e-620 shot printing - how much noise affects.... or not...

So I decided to do a sensible thing. I decided to print shots! I have an Epson R2880 which is pretty much as good as you can get all the way to current high end labs. I took some shots before I left work today at night, to make sure I had difficult light.

So some preliminary results from what I am seeing. I am printing all shots in 8.5 x 11 (with a 0.25 inch border or so) - I forgot what A letter this corresponds in the metric/Europe standard...

All shots were with noise filter off, and JPEGS out of the camera with no tweaks. This is virtually the same result the RAW Oly Master/Studio do for you with the same settings. Yes, the JPEG engine of Olympus has gotten that good - this was certainly NOT the case in the Olympus e-300 era where the JPEG engine will smear details like trees in a landscape, in the distance.

So... the results- keep in mind this is in very difficult and mixed lighting... Ill upload a shot so you get an idea later.

• ISO 3200 - not very good. Probably if the shot is tweaked, saturated a bit, maybe ok. You can still see it but not what I would call acceptable.

• ISO 800 - Pretty good.

These two shots are in not so good light mixed with some lighted sign of a store name at the stop.

ISO 1000 - pretty good. This is mixed with dark and good light. A black car in the picture looks fine.

I have to admit I am not completely excited about the ISO performance of the 620, but I need to remember once you hit ISO 1000, it is indeed an improvement over the 420. The 420 at this point would show me banding in the same shot and the noise wouldn't be as fine grained.

So on that end, I am ok.

What I am not exactly ok is when I see in dusk light some noise in the shadows at ISO 200. I am going to print that shot now, and see how it goes. I need to remind myself the resolution equivalence, and that probably it would only be fair to grab the e420 and shoot in the same condition.

General usability / speed of the 620 of course, is much superior in general, though the e-420 I find fine.

--- Ah, ISO 1000 simulated to a 13' by 19' print (not that I would print at that size but the printer can do it and was curious how it would look, and I am not in the mood of wasting a full 13' by 19' paper and ink when I can simulate it in a 8x10).

Prints ok. It would be still acceptable though probably on the edge of.

The ISO 200 shot I described with some shadow noise printed ok at 8.5 x 11. The shadowy noisy area looks ok but not great.

And with this, I am done wasting precious ink.

--
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.'

So here's the ISO 200 shot... in websize it looks really good. I will add after the shot a link to a PNG - as it came out of the camera, loss less- crop so you can see what I mean. Since noise filter is off, comparing to other brands, it's not as bad as it seems but I still feel a bit ummm.. Also keep in mind when comparing to 10 megapixels, there's some of the "resolution equivalence" that will happen...



http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/burbankspan620crop.png

--
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.'

This is a shot in very difficult light. Ironically while the ISO 200 shot makes me go a bit hmm... this one in perspective, is clearly better than what the e-420 would do.

At websizes it looks superb. At full size it still looks decent (Ill add a crop at 100% shortly).



--
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.'

PNGS, so you see what I see.

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/620snapcrop1.png

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/620snapcrop2.png

--
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.'

Thanks for taking the time and talking about these printed tests.

Printing is overlooked far too much when judging outcome and IQ.

I have had prints made from some of the B&W I shot with the E-330 in the Paris Gare Du Nord. Print size is 45x60 cm (that is roughly 18x24 inch), with one bigger and separate image at 60x80 cm.

They all look absolutely gorgeous, with lots of fine detail in the dark areas and a pleasing, grain-like quality in the lighter areas. They will feature in an exhibition starting later this week.

They are images from this series (8 B&W in Paris; 6 colour in Antwerp) :







I wrote about that already a while ago, but now the time of the opening is approaching really fast... :
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?message=31410709&forum=1008

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

First, the shots I posted are walkaround bad snapshots. Not even close to a photograph- so wanted to make that first disclaimer in case somewhat is wondering as to the "aesthethics of the shots." These are snaps to see how the camera does color/light/etc.

Second, keep in mind the noise filter was off. This means that yes, you will see more noise than usual, and if you are going to compare across brands you need to keep this in mind. Noise set to low reduces it a bit yet keeps still a lot of detail. Somewhere between low and standard, or standard noise reduction is ballpark of what competitors seem to be doing, so keep that in mind.

