Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 10, 2007, 1:18 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

Is it just me or doesn't the Olympus E500 take amazingly sharp, brightimages filled with vibrant colors? I recently purchased a K100d and I can't help but notice how much better images from the Olympus E500 "seem" to be. I know, its all about the lens you use, and I am using the kit lens, but still, even on Flickr, I see images people have taken using the K100d using better lenses and they still don't have the brilliance that images produced by the E500 have (IMO). Apparently the E500 uses a different lens format then that of what theK100d and most other dSLRs use; one that is (unlike others) specifically made for "digital" SLR. Is perphaps why the images seem to look better? Are my eyes fooling me perhaps? Sure, the E500 isn't as good at low-light, high ISOor shallow DOF, but it sure seems to do an awesome job at everything else. Just curious to hear what others have to say.

Check this out and tell me what you think:
http://flickr.com/cameras/olympus/e500/
http://flickr.com/cameras/pentax/k100d/
Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 11, 2007, 12:11 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Illuminati's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 583
Default

Those Flickr images seem to suggest a difference between the two cameras, but also compare photos from pbase. In my opinion, you'll see a much wider range of photo quality from both cameras on pbase. Both cameras can take sharp and vibrant photos, it just requires good technique and/or good post-processing workflows.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus/e_500/
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/k100d/
Illuminati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 6:54 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Yeah, you can almost certainly make your Pentax give you the look of the Olympus if you work at it a bit.

Read the manual and adjust the camera settings, or better still use something like Adobe Lightroom and shoot RAW.

You can pretty much make the colour come out however you like on any of the DSLRs. Their default settings do have different looks however.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 8:22 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

Peripatetic, so are you saying that you feel that the better all around look of the E500 photos on Flickr is likely simplydue to post processing (whether it be in camera or by use of an image-manipulation application)?

I have never used Adobe Lightroom, how does it compare to Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 (which I have)? I will have to check it out.
Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 10:12 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

I think part of it is good in camera jpeg processing. And part of it is the lenses.

The thing is there are really almost no bad lenses for the Olympus. There are maybe one or two cheap Sigma's which I think noone buys, because the Olympus kits are better. But the quality is consistently high across the Zuiko lens lineup. The kit lenses are good. The midrange lenses are really good.

The combination of accurate focus and metering, good glass, and good jpeg processing means some pretty good results even without alot of work. But the best shots very likely have been carefully postprocessed.

There are of course some very good lenses available for Canon, Nikon, and Pentax as well. But with more selection for Canon and Nikon, there are also more bad choices. Some of the kits aren't as good. Some third party lenses won't focus correctly with certian bodies (sometimes this is because they've had to reverse engineer instead of having detailed specifications).

And with Pentax, there will be more people shooting with older legacy lenses. Some of these are very good, but if you're picky, you will probably see some difference with modern lenses with coatings optimized for digital. But Pentax also has some very good and affordable "designed for digital" (DA) lenses available.

I think you might see some similar results browsing the galleries for some of those lenses:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/..._16-45_4_ed_al
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/..._40_28_limited
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/da_21_32_al_limited

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 3:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

kenbalbari,
You said that the Pentax DA lenses are made for digital, what does that mean? Does it mean thatthere isjust aspecial coating or is it more than that, perhapssomething different about the glass orsomething else?

Also, how do you think the Pentax DA lenses compare with the Olympus Zuiko Digital lenses? I suppose that the images shown in those links you provided of specific Pentax DA lenses do look better than the images found on pbase.com for just the K100d itself (I even saw a few taken with an ist DL that looked nice; http://www.pbase.com/image/32041116).



Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 8:46 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Illuminati's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 583
Default

Contriver wrote:
Quote:
kenbalbari,
You said that the Pentax DA lenses are made for digital, what does that mean?* Does it mean that*there is*just a*special coating or is it more than that, perhaps*something different about the glass or*something else?
Pentax DA lenses have a special coating to reduce glare from light reflecting on the sensor. The DA lenses also use glass designed for the smaller sensor, which reduces weight. DA lenses also feature a quick-shift focus system, where you can manually focus the lens after the camera is done autofocusing without the need to switch to MF.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I can't help get the feeling that you're trying to find a fault with what the camera you have. Can I ask what kind of post-processing you use, as well as the lenses you own?
Illuminati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 4:33 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Designed for digital can mean a few different things:

1. Might mean smaller lens only designed to cover smaller image circle, rather than full frame. Not inherently an advantage, except that it can be cheaper to pay for a quality lens rather than pay for the same quality lens covering a larger circle.

2. Modern optical coatings that work better with digital, especially that reduce flare and ghosting common on digital sensors. But some modern lenses not specifically labeled as digital may also have such coatings.

3. Some lenses for digital are also optically designed to deliver the light at an angle more perpendicular to the sensor, because digital sensors don't handle light coming on an angle as well as film. There may be more use of extra-low dispersion glass.

How much of a difference does all of this technical stuff make? I have no idea. I only know that the digital lenses seem to me to be some of the best optical performers for their price in general. This seems to be true of Sigma's DC lenses, Tamrons Di lenses, Nikon's DX lenses, Pentax's DA lenses, and Canon's EF-S, as well as the Zuiko Digital lenses. But this may also be in good part simply due to the fact that all "digital" lenses are recent designs. Maybe all recently designed and manufactured leses using modern design and manufacturing advantages will tend to have an advantage.

But in practice, with lenses, good enough is usually good enough. Granted, a bad lens might be so soft throughout or have enough flaws as to negatively impact your photography. But for the most part, it can be very hard to tell what images were taken with an expensive lens or what with a good inexpensive lens, like a good old manual focus prime, when used well. Some of the older film lenses will be more prone to flare or to aberrations near the edges and corners of the frame. But often situations prone to flare can be avoided, and minor imperfections on the edges won't distract much from a good shot. A cheap lens might be soft wide open, especially in corners. But it might be very good stopped down.

If you learn first to get the best of good inexpensive lenses, I think you might then have the skills needed to take advantage of better glass.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 8:13 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

Ken, thank you very much for the detailedresponse :-)
Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:43 PM.