Feeling a bit "sad" about Olympus ...

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

pinnacle said:
Yes, at the same ISO the Nikon has less noise, but you completely
disregarded the built in IS of the Olympus. When you factor that in,
the actual results are quite similar.

For instance, when you are using the Oly at ISO 400 with IS then it
like using the Nikon at ISO 1600. In order to use Nikon optics that
are going to approach the image quality of the Zuiko, you have to pay
a stiff premium. Just try and find a Nikkor that competes with the
50-200 2.8 Zuiko. The price will be almost double the Zuiko.

Yes, that is a very strong factor in a Olympus system the IS and the quality of the lenses

pinnacle said:
You really need to compare apples to apples to arrive at a useful
conclusion.

An Olympus E-3 with any of the higher end lenses including the 12-60,
11-22, 50-200 is going to compare very favorably with a Nikon
equipped to have similar image quality.

You should slow things down or you are going to face a big surprise
price wise trying to keep up with the Zuiko optical quality.

Again yes, I am slowing down and thinking better, and this with the help of Olympus users

pinnacle said:
Dan

Aleo Veuliah said:

My heart tell me to stay with Olympus, but the logic and what I need
Nikon have it, and they have good lenses too, not so good as most of
the Zuikos, but very good.

I think I am a bit sentimental with Olympus, always love this brand,
and for sure I will buy one later only for my personal photography
and maybe some work also

Thank you all for your kind words

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Click to expand...

--
Student, Mentor, Philosopher, Servant, Father, Husband

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

Kirasir said:
Aleo Veuliah said:

I believe in you, fourthirds is good for stock photo ?

Click to expand...

You can use, for example, E-3 with pro lenses for a stock photo (by
the way, E-3 is in the list of recommended cameras on Getty Images -
and it's one of the most respected photostocks in the world). But You
have to understand the limitations, use as low ISO as possible and do
not abuse with PP and noise filtering - editors of photostocks are
very sensitive to artefacts in the image. By the way, if You'll be
shooting Nikon or Canon or whatever you also have to obey the same
rules.
I prefer to deal with noise on the stage of RAW development,
controlling the balance between the detalization and noise level.

Thank you very much, that is a good advice, I am still new to stock photo, but want to try

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

ljmac · Dec 13, 2008

I mean, come on, there's a lot more to IQ than that! Such as Olympus' superior colour, which will make ALL of your photos look better (not just high ISO ones), and the best zooms currently available (at all price points). For goodness sake, how the hell did photography gearheads become so obsessed with this single paramater, while ignoring more important stuff? Because it's easy to measure in reviews, that's why. Well I've got a sugestion for you: stop reading reviews and start taking photos!

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

ljmac said:
I mean, come on, there's a lot more to IQ than that! Such as Olympus'
superior colour, which will make ALL of your photos look better (not
just high ISO ones), and the best zooms currently available (at all
price points). For goodness sake, how the hell did photography
gearheads become so obsessed with this single paramater, while
ignoring more important stuff? Because it's easy to measure in
reviews, that's why. Well I've got a sugestion for you: stop reading
reviews and start taking photos!

You are right, I am understanding that we can read the reviews but dont care to much about most of the things, this thread and the replys made to reconsider all that and I think I am going to stay with Olympus for the cameras and for the lenses.

Olympus corporation should offer some bonus to this Olympus forum users : )

Thank you and thank you all

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

TrapperJohn · Dec 13, 2008

It's better at high ISO. No if's, and's or but's about it. Nikon is better at high ISO.

I'm one who doesn't particularly care about high ISO. I take photographs to see beautiful images. Don't get many, but that's why I do it. Just my anything but humble opinion, but I've seen very few 'beautiful' photographs taken at high ISO. The only ones that really impressed me at all were stop motion type things - water droplets, etc... in fact, if you review the photos section, you'll find that most of the really gorgeous photos were done at the low ISO's.

That's a reason I stick with Olympus. Down low, where I usually shoot, their color rendition is the best, and their glass is unquestionably the best. Oh, you can find a few Zeiss lenses, some of the newer FX Nikkors, or some of the better Pentax primes, that are probably as good, but taken as a whole, the intermediate and high grade ZD's have the most consistently excellent results. Not really a bad one in the lot. I've bought my ZD glass on faith, and that faith has never been challenged.

I won't win a measurebater debate on dpr, but occasionally, I get a shot that just blows me away.

Garzon · Dec 13, 2008

Aleo,

You need high iso, get away from olympus, what is more, forget APS too, nikon D3 or canon 5d is the answer

I love my oly e410 but if I needed to take mostly night pictures of moving objects, I would be looking for the above ones.

If you need to drive a nail you need a hammer not a spade

You can do it with a spade too, but then do not complain, you have been warned

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

Garzon said:
Aleo,

You need high iso, get away from olympus, what is more, forget APS
too, nikon D3 or canon 5d is the answer

I love my oly e410 but if I needed to take mostly night pictures of
moving objects, I would be looking for the above ones.

If you need to drive a nail you need a hammer not a spade

You can do it with a spade too, but then do not complain, you have
been warned

Thank you for the warning, I know that Fullframe 35mm is the the best for quality, but this thread made me reconsider, and going for Olympus E-30 or E-3 still to think, later if things work out well like I hope, then I will buy a fullframe camera, and keep both systems

But again for what I have heard and seen about Zuiko lenses, I am going to want the Zuikos on the Fullframe body

And if money was no problem, I only have the Olympus system and a Leica S2 with some lenses, this Leica S2 must be amazing, 37 megapixels, about 50% bigger sensor then FF ... a dream

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

TrapperJohn said:
It's better at high ISO. No if's, and's or but's about it. Nikon is
better at high ISO.

I'm one who doesn't particularly care about high ISO. I take
photographs to see beautiful images. Don't get many, but that's why I
do it. Just my anything but humble opinion, but I've seen very few
'beautiful' photographs taken at high ISO. The only ones that really
impressed me at all were stop motion type things - water droplets,
etc... in fact, if you review the photos section, you'll find that
most of the really gorgeous photos were done at the low ISO's.

That's a reason I stick with Olympus. Down low, where I usually
shoot, their color rendition is the best, and their glass is
unquestionably the best. Oh, you can find a few Zeiss lenses, some of
the newer FX Nikkors, or some of the better Pentax primes, that are
probably as good, but taken as a whole, the intermediate and high
grade ZD's have the most consistently excellent results. Not really a
bad one in the lot. I've bought my ZD glass on faith, and that faith
has never been challenged.

I won't win a measurebater debate on dpr, but occasionally, I get a
shot that just blows me away.

Right, i remenber the photography with film, I never shot more than 400 ISO, only a few times 800 and 1600 in black and white pushing the film when developing, and the result at this 800 1600 iso was a LOT of grain.

Digital photohgraphy have now much more quality.

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

BigMike1 · Dec 13, 2008

The D300 ISO 3200 output, at first glance, looks as good as the E-3 output at ISO 1600. Ah ha! Olympus sucks.

But then I noticed that the text on the bottle label, perfectly readable on the E-3 photo, was smeared away on the D300 photo. Obviously, the D300 achieves it's low noise via heavy noise reduction algorithm.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com

SirSeth · Dec 13, 2008

...what many of us who chose 4/3rds over the competition have already realized. High ISO noise is only part of image quality. And IQ is only part of the photographic experience. Price, feel, size, and unique designs matter too. Many people buy based on noise alone. So the D300 has slightly better high ISO noise. It doesn't show in prints. End of story. Run a good noise reduction software if you must. Or simply stop expecting pictures taken in lousy light to look amazing. Even a 35mm FF camera can't make bad light look great.

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

lloyd007 · Dec 13, 2008

Olympus will always be behind CanSoNikon in high ISO. If that is your thing you will get better results with them if you use their higher end or faster glass (like a 50/1.4).

I don't shoot high iso very often with my 510. When I do it's all banded and nasty. Low ISO is very good and imo comparable to other APS low iso even with the noisy 1st Gen Panasonic sensor...

Heck I'm seriously thinking about getting a Sony A900 to supplement my Olympus stuff because it has something Olympus will probably never reach aka 25 megapixels.

Panasonic just can't seem to make sensor that is good at higher iso. Their compacts are plagued with noise (but otherwise brilliant). All their 4:3rds sensors fall apart at iso 800 (1600 if you are lucky and 400 if you aren't).

Olympus is very good at what it does do well, light weight and compact (if you don't buy the big SHG stuff of course) , great optics all around, E-3 is as tough as something you have to pay $3000+ or more for in any other brand and so on and so forth... It's a shame that many at DPR and elsewhere toss all that away for high iso results and dynamic range when base iso and 200 iso is fine wrt CR in most situations and many don't use high iso that often (from what you're saying you're an exception of course).

Raist3d · Dec 13, 2008

Really, if you need the higher ISO, go Nikon. I like low light but I also like the JPEG engine of Olympus more + the lenses so...

--
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.'

Apochromatic · Dec 13, 2008

I'd pay particular attention to the skin tones which are not terrific from that camera. There have been some people who have kept their D200s for that reason, despite the fact it has higher noise.

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

SirSeth said:
...what many of us who chose 4/3rds over the competition have already
realized. High ISO noise is only part of image quality. And IQ is
only part of the photographic experience. Price, feel, size, and
unique designs matter too. Many people buy based on noise alone. So
the D300 has slightly better high ISO noise. It doesn't show in
prints. End of story. Run a good noise reduction software if you
must. Or simply stop expecting pictures taken in lousy light to look
amazing. Even a 35mm FF camera can't make bad light look great.

