggested, and see what happens.

I'm a little surprised you consider you consider the Olympus 14-54 comparable to the Nikon 18-70 kit lens; a crappy lens. I've read that even the Olympus 14-45 is a pretty descent lens and is actually closer to being the competition to the 18-70.

The lens that, evidently, seems to do the D200 justice, as Joe BT mentioned, is the 17-55; but it's almost $1200.00

Regards,
Bob

Louis,

Thanks for your reply,

I wasn't really comparing the Olympus 14-54 to the Nikon 18-70, other than the fact that each was the lens that the respective manufacturer chose to put forward as their "kit" lens. Of course, if I remember correctly, when I bought the E-1 (12/03) the 14-54 was the only lens available.

I certainly don't mind your constructive criticism of my Photoshop "skills", in fact I appreciate it. I learn as much as I can on my own, through reading, but in the end one comes away with, "Photoshop can do this and this and this and, oh yeah, this too- you figure out what you need to do to get the result you want."

The advantage of a forum like this is that someone that already has the knowledge can look at an image and say, "Your going about it the wrong way, this is what you need to do......." Nothing beats experience.

I'm not really concerned with a camera that can do things faster so much as sharper and you can't argue that the D200's 10mp is just that, sharper, compared to the E-1's 5mp; although you do come away impressed with how much Olympus was able to get out of that 5mp. The difference (and their certainly is one) is not as dramatic as I had expected.

Robert Nickel said:

I'm a little surprised you consider you consider the Olympus 14-54
comparable to the Nikon 18-70 kit lens; a crappy lens.

Click to expand...

Er ... no ... read it again.

I'm saying a 5MP camera with a high quality lens can sometimes give similar IQ to a 10MP camera with a crappy lens.

I'd be interested in Jono's input as well. I have mainly been a lurker here going back to 2002 (I think) and I've always read his posts with interest.

He seems more interested in "the best tool for the job" rather than brand loyalism. Everybody (myself included) wants to think that the brand they chose is the best because, well......... they chose it. I'm willing to keep an open mind and, to be honest, the D200 is the only camera (in my price range) so far that has come along since I bought the E-1 that has tempted me to wander off the reservation.

I can understand why you like the colors from your Kodak. If I'm not mistaken, Kodak was the manufacturer of the 4/3 sensor in the E-1 whose colors always strike me as rich, vibrant, and well saturated; sometimes more so than the subject in reality, I think. I remember looking at colors in the prints from some of the older Sony digital cameras at the time (don't know about now) and thinking, "your kidding, right."

Regards,
Bob

I did, in fact, misread what you were saying about the respective lenses, apologies.

Bob

Robert Nickel said:

I'm not really concerned with a camera that can do things faster so
much as sharper and you can't argue that the D200's 10mp is just
that, sharper, compared to the E-1's 5mp; although you do come away
impressed with how much Olympus was able to get out of that 5mp.
The difference (and their certainly is one) is not as dramatic as I
had expected.

Click to expand...

All other things being equal, the D200 should be able to deliver more detail. And all accounts certainly suggest that it does.

OTOH, I'm with Louis. I have to think that the E-1 should be able to make very nice large prints. I've done pretty nice 11x14 and larger prints from lesser 5Mp non-DSLR digitals.

You often mention cropping. One way to improve your overall picture detail is to get your framing as good as possible to begin with. Another is to use good camera technique and the more optimal apertures (f/5.6 through f/11 typically). A tripod might be your best investment if you don't already have one.

Also, if you are taking pictures of furniture as it sits inside actual living spaces, you might find that having a wider angle lens will be useful in broadening your framing options and expanding possible camera positions for better views.

And finally, remember to consider rotating the camera vertically for more efficient use of the frame on subjects that are taller than wide.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Robert Nickel said:

I did, in fact, misread what you were saying about the respective
lenses, apologies.

Click to expand...

No probs. What aperture do you shoot the 14-54 with BTW.

F6.3 ...... mmmmmm...... like a razor