-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Olympus E620, OFFICIAL Sample images
- Thread starter Arturo Fukuda
- Start date
hipTrip
Member
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e620/sample/
Sample 1 & 8 weren't shot with filters. Sample 3 (the beach) was a 3200 using Soft Focus.
Sample 1 & 8 weren't shot with filters. Sample 3 (the beach) was a 3200 using Soft Focus.
Id does a little less noise than the 520 (the beach photo would have at least the same noise in dark areas at 100). And there is not the faintest hint of banding. That is both an improve
The photos are a bit softened (Hair of the girl, details of the dog), the "good old" aa filter. But it seems weaker then in 520, 420, 510. which is an improvement (you could sharpen that on PC).
I'd say a pretty good thing...
BUT - the completely wrong kind of photos to show the image quality, it really looks like random photography. Run out fast, click a few times, try out some functions and that's it.
Waiting of some weeks... will help. (reviews will pop up)
The photos are a bit softened (Hair of the girl, details of the dog), the "good old" aa filter. But it seems weaker then in 520, 420, 510. which is an improvement (you could sharpen that on PC).
I'd say a pretty good thing...
BUT - the completely wrong kind of photos to show the image quality, it really looks like random photography. Run out fast, click a few times, try out some functions and that's it.
Waiting of some weeks... will help. (reviews will pop up)
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Wow that b&w one is damn noisy ;-)
Erm being serious, I think the sunset one is just really suffering from haze, the samples look ok to me
Erm being serious, I think the sunset one is just really suffering from haze, the samples look ok to me
I don't think there was any need to pixel peep to see there were lots of issues in those photos. They looked odd even browser sized to me.
I am relieved to know, though, that it was just overprocessing, errr...art filters, that was to blame for the bad looking photos.
--
Stu
E510, TZ4
.
I am relieved to know, though, that it was just overprocessing, errr...art filters, that was to blame for the bad looking photos.
--
Stu
E510, TZ4
.
BC13
Well-known member
Judging by the last photo, Olympus is using some kind of image processing algorithm that renders shadow noise as sheet music. I guess they figure if you can't eliminate noise, you might as well make it look nice.
For one thing, this is pretty good for ISO 200 - skies are smooth for example, which often wasn't the case even at ISO 100 on the 10MP sensors. There is noise there, but it so fine-grained that it is unobtrusive.
Perhaps this is why Oly has settled on 12MP - the resolution is high enough to give the noise (even when it is there) a fine-grained look, so making it unobtrusive. As it would appear to be the lowest resolution that achieves this, it is a logical place to stop for a while and focus on maximising DR etc.
Why does Oly keep posting samples at ISO 200 now though?
Perhaps this is why Oly has settled on 12MP - the resolution is high enough to give the noise (even when it is there) a fine-grained look, so making it unobtrusive. As it would appear to be the lowest resolution that achieves this, it is a logical place to stop for a while and focus on maximising DR etc.
Why does Oly keep posting samples at ISO 200 now though?
J
jkrumm
Guest
I think the 200 iso files are because auto iso starts at 200 iso now, from what I heard. You have to chose 100 iso.
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
Steven Wandy
Veteran Member
even when you download the full size image. 
Steve
Steve
sadwitch
Senior Member
I'm not jumping with joy looking at the samples but at least considering other factors the E620 is still nice and tempting.
I would think that as long as the photo is interesting, all other lack of technical details on quality are forgivable. I think real image quality is in the feel and not 100% crop of shadow areas.
--
My Galleries
http://albums.phanfare.com/sadwitch
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch
I would think that as long as the photo is interesting, all other lack of technical details on quality are forgivable. I think real image quality is in the feel and not 100% crop of shadow areas.
--
My Galleries
http://albums.phanfare.com/sadwitch
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch
That's strange. Why would they do that? Like auto gradation, it is only going to play into the "4/3rds DSLRs are noisier" prejudice. Really, really dumb.
Still, "auto" ISO on my E-330 never seems to get off ISO 100, which I guess is even dumber.
maboleth
Leading Member
Why are people constantly "not impressed" with newer Oly cameras and always hope something next will be better?
Face it, E30 and E620 represent the Oly now and have probably more or less the same IQ. All future cameras will be like that - only when TruePic IV or V processor comes around, you can expect some improved noise/DR. Just like III+ extended the DR, removed banding and is art filter-friendly.
