NOISE

[zigi_S]

Yes a FF camera has a noise advantage of two stops. But the zooms on a FF aren't most likely to be fast. Probably two stops slower than what on olympus is allready is reallity. So you just exchange two optical stops with two sensor ones. I know which i would rather take.

The only problem with oly is the price. They should lower the prices for the fast glass.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeegee/

 

[bbrault]

Every forum has one member that stands out above the rest. In knowledge, wisdom and tact. In Oly forum, its Rriley. He's a good read, and I learned alot. Your lucky to have him here, so read-up and learn.

Tact might need a little more work!

 

[Gainsboro]

Yes a FF camera has a noise advantage of two stops. But the zooms on a FF aren't most likely to be fast. Probably two stops slower than what on olympus is allready is reallity.

So, there is a substitute for fast glass, after all. : )

So you just exchange two optical stops with two sensor ones. I know which i would rather take.

Since the images would be the same, for me it would come down to size, weight, AF, and, of course, price.

The only problem with oly is the price. They should lower the prices for the fast glass.

Canon and Nikon should lower the price for FF sensor cameras. : )

 

[Rriley]

For sure, the less expensive cameras will dominate the market, just as they do now, and likely always have. I don't know what percent of people with cameras own DSLRs, but I suspect it's a lot less than how many own compacts. And I don't know what perfect of those with DSLRs own FF, but I bet it's only about 5% of how many own smaller sensor DSLRs.

What I'm saying is that of the current FF owners , most will likely always want the advantages that FF offers and stay with the format, rather than switch to a smaller format when some particular quality threshold is passed. However, I can see FF owners adding a smaller sensor system to their FF kit. I'm wondering how many Canon FF users are considering adding a 7D, for example. But I doubt many are thinking of replacing their 5DIIs with one.

we are seeing people transiting from FF back to crop sensors of late.
Im not sure I ever saw that before..

I've advocated this myself in the past -- in-camera image stacking. However, it is only effective with longer shutter speeds. So, it's an effective technique for low ISO photography, but ineffective for high ISO photography.

For example, let's say we're shooing a landscape and our shutter speed is 1/400, but we could safely capture the scene at 1/50. The camera could shoot the scene at 1/100, 1/200, 1/400, and 1/1600 -- two stops under and over -- in 1/50s with a single press of the shutter. The stacked images would result in a two stop improvement in shadows, highlights, and DR. However, it requires 1/50s instead of 1/400s. If we were shooting at a higher ISO and could use 1/50s instead of 1/400s, then we'd likely be better off just dropping the ISO two stops than stacking mulitple exposures.

You have to remember that noise is less of an obstacle, and the DR you normally lose you get back. If you are shooting programmed for low noise/high ISO, it isnt really about DR, but it is similar.

the real problem to me is you are limited to the consequences of shooting a span of 4 stops over exposed, you simply cant play the shutter or aperture for effect like you can in conventional cameras.

Eventually the mechanics of the camera/lens become an obstacle, too low a shutter speed (theres that IS) or lenses limited by an appropriate aperture as in DoF. One would expect its a scene with everything in focus, so its more applicable to crops than FF.

Such a camera with P mode is about 4x as complex to construct.

What I can assert is that $2000 worth of processing hardware and code, will be an advantaged deal over the FF sensors of today. Bang for buck is something manufacturers usually get a handle on pretty quickly. So remember, you heard it here first...

As I said before, I think we passed that mark some time ago. Photographer skill, both at the camera and in PP, matters significantly more than the differences in equipment. It's just that the differences in equipment often add to whatever skills you have.

people like store bought solutions

i bet the amount spent on further education spending in photography schooling is minuscule against cameras above base levels popular with novices.

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

 

[Gainsboro]

we are seeing people transiting from FF back to crop sensors of late.
Im not sure I ever saw that before..

I have no idea what the figures are. I do know that when the 5D first came out, a lot of people who came from crop decided FF wasn't for them and were selling them on FM.

You have to remember that noise is less of an obstacle, and the DR you normally lose you get back. If you are shooting programmed for low noise/high ISO, it isnt really about DR, but it is similar.

DR and noise are intimitely related. Less noise, more DR -- as simple as that. That's why you lose DR at higher ISOs, because you have a lot more noise.

the real problem to me is you are limited to the consequences of shooting a span of 4 stops over exposed, you simply cant play the shutter or aperture for effect like you can in conventional cameras.

My example was taking a shot at 1/400 and splitting it into five shots -- 2 stops under, 1 stop under, "correctly" exposed, 1 stop over, and two stops over -- into a five exposures captured in 1/50. The overexposed shots help with the shadow noise, the overexposure shots help with the highlight detail. The five images could be merged into a single image with 2 stops less noise and, consequently, 2 stops more DR as well.

people like store bought solutions

i bet the amount spent on further education spending in photography schooling is minuscule against cameras above base levels popular with novices.

Of course they do -- this is not limited to cameras, of course. But just because more driver education would reduce accidents, that doesn't mean not to wear seatbelts, incorporate airbags, construct crumple zones, and work toward newer technologies still. Of course, nothing replaces a skilled driver, but given that most drivers aren't skilled, you sell a car with the safety tech. Same goes with photographer skill and camera tech.

 

[olyflyer]

I just read somewhere about monitor, print and noise. Looking at 3200ISO on a monitor will be noiser, than on print. I have to agree, I've printed 13x19 prints at 3200ISO and sold them. We sometimes peep too much into the images and we don't give the camera or the image a chance to succeed.

That is true, but then there is another side of this. We share our images through the Internet, or mail them to our friends, or even show them only on computer screens, not priniting. So the less noise there is in the screen image the better it is. Even if at some stage images are printed it is hardly a disadvantage to have less noise in an image, is it?

Olyflyer! I can't believe you wrote that! Surely you know that downsizing images so that they can be viewed on monitors is just as effective at removing the noise as printing?

Why? What's wrong with what I said? Isn't it better to have noiseless image than a noisy which must be downsized?

Also, it isn't that simple at all, since when an image is really noisy it does not help to downsize.

There is also the sharing part in my post. If I share images here or on any public web, they are always 600x(something), 800x(something) or at maximum 1024x(something), but when I share with my friends than they are larger. Then there is also the cropping of images. So I really can't see what's wrong with my comment.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[olyflyer]

Honestly, Olyflyer is enjoying his new system soooo much, he has become one of the top 5 posters here, almost all of his posts belittling the Olympus system, praising his new system etc.

I now know why there are so many "trolls", and i am not calling Olyflyer one, in here, they are all former Olympus users who honestly feel they are opening the eyes of their friends, they want to still enjoy the Olympus forum, but show us all the error of our ways.

What none of them realise is they simply end up looking like trolls, ruining what was once a very nice forum... honestly, when i started posting here (and it wasn't that long ago) things were better. The competition has released a few strong bodies in that time, a few olympus users have moved on, but their ghosts remain to haunt this forum

Ahhhh well, one day olympus will pull out of the SLR market, and all the converts will stay here, praising their FF systems on the Olympus Forum. Wont that be fun.

If I am number 5 poster here or not is hardly my fault. Knock me off to 55, I don’t care. Other than that, I am not belittling anything. How come that since I have a new system I can no longer speak freely about the same system I used for many years? The ones who are belittling the systems are the ones who neglect facts and stop their head into the sand like an ostrich and pretend there is nothing out there. It is also those who create all the tension here.

Also, as I said before, how come it is always Oly shooters who bring up the Canikon FF against FT question? I think you should look for the enemy inside Olympus users, not outside.

Yes, I like my new system, but as far as I know, I did not mention it in this thread, did I? I understand this is a sensitive issue on Olympus, but after all, who started this thread? Which brand was mentioned? In what way did I belittle Olympus.

How pathetic...

Edit:

I just checked. I am #12 on all forums, #5 on both Nikon and Olympus with about equal number of posts the last week. I don't know why this is so important for you, and why I should not post ~60 posts per week on the forum where I have been very active for some years, but I guess I have stop if that's so upsetting for you. Then again, maybe not... After all, it is up to me, isn't it? I haven't broken any rules as far as I know.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[zigi_S]

They can't.

But oly could make faster optics for less. And i'm pretty sure they will.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeegee/

 

[Kakes]

It doesn't help that much. Don't let the numbers fool you. 3200 sounds like a lot more than 800, but it's just two stops. It's not four times better, not even twice. Just bumps shutter speed up a bit, but not as much as you might think.

The same "just two stops" is what makes people opt for a 14-35 / 2 over the kit lens, the 35-100 / 2, and the 25 / 1.4 over the 25 / 2.8.

