is July the earlies for E-510

Is the rumor still that JUly 2007 will be when the E-510 hits the US markets?
--
Sony a100, 24-135 f2.8, 50mm f1.7, sony 18-70,
fuji F30

yes this is what i have read and heard. i am looking foward to testing out the e510. currently using e500

I have pre-ordered on Amazon and the delivery date is around July 18.

--
Thomas J. Kolenich

are you guys confident enough to buy 510 without seeing sample pix?

shadowboy said:

are you guys confident enough to buy 510 without seeing sample pix?

Click to expand...

It will use the same sensor + imaging processing as the E-410.

On the other hand, what would you expect?

There hasn't been a really bad DSLR sensor in the last years and I doubt that we will see wonders or some kind of magic, so I would assume that The E-510 will give more or less quite similar performance to an E-400 or E-330. Take or give a few % here or there...

People do care so much if a sensor can resolve 1367 lp or 1412 lp but in my opinion this is completely unimportant for practical photography. Neither is it important (to me) if you have 4,5% more or less noise in the blue channel at ISO 1600.

I do not care a lot if the E-x will have 10MP or 12MP for an example. You can measure the difference, but you can't see it, so why care about it?

I wouldn't replace a 2000Mhz processor in a computer with a 2200Mhz processor to get a significant improvement for real world applications either.

Doubling MP count is at least noticeable, quadrupling MP count (doubling linear resolution) is a significant improvement.

Everything else is pixelpeeping and measurebating -for me-.

(if you have to make a 12MP picture because your client expects a 12MP picture is a different thing of course)

The E-510 has much less noise because of the new sensor! This i with live view an IS the reason why i will switch to the E-510 and not because it has more MP! I've heard that the noise is even less at iso1250 then it is now at iso800

Arnoud van Houwelingen said:

The E-510 has much less noise because of the new sensor! This i
with live view an IS the reason why i will switch to the E-510 and
not because it has more MP! I've heard that the noise is even less
at iso1250 then it is now at iso800

Click to expand...

says who?

C'mon guys this conversation is a yoke. Do you realy believe Oly will give us (sell) something less good. All manufacturers try to make something better.
Will you buy something wors than that you allready has?
--
Cheers



Miroslav Kral

This is an unsubstantiated, misinformed statement. The E-510 is not yet in anyone's hands yet you are making absolute statements regarding something you have no kowledge of.
Interesting.
--
Troll Whisperer

Interesting, and I hope you are right, but without any samples or links, I am afraid, it's hard to believe.

Arnoud van Houwelingen said:

The E-510 has much less noise because of the new sensor! This i
with live view an IS the reason why i will switch to the E-510 and
not because it has more MP! I've heard that the noise is even less
at iso1250 then it is now at iso800

Click to expand...

that said, there have been conversations to the extent that IQ is equal too or better than the 8Mp CCD

with the new image engine, and 'this' version of nMOS
Im expecting a slight improvement in noise
slight is good

is it mere conjecture without proof?
of course it is, but it has elements of logic within
and is a fair assessment of where we are going

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

It is the same technology as the E330. I'm told NR in JPG is fairly incompetent on the E330, so that might improve, but I'm not interested in JPG. In RAW on NMOS the engine DOES make a difference, and it can be seem that the E330 is quieter than the L1, so Oly MIGHT have improved it further, but I'm fairly sure any improvement there will be eaten up by the increase to 10MP.

Provided it is noise free in the skies at 100ISO, I am happy. I don't feel any need to use high ISO, especially on a camera with IS.

I would advise anyone who genuinely needs high ISO (as opposed to just having got used to seeing it as a major performance measure) to pick a low pixel density camera - either 35mmFF (Canon 5D) or 6MP APS-C.

If you want a small camera, with high resolution (which I do) then the price will be noise at high ISO (about which I don't care).

You cannot have small, high resolution, and low noise at high ISOs. You must sacrifice ONE.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

where does Fuji's F30 fit into that then Louis ?

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

I know some people swear by them, but I think it is horrid.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Louis_Dobson said:

It is the same technology as the E330.

Click to expand...

Only in the sense that the sensor of the 1DMkIII is the same technology of that in the 1DsMkII (Canon CMOS, same pixel size), but the newer sensor is claimed to be about one stop faster. Similarly, with a year or more of further development on the still young Panasonic nMOS sensors, I would not say "the same". But let us see the production E-410 samples.

Louis_Dobson said:

I would advise anyone who genuinely needs high ISO (as opposed to just having got used to seeing it as a major performance measure) to pick a low pixel density camera

Click to expand...

That seems to assume that one is interested in comparisons at equal PPI, like 100% pixels on screen or prints at the same PPI from different sensors with different pixel counts. Either way, you are looking at a smaller image from the camera with lower pixel density, making the comparison pointless.

If instead one compares images at equal size, so that the image from the higher pixel density sensor is also printed/viewed at a higher pixel density, it becomes less clear-cut how the visible noise levels will compare. But I have seen plenty of comparisons lately suggesting that it will come out about equal, backed by rough theory: the sensor area used to produce an image of a given size at a given ISO seems to be the best predictor of visible noise levels.

And if you allow for the use of different f-stops with different formats an focal lengths, it is the effective aperture size that determines the visible noise/print size trade-offs, more or less independent of format (larger format and pixels, larger focal length, higher f-stop for equal aperture size, higher ISO for equal shutter speed.)

--

With larger pixels and sensors you must choose between bigger glass, longer exposure times, lower resolution, or higher ISO speeds that neutralize the noise advantages of larger pixels.

I think the best noise position in 4/3 is L1

http: w w w.cameralabs.com/reviews/PanasonicL1/page4c.shtml

but i can agree its a roughly similar position for E-330
the differences now are the new sensor and the new image engine
if we can get a half more stop on noise we are within 1/2 stop of XTi (400D)

which is where we should be at 1600, but advancing on that is possible too, given that i feel for a canon the XTi is somewhat noisy

now add to the mix that on Oly's site they are claiming 2-4 stops for IS (i hope thats true)

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

Rriley said:

now add to the mix that on Oly's site they are claiming 2-4 stops for IS (i hope thats true)

Click to expand...

Indeed, for me, decent IS will remove my last worries about low light performance, since my low light needs are mostly about hand-holding with stationary or slow moving subjects in low light, not freezing fast action. For shutter speed instead, only bigger glass helps, and I am already limited by weight and cost, not format.