D40X better DR than E-3

I did post this in another thread, but thought it was worth a separate one. In an interview with some Olympus engineer, the E-3 sensor is said to have 1/3EV more dynamic range than the one found in the E-510.

Reading the E-510 review, this implies that the D40X is going to have more DR than the E-3. It also means that the 40D totally destroys the E-3 in terms of DR.

E-3 can be the best in a lot of areas, but it's still very very sad that they have not put more effort into the CMOS development. I think it's dissapointing to see Olympus falling behind even prior to seeing sample pictures online.

Not to mention that the worse IQ comes at a premium of 40% over the 40D, with no larger viewfinder, probably no better build, and no other notable features to beat it. I saw a review of the 40D live-view software for PCs and it looked sweet. Bet Olympus Studio is going to be as bad as it has been.

Of course, we will have to wait to see if the statement about the 1/3EV improvement holds...

--
johan

having higher fill factors.

Johan Gustavsen said:

I did post this in another thread, but thought it was worth a
separate one. In an interview with some Olympus engineer, the E-3
sensor is said to have 1/3EV more dynamic range than the one found in
the E-510.

Reading the E-510 review, this implies that the D40X is going to have
more DR than the E-3. It also means that the 40D totally destroys the
E-3 in terms of DR.

E-3 can be the best in a lot of areas, but it's still very very sad
that they have not put more effort into the CMOS development. I think
it's dissapointing to see Olympus falling behind even prior to seeing
sample pictures online.

Not to mention that the worse IQ comes at a premium of 40% over the
40D, with no larger viewfinder, probably no better build, and no
other notable features to beat it. I saw a review of the 40D
live-view software for PCs and it looked sweet. Bet Olympus Studio is
going to be as bad as it has been.

Of course, we will have to wait to see if the statement about the
1/3EV improvement holds...

--
johan

Click to expand...

Johan, just wondering what you are currently shooting and win you will be purchasing the new D40. As for myself I am looking forward to the E3, with or without its speculated limitations. As for my abilities they are limited, but..



Full size viewing.
http://boreal-wealds-photography.smugmug.com/gallery/1150320#212445049

Travis
--
TOO MANY CAMERAS - TOO LITTLE TIME

Gear: E1, SHLD-2, 7-14mm, 14-54mm, 35-100mm, 50-200mm, 50mm, 1.4 tele converter, EX-25, FL-50, expodisc.

Johan Gustavsen said:

I did post this in another thread, but thought it was worth a
separate one. In an interview with some Olympus engineer, the E-3
sensor is said to have 1/3EV more dynamic range than the one found in
the E-510.

Reading the E-510 review, this implies that the D40X is going to have
more DR than the E-3. It also means that the 40D totally destroys the
E-3 in terms of DR.

E-3 can be the best in a lot of areas, but it's still very very sad
that they have not put more effort into the CMOS development. I think
it's dissapointing to see Olympus falling behind even prior to seeing
sample pictures online.

Click to expand...

And you don't find sad Canon fell behind in other areas of the camera where the E-3 pulls forward?

Johan Gustavsen said:

Not to mention that the worse IQ comes at a premium of 40% over the
40D, with no larger viewfinder, probably no better build, and no
other notable features to beat it. I saw a review of the 40D
live-view software for PCs and it looked sweet. Bet Olympus Studio is
going to be as bad as it has been.

Click to expand...

Heh, live view on the E-3 has articulated live view which on that alone it already beats Canon's.

You are going by specific yardsticks of which there may not be a big difference as you seem to propose and then completely ignoring any E-3 advantages. Traditionally the E-1 is far better built than the Canon xxD model around. The E-3 shouldn't be a surprise here. In fact, you can shoot in a downpour with the E-3 -something' you can't do with the 40D out of the camera (yeah, you can buy a bag but can't you do that for any camera).

You are disregarding the up to 5 stops built in IS. Most likely faster and more accurate AF (yes, we need the final product to come out, but since you are speculating already as the E-3 is not out yet...). And you are ignoring some like the colors out of the camera of Olympus more than Canons- even Phil alluded to the "plastic look" in the review.

I am sorry but just picking on one single aspect of a camera, not putting in perspective the difference, then disregarding advantages that camera has is very silly in my book. Of course with that kind of not-real world single-yardstick approach, the E-3 is very doomed indeed. So would any camera pretty much.

A very simple real world photographic example- so you want to shoot at 14mm in 35mm equivalence on the 40D... with a good lens. Can you? Where's that lens that will allow that because I don't think it exists. Does this make the 40D doomed then? Why not?

Of course for someone who ultra wide angle photography is their bread and butter this would be a big issue, but it doesn't mean the 40D is doomed in general, does it?

But in the end I don't get it. I thought you already announced you were moving to Canon.. so why bother?

Johan Gustavsen said:

Of course, we will have to wait to see if the statement about the
1/3EV improvement holds...

--
johan

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

The camera is not out. And proof is not even given of what an "engineer" said.

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

I suggest that people in such a quandry over DR and FPS ought to concentrate on their photographic skills. Use whatever camera you want, I couldn't care less, just don't post vacation snaps.

--

Mike

I would be more concerned with the starting point in your 'logic' than whether or not the E3 delivers.

Even better given your apparent reliance on reviews wait for that on the E3 and base our decisions on that.

While i think a camera is more than just DR, I don't think Phil and dpreview give enough information, I think the charts in the D40x (and others) are only jpgs, so it's a bit hard to use as fact since the processing could have clipped highlights or brought up shadows to make a more pleasing looking image.

Investigating further with the RAW headway section, if you compare the D40x and the E410, the difference seems more like +1/3 to +1/2, though who knows since by then the color information on one or the other may have ruined the usability of that range...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40X/page18.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page17.asp

In other words, if the E3 is 1/2 stop better it's gonna be close anyways to the D40x if that's what's important to you.