But I agree in one thing: Oly needs a proper photographer(s) to test the camera. Their test shots are technically lame and uninspired.
ivframes.com
Face it, E30 and E620 represent the Oly now and have probably more or less the same IQ. All future cameras will be like that - only when TruePic IV or V processor comes around, you can expect some improved noise/DR. Just like III+ extended the DR, removed banding and is art filter-friendly.
But I agree in one thing: Oly needs a proper photographer(s) to test the camera. Their test shots are technically lame and uninspired.
--
ivframes.com
No, it is not dumb. It has been said before: probably the sensor works natively at 200 ISO, instead that 100.
Moreover I am not sure that the factory default is Auto gradation, I'd rather say it's Normal gradation.
Let's hope for the best, because otherwise the reviews would suffer. However I don't thing that DPR would be fooled, since they do RAW tests as well.
Am.
-
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Moreover I am not sure that the factory default is Auto gradation, I'd rather say it's Normal gradation.
Let's hope for the best, because otherwise the reviews would suffer. However I don't thing that DPR would be fooled, since they do RAW tests as well.
Am.
-
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
rameshpkumar
Senior Member
These are pre-production samples with default settings. Even 5d images were really bad when Canon had it on their website. I am sure this camera will be better than E-420 or E-520.
Also, there have been discussions either in this thread or another thread about E-620 that most pictures were taken with the AUTO gradation and some people even suggested that Olympus should be dropping it.
It may be a good idea to change the default to OFF, but dropping it? I do not understand why? I liked it and if used on some images, it will provide the effect you want. Picture below was printed at 15*10 inch size after cropping to 3:2 proportion and I cannot see any noise in dark areas. I believe the foreground rocks would have been completely dark without AUTO. I took with RAW and JPG option and I still liked the JPG version even after I played with RAW.
You may be seeing some artifacts here because of JPG compression, but print was really good.
--
Thanks Ramesh
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/portfolio
My D-LUX 4 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/dlux4
My G9 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/canong9
Also, there have been discussions either in this thread or another thread about E-620 that most pictures were taken with the AUTO gradation and some people even suggested that Olympus should be dropping it.
It may be a good idea to change the default to OFF, but dropping it? I do not understand why? I liked it and if used on some images, it will provide the effect you want. Picture below was printed at 15*10 inch size after cropping to 3:2 proportion and I cannot see any noise in dark areas. I believe the foreground rocks would have been completely dark without AUTO. I took with RAW and JPG option and I still liked the JPG version even after I played with RAW.
You may be seeing some artifacts here because of JPG compression, but print was really good.
--
Thanks Ramesh
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/portfolio
My D-LUX 4 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/dlux4
My G9 gallery: http://www.pbase.com/rameshpkumar/canong9
R
Raist3d
Guest
at least on the e-420 and e-520. I believe that's also the case for these two (e-30, e-620).
--
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.'
--
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.'
R
Raist3d
Guest
--
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 have a friend who bought an E-30 recently, and was disappointed with the shadow noise. He showed me some samples, and I could see that it was in auto gradation, so I told him to switch it off. Since then, he's been blissfully happy with his camera.
He says that as far as he knows he didn't switch auto gradation on. Now of course he may have done it inadvertantly (this is why I have a big problem with calling it "auto" - many people will think this is how it should be when they want the camera to work automatically), but I am concerned that it may now be on by default in some modes. If so, this is a HUGE mistake on Oly's part.
IMHO, SAT absolutely should not be on by default in any mode (except perhaps some kind of special "shadow recovery" mode), and it should NOT be called auto gradation - it should be labelled as what it is (shadaow enhancement), to give people a clearer idea of what it actually does.
He says that as far as he knows he didn't switch auto gradation on. Now of course he may have done it inadvertantly (this is why I have a big problem with calling it "auto" - many people will think this is how it should be when they want the camera to work automatically), but I am concerned that it may now be on by default in some modes. If so, this is a HUGE mistake on Oly's part.
IMHO, SAT absolutely should not be on by default in any mode (except perhaps some kind of special "shadow recovery" mode), and it should NOT be called auto gradation - it should be labelled as what it is (shadaow enhancement), to give people a clearer idea of what it actually does.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum