Considering full frame systems (Canon, Nikon and Sony)

Hello all,

I own E-3 and 12-60 for a year now and overall quite happy - the controls are mostly OK for me and the image quality below ISO 400 is excellent. Also, touch wood, I have not had any of the quality issues discussed in this formum.

Given that I bought it last X-Mas for a great bundle price and because USD went up in comparison to CAD in the last month, I can sell my system this season with a very minimal loss - maybe couple hunderd dollars.

Why? Because I am kinda buying into the idea of full frame sensors being more versatile in terms of shooting conditions. To me, all the comparing 4/3 vs. APS-C is immaterial. Taking everything else (i.e. ZD glass, IS, sealed body, etc.) into consideration E3 wins handily. But against the full frames... not sure.

Anyway, I dowloaded samples from DP reviews of the D700, Alpha 900 and Canon 5D MK2 (all jpeg of course) and compared them with my E-3 shots of similar "themes" i.e. cityscape with blue skies, indoors, night, etc.

To my eye, the colors with both 5D and D700 look quite uninspiring compared to what I get with no effort out of E-3. Also, neither of the samples appears to be very "crisp" (I read some gripes about this on Nikon forum as well). Sony output up to ISO 800, on the other hand, actually looks quite close to the E-3 color representation and "crispness", especially with slight curve adjeustment in LR.

Having said that, low light performance with Sony appears to be sort of on par with E-3 (or in some cases worse in terms of grain and chroma noise - but of course with much higher resolution) - basically I won't feel any more comfortale going above ISO 800 with Sony than with E-3 today, judging by the samples.

My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus. Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever you like in LR. Do you have any sample settings that could give Nikon jpeg appearance similar to E-3 daylight output? I love the D700 high ISO performance, but given that 70% of my photos are taken outdoors, I will keep the E-3 for another year if this cannot be done.

Thanks,

Alex

--I don't own both systems, so I can't really answer your question about matching Olympus colors. Personally, I would be reluctant to invest so much money for only 30% of my shooting, unless that 30% was a major source of income.

I have no current Nikon cam but regarding color I know that Oly has a more advanced mount: The lens transfers glass color error info to the body, so this error can be corrected in the JPG machine or in Oly raw converters. This is not done in other systems. So the Oly colors should be more consistent, or the Nikon colors should depend from the lens, so you would have to search for a setting or conversion parameter sét for each Nikon lens
--
Martin F.

OlympusE330andE500andPanasonicL10.

Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

I have the Sony A900, some Nikons, and some Olympuses. I quite like the quality of the results and consistency of exposure and colour I get from the E-3 with good ZD glass when it's within its limits. The images the E-3 produces with the Top Pro SHG lenses are phenomenal. I might even say those are some of the best lenses you can get.

The A900 is pretty good, and the high ISO noise performance is actually much better than some would have you believe. The "problem" I have with it is that the colour consistency / AWB and overall JPEG output aren't as good as the E-3 and D300. That and Sonys don't let you use Auto ISO in manual exposure mode so that you can basically invoke shutter + aperture priority like they have a specific mode for on the Pentaxes and you can invoke on Nikons and Olympuses by simply setting Auto ISO to P/S/A/M instead of just P/S/A in the custom menu. The body is good, not great, but the real reason I bought the A900 was access to auto-focus Carl Zeiss lenses. What can I say? I'm just a sucker for good glass. And you know what? I think Oly's glass probably tops them all. Even Sony/Zeiss glass, except for maybe the 135/1.8.

I think the D700 would be a very good low light / action / event camera, but I would probably prefer the E-3 + Top Pro setup for regular stuff and the A900 for high res / landscape stuff.

The new ACR has profiles for Canon and Nikon that set the defaults to the colors the camera jpeg engine would set. If you don't like those settings, then just create your own profile. You may even find some online that match your 'off brand' camera :O)
--
http://www.efrench.members.winisp.net/

sigala said:

Because I am kinda buying into the idea of full frame sensors
being more versatile in terms of shooting conditions.

Click to expand...

It's all relative. You can shoot longer with less imposing looking lenses with a smaller sensor, not to mention the weight savings of doing 24-400mm (35mm equiv) in two high quality lenses.

