Reading mode: Light Dark

E-3 bests E-30 at high ISO

Go to last post
Sergey_Green said:
TrapperJohn said:
Besides, us 4/3 types are different. We'd rather open up the aperture
than crank up the ISO.
Click to expand...
is not a problem. I shoot wide open most of the time,
Click to expand...
Your favourite(?) Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 does appear to perform quite well wide open on DX according to this sites review, although it does seem to drop of quite a bit at the long end of the zoom. If the performance is good enough for you then that is fine.

Compare it to another design like the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and you see a different story however, it never seems to really get going until stopped down a fair bit.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=16,14&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=200,200&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

It is a shame that there is still no Oly long lens reviewed by this site as yet, but so far all the Oly lenses tested have in general shown best performance within a stop of wide open, most likely a deliberate design strategy considering the DOF and noise characteristics of the 4/3rds system.
 
Good heavens just buy the E3 and be done with it. It is a superior built camera to the E30. Prices are way down for the E3. The viewfinder is so superior to the E30 it isn't even worth discussion.

What exactly is it you are hoping/wishing for from the E30? Whatever it is, it isn't there, least wise not over the E3.

Don
--
'The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.'
Bruce Cockburn
 
A lot of assumptions are being made in that graph. Compare this sort of theoretical extrapolation to those used for other technology based on semiconductors - they're typically wide of the mark because it isn't possible to know what new tweaks are occurring during the lab research.

The lens will eventually become the limiting element on useful resolution, and the sensor size less critical.
 
dbledsoe said:
Good heavens just buy the E3 and be done with it. It is a superior
built camera to the E30.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the build/splash proof...etc. It just means extra weight and larger size
dbledsoe said:
Prices are way down for the E3.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are.
dbledsoe said:
The viewfinder is so superior to the E30 it isn't even worth discussion.
Click to expand...
Have you used the E-30 viewfinder? Ian over at Four Thirds User said it's very close to the E-30. Besides, I've been used to the E-510 OVF
dbledsoe said:
What exactly is it you are hoping/wishing for from the E30?
Click to expand...
1. More AF features
2. More flexibility with AF points?
3. 12 Megapixels
4. Slightly lighter than the E-3 by 155grams
5. Shorter by 9mm
6. Improved LCD (HyperCrystal II)
7. Larger LCD by .2 inches
8. 3 IS modes
9. Apparently, no high ISO banding.
dbledsoe said:
Whatever it is, it isn't there, least wise not over the E3.
Click to expand...
There are 9 E-30 features over the E-3.

To me, it doesn't seem so black and white.

--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
 
Not the same thing at all. Semiconductor limits were/are due to the manufacturing processes (ie - different types of lithography).

Sensor sizes vs IQ etc has nothing to do with manufacturing, but has to do with the way light behaves.
boggis the cat said:
A lot of assumptions are being made in that graph. Compare this sort
of theoretical extrapolation to those used for other technology based
on semiconductors - they're typically wide of the mark because it
isn't possible to know what new tweaks are occurring during the lab
research.

The lens will eventually become the limiting element on useful
resolution, and the sensor size less critical.
Click to expand...
 
sir ( salutes ) :-)

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) '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.'
 
no banding at high ISO altogether is reason alone to be undecided on E-3 vs E-30.

(for my needs).

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) '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.'
 
Kurt Petersen said:
Sergey_Green said:
TrapperJohn said:
Besides, us 4/3 types are different. We'd rather open up the aperture
than crank up the ISO.
Click to expand...
is not a problem. I shoot wide open most of the time,
Click to expand...
Your favourite(?) Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 does appear to perform quite
well wide open on DX according to this sites review, although it does
seem to drop of quite a bit at the long end of the zoom. If the
performance is good enough for you then that is fine.
Click to expand...
Would not that be good enough for you? :)

Actually 70-200 is not my favorite, but it is one of the most convenient ones. You can just stand in the middle of the square and snap shots all around you without making a single step. It focuses in a snap and is always accurate.

The poster I was responding to said "We" (we'd rather open up the aperture..) .. meaning (apparently) that those who use other brands could not possibly do the same. That is how I understood it. But then the question comes as why compare what is doable by one system against what is unattainable by the other. In fact even for the shots I posted there is just about any system (almost) that can do the same.
Kurt Petersen said:
Compare it to another design like the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and you see a
different story however, it never seems to really get going until
stopped down a fair bit.
Click to expand...
Looks good to me (non-IS),
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/70200

In fact for the price and convenience the constant 2.8 seems to be not a bad deal at all.
Kurt Petersen said:
It is a shame that there is still no Oly long lens reviewed by this
site as yet, but so far all the Oly lenses tested have in general
shown best performance within a stop of wide open, most likely a
deliberate design strategy considering the DOF and noise
characteristics of the 4/3rds system.
Click to expand...
When you compare by the settings, which is plain silly. Not when you compare at the same DoF, which is how it should be done.

