E-510 image quality

Hi folks,

I have a thread going in the beginners area and then thought perhaps posting here might be a good idea to get your perspective on what I perceive to be a perhaps "correctable" issue.

Mostly, we have it down to the Nikon D40x and E-510. Wife has small hands and like the feel of these the best over larger cameras and the XTi. I'll take what I wrote in the beginners area and again would greatly appreciate objective (if possible) comments:

I like the feature set on the Olympus with built in Shake Resistance and Sensor cleaner. But....looking at imaging-resource.com comparisons of images, nearly every shot appears noticeably darker and duller and when viewed large certainly not as sharp.

I have noted in other reviews that the camera tends to slightly underexpose. Others have commented that the default NR setting should be low rather than standard and default processing should be "vivid" (like the E-410) the combination of which should sharpen and punch-up the picture. I suppose you could set the exposure up 1/2 or 1.0 "by default" to compensate and take the occasional blow-out. I wonder having done that if they would be more similar. All of these should be "saved" changes at power up and down so could be willing to deal with having to do that. If anyone has opinions, I'd appreciate it. I don't relish making the changes and they would probably have to be done everytime the battery came out to be recharged but it may be the price to pay for the feature set.

you really need to take the reviews from sites with a grain of salt. All of the cameras can produce razor sharp images. Now that sharpness will decline when you zoom in say 100x....but even then its very minimal. I have seen awesome pictures coming from 3-4mp SLR cameras, and when printed at 8x10 they still look nice.

i have a E-510 (same sensor as the 410) and have printed Cropped photos on my epson R1800 at 13x19 and the pictures are still razor sharp. I also want to point out that noise doesn't look so bad on prints, but when you "zoom" in and pixel peep it can look a little scary on any camera.

Basically what I am saying, is don't let the reviews get to you. Even reading the reviews here you should get a idea that the reviewers often times agree that the difference between each cameras output is very minimal. Get what feels right to you. Thats what I did. I got the camera that felt best in my hand...and trust me its worth it when I am out in 100+ degree weather for 1-2 hours getting macro bug shots

Here is a perfect example of something I printed at 13x19. Keep in mind that this picture could of been taken with any camera and still looked this sharp.



Click the link below to see the full sized version of the above.

http://natas.linuxgangster.org/gallery2/v/Macro/bugs/dragon_fly/P8241591.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Shane,

I try to take reviews with the proverbial grain. I've seen others that rave about the E-510. But if you look at the comparison on imaging-resource, it's pretty bad and it's tough to look past it. The E-410 pics looks similar, while the E-500 does not. So much for the bias theory.

To your point, the E-510 feels great in hand, nearly glove-like for me and comfortable for my wife which certainly increases the likelihood of us taking it with us. I'm asking about changing the default image settings because it has to P&S with good quality for my wife to use it and I don't want to feel the need to post-process every picture.

I have to ask about your pic, which is superbly stunning. I saw the 1/10 shutter. Handheld I.S. or tripod? Kit lens.....nah...what lens?. I don't plan on Macros like that, but the quality of the pic does make me wonder the remaining details.

Thanks again for your reply.

I have an E-510, and I can assure you that the metering is perfectly fine. Some people say they have to always compensate by +0.7, but 1.1 firmware has fixed even that.

Personally, I never have to do it (unless I am shooting with my OM 50/1.8 or in extreme conditions), which is the reason why I haven't upgraded to 1.1 yet. You can't go wrong with either of these (D40x or E-510), both systems have excellent lenses. D40x has better IQ out of the box and absolutely minimum noise till ISO 400 in RAW.

E-510 RAW is a bit noisy, but out of the box JPEG is just like D40x. I chose E-510 for IS and LV, which, according to me, is a must these days for macro or shooting with manual lenses. If you don't need these, you could just flip the coin and still get an awesome camera. Good luck.

RSpent said:

Hi folks,

I have a thread going in the beginners area and then thought perhaps
posting here might be a good idea to get your perspective on what I
perceive to be a perhaps "correctable" issue.

