Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 19, 2007, 7:24 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
What do you think of LV ?? I really wish I had it over the weekend at the New Year celebrations in china-town there's just so many ways that you can use that feature, eps if your trying to be discreet.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O


The one thing I have seen in playing with it this weekend isLive Viewsure candeplete a battery quickly! In allfairness, I have played with the setting menu's quite a bit in getting the various buttonscustomized the way I wanted and have switched back & forth between types A and B Live View, using the boost feature in lower light. I have, no doubt, used it much more than I eventually will on a regular basis but it definitely has it's place in shooting over crowds, down at ground level with babies and animals or just to obtain a unique angle, or for someone using a copy stand or focus rail at lower angles for shooting nature macros, but if I did it a lot I'd make sure and have three charged batteries with me. When I go back to Paris in September I'll be going out each day with 4 charged batteries.

Going back tosomething I mentioned above, once you get certain buttons customized, you literally never havego back to the menu screens unless it's to re-format your card and that is really nice. One push of the OK button brings up many options the regular buttons don't cover, from focus point selection to manul white balance to flash exposure compensationto just about any other option you can think of.

Here's an image I shot in the house earlier today, both in JPEG and RAW and at ISO 1600. I did perform a custom white balance setting & otherwise did not touch any settings on the JPEG in terms of customizing contrast/color, but I did set the sharpening to +2 because I wanted to see a finishedJPEG straight out of the camera with sharpening applied. I did not want to openthe "finished" JPEG, sharpen and then re-save again, even in an uncompressed format such as TIFF. I also had the noise filter turned off because it only seemed to soften the resulting files when turned on in addition to taking longer to process each file.The RAW file was only processed with the Luminence Smoothing in the RAW converter and then opened and saved as a JPEG after going through the Smart Sharpen filter.



Here's a smallcrop of both at 100%:



The difference in size of the two examplesis because the out-of-camera JPEG wasprocessed at 314 PPI, where the RAW file was processed at 240 PPI.

I realize not everyone will be able to see these on their variousscreens the same and this is a small portion of each file, so you can go tomy web page and save both full-sizedprocessed JPEG's to your own computers if you want to look at them closer to see if the difference is worth shooting RAW at this higher ISO setting. I think it is, even though neither really looks that bad at all in truth. I think in higher contrast situations thedifferences between the two methodscould be more pronounced. It is relatively easy to produce two pretty good lookingimages in a situation like this.

I will say, what I saw immediately with the JPEG straight out of the camerawas more vivid colors, even with with picture mode set to "Natural", so there's obviously more processing internally going on when shooting JPEGeven with controls set to neutral or even off.




Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2007, 4:38 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Here's an interesting website I found. Someone else who's done many noisetests of different models, including the E330:

http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/...s/camtests.php
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2007, 3:06 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Hi greg

The Jpeg from raw is much better than the in cam jpeg from the E330 - it just jumps out at you and for ISO1600 I'd say they were excellent

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2007, 9:43 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Yes, what is surprising thoughis how good straight JPEG's look up to as high as ISO 800, especially ones where flash is utilized. It REALLY surprises me to say that. I started shooting some of the same tests in SHQ capture that I have been doing in RAW captureand with the flash they looked good even above ISO 800. In available light, RAW is definitely the way to shoot beginning at ISO 1250, but I will say, even in RAW capture, I am going to start a concerted effort to get the right white balance setting from the start. I'mbeginning to dislike correcting colorcasts, and plan to keep my WB set to Daylight just like if I was using a film camera and make adjustments as needed for other light sources.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2007, 9:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Last comparison I'll post here, then this post can quietly go away! I decided to set up a couple of subjects under a tungsten-based light souce and comparethe E1 with the E330 at both ISO 800 and 1600. I tried to simulate subjects in both partial light and shadows, a subject where noise can be a problem to control.They're all now posted to the site mentioned in the initial message on this link for download or viewing from the web pageat 100%. Here are justthe ISO 1600 images.

First, a straight JPEG from the E330. Sharpening set to +2, coloration set to VIVID. Otherwise, all other perameters set to -0-.



Here's another straight JPEG, same perameters,but this time I applied the Noise Reduction filter found in Photoshop:



Neither of the first two look bad at all. The noise reduction filter in Photoshop does a pretty good job and keeps everything sharp.

OK, here a RAW conversion at ISO 1600 from the E330. I like this one the best of all the examples I am posting here:



I don't have my E300 here at home to shoot the same subject and compare, but I can definitely say after using an E300 for the past several monthsthis is a revelation compared to how it would have worked.

OK, here is the E1 RAWfile, shot at ISO 1600 and processed the same as the E330 RAW file. Note I said above both cameras were set to Tungsten white balances, but see the difference in output. I actually shot this with the E1 set to Auto white balance,and then converted it to tungsten in Adobe Camera RAW. I think it's safe to say, looking at these examples,the best place to set white balance is in-camera.



I know it will take viewing at 100% to really appeciate the difference in noise performance, but I can safely say the E330 has the best high noise performance of any of the three Olympusbodies I have been able to shoot with. Shooting RAW, the E330can give excellent qualityimages all the way to ISO 1600, especially if processed with the Luminence Smoothing in Adobe Camera RAWand fading the sharpening in the shadowsin the Smart Sharpen filter. The straight JPEG's from the E330are not as nice, but are still pretty darn good, I think.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2007, 3:39 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Default

HarjTT said:
''Pre-production L1 (hence the banding - this issue was fixed for the production L1's and didn't effect E330's at all):''

In that case Gregs bought a pre-production 330! ;-)

In fact, all the 330's in excistence are pre-produced!
Exile On Mainstreet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2007, 1:16 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

i think the implementation of nMOS is a step in the right direction
we have seen a progression of improvement from E-500>E-400>L1/E-330

cross your fingers that TruePic makes the difference with E-410/510
given that there would have to be a stop if not two between E-500 and E-510

if they keep getting effective iso 1600 low noise, they should move to add iso3200

Riley

just to add, if they moved the baseline from iso100 to iso 160, which is pretty much all Leica did with the apparently now noisier Kodak equipment. 1600iso should be pretty clean. Adding iso3200 is just a firmware fix, but moving the baseline means different hardware componentry me thinks.
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2007, 8:37 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

OH, WHAT HAVE I DONE???

Take a look at these, and note the camera used...

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/2582538#136065649
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2007, 8:58 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

I did the same with the E500, but its REAL EASY to blow away highlights at ISO 50.

That said, I wouldn't mind developing the low iso abilities over chasing Canon and Nikon past ISO 3200. It would be nice to lower the use of ND's and I think it would be a nice counter to the ultra high ISO crowd.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/4...dcf1edfa_b.jpg

EXIF at:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=414692088
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2007, 10:44 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

LOL
i cant wait to harrass Canon point and shoot owners with this

Riley

Rriley 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 2:02 PM.