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Panasonic Lumix FZ50, Pentax *ist D
http://joesiv.smugmug.com

I'm willing to bet annie leibowitz is sleepless over all of this and cannot take another shot until the debate has been resolved. jus' sayin'
--

Mike

Can't we wait till the E-3 is out before we start to knock it???

Really,
Richard

Johan Gustavsen said:

I did post this in another thread, but thought it was worth a
separate one. In an interview with some Olympus engineer, the E-3
sensor is said to have 1/3EV more dynamic range than the one found in
the E-510.

Click to expand...

Pfff, so when "some Olympus Engineer" in "an" INterview says this it is true?! And what if it is so, is that sooo important?! Just read the piece about Cartier-Bresson at Zone-10. He had only a Leice rangefinder with a few lenses he used throughout his career. I'm sure there has been better equipment than he used around but still his pictures are fenomenal! It's not all about DR, High ISO, photons protons and so on and so on..

...and it becomes obvious that olympus image quality is FAR behind its competitors.

shame since 99% of the DSLR camera buys would gladly trade MP and other gizmos for dynamic range.

bummer 4 Olympus.

I always liked their lens when I had an E-1 many years ago.

I have a Nikon D50 and if you can trust the reviews, it's a camera with excellent DR. I compared it to my new E-410 and the difference is about one stop. But only if you shoot JPEG. Olympus seems to use a very bright tone curve, I don't know. However, if I shoot RAW with both cameras and convert the files with RAW Therapee or ACR, there's hardly a difference.

--
Regards,

Robert
http://www.sondek.smugmug.com

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

Better buy the D40X, then. The tough part will be getting it to work with your Zuiko lenses.

Johan Gustavsen said:

I did post this in another thread, but thought it was worth a
separate one. In an interview with some Olympus engineer, the E-3
sensor is said to have 1/3EV more dynamic range than the one found in
the E-510.

Reading the E-510 review, this implies that the D40X is going to have
more DR than the E-3. It also means that the 40D totally destroys the
E-3 in terms of DR.

E-3 can be the best in a lot of areas, but it's still very very sad
that they have not put more effort into the CMOS development.

Click to expand...

I image they have put a lot of effort into it, but they can't do anything about FourThirds sensor is smaller.

Johan Gustavsen said:

I think
it's dissapointing to see Olympus falling behind even prior to seeing
sample pictures online.

Click to expand...

LOL, how do you if and how far behind Olympus is if you haven't seen sample pictures?

Johan Gustavsen said:

Not to mention that the worse IQ comes at a premium of 40% over the
40D, with no larger viewfinder,

Click to expand...

Sounds like the E-3 viewfinder is going to be improved over the E-1.

Johan Gustavsen said:

probably no better build,

Click to expand...

Let's not forget the E-3 is dust and splash proof and the shutter is tested for 150,000 actuations vs 100,000 for the D40

Johan Gustavsen said:

and no other notable features to beat it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, what about IS?

Johan Gustavsen said:

I saw a review of the 40D
live-view software for PCs and it looked sweet. Bet Olympus Studio is
going to be as bad as it has been.

Click to expand...

Probably

Johan Gustavsen said:

Of course, we will have to wait to see if the statement about the
1/3EV improvement holds...

Click to expand...

There have been many references to the increased size of the actual photo sites on the E-3 sensor vs those on the E-510/E-410. Just how much of an effect it has, and how the E-3 image quality compares to the 40D and D300 remains to be seen.

Regards,
Scott

--
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free

• Tom Petty

Johan Gustavsen said:

I did post this in another thread, but thought it was worth a
separate one. In an interview with some Olympus engineer, the E-3
sensor is said to have 1/3EV more dynamic range than the one found in
the E-510.

Reading the E-510 review, this implies that the D40X is going to have
more DR than the E-3. It also means that the 40D totally destroys the
E-3 in terms of DR.

E-3 can be the best in a lot of areas, but it's still very very sad
that they have not put more effort into the CMOS development. I think
it's dissapointing to see Olympus falling behind even prior to seeing
sample pictures online.

Not to mention that the worse IQ comes at a premium of 40% over the
40D, with no larger viewfinder, probably no better build, and no
other notable features to beat it. I saw a review of the 40D
live-view software for PCs and it looked sweet. Bet Olympus Studio is
going to be as bad as it has been.

Of course, we will have to wait to see if the statement about the
1/3EV improvement holds...

--

Click to expand...

johan,

Do you mind telling us about your interests here? Which brand do you represent and what do you actually want to say? D40x is better than E-3, welll, how do you know that? And anyway, I think that is a joke. What is wrong with Olympus Studio? What is your experinece with the software and what do you compare with? I use Studio, CS and Neat Image. Those three are enough for quite a few people, even for pros I guess. Actually, I am happy with Studio, but less happy with Master. I don't have the latest Studio or Master, but the Master which came with my camera is just too bad. What is your experience with Oly?

--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

You can read the DR Imatest results for many cameras at this site:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E510/E510IMATEST.HTM

(check the table at the end of the page)

The D40X indeed does seem to have a very high DR.

"probably no better build"

That comment renders the rest of your post unworthy of answering. You've obviously never used an E1...

The trolling in this forum is completely unacceptable since the E-3 announcement, think I'm going to take a vacation from this place and come back in 6 months, hopefully with a new E3!

not diagreeing that the D40X is excelelntin this regard, and certainly not trying to pick a fight with a respected review body, but anyone that claims to have processed an E510 RAW file with ACR4.1 (repeated so not a slip) raises my eyebrows a little.

Overall though I think the overall conclusion that the 510 lags behind the best in class for DR isn't unreasonable whilst the headline 'poor DR' is (unreasonable).