Mostly, we have it down to the Nikon D40x and E-510. Wife has small
hands and like the feel of these the best over larger cameras and the
XTi. I'll take what I wrote in the beginners area and again would
greatly appreciate objective (if possible) comments:

I like the feature set on the Olympus with built in Shake Resistance
and Sensor cleaner. But....looking at imaging-resource.com
comparisons of images, nearly every shot appears noticeably darker
and duller and when viewed large certainly not as sharp.

I have noted in other reviews that the camera tends to slightly
underexpose. Others have commented that the default NR setting should
be low rather than standard and default processing should be "vivid"
(like the E-410) the combination of which should sharpen and punch-up
the picture. I suppose you could set the exposure up 1/2 or 1.0 "by
default" to compensate and take the occasional blow-out. I wonder
having done that if they would be more similar. All of these should
be "saved" changes at power up and down so could be willing to deal
with having to do that. If anyone has opinions, I'd appreciate it. I
don't relish making the changes and they would probably have to be
done everytime the battery came out to be recharged but it may be the
price to pay for the feature set.

Click to expand...

find it is quite helpful in choosing a camera to find samples on various sites by ordinary owners - if you look at typical shots from ordinary owners a good bit (several shots each person of 6 or 8 owners) you get a quite good idea of what the cameras will produce.

Some judgement and work are necessary on your part to avoid complete beginners.

This is rather similar to the problem of choosing a make of car. I find good practice is to just see on the street examples of the mfr in question about 5 years old. How do they look ? Good, bad, what....

Similar - if looking at road-racing sports cars - never pay any attention to factory or dealer results. Examine the results of private drivers (preferable Regional race successes rather than big name National people. Same thing, usable information.

For example pretend you are interested in buying say Chevrolet. Find the price range/price/model you want and look at 10 samples of the same thing 5 years old.

Then find 10 samples of a similar price/range/model of, say, Nissan, Toyota, or Honda. Compare the 10-of-each. Photos help, btw.

If you actually do this (Chevy versus any of the big 3 Japanese mfrs) you will be astonished.
--
bill wilson

RSpent said:

-snip-
I have noted in other reviews that the camera tends to slightly
underexpose.

Click to expand...

I don't think it underexposes. On the contrary I find it to be a bit on the bright side:



Those curves are the results from testing in the light from halogen bulbs, shot raw and "developed" very neutral in Adove Camera Raw. The same thing but in daylight is even a bit brighter.

RSpent said:

I suppose you could set the exposure up 1/2 or 1.0 "by
default" to compensate and take the occasional blow-out. I wonder
having done that if they would be more similar. All of these should
be "saved" changes at power up and down so could be willing to deal
with having to do that. If anyone has opinions, I'd appreciate it. I
don't relish making the changes and they would probably have to be
done everytime the battery came out to be recharged but it may be the
price to pay for the feature set.

Click to expand...

The settings stay where you left them when turning the camera off and on.

There are two user modes for another way of saving settings. If you share the camera but later prefer different settings as your starting points you can save these in the the two different user modes and recall them when starting to use the camera for the day.

hth,

--
Jonas

having just come back from a 2 week sailing hiliday in Greece my brother in law had a nikon d40x and I took the 510 (over the 400) because I though IS would be sensible, especially on the boat.

he sent me through 2 CDs of his shots (all I gather) and I have just about finished sorting through mine.

at the time, using lcd screens and magnification, we both thought that the 510 was producing sharp well exposed shots during the day but that the nikon excelled in the low light of evenings in the ports with rich colours and great exposures; little noise.

comparing the output now - I can reproduce his output in pp (if I choose) whilst he has as much as 40% blurred, oof etc to my single image that's unusable for that reason.

for general shooting the IS is simply brilliant - full stop.

finally here's an example of the 40x (but it's not straight from camera by any means I am afraid) but I think it indicates what I am referring to above



--

Hi,

You really need to get hold of the camera yourself (in a store) and shoot some images onto a CF card. Then you can change some settings and see the effects at home on your own screen.