For me, I can't justify the extra cost, and my bag is heavy enough as it is already.

--



E-Five-Ten/E-One/E-Three-Hundred/E-Ten/C-Twenty-OneHundred-UZ/E-OneHundred-RS
DZ Eleven-TwentyTwo/DZ Fourteen-FiftyFour/DZ Fifty-TwoHundred
EC-Fourteen/FL-Fifty/FL-Forty
Oldma-cdon-aldh-adaf-arm-EI-EI-O

So.. You really like your current camara, so it must be time to buy something else. You think that the others are better so you decide to buy one of them. You download images from them and decide that they are not really any better. So, if you can figure out how to use an image editor, you are going to buy another camera to accomodate 30% of your shooting knowing that the other 70% will not be as good as you are getting now...

Did I read that correctly?

--
Visualize Whirled Peas.

Martin,

Martin Frost said:

I have no current Nikon cam but regarding color I know that Oly has a
more advanced mount: The lens transfers glass color error info to the
body, so this error can be corrected in the JPG machine or in Oly raw
converters. This is not done in other systems. So the Oly colors
should be more consistent, or the Nikon colors should depend from the
lens, so you would have to search for a setting or conversion
parameter sét for each Nikon lens
--
Martin F.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

There are parameters for distortion correction and vignetting stored in the lenses firmware (but w/ the PL 25/1.4 the vignetting fails miserably, btw), but not for color aberrations.

As far as I know, the only software that reads these parameters is Olympus Studio (which I use and which is fine and does the distortion and vignetting correction nicely, except for the PL 25mm). ACR, for example, doesn't use these parameters.

Best,

Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

you've bought into the 35mm hype, but need to justify the switch?

What is it you -need- that 3/4 can't deliver? Is higher resolution worth the effort needed to get the output to look just like it came from an Oly?
Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand...
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/

Not really. What I am saying is that I am quite happy with 70% of my shooting (daylight / outdoor) and not really happy with the remaining 30% (indoor light - not looking to take pictures in complete darkness).

I actually have a pretty steady hand, so combined with IS on E3 the higher exposure times indoors are not a huge deal for sightseeing (i.e. taking pictures inside a museum). It's when I take pictures of people while wanting to preserve natural lighting and not use flash there is an issue. People don't stay still, so often without going up to ISO 1600 or so it's simply not working.

I love the low-ISO performance of E-3 and high-ISO performance of D700. Daylight shots with D700 - not so much. From the current generation of full frames, colors-wise Sony appeals to me the most after E3 and at low ISO its resolution advantage really shines with Zeiss glass.

If I could manipulate (user profiles, etc.) Nikon output in LR to look 80-90% like E3 plus to offer the versatility of the low-light shooting - I would likely spend the money on it.

Similarly, if Sony low-light performance up to ISO 1600 is actually acceptable (have to see more samples), plus it offers higher resolution for lanscapes which I love to shoot and it's close to E3 colors-wise, this could be a compelling alternative.

I bought E3 last year because i was not crazy about 5D and nothing else full frame was in the price range I was willing to pay. This year things changed - therefore I am coming back to this topic.

So the decision I am trying to make is whether to replace the E3 now, when it still holds a good value or to conclude that full frame is not there yet this year and wait another year or two for the next bodies and lenses to deliver - not to forget that Olympus might surprise us all with some new offerings.

Does it make any sense now?

Martin Frost said:

The lens transfers glass color error info to the
body, so this error can be corrected in the JPG machine or in Oly raw
converters.

Click to expand...

Well, they certainly aren't doing anything with that info. right now. I did a test a few months back comparing (side-by-side) a Panasonic lens with an Olympus lens. Neither the JPGs nor the RAWs were the same colors. The Panasonic was notably 'cooler' than the Olympus (and yes, I was using manual WB).

Martin Frost said:

This is not done in other systems. So the Oly colors
should be more consistent, or the Nikon colors should depend from the
lens, so you would have to search for a setting or conversion
parameter sét for each Nikon lens.

Click to expand...

The differences are pretty minimal, unless you use 3rd party glass. But in any case, Olympus is exactly in the same boat.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

I have had similar thoughts, but have not researched it as much as you.