I do agree, the same site review would be helpful.

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen
 
Sergey_Green said:
Kurt Petersen said:
Sergey_Green said:
TrapperJohn said:
Besides, us 4/3 types are different. We'd rather open up the aperture
than crank up the ISO.
Click to expand...
is not a problem. I shoot wide open most of the time,
Click to expand...
Your favourite(?) Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 does appear to perform quite
well wide open on DX according to this sites review, although it does
seem to drop of quite a bit at the long end of the zoom. If the
performance is good enough for you then that is fine.
Click to expand...
Would not that be good enough for you? :)
Click to expand...
Have I ever said it wouldn't? I have never been a brand-basher Sergey 8) Nor am I a compulsive pixel peeper, although I will examine my images at 100%. Often I will be less than happy with a shot because of close examination, although my wife or any other viewer I show it too say the difference is too subtle for them to see. Usually I will heed their advice and go for the photo with the best 'feeling', rather than choosing the most technically perfect one
Sergey_Green said:
Actually 70-200 is not my favorite, but it is one of the most
convenient ones. You can just stand in the middle of the square and
snap shots all around you without making a single step. It focuses in
a snap and is always accurate.
Click to expand...
Hence my question mark (?) It does seem to be the lens you most often post photos from, just as the 50-200 was in the past.
Sergey_Green said:
The poster I was responding to said "We" (we'd rather open up the
aperture..) .. meaning (apparently) that those who use other brands
could not possibly do the same. That is how I understood it. But then
the question comes as why compare what is doable by one system
against what is unattainable by the other. In fact even for the shots
I posted there is just about any system (almost) that can do the same.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, if you wish to play equivalence theory. But what if you are not really concerned with what Joe Bloggs camera can do that yours can't. What if all you want to know is that you can use your camera at any (sensible) aperture and not have to worry that you are hitting a bad combination of focal length and aperture. It makes life a lot easier if you can just shoot, without having to double check that you may have hit a 'bad spot' in your lens.
Sergey_Green said:
Sergey_Green said:
Compare it to another design like the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and you see a
different story however, it never seems to really get going until
stopped down a fair bit.
Click to expand...
Looks good to me (non-IS),
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/70200
Click to expand...
Those shots do look pretty good at web size, and I've heard that the non-IS version is much sharper than the IS one. If you look at the lens test I linked earlier, even the IS version does perform much more admirably on the less pixel dense Full Frame camera such as JJ's 5D. Still has it's 'good spots' and 'bad spots', according to the review on this site.
My apparently 'soft wide open' 70-300 also looks quite good at web size IMO.


Sergey_Green said:
In fact for the price and convenience the constant 2.8 seems to be
not a bad deal at all.
Click to expand...
For me, the 50-200 seems like a better deal. Cheaper and longer reaching, despite losing 2/3 of a stop over the range. But then, I only have Olympus cameras, so a Canon 70-200 is of no use to me unless I shell out for an expensive full frame body as well.
Sergey_Green said:
Sergey_Green said:
It is a shame that there is still no Oly long lens reviewed by this
site as yet, but so far all the Oly lenses tested have in general
shown best performance within a stop of wide open, most likely a
deliberate design strategy considering the DOF and noise
characteristics of the 4/3rds system.
Click to expand...
When you compare by the settings, which is plain silly. Not when you
compare at the same DoF, which is how it should be done.
Click to expand...
Should should should. Please don't 'should' on me Sergey. You may notice (or maybe you chose not to) that the only direct comparison I made was between the the D300 with 70-200 f2.8 VR and the 40D with 70-200 f2.8 IS, to point out that whilst you may be able to confidently shoot wide open with that camera and lens combination, perhaps someone with another may setup may not.
Sergey_Green said:
I do agree, the same site review would be helpful.
Click to expand...
We agree on something. I do look forward to seeing more Oly lens test, but then everyone wants a piece of the action don't they?
 
Alex Noot said:
Not the same thing at all. Semiconductor limits were/are due to the
manufacturing processes (ie - different types of lithography).