These reviews claim to be 'in-depth', but in reality they spend little time actually using the camera in real life situations that most photographers would.

Nearly all reviews on the internet today make the same mistake in my opinion, they shoot the camera using JPEG at its default settings, and then use that as the basis for their tests.

The key point here is that you can change them to your hearts content. You can start by turning off the noise filter, and then dropping the sharpening setting. Personally I would turn the sharpening off completely, as it is not as sophisticated as anything you could do in post processing.

These settings will be permanent in your camera until you change them yourself. Even if you take the battery out. I've had an E1 here which has been gathering dust without a battery for about two months since I got the E510, and when I popped the battery back in it was displaying my last exposure setting, and all my image parameters were intact.

However, if you're a stickler for pure image quality, I would recommend shooting RAW and developing the files in a good developer. As a beginner that may seem way over your head, but believe me the learning curve is worth it if you want the quality. That way, you're bypassing the camera processing and getting 100% of the sensor capability. In RAW, the E410/E510 is another beast altogether. Just amazing.

As for the exposure problem, I would suggest dialing in +1/3 to +2/3 EV exposure compensation would totally fix this problem, and then you could ignore it.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that the apparent underexposure may be 'a feature rather than a bug'. Most higher level cameras tend to underexpose slightly to protect the highlights, because this is the one part of the image you can never recover if you lose it. So maybe it's worth accepting the underexposure and post-processing the shot to regain the tones you want.

Basically you won't lose anything from the E510 over any other APS-C camera. Given some tweaking it's totally competitive.

David

--
Who needs High ISO when you can have Pure Whey?

Bluetrain048 said:

-snip-
As for the exposure problem, I would suggest dialing in +1/3 to +2/3
EV exposure compensation would totally fix this problem, and then you
could ignore it.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that the apparent underexposure
may be 'a feature rather than a bug'. Most higher level cameras tend
to underexpose slightly to protect the highlights, because this is
the one part of the image you can never recover if you lose it. So
maybe it's worth accepting the underexposure and post-processing the
shot to regain the tones you want.

Click to expand...

Hi David,

Maybe the cameras meter a bit different. Is it only mine that is on the bright side?



and (as posted above):



I certainly cannot dial in a positive exposure compensation (firmware 1.1).

(Both charts from another thread discussing exposure and legacy lenses:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=24642151 )

regards,

--
Jonas

Hi,

This is interesting. Underexposure is one thing that many reviewers have touched on, so it could indeed be that your particular camera has its own personality

Admittedly I haven't noticed this particular issue at all, because I shoot everything in full manual and I tend to rely more on intuition / the histogram / blinking highlights than what the meter says.

However I do recall noticing that most of my 'good' exposures displayed something around +0.3 or +0.7 on the meter, suggesting that if I used AE the image would be darker than I wanted.

David

--
Who needs High ISO when you can have Pure Whey?

Bluetrain048 said:

Hi,

This is interesting. Underexposure is one thing that many reviewers
have touched on, so it could indeed be that your particular camera
has its own personality

Click to expand...

Yes, maybe it has. Well, If I can live with my myself I think I can handle this and set the compensation accordingly.

regards,

--
Jonas

rennie12 said:

For example pretend you are interested in buying say Chevrolet. Find
the price range/price/model you want and look at 10 samples of the
same thing 5 years old.

Then find 10 samples of a similar price/range/model of, say, Nissan,
Toyota, or Honda. Compare the 10-of-each. Photos help, btw.

If you actually do this (Chevy versus any of the big 3 Japanese mfrs)
you will be astonished.
--
bill wilson

Click to expand...

Now you've got me curious. If I compare older Chevy's to older Japanese cars, what will I find?