2 possible fixes:

1. consider fl50r - it is a very nice flash - cannot say why but colour seemes to be more even that fl36. Use the flash on manual settings and dial down flash exposure, not the full natural light effect but very good in some situations.

2. Get a fast lens, i have the 50mm f2 - it is very nice and of course 2 stops faster than the 50-60mm end of the 12-60. Well worth the price.

On this note you could also consider the 14-35 lens abut at current prices you could buy a D700 and an 85mm lens, I have not used the 14-35 lens.

--
Olympus gear since 1982

sigala said:

My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus.
Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on
this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever
you like in LR. Do you have any sample settings that could give Nikon
jpeg appearance similar to E-3 daylight output?

Click to expand...

I don't think there are any presets specifically for that purpose. However, there are now DNG profiles which allow you to mimic, to varying degrees, the output of Nikon's own software, with Lightroom. The results are, to my eyes, pretty good.

sigala said:

I love the D700 high
ISO performance, but given that 70% of my photos are taken outdoors,
I will keep the E-3 for another year if this cannot be done.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about being able to get good colors out of either camera.

I think the more important question is whether you've determined (and priced and weighed) the camera/lens combination you would use, and of course tried the camera in-hand to make sure the ergonomics agree with you.

Cheers,

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

Claus A said:

Martin Frost said:

I have no current Nikon cam but regarding color I know that Oly has a
more advanced mount: The lens transfers glass color error info to the
body, so this error can be corrected in the JPG machine or in Oly raw
converters. This is not done in other systems. So the Oly colors
should be more consistent, or the Nikon colors should depend from the
lens, so you would have to search for a setting or conversion
parameter sét for each Nikon lens
--
Martin F.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

There are parameters for distortion correction and vignetting stored
in the lenses firmware (but w/ the PL 25/1.4 the vignetting fails
miserably, btw), but not for color aberrations.

Click to expand...

I did not say that there is information for CA stored.

I said there is information for the color shift which is caused by each individual lens, because the lenses are never "white". So the total color appearence is corrected, not the CA and the OP did not ask for CA, the CA is another topic which shifts color on small areas. To give consistent color with all system lenses, its an advantage if the camera knows the color shift of each lens.

When we speak about Olympus colors, we do not speak about CA because CA is another playing field which has nothing to do with the typical Oly colors.

Martin F.

OlympusE330andE500andPanasonicL10.

Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

mfbernstein said:

Well, they certainly aren't doing anything with that info. right now.
I did a test a few months back comparing (side-by-side) a Panasonic
lens with an Olympus lens. Neither the JPGs nor the RAWs were the
same colors. The Panasonic was notably 'cooler' than the Olympus (and
yes, I was using manual WB).

Click to expand...

I cannot say something about this, we shouldresearch more about that. Perhaps not everything ( especially not Panny ) does it as intended. I am sure I have read the glass color facts in oly advertising.

mfbernstein said:

mfbernstein said:

This is not done in other systems. So the Oly colors
should be more consistent, or the Nikon colors should depend from the
lens, so you would have to search for a setting or conversion
parameter sét for each Nikon lens.

Click to expand...

The differences are pretty minimal, unless you use 3rd party glass.
But in any case, Olympus is exactly in the same boat.

Click to expand...

3rd Party is Sigma. They should also put the glass color info into the lens, they are members of the fourthirds consortium. But I cannot garantee it.

Martin F.

OlympusE330andE500andPanasonicL10.

Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

Keep in mind Canon's PictureStyles. Most examples where probably shot with "Standard" or "faithful". The PictureStyles Editor is an amazing piece of software which allows you to "cook your own film" then upload it on the camera. This is much much more complex then the Sharpness/Saturation/Contrast/Tone sliders on the camera so don't confuse them. So you can pretty much cook something that suits your taste better if you're a JPG shooter.
--
Dragos Jianu - http://www.dragosjianu.com

Overall really happy with the E3 and 12-60 and 50-200.

It does everything I wanted.

But it's encouraged me to try more and different photos, so now I want more. In particular, landscapes in poorer light. I find that to get any decently fast shutter speeds I'm being pushed up to the higher ISOs where the E3 doesn't shine.

