E-3 Image quality -- a mild rant, and a challenge...

When it comes down to it photography has little to do with resolution or sharpness. It is about the overall image. The E3 has something that no other camera has. It is not explainable in words.

It's obvious, the small sensor critics are true gentlement and don't want to rub salt in our wounds by forcing we small sensor types to experience real - large sensor - photography.

Perhaps we small sensor neanderthals should show our gratitude by chipping in for new eyeglasses for these large sensor types who are in obvious need of them.

Just a thought.

;-)

Jim

Dragos Jianu said:

Forums should not be about CONVINCING the other how wrong he is and
how right you are but about SHARING experiences.

Click to expand...

Sometimes forums seem to be as much about calling people trolls as anything else.

--
Stu (N80, N50, D50, E510, TZ4)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/

.

I completely agree that if you did a blind taste test with the images that everyone would pick the better exposure of the E-3 even against the D300.

Which on the indoor portrait imho has a better light inside the iris of the model.
--
CA

It looks to me like the E3 image is sharper than the 5D image as well. I'm looking at the same Indoor Portrait image of the woman holding the plastic flowers.

When I scroll the image so her face fills the screen, it's pretty clear the E3 image is sharper. Nearly every wrinkle and pore of her face is visible on the E3 image.

Again, maybe that's not a good thing. But at least it tells me the sharpness is there.

The point I want to make is not to imply the E3 is better than the D3 or the 5D or any other camera. My point is to repond to some who say Olympus Four Thirds cameras have inferior image quality. It simply is not true. The proof is there.

I know you weren't putting down any other camera brand with the comparometer. I think it's interesting to have real examples of photos from the different cameras to show that Oly cameras produce images which are just as good as any other camera (even the much more expensive D3 and 5D).

I usually ignore most of those posts by people who say Oly image quality is inferior but today I feel like responding. There is another similar thread in the Open Talk forum.

Some would say "Who cares" or Why bother?". The reason for me is because there may be some people who are looking to buy their first DSLR and if they read a post by someone that makes a statement of fact that Olympus image quality is inferior, it could influence their decision. Since I have an investment in the Four Thirds system I want to see it grow and last a long time. That's why I feel the desire to respond to the inaccurate statements.

Best regards,

Brent

Gidday Brent

Brent J said:

I know you weren't putting down any other camera brand with the
comparometer. I think it's interesting to have real examples of
photos from the different cameras to show that Oly cameras produce
images which are just as good as any other camera (even the much more
expensive D3 and 5D).

Click to expand...

They all take terrific photographs. They all have strengths and weaknesses.

I have just purchased an E-1 to complement my E-510 because this "obsolete, megapixel-challenged" camera can do things that few, if any, other cameras can do, IMNSHO - delicate shades and nuances of pinks and reds being one of these things; 100% FOV OVF being another; weather/dust sealing being yet another.

The E-1, in my hands* , does things that I cannot do with my E-510 (and vice versa). If I also had a 5D/1Ds/D3/D300 etc, I am certain that they would do some things that neither the E-510 nor the E-1 can do. Whether I would have any use at all for those things, I do not know (I suspect not ... ). I DO* know that I have a need for a camera that can capture subtle tones and nuances of colour in many shades of pinks and reds ...

Brent J said:

I usually ignore most of those posts by people who say Oly image
quality is inferior .... .

Click to expand...

I don't ;;^^--)) lol; for the reasons you give below. I also do not like the trolls and drive-by shooters belittling what is a fine camera system that will suit many people; including myself. I don't go for rubbishing other people's gear either.

Brent J said:

Some would say "Who cares" or Why bother?". The reason for me is
because there may be some people who are looking to buy their first
DSLR and if they read a post by someone that makes a statement of
fact that Olympus image quality is inferior, it could influence their
decision. Since I have an investment in the Four Thirds system I want
to see it grow and last a long time. That's why I feel the desire to
respond to the inaccurate statements.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Spot on.

Sigmund labelled it an "inferiority complex" and "projection", when people feel the need to justify their choices by putting down the choices of others ...