Sensor sizes vs IQ etc has nothing to do with manufacturing, but has
to do with the way light behaves.
Click to expand...
The issue is capturing light. If you can better do so with a different sensor then careful extrapolations from current technology aren't useful.

Older technology doesn't work as efficiently. I remember being shown a very large sensor used in astrophotography back in 1988. It could capture an image around 1 MPixel and was not colour sensitive (what you got depended on what filter you put in front of it).

A modern 1/2.5" P&S sensor would almost certainly do a far better job, with the proviso that you cooled the sensor. The size of the tiny sensor isn't problematic.

Now, if you don't assume that current electrically noisy sensor designs cannot be improved you come to different conclusions about noise at higher pixel density. Improved materials in microlenses and finer circuitry (or layered circuitry) could make huge differences.

If you consider the construction of the human eye and compare to, for example, a squid's eye you see how different "technology" yields different results. The light-sensitive part of the squid retina is the top layer, and the nerves carrying the stimulus sit below this layer. The human eye is backwards - light must travel through the nerve layer to get to the photo-sensitive layer. Then the optic bundle has to pass through the retina, giving us a blind spot (that our brain paints over). Compared to a squid, we have horrendously poor vision. On the other hand, a large amount of our brain is dedicated to extrapolating from that relatively poor source material and immersing us in a reasonable approximation of what is actually around us.

So, if we could shift from human to squid "eye technology" there would be a massive leap in useful visual information. We can't do that, but we may be able to achieve similar advances with sensors. (Probably even shifting to non semiconductor sensors within my lifetime.)
 
Kurt Petersen said:
Have I ever said it wouldn't? I have never been a brand-basher Sergey
8) Nor am I a compulsive pixel peeper, although I will examine my
images at 100%.
Click to expand...
So we have something in common then :)
Kurt Petersen said:
Often I will be less than happy with a shot because
of close examination, although my wife or any other viewer I show it
too say the difference is too subtle for them to see. Usually I will
heed their advice and go for the photo with the best 'feeling',
rather than choosing the most technically perfect one
Click to expand...
For the street shots. Not when making closeups on insects or flowers (as an example).
Kurt Petersen said:
Kurt Petersen said:
Actually 70-200 is not my favorite, but it is one of the most
convenient ones. You can just stand in the middle of the square and
snap shots all around you without making a single step. It focuses in
a snap and is always accurate.
Click to expand...
Hence my question mark (?) It does seem to be the lens you most often
post photos from, just as the 50-200 was in the past.
Click to expand...
These are just kinds of shots I often chose to throw in, since "stopping down", "heavy", and "not usable" are often the key words I respond to. In the first link it was 85/1.8, somewhere before it was WA (where I am comfortable at), and then kit lenses, etc., etc. In fact to the same guy I was responding to I was about to post from hand shots and in bad light. Not one of them was from 70-200. Also you might've missed closeups and macros which call for an entirely different lens from the start.

Same as with 50-200, I only responded to (few) posts where 50-200 was in a subject line. Most of the Oly images I posted on this forum were in fact from 14-54.
Kurt Petersen said:
Well, sure, if you wish to play equivalence theory. But what if you
are not really concerned with what Joe Bloggs camera can do that
yours can't. What if all you want to know is that you can use your
camera at any (sensible) aperture and not have to worry that you are
hitting a bad combination of focal length and aperture. It makes life
a lot easier if you can just shoot, without having to double check
that you may have hit a 'bad spot' in your lens.
Click to expand...
I agree. And that is why I use compact more often than not. For easier life that is. I suggested it to Louis few times, but he disagrees. :)
Kurt Petersen said:
Those shots do look pretty good at web size, and I've heard that the
non-IS version is much sharper than the IS one. If you look at the
lens test I linked earlier, even the IS version does perform much
more admirably on the less pixel dense Full Frame camera such as JJ's
5D. Still has it's 'good spots' and 'bad spots', according to the
review on this site.
Click to expand...
I do not know Kurt, as I said it looks good to me. And if I go by the 'feeling', as you suggested in one of the paragraphs above, then I would not worry about shooting it at any apertures at all. Also do not disregard that larger sensors are more forgiving than the smaller ones. So whatever it is it is always good enough at least.
Kurt Petersen said:
My apparently 'soft wide open' 70-300 also looks quite good at web
size IMO.
Click to expand...
So was my 18-200 :)
Kurt Petersen said:
For me, the 50-200 seems like a better deal. Cheaper and longer
reaching, despite losing 2/3 of a stop over the range. But then, I
only have Olympus cameras, so a Canon 70-200 is of no use to me
unless I shell out for an expensive full frame body as well.
Click to expand...
But on the longer end it also vignettes like there is no tomorrow (if that matters) and looses its sharpness charm quite a bit. If I wanted to match its reach with APS-C (IF!!) I would much rather go with this one,