So with that out of the way-

• I get the impression the e-420 would do the ISO 200 shot better.. Ill try tomorrow. While at first there seems to be a gap, there's two things that close it-

1. the 620 has a bit more resolution so that closes it a bit

2. if the shot required higher dynamic range, the 620 would do between 2/3rds to 1 stop more. What I wonder is if Olympus is doing some sort of tone curve adjust trick because if they are, I wished they put this as an option to get the E-3 curve where you get deep nice shadows at the expense of having to watch the highlights more and call this regular e-30/620 way of doing things "high tone priority" or such. ISO 100 doesn't do this as dpreview found and I can corroborate, so I wonder if they could do that.

• ISO 1000 is definitively better than the 420. The e420 would get some banding in this kind of shot.

• The ISO 1000 is done in really difficult lighting.

• Lens used in all shots is the 12-60.

• Those doing B&W can go further in the ISO without less worry and because the 620 doesn't band, it feels very predictable/confidence inducing.

• The art B&W filter does superb at all ISO's because of the way it processes and thrives on noise. There's almost no difference between ISO 100 and 3200 with it.

--
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.'

First of all, thanks for this and all the other work you have posted about these cameras.

Raist3d said:

Second, keep in mind the noise filter was off. This means that yes,
you will see more noise than usual, and if you are going to compare
across brands you need to keep this in mind. Noise set to low reduces
it a bit yet keeps still a lot of detail. Somewhere between low and
standard, or standard noise reduction is ballpark of what competitors
seem to be doing, so keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? Have you done prints with the noise set on standard? I haven't, but I'm curious. Does it print as badly as the pixel peeping suggests it will?

rovingtim said:

First of all, thanks for this and all the other work you have posted
about these cameras.

Click to expand...

You are welcome. I am heading into busy land again unfortunately so this is just a break.

rovingtim said:

Raist3d said:

Second, keep in mind the noise filter was off. This means that yes,
you will see more noise than usual, and if you are going to compare
across brands you need to keep this in mind. Noise set to low reduces
it a bit yet keeps still a lot of detail. Somewhere between low and
standard, or standard noise reduction is ballpark of what competitors
seem to be doing, so keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this?

Click to expand...

About competitors doing default noise reduction- more than Olympus with the NF set to off? Absolutely. Check dpreview's own review of the Canon 40D (yes 40D, not 50D), and check what they found if you use their RAW converter (Canon's) to turn off the default noise reduction. It's an eye opener in the detail

rovingtim said:

Have you done prints with the noise set on
standard?

Click to expand...

No. Not yet. Hmm I guess I can waste ink for one more print. If I had to guess noise reduction will look fine as long as the print is not too big.

rovingtim said:

I haven't, but I'm curious. Does it print as badly as the
pixel peeping suggests it will?

Click to expand...

Well no, it doesn't (even with NF off, that's what this whole thread was about conclusion wise). I would say anyone wondering about printing up to an 8.5 x 11 type size shouldn't really worry. Anyone doing web photos shouldn't worry at all ( and I am talking about showing them at 1280x960 type sizes which is quite big by web standards anyway).

--
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.'

that sparks my interest in this and other recent Olympus bodies !

Raist3d said:

• The art B&W filter does superb at all ISO's because of the way it

processes and thrives on noise. There's almost no difference between
ISO 100 and 3200 with it.

Click to expand...

Ah well, I guess they will implement it also in the next E-X body (whenever it comes...)

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

of the three. Looks almost "ethereal."

Now that you mention the e-330 to be honest, I think I have bought too much lately. To get back my E-3 was ok because I had a real need. I corroborated this further when I saw the E-3 lock focus in light the 620 just failed to do so. But to buy the 620 once I bought the E-3 was just luxurious spendage. I am still coming to terms with it. I don't feel good about it right now. (ironic given how well the 620 matches many of the things I am looking for but truth is, it was supposed to be the 620 or the E-3, not both).

So you getting to exhibit in Paris- that's pretty cool.

BTW, I forgot to tell you but on the shot you showed inside that building where light came in + the portrait- the shot inside the building didn't do anything for me but the portrait I think it's really good. The only thing maybe would be perhaps more contrasty light but I love the expression of the man you captured along with the background.

--
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 said:

of the three. Looks almost "ethereal."

Now that you mention the e-330 to be honest, I think I have bought
too much lately. To get back my E-3 was ok because I had a real
need. I corroborated this further when I saw the E-3 lock focus in
light the 620 just failed to do so. But to buy the 620 once I bought
the E-3 was just luxurious spendage. I am still coming to terms with
it. I don't feel good about it right now. (ironic given how well the
620 matches many of the things I am looking for but truth is, it was
supposed to be the 620 or the E-3, not both).

Click to expand...

Don't feel bad. If you make good use of whatever you buy, then that is cool.

Member said:

So you getting to exhibit in Paris- that's pretty cool.

Click to expand...

No, maybe a slight misunderstanding here : the exhibition is in Schoten near Antwerp (my home town). But I will be showing pictures that are all shot on the same afternoon, during a (business) trip by Thalys train from Paris to Antwerp. All shot with E-330 and ZD25 and ZD50 (because I could only taking minimal gear).

Member said:

BTW, I forgot to tell you but on the shot you showed inside that
building where light came in + the portrait- the shot inside the
building didn't do anything for me but the portrait I think it's
really good. The only thing maybe would be perhaps more contrasty
light but I love the expression of the man you captured along with
the background.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them. The interior shot in the mosque is one that attracts very mixed and varied reactions. I am cool with that. It was not supposed to be a shot appealing to everyone. The portrait is generally quite well received. And I am cool with that too, of course !

Member said:

--
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.'

Click to expand...

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Small update: The reason I feel bad is because while I am sure I will use it... really, do I really and I mean really need it? I feel like I didn't earn it. Like I should focus more on photography, less on equipment purchasing. I already got the E-3 which I can see a real need/use for the weddings. Ah well, at least I work darn hard for my cash. I just want to make sure I get away from the material things and just the "euphoria" of a new toy and do more with less. My best Street night life shots were done... on the e-300/e-330.

-----

Art B&W filter. Just did this right now. Put the subject down by a cheap Ikea tungsten or such lamp.

First ISO 100:



Now ISO 3200:



And now a 100% crop, ISO 100 on the left, ISO 3200 on the right. The ISO 3200 may look in some areas a tad sharper (if you look real carefully) but that's only because I forgot to use the program shift to make the aperture the same. The ISO 100 shot at F2.8 while the ISO 3200 shot at F5.0 (the numbers don't seem to correspond to the ISO difference, but that's because the shutter speed also varied... Ah Olympus.. if you have given manual control over these.. anyway).



--
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.'

Almost makes me want to go out and buy an E-30 or E-620...

But, like you, I think I should concentrate first on exploring and exploiting my current gear.

And quite frankly, when gear lust raises its ugly head, it is more about fast lenses (ZD35-100 ! ZD150 !) than about bodies in my case. My last big lens purchase was the PL25mm and I have not felt any regret, shame or guilt about that for one second. It was a lens I needed and I love using.

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

I definitively will agree that between buying a new body and a new lens, the new lens (assuming a good lens) seems the better buy. It really makes a difference.

I have no doubts I know how to use my e-420/etc. The issue to me is more - the e-620, do I really need it... what did I buy? More convenience.. for what? I already had a lot of "convenience." No banding at high ISO is probably the biggest win followed by the surprisingly adept at all situations B&W filter. Blah.

BTW, I do think or I am inclined to think the E-30 does a bit better than the 620 once you hit ISO 1600/3200... but I am not 100% sure.

I would love the day Olympus realizes they need to put in the same quality across the line for real (unless it really makes a difference in the $$$ build $$$ cost), because I don't think they are in a position they can afford to do otherwise.