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

daddyo said:

I'm a firm believer that photographers need to use the type of
equipment that works for them. All the major camera makers produce
good quality cameras and lenses, each with strengths and weaknesses.

That said, I am really sick of posts I see by trolls on this forum,
as well as rabid anti-four thirds detractors on some of the other
forums, stating that the 'tiny' 4/3's sensor has condemned Olympus,
et. al. to a dead end future of less than state-of-the-art image
capture. I just read some lame post yesterday on the 'Open Talk'
forum claiming that the Micro Four Thirds system is just a convenient
way for Oly to back out of the 4/3's DSLR 'failure' into a P&S appeal
system that (according to this self proclaimed photography sage) is
likewise destined to fail.

Give me a break -- why all the negative anti Olympus bias from these
wizards? Interestingly, most of these yahoos don't even have links to
their own image galleries.

Click to expand...

I don't think most are anti-Olympus, I think they are pro "I want the most for my several thousand dollars investment." I just finished comparing a K20D and D300 for image quality and they are so close it's very difficult to tell them apart, at any ISO except at 100% on screen. In that case, it all comes down to feature set and how well they execute things like focusing, etc.

--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 & Pentax K20D.
40 lenses of various types

What I dont understand about all these whiners who think that the 4/3rds sensor is too small is the fact that great prosumer cameras have gotten by with alot less. What about the great Olympus 8080, which has a sensor half as large and produces sharper pictures than most so-called professional dslrs with kit lenses? Sometimes people just like to nitpick. My 520 does very well at iso 1600 and even it didnt, it doesnt have to; most of us never need that high a sensitivity anyway. I can hand hold a 1 sec exposure at 84mm with the camera's great in body IS-- I couldnt care less about very high iso performance. And Im not in a specialized niche like shooting sports or little kids either.
--
http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com

Got to ask. I compared the D5 to the E3. I don't see how they could have been taken at the same time. Not only is there less curl in her hair in the E3 picture, but the hair is a lot darker. Although there is glare on the nose in both pictures from natural body oil, there is much more visible on on her face with the E3 shot. BTW, don't know her actual coloring, but the E3 definitely looks more 'flesh tone' than the D5.

The wrinkles around the right eye appear deeper on the D5 photo. I think the reason for the more pronounced wrinkle lines at the corner of her mouth are due to a little wider smile in the D5 picture.

Her face is tilted slightly more to her right with the E3 shot. Maybe because of this, her eyes look better with the E3 shot. They are a flatter color in the D5. There is also more detail in the eyelashes in the E3, especially the upper right eyelash. Her left eyebrow in the D5 photo is pretty much a blur. Much better detail with the E3.

Not only is the flower arrangement a bit different, but the ring in the D5 photo is missing from her hand in the E3. Also the finger nails are longer in the E3 photo. Plus you can see in the E3 picture that she had hurt her right hand recently.

I know next to nothing about photography, but I think for a more realistic comparison, photos should be taken on the same day and as close to the same circumstances as possible.

Although the E3 picture may be more true-to-life than the D5 (I like that fact), if I were the model, I think I would be buying the D5 picture. Unless someone wanted to do a little PP work on the E3 shot first!

Not sure what all this proved. I've seen plenty of great Oly shots on this forum. Mine definitely aren't anywhere near as good, but that is my fault, not the camera's. I'm hoping time will improve on that.

Akemi said:

I had bother with my E3's and had to get a D300. The E3 has no
competition when it comes to portraits. To my mind it is the best
portrait cam you can buy. The colours are fantastic, the skin tones
are pleasing and they have that 3D look Nikon users can only dream
about.

Click to expand...

Now we only need someone who can show us the portraits. Care to start? I do not agree with you, but neither am I making wild claims. :v)

-

daddyo said:

If you look at this poster's profile, I think that says it all.

Click to expand...

Greg, who is the poster? Can you drop a link?

-

Oh do not tell us. .v)

-

Hi Greg,

I'm not clever enough to take you up on your challenge.