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/106/cat/12

The price is about the same, it is extremely compacts, and performs better. Again, you did notice big IF in the sentence before the link I hope. :)
Kurt Petersen said:
Kurt Petersen said:
When you compare by the settings, which is plain silly. Not when you
compare at the same DoF, which is how it should be done.
Click to expand...
Should should should. Please don't 'should' on me Sergey. You may
notice (or maybe you chose not to) that the only direct comparison I
made was between the the D300 with 70-200 f2.8 VR and the 40D with
70-200 f2.8 IS, to point out that whilst you may be able to
confidently shoot wide open with that camera and lens combination,
perhaps someone with another may setup may not.
Click to expand...
Well, I am not a magician, I would not make it sharper if the lens did not allow, would I? So it is what it is I guess.

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen
 
boggis the cat said:
The issue is capturing light. If you can better do so with a
different sensor then careful extrapolations from current technology
aren't useful.

Older technology doesn't work as efficiently. I remember being shown
a very large sensor used in astrophotography back in 1988. It could
capture an image around 1 MPixel and was not colour sensitive (what
you got depended on what filter you put in front of it).

A modern 1/2.5" P&S sensor would almost certainly do a far better
job, with the proviso that you cooled the sensor. The size of the
tiny sensor isn't problematic.

Now, if you don't assume that current electrically noisy sensor
designs cannot be improved you come to different conclusions about
noise at higher pixel density. Improved materials in microlenses and
finer circuitry (or layered circuitry) could make huge differences.

If you consider the construction of the human eye and compare to, for
example, a squid's eye you see how different "technology" yields
different results. The light-sensitive part of the squid retina is
the top layer, and the nerves carrying the stimulus sit below this
layer. The human eye is backwards - light must travel through the
nerve layer to get to the photo-sensitive layer. Then the optic
bundle has to pass through the retina, giving us a blind spot (that
our brain paints over). Compared to a squid, we have horrendously
poor vision. On the other hand, a large amount of our brain is
dedicated to extrapolating from that relatively poor source material
and immersing us in a reasonable approximation of what is actually
around us.

So, if we could shift from human to squid "eye technology" there
would be a massive leap in useful visual information. We can't do
that, but we may be able to achieve similar advances with sensors.
(Probably even shifting to non semiconductor sensors within my
lifetime.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for this wonderful explanation. The analogy with squid's eye is excellent. I belive also that it would be possible, with a different technology than the actual one, to produce a 4/3 50Mpix sensor with no noise and high DR.

Unfortunately, I believe also that some big companies, like Sony, put an extremely strong pressure on the market increasing each 6 months the number of megapixels in sensors with the current technology. And unfortunately, the goal of those big companies is to make maximum profit $$$, image quality is not their highest priority.

So smallest companies like Oly and Panasonic have to keep up with megapixel race, with the limitations of current 4/3 technology to survive. They simply don't have time enough in 6 months to devellop a totally new technology to improve dramatically noise and DR in their 4/3 sensors. Maybe they are working on this new technology? But how many years, and how many camera generations, will it take to produce a competitive 4/3 sensor at High ISOS?

And don't forget that full frame sensors could be, in theory, maximised up to 50-60 Megapixels with current technology until their IQ will decrease.

Will 4/3 companies have time (and ressouces) to produce an acceptable 4/3 50Mpix sensor that can compete with full frame in the folowing years? I doubt.

The future that I see for 4/3? Micro 4/3! If Oly can produce small rangefinder-type cameras with a clean 10-12 mpix sensor, they will sell a lot of these, and will in the meantime be able to concentrate on this new technology "super 4/3 sensor" to equip, in 2-3 years, their new 4/3 DSLR flagship.

But I don't expect regular 4/3 DSLR's to be better than the E3 for 2-3 years, maybe more.

