Feeling a bit "sad" about Olympus ...

[Aleo Veuliah]

I brought some controversy here, but it was my feeling

I think Olympus is a great system with the best glass, what upset me is only the high iso results

I think that in my initial words is very clear that I really like Olympus
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[HornOUBet]

..will Nikon improve the photographs you get, taking in mind the
styles and subjects you photograph?

If so, don't hesitate; jump ship now.

Yes but only at hight iso, I am going to need high iso for ballet and
some indoor shows

people for years have known that Oly is not strong at high iso...are you asking us if that is true??

Otherwise I can only say, try not to think that different gear will
make a big difference to your photographs. Even jumping from an
E410 to a 1DSMkIII will not make a big difference to actual
photographs for the majority of types of photography.

David

--
Who needs High ISO when you can have Pure Whey?

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
Dwight
take at peek at the world I see at
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker

 

[timmey78]

Thanks Greg!
--
Thomas Fjørtoft

SP570uz, E-3, FL-36R, 12-60mm, 70-300mm, 50mm/f2, 8mm FE,25mm pancake,Sigma 50-500 and EX-25.
http://timmey78.zenfolio.com/

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

..will Nikon improve the photographs you get, taking in mind the
styles and subjects you photograph?

If so, don't hesitate; jump ship now.

Yes but only at hight iso, I am going to need high iso for ballet and
some indoor shows

people for years have known that Oly is not strong at high iso...are
you asking us if that is true??

No, now I know that is true but I though it was a small diference, on my country is not usual to have cameras for rent, that way I could test and see better for my self

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[HornOUBet]

I brought some controversy here, but it was my feeling

I think Olympus is a great system with the best glass, what upset me
is only the high iso results

I think that in my initial words is very clear that I really like
Olympus

I have seen some acceptable examples of high iso from the E3, but they were from better photographers than I, with better processing skills... if you are on a budget, then the choices are tougher for sure...good luck with you choice & your work...

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
Dwight
take at peek at the world I see at
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

I brought some controversy here, but it was my feeling

I think Olympus is a great system with the best glass, what upset me
is only the high iso results

I think that in my initial words is very clear that I really like
Olympus

I have seen some acceptable examples of high iso from the E3, but
they were from better photographers than I, with better processing
skills... if you are on a budget, then the choices are tougher for
sure...good luck with you choice & your work...

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
Dwight
take at peek at the world I see at
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker

Yes I have seen that too, but in situations like I am going photograph really need more high iso, if things work out well soon I will buy an Olympus System with the money earned with Nikon, thank you and good luck too

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[amalric]

Yes, I noticed after my reply that you intend to shoot ballet, so you may have a point. But shooting action performance indoors requires some very specialised cameras and lenses, so why choose Oly which has other strengths than absolute high ISO?

At the moment I don't have IS, and that buys you at least 2 stops, but I have an old 135/2.8 Zeiss in case I need it for theatre performances, and I have seen some Chinese gentleman shooting fine Circus pictures with an Oly 510. It all depends if you do it all the time or not.

Unfortunately this forum is quite often the target of troll attacks from other brands. There is also a lot of soul searching going on, so I must confess that I became prejudiced and grumpy. Newbies pay the price

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

 

[Kirasir]

I was planing to go for the E-30 or E-3 and 9-18 14-54 II 50-200 SWD ...

But the latest sample I saw from the E-30 at 3200 iso (taken on
studio) was really disapointing, I compared on the same site with the
same iso from a D300, and the diference look more than the one fstop
disavantage that all here talk, in fact the result at 6400 from the
D300 looks like the 1600 iso from the E-30, and the E-3 look only a
bit better.

First of all - samples from D300 at ISO 1600 and 3200 look AWFUL, because noisebusting turned picture into plastic and washed out all detales. I made a small experiment and developed ISO 1600 image from E-30 by Noiseware. Here is the result, and You can see by you own eyes, that it looks quite the same, as image from D300. or maybe even better (for more convinience I downloaded both images to one host, and I am not sure that direct links to that site are allowed on DPReview):

D300@1600 "



"
E-30@1600 filtered "



"

If You really need to work with high ISO, prepare your wallet and buy D3. If You are not ready for this, restrict Yourself to ISO 800-1000 (welcome to "Sunday cat" thread, in the second post there are 4 images by E3 at ISO 1000, exif present, no PP, just development from RAW).