In addition to my reply above I think soething can be said about the picture quality as well. To put it short, I think I get good results from the E-510. I can compare to other SLR and dSLR cameras way back, including machines like the Pentax K10D and the Canon 5D. These cameras are all different and meet different needs but to be fair the E-510 holds pretty well.

Here is a causual sample, somewhat cropped:



It's a pretty bland picture. It was taken at an exhibition. The light came from a big roof window an overcast day so the light was pretty flat and I was unable to cathch the exciting curves of this propeller. I took the picture anyway as I liked the propeller: it was a powerfull tool, a sculpture and I really liked it. A great piece of reinforced wood.

You weren't supposed to take pictures there but I did anyway by just quickly lifting the camera out of the bag. It was set to AF and I turned the dial to f/1.4 to get a reasonably short shutter time. Click, a five seconds action I think.

Ok. When I got home I realized the picture was nothing per se. I tried to make it a bit more exciting in B&W but it didn't help much. I also noticed that the lens did what it was supposed to do, as well as the camera. Here is a 100% crop:



So, just a snapshot, technically nothing to blame in my opinion. Now the Summilux-D is a good and fast lens but as you can see it is not the camera that is the limiting factor here. I have no doubt that you'll get very satisfactory results from any modern dSLR camera and think you and your wife are better off comparing the systems; check if everything you need is available. Then feel the camera and count your money trying to think of future needs. Grab anyone and take pictures.

I'm happily shooting with the E-510 in different situations, feeling confident that it delivers as that is what it has done for the (short) time I have owned it.

Good luck,

--
Jonas

the images at imaging resource are not even done at equal lighting conditions (which is clearly visable).

keep in mind that 9 out of 10 reviewers use the standard settings, not the most ideal one. So that is not 'prove' that one camera is better than the other.

However, both cameras have their strength and weaknesses, but i can assure you that there isn't a camera at the market that is better or worse than its competitors. But all have their weaknesses and strength and your taste and use for it will decide in the end which camera to choose.

For your information, only image resource gave a reasobly poor review, all others including the photography print magazines are very enthusiastic about it.

you are more then welcome to go to the link below and view several galleries shot with the E510. I have several sample galleries, July 4, 2007 and the San Francisco galleries were all shot with the E510 (actually, the first 160+ on the San Francisco Gallery were shot with the Nikon P5000, the balance of about 400 were with the Oly).
--
http://www.zenfolio.com/digitalphotonut

RSpent said:

Shane,

I try to take reviews with the proverbial grain. I've seen others
that rave about the E-510. But if you look at the comparison on
imaging-resource, it's pretty bad and it's tough to look past it.
The E-410 pics looks similar, while the E-500 does not. So much for
the bias theory.

To your point, the E-510 feels great in hand, nearly glove-like for
me and comfortable for my wife which certainly increases the
likelihood of us taking it with us. I'm asking about changing the
default image settings because it has to P&S with good quality for my
wife to use it and I don't want to feel the need to post-process
every picture.

I have to ask about your pic, which is superbly stunning. I saw the
1/10 shutter. Handheld I.S. or tripod? Kit lens.....nah...what
lens?. I don't plan on Macros like that, but the quality of the pic
does make me wonder the remaining details.

Thanks again for your reply.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay on this...I went to sleep shortly after my post.

This shot was done with a Sigma 105mm Macro lens. The 50mm ZD Macro is suppose to be way sharper, but I like the fact that the 105mm has more working distance.

The shot was done with a cheap $20 QSX tripod I got 3 years ago at wolf camera No flash was used in the picture.

And I just looked at that review you pointed out and it does look bad....but it makes me wonder why they got such horrible results while other reviews show a very minimal difference. To me the image they show looks much lighter then the d40x and Xti....so is it overexposed compared to the others? Again this is all pixel peeping.

I also looked at the cons they listed:

Slow startup - Some people I understand have a need for this, but does the avg user really care that there camera starts up in 1 seconds compared to one that starts up in 2?