Cheers,

Frederic
 
Pixnat2 said:
Unfortunately, I believe also that some big companies, like Sony, put
an extremely strong pressure on the market increasing each 6 months
the number of megapixels in sensors with the current technology. And
unfortunately, the goal of those big companies is to make maximum
profit $$$, image quality is not their highest priority.
Click to expand...
Yes, but remember that profit maximising is done through reducing costs and keeping the sale price high. One of the issues with 135 is that it is physically bigger and heavier than a possible competitor like micro 4/3. Unless you can achieve very large volumes you will have higher unit costs with 135. Sony are well aware of the likely requirement to bring out something significantly smaller than 135 to compete in the "Cheaper than 135" system area.
Pixnat2 said:
So smallest companies like Oly and Panasonic have to keep up with
megapixel race, with the limitations of current 4/3 technology to
survive. They simply don't have time enough in 6 months to devellop a
totally new technology to improve dramatically noise and DR in their
4/3 sensors. Maybe they are working on this new technology? But how
many years, and how many camera generations, will it take to produce
a competitive 4/3 sensor at High ISOS?
Click to expand...
Panasonic is a brand of Matsushita - a huge company. They could put enormous resources into sensors but they don't want to; they seem to want to develop market share and then start seriously pushing sensor technology along. This causes something of a chicken and egg situation for 4/3 sensors - they get panned for not being as good as APS and they are well below what can be achieved with 135, therefore they sell relatively poorly. If you currently buy 4/3 you must be resigned to getting "as good as last years APS" IQ from the sensor. Whether the trade-off is worth it due to other aspects of the system is not normally considered in reviews. (DSLR bodies are often treated the same as a P&S by reviewers; no mention of the system that the body fits into and the pros and cons thereof. Just a lot of "this body is better than last years because it has x and y - huzzah!")
Pixnat2 said:
And don't forget that full frame sensors could be, in theory,
maximised up to 50-60 Megapixels with current technology until their
IQ will decrease.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that will slow development by Canon and Sony on alternative technologies while 135 remains the target market. Squeezing more out of the existing technology is acceptable for 135.
Pixnat2 said:
Will 4/3 companies have time (and ressouces) to produce an acceptable
4/3 50Mpix sensor that can compete with full frame in the folowing
years? I doubt.

The future that I see for 4/3? Micro 4/3! If Oly can produce small
rangefinder-type cameras with a clean 10-12 mpix sensor, they will
sell a lot of these, and will in the meantime be able to concentrate
on this new technology "super 4/3 sensor" to equip, in 2-3 years,
their new 4/3 DSLR flagship.

But I don't expect regular 4/3 DSLR's to be better than the E3 for
2-3 years, maybe more.
Click to expand...
I think that standard 4/3 is seen as inferior to APS by too much of the market to be able to grow much without some significant changes. (And 135 costs are trending down, so 4/3 will eventually be compared to 135.) Micro 4/3 could create a serious alternative to the rush to 135, and this may force the other companies to produce a system in this class with a significantly smaller than 135 sensor - 4/3 is about one quarter of the area of 135. Once they must compete against Panasonic in this sensor size you'll see technology change to yield another MPixel / DR battle. (Ideally they'd bring new ideas to the sub-135 market, but I'm not counting on that.)

A lot of what happens in the next five years will probably be down to marketing rather than technology. The technology is already "good enough" for most users, so other things than "more megapixels" will be required to sell photographic tools.
 
Maybe my post was too obtuse, in which case, your response was understandable. I'm fuly capable of finding appropriate comparison photos without your help. Let me expand my thinking a bit.

I was trying to point out that most 4/3s users are aware of its high iso limitations. It is one of the trade offs that we make to get the other benefits that 4/3s offers.

I don't understand this need to try and force 4/3s into the high iso performance arena, where it will always be a square peg in a round hole. Why aren't people who need high iso performance agitating for Canon and Nikon to produce a smaller full frame camera? Or a near full frame camera (perhaps an EVIL device of some sort?).

I'm not talking APS, that's not different enough in size from 4/3s to make a REAL difference. But shaving just a bit from the FF sensor, actually COULD provide the high ISO performance many people are looking for, and still make a big difference in the overall size and weight of the camera itself. (especially if you get rid of the mirror box).

I'm a firm believer of different tools for different needs. I just don't think you will ever see the kind of high iso performance from 4/3s that you seek.

--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

And my non Photo blog:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Qe0Iq3g2d6ML3IynXl.Q2i5CPe6UaA--?cq=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
  • Question Question
E-30 vs E-620 Which to go?
Replies
13
Views
132
Skeeterbytes
S
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
🎉 Positive reasons to participate in this Dpr m4/3 forum
Replies
7
Views
2K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
R
Lens for Sony a6500?
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Phaser
P
C
OM-3 / E-M10 II Comparison
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
Photongraphy
P
B
HHHRS: OM-3 VS G9-II: it's not even close...
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
17K
knickerhawk
K

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top