The site I am speaking is this one:

http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/olympus-e-30-initial-impressions/

By the way, I repeated my experiment with the samples from this site too - with the same result. D300 images on high ISO look clean, but if You filter images from E-30 they start looking even cleaner - but with more detales.

And I have opened the E-30 and D300 samples at 100% and compared

I also compared at low iso, and again Nikon look better ...
(also compared here on dpreview the E-3 with the D300 at 3200 iso)

3200 ISO I don't want even to discuss. NO camera with APS-size sensor have good 3200, and, of course no 4/3 camera too. It's to compare bad with even worse - no sense doing it at all.

Image quality with the new nikons is really better, but I continue to
like the Zuiko glass, whish I could use it on a Nikon body with the
same 2.x crop, but that is impossible.

Guess I have to go for the Nikon, the results dont give me choice,
but I will keep an eye on what Olympus is doing, in hope that someday
the cameras have really good sensors like the Nikons have now, and if
this happens for sure I will buy one with the 3 lenses I mentioned.

Anyway, I will keep talking here, because this Olympus SLR forum have
really nice people around, or if I could I will try to have both,
Nikon and Olympus.

Maybe, that's a good idea.

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

I was planing to go for the E-30 or E-3 and 9-18 14-54 II 50-200 SWD ...

But the latest sample I saw from the E-30 at 3200 iso (taken on
studio) was really disapointing, I compared on the same site with the
same iso from a D300, and the diference look more than the one fstop
disavantage that all here talk, in fact the result at 6400 from the
D300 looks like the 1600 iso from the E-30, and the E-3 look only a
bit better.

First of all - samples from D300 at ISO 1600 and 3200 look AWFUL,
because noisebusting turned picture into plastic and washed out all
detales. I made a small experiment and developed ISO 1600 image from
E-30 by Noiseware. Here is the result, and You can see by you own
eyes, that it looks quite the same, as image from D300. or maybe even
better (for more convinience I downloaded both images to one host,
and I am not sure that direct links to that site are allowed on
DPReview):

D300@1600 "



"
E-30@1600 filtered "



"

If You really need to work with high ISO, prepare your wallet and buy
D3. If You are not ready for this, restrict Yourself to ISO 800-1000
(welcome to "Sunday cat" thread, in the second post there are 4
images by E3 at ISO 1000, exif present, no PP, just development from
RAW).

Thank you Andrey, I looked at your links, yes that way the diference is minimal

The site I am speaking is this one:

http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/olympus-e-30-initial-impressions/

By the way, I repeated my experiment with the samples from this site
too - with the same result. D300 images on high ISO look clean, but
if You filter images from E-30 they start looking even cleaner - but
with more detales.

I wonder if the site I gave is not trustable, like I have about one month to decide, going to wait until dpreview provide a E-30 full review

And I have opened the E-30 and D300 samples at 100% and compared

I also compared at low iso, and again Nikon look better ...
(also compared here on dpreview the E-3 with the D300 at 3200 iso)

3200 ISO I don't want even to discuss. NO camera with APS-size sensor
have good 3200, and, of course no 4/3 camera too. It's to compare bad
with even worse - no sense doing it at all.

Image quality with the new nikons is really better, but I continue to
like the Zuiko glass, whish I could use it on a Nikon body with the
same 2.x crop, but that is impossible.

Guess I have to go for the Nikon, the results dont give me choice,
but I will keep an eye on what Olympus is doing, in hope that someday
the cameras have really good sensors like the Nikons have now, and if
this happens for sure I will buy one with the 3 lenses I mentioned.

Anyway, I will keep talking here, because this Olympus SLR forum have
really nice people around, or if I could I will try to have both,
Nikon and Olympus.

Maybe, that's a good idea.

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

Once more, I really like the Zuiko lens, that is why I felt a litle "sad" on having to decide for another system only for the high iso quality

I like very much the Sunday Cat thread, going to look there



Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

Yes, I noticed after my reply that you intend to shoot ballet, so you
may have a point. But shooting action performance indoors requires
some very specialised cameras and lenses, so why choose Oly which has
other strengths than absolute high ISO?

Yes, Oly as better lenses and the IS on body, that is a good point, guess I have to reconsider better and wait to see more from the E-30 by trustable sources

At the moment I don't have IS, and that buys you at least 2 stops,
but I have an old 135/2.8 Zeiss in case I need it for theatre
performances, and I have seen some Chinese gentleman shooting fine
Circus pictures with an Oly 510. It all depends if you do it all the
time or not.