If the D700 comes down in price and there's a decent lens I can afford, I'd consider adding it to the E3.

While IS helps, it has limitations. For portraits, it's great, a little softness is no problem and can even be an asset. For details such as foliage in landscapes, there's no substitute for high shutter speeds (in my view). Or you take and use a tripod, which I'm not prepared to do.

It's not noise which troubles me at higher E3 ISOs, it's the loss of detail.

Just my thoughts.
--
Rens

sigala said:

My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus.
Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on
this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever
you like in LR. Do you have any sample settings that could give Nikon
jpeg appearance similar to E-3 daylight output? I love the D700 high
ISO performance, but given that 70% of my photos are taken outdoors,
I will keep the E-3 for another year if this cannot be done.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with that supposition - I spent the best part of 4 months trying to make D300 output look like E-3 output especially for daylight outdoors with no real success. If I got the LR settings just right on a test shot, the next shot was out in a different way. I used JPG and NEF and a variety of converters - all to no avail.

Eventually I was forced to the conclusion (and helped to it by a fellow photographer - thanks Jono!) that if I wanted E-3 colours the only real way to do it was with an E-3 so I asked myself: are 2 extra megapixels (many of which are lost cropping to A4 sizes) and about 2/3 stop noise performance worth the mega-hassle to get the colours right (especially with the Nikon astroturf greens). Add to that the much better LV the E-3 has and the stellar 12-60mm which simply walks over the 16-85mm VR PLUS the in-body IS and the answer was an emphatic NO so the D300 went.

Now, one of the fixes in the latest Nikon firmware is to do with daylight white balance and just as well because it is darned crude compared to the E-3.

Bottom line - I'm not saying you won't get colours you like BUT (and I agree this assumes D300/D700 colour similarity) if you want E-3 colours STICK TO THE E-3! You'll never get it consistently with Nikon and even then only with much hard work.

The grass is always greener... (and that goes double with Nikon )

Jim

(Nikon 'fanbois' chime in here...)

Jim Attfield said:

sigala said:

My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus.
Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on
this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever
you like in LR. Do you have any sample settings that could give Nikon
jpeg appearance similar to E-3 daylight output? I love the D700 high
ISO performance, but given that 70% of my photos are taken outdoors,
I will keep the E-3 for another year if this cannot be done.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with that supposition - I spent the best part of
4 months trying to make D300 output look like E-3 output especially
for daylight outdoors with no real success. If I got the LR settings
just right on a test shot, the next shot was out in a different way.
I used JPG and NEF and a variety of converters - all to no avail.

Eventually I was forced to the conclusion (and helped to it by a
fellow photographer - thanks Jono!) that if I wanted E-3 colours the
only real way to do it was with an E-3 so I asked myself: are 2
extra megapixels (many of which are lost cropping to A4 sizes) and
about 2/3 stop noise performance worth the mega-hassle to get the
colours right (especially with the Nikon astroturf greens). Add to
that the much better LV the E-3 has and the stellar 12-60mm which
simply walks over the 16-85mm VR PLUS the in-body IS and the answer
was an emphatic NO so the D300 went.

Now, one of the fixes in the latest Nikon firmware is to do with
daylight white balance and just as well because it is darned crude
compared to the E-3.

Bottom line - I'm not saying you won't get colours you like BUT (and
I agree this assumes D300/D700 colour similarity) if you want E-3
colours STICK TO THE E-3! You'll never get it consistently with Nikon
and even then only with much hard work.

The grass is always greener... (and that goes double with Nikon )

Jim

Click to expand...

Why anyone would want to mock Olympus colors is beyond me. Why not learn to use at least whatever camera first?

-

Azures said:

Why anyone would want to mock Olympus colors is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I know I'm a bit slow this morning (heavy duty Halloween party last night :-D) but who here is mocking Olympus colours? Certainly not me.

Azures said:

Why not learn to use at least whatever camera first?

Click to expand...

Did you mean me? I'm not certain of your meaning here but since you comment in the last 5 or 6 years I have owned and used the E-10, E-20, E-1 and since January the E-3. I spent a month learning the D300 and two months test shooting it. Isn't that enough?

Jim