BushmanOrig and 12MP and the Oly statement

I dont want the bump the BushmanOrig Tread.

But I see Siegfried has discovered, that the E-30 sensor+signal processing is not as good as the 10MP sensor + signal processing.

This may be true, and Oly itself may also have discovered this.

The Oly leader is also only human, perhaps he wanted to say "first lets optimise the 12MP before we move to higher MP if its needed/possible". That may be also a message at Panasonic.

I think this is a good idea, and should show that oly recognizes faults and does work to correct faults.

Siegfried, next time please make less headline noise when exchanging a camera. The text you write is ok.

cheers
Martin F.

3xPanasonicL10 - made with Oly components and I also have Oly=Zuiko lenses; lenses are more important than cameras - I continue posting in Oly SLR talk - this is the 'standard fourthirds forum'.

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

Don't know that it matters much, and it's just one more person's opinion... but I have to tell you that the E-30 replaced my E-3 when I was on the road these past few months. I preferred it's output and I valued the portions of the E-3 it brought to the table. I think it's the better camera, overall... not just as a tool but as an imaging device.

If the E620 gets any refinement, it'll truly be a sight.

The one thing that some people here most certainly understand that others really don't seem to is this: you can't pixel peep an Oly and truly get an understanding of the print quality. You just can't. For whatever reason the Oly prints are phenomenal while the peeping somewhat less so. When in the field I took along three things: gear, powerpoint, and portfolio. The images in the portfolio would blow people's minds. It's not that I'm necessarily a good photographer... it's that the prints were what people expected from "better" cameras... and would almost immediately silence the "sales price" objections.

I think that speaks volumes.

Martin Frost said:

I dont want the bump the BushmanOrig Tread.

But I see Siegfried has discovered, that the E-30 sensor+signal
processing is not as good as the 10MP sensor + signal processing.

This may be true, and Oly itself may also have discovered this.

The Oly leader is also only human, perhaps he wanted to say "first
lets optimise the 12MP before we move to higher MP if its
needed/possible". That may be also a message at Panasonic.

I think this is a good idea, and should show that oly recognizes
faults and does work to correct faults.

Siegfried, next time please make less headline noise when exchanging
a camera. The text you write is ok.

cheers
Martin F.

3xPanasonicL10 - made with Oly components and I also have Oly=Zuiko
lenses; lenses are more important than cameras - I continue posting
in Oly SLR talk - this is the 'standard fourthirds forum'.

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

Click to expand...

--
there are no better companies, only better images.

setaside2 wrote:
............

Quote#1:
...........

setaside2 said:

The one thing that some people here most certainly understand that
others really don't seem to is this: you can't pixel peep an Oly and
truly get an understanding of the print quality. You just can't.

Click to expand...

..........
Quote#2
...........

setaside2 said:

--
there are no better companies, only better images.

Click to expand...

..........

I do not agree with the above.

I had a 7MP Kodak P712, which was very noisy and produced excellent small size prints (5x7) at low ISO OK 8x10 and that was it. At 100% the P712 images looked very noisy.

The second quote is plain wrong - there are bad, good and better companies.
Leo

Hi

Interesting statement you made here about printouts. Almost all of my pictures reside on my computer only. Now I understand I should produce some reasonably sized prints of them.

Thanks for the hint.
Emilio

Why didn't you quote or make a whole new thread based on all positive E30 reviews?

It amazes me how people always have more reaction on negative stuff, yet positives are easily overlooked.

There are many many positive reviews and personal opinions of E30, much more than negative ones. Try it. And that Busman guy was rather hysteric. Not a good model to base your projection whether E30/12mpx is good or not.

--
ivframes.com

Martin Frost said:

But I see Siegfried has discovered, that the E-30 sensor+signal
processing is not as good as the 10MP sensor + signal processing.

This may be true, and Oly itself may also have discovered this.

The Oly leader is also only human, perhaps he wanted to say "first
lets optimise the 12MP before we move to higher MP if its
needed/possible". That may be also a message at Panasonic.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely what I think, and the E-30/E-620/G1 pictures are not proving that 12 megapixel is the optimum for a 4/3 sensor.

Maybe Panasonic should have stopped at 10 megapixels?

--
Cheers,

Frederic

Leo said:

Quote#1:
...........

Leo said:

The one thing that some people here most certainly understand that
others really don't seem to is this: you can't pixel peep an Oly and
truly get an understanding of the print quality. You just can't.

Click to expand...

..........
Quote#2
...........

Leo said:

--
there are no better companies, only better images.

Click to expand...

..........

I do not agree with the above.

I had a 7MP Kodak P712, which was very noisy and produced excellent
small size prints (5x7) at low ISO OK 8x10 and that was it. At 100%
the P712 images looked very noisy.