I just notice that you can't use the Indoor portrait samples as a resolution test. If you check the lenses used for those images you'll find that they are taken at very various distances, just to mention one flaw.

There are however many other places on the Net showing the resolution capabilities of these cameras.

It is more interesting to discuss what level of resolution we all need. My findings are that for my needs (crisp A3 prints, sometimes cropped as much much as down to two thirds of the original image) 10MP seem to suffice.

--
Jonas

Ok, before we continue this silly Canon and Nikon bashing based on a flawed jpg comparison i would like to point your attention to a much better controlled, RAW comparison that Phil was kind enough to provide:





Now feel free to carry on...
--
Dragos Jianu - http://www.dragosjianu.com

I would love to see some proof of that. That's a very bald statement. What are Nikon users missing out on that they can only dream about ?

Akemi said:

I had bother with my E3's and had to get a D300. The E3 has no
competition when it comes to portraits. To my mind it is the best
portrait cam you can buy. The colours are fantastic, the skin tones
are pleasing and they have that 3D look Nikon users can only dream
about.

Click to expand...

--
Dragos Jianu - http://www.dragosjianu.com

Thanks for your replies. I think you (and others) are misunderstanding my point. It's rather ludicrous to think that the E-3 itself is capable of out resolving a full frame 35mm sensor. My point has to do with the fact that the four thirds sensor is not some crippled size/format when it comes to image quality, and more importantly, an image is not created by a camera body, but with a camera body and lens. Louis Dobson has made this very valid point on this forum several times in the past.

I don't agree with you about the comparison shots not being a valid comparison. It's not like the E-3 shot was done close up and all the others done with a telephoto from 100 yds. away. A sharp portrait image is a sharp portrait image -- the subject's eyes in the sample shots are clearly sharper in the E-3 shot.

Regardless, my point is that I've grown a little tired of the lame, know-it -all posts by anti-Olympus bozos claiming that the four thirds system is a flawed, dead end system that does not produce quality images -- it just is not true!

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

Brent J said:

It looks to me like the E3 image is sharper than the 5D image as
well. I'm looking at the same Indoor Portrait image of the woman
holding the plastic flowers.

When I scroll the image so her face fills the screen, it's pretty
clear the E3 image is sharper. Nearly every wrinkle and pore of her
face is visible on the E3 image.

Click to expand...

I don't think many non-biased people would agree with you. The hair, skin, etc. are very clearly sharper in this particular 5D file, compared with this particular E-3 file. Ask some of your non-Olympus-shooting friends what they think.

daddyo wrote:
Louis Dobson has made this very valid point on

daddyo said:

this forum several times in the past.

Click to expand...

Is this the same Louis Dobson that went out and bought a Nikon D3?

Not starting a war now...just I find that interesting in itself!

daddyo said:

Regardless, my point is that I've grown a little tired of the lame,
know-it -all posts by anti-Olympus bozos claiming that the four
thirds system is a flawed, dead end system that does not produce
quality images -- it just is not true!

Click to expand...

You folks know me as a 4/3 critic, and one who feels it is not for me, and is flawed long term.

However...

Do Olympus owners feel that their noticable brand loyalty (and nothing wrong with that), is really a way to go about your business?

Why not just use what you like, take your shots..and be done with it?

I know we all sometimes get dragged into silly debates, me more often than not..about this and that. You can argue all day about DR, colours, sharpness, noise etc. Just let the shots do the talking.

A good shot is a good shot..does anyone care what camera or lens was used? If it could be a tad sharper etc? I think not..

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Member said:

Is this the same Louis Dobson that went out and bought a Nikon D3?

Click to expand...

Since he owns and processes images from both, it makes his observations perhaps more relevant than your theoretical ones.

When I shot processed low light event shots from a 5D and an E1, I learned a thing or two as well.

When was the last time you shot and processed images from a cropped and a FF camera at the same event and/or time?

If you have done this, I apologise for my sarcasm. It's just we get a lot of theoreticians on this forum.