Unfortunately this forum is quite often the target of troll attacks
from other brands. There is also a lot of soul searching going on,
so I must confess that I became prejudiced and grumpy. Newbies pay
the price

I am feeling better now, and I know that, but one thing I am not for sure, a troll.

And I never intented to prejudice Olympus or upset the users of this Olympus forum that I apreciate a lot.

All these replys on my thread have make me think better, really going to reconsider about the advantages of a Olympus and Zuiko system

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[Prognathous]

But the latest sample I saw from the E-30 at 3200 iso (taken on
studio) was really disapointing, I compared on the same site with the
same iso from a D300, and the diference look more than the one fstop
disavantage that all here talk, in fact the result at 6400 from the
D300 looks like the 1600 iso from the E-30, and the E-3 look only a
bit better.

I don't know about the samples you've seen, but the difference between APS and FourThirds is 2/3 stop - both in theory AND in practice. D300@ISO3200 on the left, E3@ISO1600 on the right:

• D300 has about 0.7 stop advantage in high-ISO.
• E3 has 2.0~3.0 stops advantage in IS, which also works with with fast f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.0 lenses. Nikon has no such "VR" equivalents. In fact, they don't even have an f/2.8 short zoom (the 17-55/2.8 is not stabilized).

Bottom line: E3 wins.

Prog.

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

But the latest sample I saw from the E-30 at 3200 iso (taken on
studio) was really disapointing, I compared on the same site with the
same iso from a D300, and the diference look more than the one fstop
disavantage that all here talk, in fact the result at 6400 from the
D300 looks like the 1600 iso from the E-30, and the E-3 look only a
bit better.

I don't know about the samples you've seen, but the difference
between APS and FourThirds is 2/3 stop - both in theory AND in
practice. D300@ISO3200 on the left, E3@ISO1600 on the right:

• D300 has about 0.7 stop advantage in high-ISO.
• E3 has 2.0~3.0 stops advantage in IS, which also works with with

fast f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.0 lenses. Nikon has no such "VR"
equivalents. In fact, they don't even have an f/2.8 short zoom (the
17-55/2.8 is not stabilized).

Bottom line: E3 wins.

Prog.

And here the E-3 have more detail, you all are making me to reconsider, I am pleased with that

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[Kirasir]

First of all - samples from D300 at ISO 1600 and 3200 look AWFUL,
because noisebusting turned picture into plastic and washed out all
detales. I made a small experiment and developed ISO 1600 image from
E-30 by Noiseware. Here is the result, and You can see by you own
eyes, that it looks quite the same, as image from D300. or maybe even
better (for more convinience I downloaded both images to one host,
and I am not sure that direct links to that site are allowed on
DPReview):

D300@1600 "



"
E-30@1600 filtered "



"

If You really need to work with high ISO, prepare your wallet and buy
D3. If You are not ready for this, restrict Yourself to ISO 800-1000
(welcome to "Sunday cat" thread, in the second post there are 4
images by E3 at ISO 1000, exif present, no PP, just development from
RAW).

Thank you Andrey, I looked at your links, yes that way the diference
is minimal

Hm. I was speaking about the 4/3 users site, where I have taken the samples

The site I am speaking is this one:

http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/olympus-e-30-initial-impressions/

Ok, no problem, here is the pair from this one:

again, Nikon D300@1600 "



"
and Oly E-30@1600-filtered "



"

Pay attention to the fur of teddy-bear, on the grey frame of color-checker table, on the wooden toy.... Everywhere you'll see, that "clear" ISO 1600 of D300 is a result of severe in-camera noise filtering, and after filtering by indepentant software of files from E-30 you get much better result...

By the way, I repeated my experiment with the samples from this site
too - with the same result. D300 images on high ISO look clean, but
if You filter images from E-30 they start looking even cleaner - but
with more detales.

I wonder if the site I gave is not trustable, like I have about one
month to decide, going to wait until dpreview provide a E-30 full
review

DPReview is also not the word of God. I prefer to collect statistics and explorereal life images by different photographers.

Once more, I really like the Zuiko lens, that is why I felt a litle
"sad" on having to decide for another system only for the high iso
quality

In my opinion to change 4/3 for APS because of high ISO performance is not a best idea - both are limited with a threshold around ISO 1000. To make a real step forward and rise on another level, You need FF - but it's too painful for a wallet.

I like very much the Sunday Cat thread, going to look there



Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

 

[Kirasir]

And what sense is in this advantage, if one is very bad, and another one is even worse? For real life this means that there is NO difference. Both unusable.... They are both unusable at 1600, and both unusable at 3200, and what's the sense in the fact, that E-3 is "more unusable"? But look at performance at 800 and below - both usable, everything is Ok...