If you take a look at 3200 or 6400 RAW files with no NR from C/N, you'll find that some of their clean image is aggressive in camera noise reduction, and consequent loss of sharpness. You can do this in PP with Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc... so to a degree, you're quibbling over whether NR is done in camera or in PP.

Fact is, FF is two stops cleaner than 4/3 at the same level of detail and same generation of camera:

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/12/panasonic-g1-nikon-d700-iso-shootout.html

Nor does high ISO turn a slow lens into a fast one. I ran comparison shots of the EP1 at 3200/F4 with the kit glass in somewhat dim conditions, against the PL25 at 800 and F2 on the same scene. Exposure was pretty much the same.

The exposure for ISO 3200 f/4 is two stops away from the exposure at ISO 800 f/2. The apparent exposures are the same.

The PL25 shot wasn't just sharper, it was a lot sharper.

Not surprising, since it was shot with two stops lower ISO on the same format. However, if you had instead compared the PL 25 on 4/3 at f/2 ISO 800 to a 50/1.4 at f/4 ISO 3200 on FF, you'd have seen a different result.

Why worry about a single component like high ISO? Look at the big picture - we have these magnficent fast zooms that don't go soft wide open. Accomplishes the same goal with better IQ.

Except, that, as you noted in your test, they do go soft wide open at the higher ISOs. This is the reason for faster lenses and/or a larger format for those that need it.

We are lacking perspective here. I also believe the 4/3 sensor size means compromise is necessary for the other system advantages (size, weight).

However, we are spoilt !. I've just moved from a Canon A1 to a E-620. The Canon A1 had a setting on the ASA dial of 12800. I never went above 400. I'm happy on the E-620 to use ISO 800 - even 1600 if I know it's a "snap" and only going to be printed 6 x 4.

 

[Fotogejst]

But oly could make faster optics for less.

How is Olympus supposed to pull off that feat?

 

[zigi_S]

By selling more. You can't say the same about sensor because it's all about R&D there.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeegee/

 

[shsdawg]

Went and looked at photo acute. If I am reading the technique right it would not work for action shots. I can see where it would be great for static stuff though.

 

[odl]

Hey Olyflyer,
You can post what you like where you like... not my forum.

My point was, and i have said this to a few posters, that there is this idea from converts that everyone wants to know "the truth" and if they dont want to hear how their system compares to a $3000+ body plus lenses that they are fanboys.

When lovers of American muscle cars sit around loving their american V12s etc do you find Nissan / Honda / Mitsubishi lovers standing over their shoulders saying... "yeah well we can go that fast and use less gas!!!"

More often than not, like a smoker who quit and wont stop telling his friends to quit, a convert believes because "he has been there done that and moved on" he has some position of moral high ground to "spread the word". Most Olympus users are well aware of the pitfalls of the system, they want to enjoy its strengths, but this kind of talk doesn't make you feel good, and it certainly doesn't make them feel good:

"Other than that, it is a myth that Oly lenses are cheap. They are not, nor are they light, except the cheap kit lenses but then they are not faster at all. "

what about this:
OLYMPUS 150MM 2.0 E DIGITAL LENS - $2859.99 - 1.54kg
Nikon AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR ED Telephoto Lens $5,149.00 - 2.85 kg

ZD 300mm f2.8 - $7809.99 - 3290g
Nikon 600mm f4 - $11,699.00 - 5,060 g

It may not be true in call cases, but it is VERY true in many cases. In this case the 2 stop advantage has been reduced to 1 thanks to a faster lens, which costs less money.

12-60 plus 50 - 200...

The difference in the 600mm there would buy my the 12-60 and the 35-100 f2.

Practically a whole set of high quality pro lenses for the cost of one. But you knew this, so why did you call it a myth? Honestly, it is because you are in a honeymoon with your new system, which is why i specifically said you weren't a troll.

This whole thing then becomes a perpetuating cycle, the reason Olympus users discuss FF is to understand the differences, however most people think this means "tell me what i cant do". They may only want reassurance that their money was well spent.

Ab

--

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein

E-3, E-300, 50mm f2, 35mm f3.5, Sigma 105mm f2.8, 12-60, 14-45

 

[John King]

Gidday Kakes

I never exclude myself from my observations about our species; and I am fairly sure that this approach has great rarity value ... Most people seem to be quite happy to make sweeping generalisations about the human race, but then exclude themselves from the very generalisation ... This would be screamingly funny if it were not at the heart and root of many of the world's really big problems.