• Raist

PS: Between the 35-100 and the 150 prime, if you already have something like the 50-200, seems to me the prime is best. I have seen a shot with an e-510 with that lens, and it truly looks like a new higher end camera. I remember someone else recently posted a shot with the e-500 and the high end 300 F2.8 prime.... what a difference huh?

PSS: Not that the 35-100 is a bad lens. hehe... but really the 150 prime, seems like it's probably better. Shooting primes teaches composition better anyway.

RoelHendrickx said:

Almost makes me want to go out and buy an E-30 or E-620...

But, like you, I think I should concentrate first on exploring and
exploiting my current gear.

And quite frankly, when gear lust raises its ugly head, it is more
about fast lenses (ZD35-100 ! ZD150 !) than about bodies in my case.
My last big lens purchase was the PL25mm and I have not felt any
regret, shame or guilt about that for one second. It was a lens I
needed and I love using.

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )
E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara:
http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

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.'

Raist3d said:

PS: Between the 35-100 and the 150 prime, if you already have
something like the 50-200, seems to me the prime is best. I have seen
a shot with an e-510 with that lens, and it truly looks like a new
higher end camera. I remember someone else recently posted a shot
with the e-500 and the high end 300 F2.8 prime.... what a difference
huh?

PSS: Not that the 35-100 is a bad lens. hehe... but really the 150
prime, seems like it's probably better. Shooting primes teaches
composition better anyway.

Click to expand...

I am thinking (not seriously considering, but thinking) about those two lenses for concert situations. I have handled them both in a store and am sure that they will provide low light capability combined with sharpness that would help me.

And I agree on a prime being a good way to think about composition (I do that anyway...) and of course 150mm is more reach than 100mm when you need it.

But on the other hand : 150mm can be TOO much reach. When you are frontstage at a concert, you want the reach for a face shot of the singer, but also the flexibility to shoot him from the waist, together with the guitar player in the blurred background. And for that, the 35-100 offers more flexibility.

(I know myself : I will probably not get either for a while longer, unless some crazy opportunity comes up. And then I have been known to do crazy things and avoid the agony of choice by getting both...)

BTW, these recent concert shots were with ZD50-200 and PL25mm (so I don't really N-E-E-E-E-D the big and expensive guns) :





--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

I like the first shot for the way the light and the colored light is combined with the arc of both. The 2nd shot I like the expression but something's off.

Anyway I hear you. I mean the 35-100 is hardly a bad lens anyway.

--
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 said:

Member said:

Are you sure about this?

Click to expand...

About competitors doing default noise reduction- more than Olympus
with the NF set to off? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Yes I know about this.

Member said:

Member said:

I haven't, but I'm curious. Does it print as badly as the
pixel peeping suggests it will?

Click to expand...

Well no, it doesn't (even with NF off, that's what this whole thread
was about conclusion wise).

Click to expand...

What I was wondering if how badly noise reduction affects prints. I use it so rarely that I don't really know, but if noise doesn't show up so much (which I do know) I was wondering if noise reduction has a similar bad name if the end result is a print. Fuji S5 files look horrible at 100% but I've seen some stunning prints made by those same files. Same with Panasonic.

Raist3d said:

What I wonder is if Olympus is doing
some sort of tone curve adjust trick because if they are, I wished
they put this as an option to get the E-3 curve where you get deep
nice shadows at the expense of having to watch the highlights more
and call this regular e-30/620 way of doing things "high tone
priority" or such. ISO 100 doesn't do this as dpreview found and I
can corroborate, so I wonder if they could do that.

Click to expand...

There is something I've been wondering since Brian posted his daffodil shots showing graduation effects - there was noise at iso 200 in normal, but not so much at low key.

So my question is: in a scene which normally shows shadow noise at iso 200, what happens if you enable low-key graduation and then use +2/3 or so EV compensation? My complete guess is that the low key grad setting could prevent quite as much noise from lifting of the shadows, while the over-exposure would either compensate for the low-key curve, or at the least fit within the additional highlight range we know the E620 has.

I will have to try it. Probably after today (since I am about to Zzzz then work).

--
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.'

and I had thought about it last week but I forgot! Thanks for reminding me to try that out. Ill try it out sometime today.

--
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.'