I am a vice-editor of a glossy magazine, and I shoot for our magazines and for another ones too. As an editor I have to look through thosand of images, produced by different cameras. I know, what I am talking about....
--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

Aleo Veuliah wrote:
Pay attention to the fur of teddy-bear, on the grey frame of
color-checker table, on the wooden toy.... Everywhere you'll see,
that "clear" ISO 1600 of D300 is a result of severe in-camera noise
filtering, and after filtering by indepentant software of files from
E-30 you get much better result...

Yes I noticed that So is better to filter noise with some good program like Noiseware or Ninja

DPReview is also not the word of God. I prefer to collect statistics
and explorereal life images by different photographers.

Ok, but at least they are trustable, yes I like allso to see some real pictures by different photographers

In my opinion to change 4/3 for APS because of high ISO performance
is not a best idea - both are limited with a threshold around ISO
1000. To make a real step forward and rise on another level, You need
FF - but it's too painful for a wallet.

True, I am thinking better now, and with Olympus I have a great choice of lens for a honest price.

I looked at the cat thread and your images look really great, good definition at 1000 iso

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[Timskis6]

And what sense is in this advantage, if one is very bad, and another
one is even worse? For real life this means that there is NO
difference. Both unusable.... They are both unusable at 1600, and
both unusable at 3200, and what's the sense in the fact, that E-3 is
"more unusable"?

You think both are unusable at ISO1600? You have some pretty darn high standards, unless you're speaking only of full page prints...

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/50/EC-14/C8080
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

And what sense is in this advantage, if one is very bad, and another
one is even worse? For real life this means that there is NO
difference. Both unusable.... They are both unusable at 1600, and
both unusable at 3200, and what's the sense in the fact, that E-3 is
"more unusable"? But look at performance at 800 and below - both
usable, everything is Ok...
I am a vice-editor of a glossy magazine, and I shoot for our
magazines and for another ones too. As an editor I have to look
through thosand of images, produced by different cameras. I know,
what I am talking about....
--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

I believe in you, fourthirds is good for stock photo ?

(so the clean aspect of some high iso on nikon is due to a nice filtering of the image, nice trick)

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[Kirasir]

I believe in you, fourthirds is good for stock photo ?

You can use, for example, E-3 with pro lenses for a stock photo (by the way, E-3 is in the list of recommended cameras on Getty Images - and it's one of the most respected photostocks in the world). But You have to understand the limitations, use as low ISO as possible and do not abuse with PP and noise filtering - editors of photostocks are very sensitive to artefacts in the image. By the way, if You'll be shooting Nikon or Canon or whatever you also have to obey the same rules.

I prefer to deal with noise on the stage of RAW development, controlling the balance between the detalization and noise level.

(so the clean aspect of some high iso on nikon is due to a nice
filtering of the image, nice trick)

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

 

[Kirasir]

You think both are unusable at ISO1600? You have some pretty darn
high standards, unless you're speaking only of full page prints...

Oh yes... But my standards are determined by our magazine designers and prepress guys. If I'll be printing my shots on paper for some clients, maybe, I'd consider both usable at 1600, but still unusable at 3200...

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/50/EC-14/C8080
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

 

[pinnacle]

Yes, at the same ISO the Nikon has less noise, but you completely disregarded the built in IS of the Olympus. When you factor that in, the actual results are quite similar.

For instance, when you are using the Oly at ISO 400 with IS then it like using the Nikon at ISO 1600. In order to use Nikon optics that are going to approach the image quality of the Zuiko, you have to pay a stiff premium. Just try and find a Nikkor that competes with the 50-200 2.8 Zuiko. The price will be almost double the Zuiko.

You really need to compare apples to apples to arrive at a useful conclusion.

An Olympus E-3 with any of the higher end lenses including the 12-60, 11-22, 50-200 is going to compare very favorably with a Nikon equipped to have similar image quality.

You should slow things down or you are going to face a big surprise price wise trying to keep up with the Zuiko optical quality.

Dan

My heart tell me to stay with Olympus, but the logic and what I need
Nikon have it, and they have good lenses too, not so good as most of
the Zuikos, but very good.

I think I am a bit sentimental with Olympus, always love this brand,
and for sure I will buy one later only for my personal photography
and maybe some work also

Thank you all for your kind words

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

--
Student, Mentor, Philosopher, Servant, Father, Husband