The comment quoted above is so pertinent for the world right now; somewhat philosophical for this forum but it makes a nice change.

Thank you.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction):
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[WirenL]

It's not really envy, I don't really envy or want any other system, just better noise control. My original post was more about Oly keeping up with the competition. I do shoot a lot of sports and a lot of days I am shooting in muggy, drizzly, dark gray, cloudy days. You try shooting a soccer match in those conditions with your E-3 and 50-200mm and keep your shutter speed up enough to stop the action so you get good clear shots. I am not even complaining about the AF (although it would be nice if it was a bit faster). As I bump my ISO's up to keep the ss high, the noise makes the image quality crappy, while in print it may look ok, but my parents/customers are looking for downloadable images (keep up with the times here folks, yes, we do still print, but this is the digital age), the kids like the digital prints for all their friends to share via Facebook, Myspace and all those silly things. I try to fill the frame with the action, I do not like to crop the shots unless absolutely necessary. But I find that when I do have to crop some out of the image to tighten it up, and the ISO is above 250, even the NR in LR2 doesn't leave me with a clean enough image.

I will not spend (or will rail against it) buying or using extra programs for NR, I don't want to have to run through 40 images 3 times through Noise Ninja or Topaz or spend the bucks for it. I want an Oly flagship that can produce great looking shots at higher ISO's - I am not even asking for the levels that CaNikon say they can go and don't start throwing scientific crap at me, I am not into it, just a consumer wanting better for my money in the system I am bought into. ISO 3200 squeaky clean not possible, fine, give me Squeaky Clean 1250, what I get past 250 isn't desirable unless great conditions prevail and past 400 us just plain useless! If I could push up to 1250 and get clean images like that of 100 to 200 ISO, I would be happy, let 1250 be the new 250 and 3200 be the new 800 for all I care, I just want to push the ISO's to get faster ss when needed on those cruddy days and still get usable images, that is all I am asking for.

I know that Oly has noise limitations, I was aware of it when I bought into the system, but I feel there is room for improvement on this and that somewhere it can be done - albeit I am not the one to say how it is to be so - I am not that smart.

I appreciate all the discussion, didn't realize I would set off a chainfire of discussion like we have had already.

Cheers to all.

Lee
--

I'm technically not a 'qualified professional photographer', but I play one online.....

 

[Fotogejst]

Every forum has one member that stands out above the rest. In knowledge, wisdom and tact. In Oly forum, its Rriley. He's a good read, and I learned alot. Your lucky to have him here, so read-up and learn.

Bad example.

 

[Fotogejst]

By selling more.

Try making a plot of price as a function of the amount of glass used in a selection of lenses of the Zuiko range and maybe do the same for one of their competitors.

As a first approximation it is reasonable to assume the amount of glass is proportional to the weight of the lens.

I suspect the results might surprise you.

 

[John King]

Gidday FG

Every forum has one member that stands out above the rest. In knowledge, wisdom and tact. In Oly forum, its Rriley. He's a good read, and I learned alot. Your lucky to have him here, so read-up and learn.

Bad example.

Not really.

Riley may have little tact, but equally he is not full of b/s either. Basically what I expect from an ex-Regimental Sergeant Major.

He does however have a mind like a steel trap (bear trap, at times ... lol).

He also displays a near encyclopaedic knowledge covering a very broad range of subjects.

Remember the piccy of the test pilot? Riley had both the plane and the pilot identified within minutes; pretty good resource if you ask me.

He doesn't suffer trolls gladly (neither do I ... ); but he is not alone in this. Many Olympus dSLR users have "taken refuge" in the OTF because of the activity of trolls on this forum. It is outrageous that this has occurred.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction):
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[zigi_S]

Why the zuikos should be cheaper is because they don't have to be so big for same aperture as the FF systems. That's why. Also getting a bigger share of market definetly helps the price to reduce. And oly is one of those who can actually grow.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeegee/

 

[Mojn]

Riley may have little tact, but equally he is not full of b/s either. Basically what I expect from an ex-Regimental Sergeant Major.

Ahh now I understand his claim on FX sunhoods not working for DX: It was an order.