Click to expand...

That's great, and, might I add, fairly typical of a Kodak P series point and shoot. However, my point was exclusively made concerning the Olympus E-system. The simple fact remains: they work very, very well in print and do not do so well when pixel peeping, especially when the vast majority of the market is using a marginal color scale LCD monitor to do so. I have a gorgeous 23" Apple Cinema HD LCD panel. It's also utterly useless where color calibration and pixel accuracy are concerned. Fortunately I've a fair eye for color and have therefore excellent luck with my Epson printers. That being said, half the artifacting a pixel peeper may see in this case belongs to the monitor, not the image itself. No, the end print is what the cameras are still designed for not the pixel biased measurements of a given LCD screen. I have found, a long time ago, that looking at an Oly image at 67% or thereabouts, at least on my monitor, gives a better indication of the final print.

Leo said:

The second quote is plain wrong - there are bad, good and better
companies.

Click to expand...

You are taking it out of context (on purpose?) and I perhaps have it worded incorrectly, though I expect that you probably know this... Better phrased I suppose it would say that there are no better "brands," only better images. Fortunately, most people seem to understand this from the quote in and of itself.

And, further, a better company certainly doesn't indicate a better product. And neither does a better product in any way signify a better company.

Leo said:

Leo

Click to expand...

--
there are no better companies, only better images.

Pixnat2 said:

That's absolutely what I think, and the E-30/E-620/G1 pictures are
not proving that 12 megapixel is the optimum for a 4/3 sensor.

Maybe Panasonic should have stopped at 10 megapixels?

--

Click to expand...

'The G1 pulls visibly more detail out of a scene than the conventional Four Thirds DSLRs that we have tested before and is on par with the very best in the entry level DSLR bracket such as the Canon 450D. Shooting in RAW will get you even more detail and generally clean output.'

From the review on this site.

--
Vaughan
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/jvwpc/
http://tuesdaytravels.blogspot.com/

I've been very pleased with the G1 JPEG output - the natural colours, the detail and dynamic range are all fine. It doesn't give the Olympus look which I slightly prefer for some scenes (landscapes, for example) but Panasonic's approach to imaging is showing a maturity far ahead of their short years in the photo business.

--
Regards
J



http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

Hi Martin,

I find all this very odd .....

... since I am looking at comparative E520 & E30 images, literally just taken, showing very plainly that the E520 images have more noise, less detail, less subtlety in tone gradation, & less resolution, than those from the E30.

In short, when you pixel peep, the E520 images are "mushy" - if that's an acceptable description. I'm not saying at all that the E520 are poor - they are very good, but just not up there at the level of the E30.

I really can't understand all this bashing of the E30 for poor IQ. I simply don't see it with the tests I am doing.

Both cameras had identical settings - ISO 200, RAW, NF set to OFF, then processed in Capture One 4.

I would happily upload the images & crops up, but pBase seems to be having the week-end blues and it is hardly responding. So for the moment, please take my word for it & I'll post them later.

Martin Frost said:

But I see Siegfried has discovered, that the E-30 sensor+signal
processing is not as good as the 10MP sensor + signal processing.

This may be true, and Oly itself may also have discovered this.
cheers
Martin F.

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Rich Simpson

Hmm, I believe that Bushmanorig (Siegfried) knows what he writes, I believe he knows whats image quality, he wrote me emails, he has a good website and had many cameras, how does it come that there are so different opinions ?

I also believe you.

I do not know. Are there different E-30's out ?

Regarding the reviews, even "a bit less good than the 10MP performance" is good, but maybe not as good as the 10MP performance. I think in the past many reviews were intentionally negative against fourthirds because it was easy to bash a new player, but after fourthirds releases more and more DSLRs each year bashing fourthirds becomes less and less easy. So the reviews become better and better, even if the cams were as good 1-2 years ago.

cheers
Martin F.

3xPanasonicL10 - made with Oly components and I also have Oly=Zuiko lenses; lenses are more important than cameras - I continue posting in Oly SLR talk - this is the 'standard fourthirds forum'.

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

Rich Simpson UK said:

Hi Martin,

I find all this very odd .....

... since I am looking at comparative E520 & E30 images, literally
just taken, showing very plainly that the E520 images have more
noise, less detail, less subtlety in tone gradation, & less
resolution, than those from the E30.

Click to expand...

Rich,

perhaps a more valid comparison to prove Bushman's point is a comparison between L10 and 520 with E30. (raw, 100% crop, same settings, same scene, same lightning). The guy had an L10.

Both L10 and 510 are known to squeeze the most of the 10 Mp sensor in terms of details due to very weakk AA filters. OTOH the E3, E520 and E30 are known for a strong AA filter so the detail they pull from 10 Mp or 12 Mp sensor may not be quit on par with 510 or L10.

In fact I expect that 520 to show less detail than E30 due to similar AA filter and increased E30 resolution. However the increase in E30 resolution may not be enough to surclass the L10 rendering of detail when stronger AA filter is used.
My2c
regards

PS Anyway, if BushmanOrig is into landscape I think he made a mistake selling the L10.

--
Viorel

I have the L1 as well as the G1, and those too also have a weaker AA filter I believe, so am happy to check those cams as well. pBase is still down is seems.

I have to say, the E30 image at a detail level, taken in RAW without any NF applied, strikes me as being very impressive. I can't compare with the E3 unfortunately as that has been sold.

Apart from the increased resolution & improved handling of noise, the most obvious difference I see in the E30, are the warmer images, and the change in metering characteristics. When for example the E520 might need -0.7 or - 1.0, the E30 for the same scene will be on 0.0 or -0.3 EV.

--
Cheers,
Rich Simpson

viorel said:

perhaps a more valid comparison to prove Bushman's point is a
comparison between L10 and 520 with E30. (raw, 100% crop, same
settings, same scene, same lightning).

Click to expand...

Maybe that's the problem with his comparison. You can't compare sensors with different resolutions with 100% crops. You should frame them identically and study identical crops. 100% crop of a 10mp sensor is not the same size area as a 100% crop of a 12mp sensor.

From what I've seen and read, the G1 produces excellent results at base ISO. But at 1600 ISO it's worse than the E-30, which is worse than the E-3, banding aside.

All is a matter of balance. No 4/3 camera will never be the High ISO king, but we can expect to be usable at high ISO, which is apparently not really the case of the latest 12 Mpixels panasonic sensors.

That's why I think 10 megapixel is, until now, the optimum for 4/3, banding aside.

--
Cheers,

Frederic

100% crop of a 10mp

LLS1 said:

sensor is not the same size area as a 100% crop of a 12mp sensor.

Click to expand...

100% crop of a 12 Mp sensor should be more tolerant than 100% crop of a 10 Mp sensor...so the problem remains.

--
Viorel

Rich Simpson UK said:

I have the L1 as well as the G1, and those too also have a weaker AA
filter I believe, so am happy to check those cams as well. pBase is
still down is seems.

Click to expand...

Thanks Rich, I think would be a good thing

Rich Simpson UK said:

I have to say, the E30 image at a detail level, taken in RAW without
any NF applied, strikes me as being very impressive.

Click to expand...

I'm happy to hear that since I have plans for a 620

Rich Simpson UK said:

Apart from the increased resolution & improved handling of noise, the
most obvious difference I see in the E30, are the warmer images, and
the change in metering characteristics. When for example the E520
might need -0.7 or - 1.0, the E30 for the same scene will be on 0.0
or -0.3 EV.

Click to expand...

Do you think that e30 applies some some of noise reduction even at off setting? This might partly explain Bushmanorig's finding.

Rich Simpson UK said:

--
Cheers,
Rich Simpson

Click to expand...

--
Viorel

viorel said:

100% crop of a 10mp

viorel said:

sensor is not the same size area as a 100% crop of a 12mp sensor.

Click to expand...

100% crop of a 12 Mp sensor should be more tolerant than 100% crop of
a 10 Mp sensor...so the problem remains.

Click to expand...

More tolerant? What does that even mean? I'm just saying that a higher rez sensor doesn't have to equal a lower rez sensor on a pixel level to match it's image quality on the whole.

I am not sure. I have an 410 with a weak AA filter.

Now the only official photo without art filters I saw at Olympus' site is the white dog in the grass at 200 ISO. I find it very sharp and without noticeable noise. As sharp and more detailed than my 410.

I also suspect that one should judge on a resolution/noise basis, so judgment may vary depending on what is the optimal Noise Filter setting for each camera .

Moreover I still have to understand if a stronger AA filter is related to DR. If so I'd rather have it than not. But it would be nice to have it selectable from menus, since people want to have maximum sharpness and maximum DR, and can't have both

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

LLS1 said:

viorel said:

100% crop of a 10mp

LLS1 said:

sensor is not the same size area as a 100% crop of a 12mp sensor.

Click to expand...

100% crop of a 12 Mp sensor should be more tolerant than 100% crop of
a 10 Mp sensor...so the problem remains.

Click to expand...

More tolerant? What does that even mean? I'm just saying that a
higher rez sensor doesn't have to equal a lower rez sensor on a pixel
level to match it's image quality on the whole.

Click to expand...

If you refer to the image quality as a whole yes, you're right. But if you make an evaluation towards pixel level, image degradation appears sooner on 10Mp sensor than on 12 Mp sensor. This is what I meant. It's not usual to be the opposite.

--
Viorel