Cheerio,
Seth

Yes only now realizing that, I am not very experienced on digital, on film I use to develop in B&W and some slides to paper using Cibachrome Kits.

Now I see that real Nikon advantage is done by a stronger noise filter, I was looking closer and the Olympus images have more detail and we can read better the labels on the bottles

I am feeling better now about Olympus, much better. Have learned that making a choice only based on hight iso is not a good choice. Thank you all for educating my eyes.

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

Raist3d said:
Really, if you need the higher ISO, go Nikon. I like low light but I
also like the JPEG engine of Olympus more + the lenses so...

--
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.'

I was "sad" because, I really like all in Olympus, and when I looked the first time at the samples and compare them, only looked at the noise, but after a few advices here I have changed my opinion, I even like the look of Olympus cameras and lenses, but of course is not the look that matters.

I am happy now, and I will begin now to understand more all that is behind digital photography.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Aleo Veuliah · Dec 13, 2008

lloyd007 said:
Olympus will always be behind CanSoNikon in high ISO. If that is your
thing you will get better results with them if you use their higher
end or faster glass (like a 50/1.4).

I don't shoot high iso very often with my 510. When I do it's all
banded and nasty. Low ISO is very good and imo comparable to other
APS low iso even with the noisy 1st Gen Panasonic sensor...

Heck I'm seriously thinking about getting a Sony A900 to supplement
my Olympus stuff because it has something Olympus will probably never
reach aka 25 megapixels.

Panasonic just can't seem to make sensor that is good at higher iso.
Their compacts are plagued with noise (but otherwise brilliant). All
their 4:3rds sensors fall apart at iso 800 (1600 if you are lucky and
400 if you aren't).

Olympus is very good at what it does do well, light weight and
compact (if you don't buy the big SHG stuff of course) , great optics
all around, E-3 is as tough as something you have to pay $3000+ or
more for in any other brand and so on and so forth... It's a shame
that many at DPR and elsewhere toss all that away for high iso
results and dynamic range when base iso and 200 iso is fine wrt CR in
most situations and many don't use high iso that often (from what
you're saying you're an exception of course).

From what I learned here, if Olympus use a stronger noise filter, images look better, have talked to a friend here on my country after read the replys to my post, he just said Olympus is a more honest brand, for example they tune the cameras to deliver true natural colors, and do not care about nikon and canon push the colors because they know most of the people like that, guess he is rigth about that and the same as far as I see can be applied to the way Olympus filter the noise, it's a more natural aproach to the problem and the detail is preserved.

I prefer to shoot at low iso, ballet and some indoors shows are the only reason to me for use hight iso, but like some users say, I have the advantage of using IS with all lenses and the lenses like the 14-54 II and 50-200 SWD are faster and better than those consumer zooms I have to use on other system.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

memee_meen · Dec 13, 2008

I;m doubt it if Zuiko 7-14 is the best in the market compare to Nikkor 14-24. As what i have heard from many forum, They were saying the 14-24 has the best resolution and sharpness.
Anyone can prove this? I wanna see how this 7-14 perform against the 14-24.

I will be please to get one of 7-14 if this is true. Cause i am an ultra ultra wide lover.
--
Out and Shoot.

Rens · Dec 14, 2008

Apochromatic said:
I'd pay particular attention to the skin tones which are not terrific
from that camera. There have been some people who have kept their
D200s for that reason, despite the fact it has higher noise.

Absolutely right.

--
Rens

Louis_Dobson · Dec 14, 2008

I wish you the very best with your D300 (not my favourite camera, I'd get a D700 or A900 myself).

I have to say though that over the past few weeks you've posted more wrong headed guff in here than I have ever seen before, starting with the daft "petition to Oly to use a Fuji sensor" and now finishing with this.

I can't be bothered to track down your samples, but there is way on God's good earth that any IQ difference between the E3, E30 and D300 at base ISO (regardless of which one may or may not be "better") can be detected by looking at other people's random samples: the difference between the shots will be way WAY WAY greater than any difference in the cameras.

As for high ISO performance, surely it is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that that is going to be an Oly limitation? If you do a lot of high ISO work, go 35mmFF. There is absolutely no point whatever in coming in here as saying you don't like the E3 at 3200 ISO. That's like complaining that a Ferrari isn't very good at taking pigs to market. If you are planning to take pigs to market, get a truck, not a Ferrari.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Fred Ferkel · Dec 14, 2008

Would you marry a woman who can't cook but is otherwise your absolute perfect dream girl? Well, Olympus can't cook either, hi-ISO is not the brand's strength but do you really NEED hi-ISO that much? If yes, get a Nikon but do it right and get the D700, if not, get the Olympus.

Feeling a bit "sad" about Olympus ...

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Raist3d

Guest

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts