-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
We knew the E-P3 used the same old sensor when it was announced!
- Thread starter Barugon
- Start date
The ep3 doesn't take a backseat on iq from 1600 and below. The sensor is just a part of the equation.
Totally agree with tom hogan, less than a half a stop difference between the g3 and ep3, nothing noticeable in prints, and dynamic range is about the same.
Iq is good enough.
http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-e-p3-in-depth-review-at-dpreview/#comments
Totally agree with tom hogan, less than a half a stop difference between the g3 and ep3, nothing noticeable in prints, and dynamic range is about the same.
Iq is good enough.
http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-e-p3-in-depth-review-at-dpreview/#comments
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran Member
. . . Because now they can get noticed and draw more attention to themselves if they jump in to the threads about this review from DPR. Attention seeking behavior is what it is.
No, it is not. If you read the news or press release or even on Olympus website, they claim this is a totally 'NEW 12.3MP LIVE MOS SENSOR'. And the performance/samples tell us this is the same old sensor that has been used in the last 2 models which is a pity and disappointed to many consumers.
Corkcampbell
Forum Pro
it was described as a new sensor, not one that was just tweaked or unchanged. We've tended to believe these things, especially when models such as the GH2 actually did have new sensors.
mfbernstein
Veteran Member
And all the apologists kept claiming that it had some secret sauce that made it better than the others.
Same thing happened with the E-5. Just a warmed over G1 sensor. Yet there were plenty of folks claiming it had something special. Claiming the DXO was somehow missing the boat. We all know the reality now.
Still it is nice to have it in black and white from a reputable source to counteract the usual untrammeled tripe in these parts.
--
MFBernstein
'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
Plenty of other sites tested it long before dpreview (including dxomark) and concluded that it was the same sensor. It was even painfully obvious even when the first test shots hit the web that it was the same and I posted as much on July 4th:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=38817422
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
Jogger
Veteran Member
More Oly PR lies. Its not tweaked for anything. The GF3 reads out at 120hz as well, they just didnt make a huge PR issue about it like Oly. Oly are the worse liars in the camera business which is why their SLR venture failed.
And the realists knew it was essentially the same sensor but like it anyway. I get a laugh out of the gnashing of teeth over the differences between the GH2/G3 IQ and the EP-whatever IQ. Yes, there's a small difference at high ISO, but its really minuscule - I had a GH2 and have an EP3 and that small difference at high ISO is about the LEAST important distinction between these two great, but very different, cameras.
And lets face it, anyone who's as over the top concerned about the last tenth of a percent of IQ as people seem to be when comparing various m43 cameras ARE NOT GOING TO BE SHOOTING M43 in the first place!!!! If that's your main objective, most APS cameras are notably better than the best m43, not to mention the next step up to full frame. We buy m43 because its a great compromise between very good (but not the best) IQ and a very portable (but not the MOST portable) setup. If the difference in IQ between a GH2 and an EP3 is gonna get someone's panties in a twist, they should just get it over with and get a D700 or get the first Sony A77 to hit the shelves. That's not what m43 has ever been about. Its damn good, but it'll never be the absolute best!
-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/
Gregm61
Forum Pro
But they can't just do that....they have to keep coming back here and posting the same complaints, over and over and over and over and over and over.......
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran Member
. . . Not only are you a better photographer than me but now it's more clear than ever that you know how to say the the right thing in a better way than I ever could. All that tuition money spent on writing courses in college back in the 70's and you do this to me? I just turned 61 yesterday and there's not much time left for me now so maybe you could let up a little?
Actually Ray
The folks who are "as over the top concerned about the last tenth of a percent of IQ" are probably not shooting at all! They are too busy testing gear
I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.
The folks who are "as over the top concerned about the last tenth of a percent of IQ" are probably not shooting at all! They are too busy testing gear
--
I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.
puttin
Veteran Member
Can't people just like the E-P3 for what it is overall. Why all the nitpicking, just buy something else. I sold my NX100 and NX10 to buy it and I could not be happier. It suits the purpose for which it is made. If I need more mp or less noise at high ISO I will just crab my D7000.
traveler_101
Senior Member
Ahh . . . Sachs isn't that smart. He's logical and builds a good argument--and often has the right values, as in understanding that the IQ hunt is a way of fetishizing the technology and losing the creative value of photography.
Jeez Tim, you're being awfully nice to me - is there something you WANT???
I appreciate the compliments, tongue in cheek as the underlying tone is, but I just never got the obsession with IQ when nearly any camera from the LX5/S95/XZ1 class on up has really really nice IQ. I have an X100 - I think the IQ is amazing coming out of that camera. But I almost never leave a shot in its original form - I'm always doing a black and white conversion or mangling it with Color Efex Pro or something, and by the time I'm done with it so it hits that sweet spot between a realistic depiction of something and a cooler or more interesting imagined depiction of that thing, there's no gear tester in the world that could tell the difference between an X100 shot and an EP3 shot. So it just doesn't matter much to me. I know there are types of photography and types of photographers for whom the last little micron of IQ is very important and I can respect that, but those people just are NOT gonna be shooting with m43, nor should they be. So the tiny difference we argue over are for WHAT exactly???
I know you agree with this, but its one of those things I so completely don't GET that I thought I'd say it again.... And I hope that when I'm 61 all of the punks in their 50s on the forum will cut me a break too!
-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/
I've been shooting with it for almost a year, making all kinds of clients happy.
I've shot with a 7d and a d300s, and it doesn't take a backseat to those cameras.
There are all kinds of photographs over the last century, iconic pictures taken with much less capable equipment and sensors.
It doesn't mean a thing to a good photographer.
Onve again I will say that the ep3 is a half stop behind the g3 for noise, and dynamic range and details are similar. And with the advances Olympus has made getting to know e sensor well there is probably no advantage they would have gained using that sensor, other than for marketing reasons for people worried about having what is perceived to be the latest.
What's being lost in all of this are the massive improvements they've made in their metering, white balance, color reproduction, camera ergonomics, and blindingly fast autofocus and refresh times.
It's a night and day difference. I haven't read anybody who's been unhappy with it yet.
Dpreview said it was a hair away from receiving their highest award. I say a new sensor would have gotten them the gold award, but it may not necessarily be all that much better of a camera.
Only using a new Sony sensor would it have made a significant difference.
For most normal humans, the sensor is just fine to do most everything you need to do, especially with this being a portable backup to more capable dslrs anyway.
I've shot with a 7d and a d300s, and it doesn't take a backseat to those cameras.
There are all kinds of photographs over the last century, iconic pictures taken with much less capable equipment and sensors.
It doesn't mean a thing to a good photographer.
Onve again I will say that the ep3 is a half stop behind the g3 for noise, and dynamic range and details are similar. And with the advances Olympus has made getting to know e sensor well there is probably no advantage they would have gained using that sensor, other than for marketing reasons for people worried about having what is perceived to be the latest.
What's being lost in all of this are the massive improvements they've made in their metering, white balance, color reproduction, camera ergonomics, and blindingly fast autofocus and refresh times.
It's a night and day difference. I haven't read anybody who's been unhappy with it yet.
Dpreview said it was a hair away from receiving their highest award. I say a new sensor would have gotten them the gold award, but it may not necessarily be all that much better of a camera.
Only using a new Sony sensor would it have made a significant difference.
For most normal humans, the sensor is just fine to do most everything you need to do, especially with this being a portable backup to more capable dslrs anyway.
Simple answer, some of them expected - legitimately - more.
As it appears regarding high-ISO, the EP-3 does not set a new landmark. Judging from the image comparison component here at dpreview, the GH2 - even after 10 months - still has the edge in high-ISO image quality, although now by a small margin only.
The EP-3, on the other hand, is now on par in performance with the late Panasonic cameras so that people, who don't want a DSLR shaped body, have now more comfort to choose a PEN. In general, for the year 2011 (I count the GH2 as a 2010 camera), the medal goes to Olympus so far, not because of the new PENs, which aren't that much of a highlight, but because of Olympus dropped a landmark with its lens release of the 2.0/12mm.
Contrary to some people here, I think that high-ISO IQ is of special importance to m4/3. It is quite obvious that there is still no breakthrough in high-ISO IQ, because the recent camera releases (EP-3, G3) gained virtually nothing over the GH2. To me clean image quality from base ISO to ISO 800 should be a self understanding asset, so that there shouldn't be much difference between the cameras. But high-ISO is able to show significant enough differences and where the manufactures still have opportunities to beat the competition.
I did not buy m4/3 because I needed a very good high ISO camera, but I think improving this weakness of m4/3 would give the system another boost and is important. According my Lightroom stats, I shoot about 15 to 25% at ISO 1600 and above, but never over ISO 3200. I also feel that I would shoot a lot more with high ISO, if the IQ would be a bit better.
m4/3 needs high-ISO IQ even more desperate than APS-C or FF DSLRs, because the small size makes it a system, which is mostly used freehand. Thus faster shutter speed and hence higher ISO are an important asset. Additional, there are no fast zooms and only a few fast primes and this may stay so for a while. Another good reason to have better high-ISO quality. Users of a 100-300mm lens would certainly profit from good high ISO tremendously. If you could have usable ISO 6400 or even ISO 12800, you would have a lot more successfull freehand shots at 600mm equiv. Last, I think that lighter cameras are more prone to shake, because the weight of a mid-range DSLR stabilizes the body. Another good reason to pledge for better high-ISO.
So the crowd is much legitimate to complain about not enough progress in sensor evolution. The vendors clearly should invest more in sensor R&D instead of new usage paradigms, such as touchscreen or even art filters. The latter are low hanging fruits of course, so it is natural that those are taken. Also a new sensor revolution needs more time and investments.
Personally, I am looking forward, to signifcant improvements in high-ISO RAW IQ, because I feel that I would benefit a lot of it. I disagree with people who claim that the relevance of high-ISO is overrated. I hope that I could argue for that with my aforementioned points.
Please, don't slam at me, why I didn't buy a FF camera then. Easy answer, because I feel it is too big, I got spoiled by the G1.
Thomas
As it appears regarding high-ISO, the EP-3 does not set a new landmark. Judging from the image comparison component here at dpreview, the GH2 - even after 10 months - still has the edge in high-ISO image quality, although now by a small margin only.
The EP-3, on the other hand, is now on par in performance with the late Panasonic cameras so that people, who don't want a DSLR shaped body, have now more comfort to choose a PEN. In general, for the year 2011 (I count the GH2 as a 2010 camera), the medal goes to Olympus so far, not because of the new PENs, which aren't that much of a highlight, but because of Olympus dropped a landmark with its lens release of the 2.0/12mm.
Contrary to some people here, I think that high-ISO IQ is of special importance to m4/3. It is quite obvious that there is still no breakthrough in high-ISO IQ, because the recent camera releases (EP-3, G3) gained virtually nothing over the GH2. To me clean image quality from base ISO to ISO 800 should be a self understanding asset, so that there shouldn't be much difference between the cameras. But high-ISO is able to show significant enough differences and where the manufactures still have opportunities to beat the competition.
I did not buy m4/3 because I needed a very good high ISO camera, but I think improving this weakness of m4/3 would give the system another boost and is important. According my Lightroom stats, I shoot about 15 to 25% at ISO 1600 and above, but never over ISO 3200. I also feel that I would shoot a lot more with high ISO, if the IQ would be a bit better.
m4/3 needs high-ISO IQ even more desperate than APS-C or FF DSLRs, because the small size makes it a system, which is mostly used freehand. Thus faster shutter speed and hence higher ISO are an important asset. Additional, there are no fast zooms and only a few fast primes and this may stay so for a while. Another good reason to have better high-ISO quality. Users of a 100-300mm lens would certainly profit from good high ISO tremendously. If you could have usable ISO 6400 or even ISO 12800, you would have a lot more successfull freehand shots at 600mm equiv. Last, I think that lighter cameras are more prone to shake, because the weight of a mid-range DSLR stabilizes the body. Another good reason to pledge for better high-ISO.
So the crowd is much legitimate to complain about not enough progress in sensor evolution. The vendors clearly should invest more in sensor R&D instead of new usage paradigms, such as touchscreen or even art filters. The latter are low hanging fruits of course, so it is natural that those are taken. Also a new sensor revolution needs more time and investments.
Personally, I am looking forward, to signifcant improvements in high-ISO RAW IQ, because I feel that I would benefit a lot of it. I disagree with people who claim that the relevance of high-ISO is overrated. I hope that I could argue for that with my aforementioned points.
Please, don't slam at me, why I didn't buy a FF camera then. Easy answer, because I feel it is too big, I got spoiled by the G1.
--
Thomas
I think we need to temper expectations of a 4/3 sized sensor though. It's still the bes combination of portability vs performance there is.
Anything larger means bigger lenses, and to a point then ou might as well carry a dslr.
I think we would all love clean iso 6400. I'm Oma with usable 3200, and I don't lime to go over 2000 iso anyway really.
Since I got the 20 mm 1.7, I haven't really hadan issue shooting in most situations I need to shoot in.
We need to be patient. But I do think there is going to be a ceiling on all of this at some point. Not sure what people will do at at point, but it's going to come.
Anything larger means bigger lenses, and to a point then ou might as well carry a dslr.
I think we would all love clean iso 6400. I'm Oma with usable 3200, and I don't lime to go over 2000 iso anyway really.
Since I got the 20 mm 1.7, I haven't really hadan issue shooting in most situations I need to shoot in.
We need to be patient. But I do think there is going to be a ceiling on all of this at some point. Not sure what people will do at at point, but it's going to come.
Not really. I think it is better to have eager expectations and to communicate that to a vendor, than to accept uncritically, what they deliver.
Boosting high-ISO IQ is always a reason to get existing customers to upgrade their bodies. If high-ISO stays at the point the m4/3 cameras are now, why should I upgrade? The performance in general is mostly good enough now. I upgraded from my GH1 to my current GH2 much because of better high-ISO performance (no banding), and only secondly because of the better body ergonomics.
So, to truely working hard on better high-ISO IQ is in the very interest of the manufactures. It is legitimately one of best marketing arguments, it is simply a no brainer.
It's still the bes combination of portability vs performance there is.
--
Thomas
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum