Reading mode: Light Dark

Imaging Resource's E-30 test images

Go to last post
try Olympus Master or Studio and see if you see a difference.
rssarma said:
Even at ISO200, I downloaded the RAW and opened in LR, but ISO 1600
files, the colour looks posterized, not sure why.
--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
Click to expand...
--
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.'
 
Me, no.

The E-30 pictures look excellent at 100-800 ISO, like the E3, E520, E420.

The E-30 pictures look bad above 800 ISO, like the E3, E520, E420.

Is this a surprise? C'mon!

The 4/3 system will NEVER EVER be a system for high ISO shooters.

But it was, is and will always be an excellent system for low ISO shooters, with the best zoom lenses ever made on the market. And that's what's important.

Cheers,

Frederic
 
clknight said:
The ones I saw yesterday looked GREAT, even up to ISO 1600. But here,
ISO 1600 is WORSE than the E-510 using the comparometer at Imaging
Resource.

What the heck are we supposed to believe here? Does it suck or not?
Why the inconsistencies?

Sharpness is WAY off on the E-30 ISO 1600 still life shot. Either
that, or it was out of focus. I'm not sure which.

Terrible results. Some real discouragement to counter yesterday's
encouragment.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
Click to expand...
I don't know what correlation might exist between the two sensors, but the Jan 2009 issue of Pop Photo found the G1's noise "unacceptable" at 1600. They are generally moderate in their opinion of noise, the 10 meg Olympus cameras got better scores.
 
... don't expect too much about E-30 performance at high ISOs.

From the samples we've seen on the web until now, expect it to be a tad noisier or same than the E3 @ high ISOs, with less banding.

But be SURE that it will be behind all the competion, APS or Full Frame, for High ISOs shooting.

Let's enjoy the 4/3 system for what it is, and let's not dream about what it will never be!

Cheers,

Frederic
 
the differences between the comparisons that we've seen? Why aren't they all good or all bad, or somewhere in between? Rather, they're all over the place.

I'm about to settle for the E-3 and forget about the E-30.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
 
clknight said:
What the heck are we supposed to believe here? Does it suck or not?
Why the inconsistencies?
Click to expand...
Do they mention the mode used to take each shot? I am suspicious of the impact of using live view on the sensor - exposing the sensor to light for extended periods must have some effect.
clknight said:
Sharpness is WAY off on the E-30 ISO 1600 still life shot. Either
that, or it was out of focus. I'm not sure which.

Terrible results. Some real discouragement to counter yesterday's
encouragment.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the other review sites that have actual FW 1.0 E-30s will be able to clarify this with their (reasonably) standard tests. The non standard shots appear to be all over the place qualitatively too, which makes me suspect a systematic effect such as the use of live view being the culprit of degraded performance.

Is the impact of e.g Canon's live view equivalent known? Did the review sites test this? (I don't have time to look this up as I'm at work at the moment.)
 
clknight said:
the differences between the comparisons that we've seen? Why aren't
they all good or all bad, or somewhere in between? Rather, they're
all over the place.

I'm about to settle for the E-3 and forget about the E-30.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
Click to expand...
Well, it's difficult to tell. I think that some websites have lousy test procedures, so the results are not consistent.

If you have time, it's better you wait that the E-30 is officialy out, try one, compare yourself with the E-3, and then decide.

If you are in a hurry, just go for the E-3. It's, until the proof of the contrary, the best 4/3 camera ever made, and the output is superb. I have it for one year and I'm always amazed with the results.

Good luck with your choices :-)

I'm off to bed.

Cheers,

Frederic
 
--

For some reason, for the E-30 Imaging Resource is posting JPEGs with high NR in all their smeary glory on th comparometer, which they don't seem to do on other cameras. Look at the sample images with low NR or NR turned off.

Better yet, download the ORF file and process it in Raw Therapee. It looks at least as good as the Sony A700 files of the same image at ISO 1600, which is to say very good.
 
But I've never had one image with banding at ISO 800 and above. I've never shot ISO 3200, so maybe that's where it is.
 
I tried that last night and fond the ruth to. E so

Where in between. The 'saves box' high ISO looks fine and reasonable with be off. The far field house shot at ISO 3200 looks better on the e3 with more detail on the roof even after taking into account the megapixel resolution diff but what you brought up still helps quite a bit.
--
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.'
 
Don't know what the settings of both were, but on my monitor, the E-3 appears "significantly" better than the E-30 images. Could it be that this was not a production model?

--
Bob
 
Pixnat2 said:
The 4/3 system will NEVER EVER be a system for high ISO shooters.
Click to expand...
True but as the 12mp sensor is starting to get close to the pixel density of the Canon 50D I was hoping that high ISO with a 4/3 sensor and 10~12mp would start to get close to the higher iso performance of the N & C cameras.

Good to see how well the E-3 holds up though. Also of note when comparing with other brands like N & C is the DXOmark info which shows that N & C have their actual ISO about 1/2 a stop below the actual setting where ISO 1600 in a D90 is closer to actual ISO 1200 etc. As Oly and say Fuji S5 are almost spot on with their ISO setting it helps Oly in the comparrison which is not that far behind.
 
--

THe RAW files are just amazing. I'm actually getting much better photos now than the Sony A700 for the same scene at high ISOs. There is more detail in the little tick marks on the scale and less chroma noise on the white background.

Yes, it's the usual stuff. The E-30 JPEG software is probably not where it should be, certainly not as refined yet as that of the E3 let alone the sophisticated Nikon D90, and so reviewers will bash the camera at first while noting cryptically that RAW files are "significantly better."

Later on when we have version 4 of software updates for E-30 JPEGs producing excellent JPEGs, everyone will complain about how the new E4 is "just not as good as the E-30" let alone the venerable E3 or the great grandparent E1.
 
The results are just all over the place. Look at the dramatically different DR results for the E-410 and 510 for example, when they should be the same - my guess is that they had NR switched on on the E-410, and switched off on the E-510. Also, their bizarre comments about hot pixels in long exposures, which leads me to think that they got the noise reduction and the noise filter mixed up. Their own admission as to the bizarre inconsistencies in their DR results. The incorrect reporting of features. The list goes on.
 
I'm just impressed with the color and DR in the higher ISO shots, good job Oly! So often higher ISO shots tend to have a color cast which is lame.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510 L1
http://joesiv.smugmug.com
 
Aleo Veuliah said:
Nikon D300 neutral setting 100 iso
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D300/FULLRES/D300hSLCOL_NEUTRAL.HTM

Olympus E-30 natural setting 100 iso
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E30/FULLRES/E30hSLCON1.HTM
Click to expand...
And it's not this one?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E30/FULLRES/E30hSLCOL_NATURAL.HTM
Aleo Veuliah said:
I looked at 100% moving around trought the images, and E-30 look much
better, better detail and looks clean too.
Click to expand...
Except in the reds. If you take a look at the label of Fiddler's Elbow and that leftmost thread, it looks like E-30's red is very close to clipping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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