Reading mode: Light Dark

E-620 limitations in low light

Go to last post
I don't think we can dismiss the fact that many of those (including myself) that have noted persistent AF issues are competent DSLR users.

I'm not a good artist, but I know my hardware and know the ins and outs of AF.





....and yes Vincent in its element the E-620 is magical !

--
Leon T

" Photography is a hobby until you lug around a bunch of heavy lenses...then it is work"
 
Apart form the fact that a credible AF assist ray is lacking (what, 1$?) I am in the camp of those who use CDAF in low light.

It is incredibly effective if you focus and recompose on the tiniest high contrast detail. And you can reshape the green box at will, to achieve any degree of detail.

Therefore I never had focus problems in low light. It would be nice to stop urban legends, due to user's incompetence.

Having said that there are probably better cameras for low light, because the 620 perfoirmance depends very much on the level of Noise Reduction you set.

But that is left to RAW artists. I remember seeing a 3200 ISO perfectly denoised image, full of detail.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
TheEye said:
Stujoe said:
My Nikons were much better at getting low light/low contrast focus than the Olys I have had.

But I have learned to mostly get around it with the 620 by putting it in AF+MF mode. If I get the focus close with MF and then half press to get the AF, it most often will lock focus in conditions where it would otherwise just rack back and forth past the focus point in AF only mode.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I have been doing for over a year in low light/low contrast situations. I recently asked on the micro forum if this method would work on a Pen. I was simply told I was using the MF/S-AF feature improperly backwards. Never mind that it works (at least on the E-620). No out-of-the-box thinking is apparently welcome. Glad to see I'm not the only who uses MF for rough focus and S-AF for fine focus.
Click to expand...
I used to do what I called 'Tap Focus' in straight AF mode. Press until it got close and then let up and tap the AF until it locked. It worked if I got close enough to a rough focus before I let up but was irritating if it racked past it and I had to start over. Then for some reason (and I don;t knwo why it took me so long), I thought of the MF then AF and has used that ever since with pretty good results.

I don't know how well it works on any other Oly camera but with me and the 620 it does a pretty good job. It at least keeps me from tearing my hair out and screaming (most of the time). ;)

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/
Eee Six Two Zero

.
 
amalric said:
amalric said:
i use CDAF quite a lot on the 600, but when the world is moving quickly around you it's not quick enough even in good light
--
Click to expand...
Oh I agree: black cat moving quickly around in black cave will always be out of reach of the 6x0.

So an alternative might be to get a small hotshoe LEDdlight or a big one, like Kirk Tuck.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Click to expand...
i've seen some cheapish led panels i want to get for some macro work and maybe a little portrait work, i'm hoping to find some over here in Thailand if possible :)
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo :)?
 
amalric said:
amalric said:
Oh I agree: black cat moving quickly around in black cave will always be out of reach of the 6x0.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why do people still insist on using that analogy? No one I know runs around chasing black cats in caves. People do however, take pictures in churches at weddings, and other places where the light is far from the extreme you mention, yet still poses a problem for the 620's autofocus.

Robert
 
mrhodges2 said:
amalric said:
mrhodges2 said:
Oh I agree: black cat moving quickly around in black cave will always be out of reach of the 6x0.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why do people still insist on using that analogy? No one I know runs around chasing black cats in caves. People do however, take pictures in churches at weddings, and other places where the light is far from the extreme you mention, yet still poses a problem for the 620's autofocus.
Click to expand...
Robert
The Last time I was in a dark cave, a Black cat whispered two words in my ear:

"Manual focus !"

Love Vjim ;)
 
I've done that before...use manual focus with my E-500 with the built-in flash. It does work sometimes, but it's difficult when we can't see anything to focus. :) Taking pictures of people at the July 4th holiday or Halloween in the dark of night with the flash is a lot of fun, with the manual focus. What I do is preset the manual focus in good lighting indoors and hope for the best when I go outdoors in the dark.
 
Believe me, using the E-5, I'm used to it. But the last time I was in a cave the black cat whispered to me too. He said....E-5.

I hope he's willing to bet a few of his lives against my $1700. :> )

Robert
 
Digirame said:
I've done that before...use manual focus with my E-500 with the built-in flash. It does work sometimes, but it's difficult when we can't see anything to focus. :) Taking pictures of people at the July 4th holiday or Halloween in the dark of night with the flash is a lot of fun, with the manual focus. What I do is preset the manual focus in good lighting indoors and hope for the best when I go outdoors in the dark.
Click to expand...
The focus illuminator on my Olympus and Promaster flashes really does a good job within its range. I find the contrast between the neck and collar, tie and shirt, earrings, etc., tends to help at times too.

Robert
 
mrhodges2 said:
Believe me, using the E-5, I'm used to it. But the last time I was in a cave the black cat whispered to me too. He said....E-5.

I hope he's willing to bet a few of his lives against my $1700. :> )

Robert
Click to expand...
Correction, what I meant was "using the E-510, I'm used to it"

Robert
 
d3xmeister said:
d3xmeister wrote:
Click to expand...
/
d3xmeister said:
Canon guy, ...
Click to expand...
By your post it’s apparent that you did not truly read my above posts, or they were above your comprehension level; which after reading your posts I can see that would not be too difficult for one to accomplish.

I’m not a “Canon” guy. The E-620 is my 6th Olympus digital camera, which if you had looked at my profile I still own/use E-510, E-620, and C-8080. The Canon T2i is my first Canon SLR (digital or film). I’ve used various Canon DSLRs from friends.
d3xmeister said:
...you suck that bad that you can't set your white balance to the tungsten setting (which give perfect results on E-620)?
Click to expand...
1. It was a simple comparison of each camera's JPG auto white balance performance, and their noise at ISO 1600 -- nothing more. Hence what you conjectured and posted is irrelevant.

2. It was not “tungsten”, it was “fluorescent”. If you're so knowledgeable about the white balance settings options you would know that using one of the fluorescent settings will only provide the correct white balance if the fluorescent lights are the same Kelvin as one of the three settings -- which the fluorescent lights that were providing the lighting do not. IMHO trying to use the camera's white balance for mixed lighting is foolish; just shoot RAW -- which if had read my post you would have known is what I do.
d3xmeister said:
... Do you even know how to take a picture? Come on, what are you doing here ? Read a photography book and stop buying cameras, you fool !!!
Click to expand...
If I were to guess your age by the posts you've written, there's a real good chance I was using my Minolta Autocord TLR, developing my own film and prints quite awhile before you was born.

--

 
sadwitch said:
... But just a question. Are the photos shot from the same location? If so the canon one with definiitely be better since the magnification is more at 400mm compare to 120mm.
Click to expand...
No, images were not taken at the same distance from the clock.

The distance from the clock was further with the T2i so the face to framed in each viewfinder to fit within the height of the camera’s viewfinder. Hence if the T2i’s APS-C sensor was the same 12 MP as the E-620, the E-620 would had a little larger image due to the larger height size of the 4/3rds sensor. The T2i’s image is larger due to the 18 MP vs. 12 MP.

--

 
Jon_T said:
sadwitch said:
... But just a question. Are the photos shot from the same location? If so the canon one with definiitely be better since the magnification is more at 400mm compare to 120mm.
Click to expand...
No, images were not taken at the same distance from the clock.

The distance from the clock was further with the T2i so the face to framed in each viewfinder to fit within the height of the camera’s viewfinder. Hence if the T2i’s APS-C sensor was the same 12 MP as the E-620, the E-620 would had a little larger image due to the larger height size of the 4/3rds sensor. The T2i’s image is larger due to the 18 MP vs. 12 MP.
Click to expand...
You should have taken them from the same distance using the same real lens mm, iso, shutter speed and aperture. Then compare 100% crops.
Jon_T said:
--

Click to expand...
 
Pit123 said:
Pit123 wrote:

You should have taken them from the same distance using the same real lens mm, iso, shutter speed and aperture. Then compare 100% crops.
Click to expand...
As I noted this was only a very simple comparison of each camera's JPG auto white balance performance , and their noise at ISO 1600 -- nothing more. I used the 100% crops only to better show the difference in noise-- not sharpness.

The factors you mentioned would have had no impact on the auto white balance and/or noise. For any type of resolution comparison between the two, then yes I agree with you 100% and would have used the 70-300mm with the E-620 and used a tripod. ;)

I just received the T2i and after taking a few quick shots around the interiors house. I was impressed how accurate the auto white balance was under different light sources and the low noise at ISO 1600 & 3200.

--

 
I have a 510 and was contemplating picking up a 620.

Do you feel there is significant improvement in DR or anything else to justify this (I understand 620 won't be made anymore)
 
illy said:
Member said:
.
Click to expand...
that must be fun for tracking objects on dark evenings and night shots :P
Click to expand...
Well, not too many night sports around these parts to track...unless they are in a lit stadium. ;)

But for people moving around inside, I find it works ok. You don't have to get it in perfect focus with the MF before you use the AF to take over. Once the focus is close, I find the AF does a good job even when the person is moving around a bit...as long as they don't run out of the general focus area. The goal is to avoid that racking back and forth that the AF does when it is not close to being in focus not to try and track them totally with the MF.

But, yeah, the 620 (and my old 510 was the same way) is not the best AF camera in the world in any situation. Like I said in a post above, my Nikons were a lot better at AF and especially a whole lot lot better in low contrast or dimly lit situation.

I don't have a cure-all for the 620 because there is none. I have just found ways to make it work a whole lot better for me, that is all.

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/
Eee Six Two Zero

.
 
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