Live view is slow: True, but compare that to the live view from the XTI, d40x and the others....

View finder is small: very true and it does annoy me. But compared to the other cameras its not that huge of a difference

Manual focus is electronic - personal preference with people here. I can understand this. My sigma lens actually manually focuses like standard lenses do...I prefer this. However, I only manually focus when doing macro work myself.

Low light focus trouble - I really have nothing to compare against since I never tried a xti or d40x in low light...but I do low light shots and have never really had this issue.

Images slightly soft overall - not sure where the reviewer is seeing this. In fact, most people on here complain about the opposite and suggest -2 on sharpness

Greens are undersaturated - could of fooled me http://natas.linuxgangster.org/gallery2/v/Macro/spiders/P8261730.jpg.html

Skin tones are pale - start photographing some darker skinned people(sorry I thought that was funny). I personally have not seen this issue...and if it is true you should be able to tweak pp.

Auto White balance leaves incandescent shots quite warm - so set one manually...I never rely on auto wb because the camera does not have a built in wb sensor. I use a grey card like most people should.

Continuous mode is sometimes inconsistent, slowing every three to four frames - sounds like a bad card. Yes it will slow down after the buffer is full, but past that it should not be happening unless you got a bad card or bad camera.

Command dial issue - if you ask me this is a minor complaint. Why not compare the menu system of the oly to the others.

Tendency to underexpose images indoors, requiring +1.3 EV compensation - Wow is all i have to say to that. This board would be flooded with everyone else saying the same thing. Sounds like a end user issue to me. I have personally not seen this issue with my 510

I could go on and on. Look all of the Con's listed for the 510 are either BS or just way to minor. All of these cameras are awesome pieces of equipment....and good for talking pics for prints 13x19 or even larger. I don't know, I just get so annoyed with reviews like this. The same thing goes on in the computer world with cpu's and graphic cards....Seriously who cares if a video card does 1fps more on game X and CPU X completes task x 1 second faster.

I hope you decide on a camera based on what is right for you. If you come in here or the Nikon forum and read to much you will start hating the camera you bought and second think your decesion. Trust me on that. I bought a canon before my olympus and took it back after reading a post (which btw I found out later was complete BS) in the canon forum. If I didn't read that post and a few others I would be sitting here with Canon equipment. Don't let the FUD get to you man. Get the camera that works best for you and your family. Invest in lenses and stick with that system. If you worry about the body to much you will be freaking out every year when the new models come out. Just get some nice lenses, and upgrade the body every 2-5 years...some even say 5+ years

I tend to shoot in RAW and have no exposure problems with the E-510, for me the IS is a boon.

As others have advised, try one yourself rather than relying totally on reviews.

Go for what you feel will deliver what you want, regardless of manufacturer.

As for image quality and sharpness, here are a couple of examples:

E510, EC-14, Sigma 105mm, Oly ring Flash.



Exif Data:

Camera model: E-510
Date/Time: 2007:08:17 16:05:59
Resolution: 800 x 600
Flash used: Yes (auto)
Focal length: 148.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0056 s (1/180)
Aperture: f/22.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

E-510, Sigma 105mm, Oly Ring Flash.



Exif Data:

Camera model: E-510
Date/Time: 2007:08:31 15:44:57
Resolution: 819 x 619
Flash used: Yes (auto)
Focal length: 105.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0056 s (1/180)
Aperture: f/22.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)



Exif Data:

Camera model: E-510
Date/Time: 2007:08:31 15:34:26
Resolution: 819 x 659
Flash used: Yes (auto)
Focal length: 105.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0056 s (1/180)
Aperture: f/10.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

I hope these help.

Cheers,

Dave

today is/are capable of making very high quality images.
There are many other factors to consider.

If the camera doesn't "fit," you'll leave it at home. If it, OTOH, fits your hand and is comfotable and portable, you'll, most likely, take it with you.

As to processing your images, some are better than others for out of camera jpgs but that's more an issue of of your likes.

The other factors to consider are things like reliability, weather, dust and ease of use, as some examples.

A good friend purchased a 20D. It's very nice in all regards. I sold her some of my old Canon lenses including the 85mm f/1.8. In the 2+ years she's owned it, it's made 2 trips to the Canon service center for sensor dust removal and general cleaning. OTOH, another good friend has been using a Nikon D70 and has suffered little, if any dust issues.

As to lenses, most here have found the E-series kit lenses to be quite good as opposed to some anecdotal stories regarding kit lenses from other manufacturers. For my E-1 use, I've upgraded to the mid-range lenses except for the 50-200. I rarely shoot long and rely on the 40-150 (old version) for those instances. I recently got an E-330 and added the 14-42 kit lens to it and this combination performs very well for me.

Whatever you choose, remember, it's the photographer and not the camera that makes the image.

--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner

rennie12 said:

find it is quite helpful in choosing a camera to find samples on
various sites by ordinary owners - if you look at typical shots from
ordinary owners a good bit (several shots each person of 6 or 8
owners) you get a quite good idea of what the cameras will produce.

Click to expand...

I studied dozens of images from the 410 before the 510 was even out, then studied more from the 510 before purchasing it. I looked at many images at 100% searching for any defects I might want to avoid. I installed RAW development software even though I did not have the Olympus software to work with the images and study the results. I compared the images to other brands posted in the forums and in personal galleries. I looked until I was satisfied those images fairly represented a quality I could live with compared to other brands given my requirements for a small camera with image stabilization.

Any review site that posts image examples with 510 noise filtering on standard is not doing their job. Testing a camera is testing its capabilities not its default settings. If that were true, back in the SLR days every camera would have been tested at the default speed on the dial. It is a good reviewer's job to point out any oddities a camera may have, such as poor default settings.

The noise filter is very aggressive and will smear detail badly on STANDARD. Set to LOW it is fine, if you're shooting JPEG, but if you are shooting RAW you will be applying noise reduction in your RAW developer. Only the software that comes bundled with the 410 will apply similar noise reduction (at your option).

I was shocked by some of the images I saw posted on review sites. Then I downloaded RAW examples and discovered the horribly smeared detail was due to the poor choice of settings by the reviewer. The detail from the 410/510 is excellent, if you can stand a little film like grain and not sharpen too much, you can get good images without applying any noise reduction in RAW development.

Shooting JPEG produces better results with the NF set to LOW for general photos and perhaps STANDARD for portraits where the image needs to flatter the person's skin.

The only issue to be aware of is ISO100 shows a little more noise than one might expect compared to other makes, but ISO200 has about the same noise as ISO100 and it is comparable to ISO200 on other makes.

I am satisfied with the noise and sharpness of the images.

Steve

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knoblock/ Equipment in plan.

Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper. -- Jean Cocteau

My first DSLR ever was Nikon D40x, I ended up returning it because of dust on the sensor - I was really disappointed and had to fix the spots on 50+ pictures. I wasn't happy at the time cause I really liked the results. I think out-of-the-box D40x is very forgiving (as others have pointed out as well) and a very good entry-level DSLR.

I don't think however that D40x is even in the same class as e-510 feature wise. The camera feels like a prison compared to the freedom that e-510 allows (RAW is only possible with HQ jpeg instead of SHQ for example, not to mention IS, LV, DOF preview etc).

I also have to say that I didn't really like the results from e-510 initially after just shooting in "auto" my first dozen shots. I played with the controls and at times the images were over-sharpened. Blown out highlights is also something that e510 is more susceptible to. But after reading some reviews of e-510 and playing with the settings I am now able to produce consistently good results.

I am not a pro (nowhere near as a matter of fact), but I feel like e-510 has really allowed me to explore digital photography without breaking the bank.

I second what others have said - it's not so much about the camera, but the one taking the pictures. Whichever one you choose I'm sure it will serve you well. Good Luck!