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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 12, 2006, 3:24 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

I just bought an e-500. I love many aspects of it but am very concerned about the noise "issue" past ISO 400. When I have been away I noticed that I really liketo shoot in museums, churches, doorways, hallways, etc. (in addition to outdoor scenes, etc.)

I am thinking about switching to the Nikon d50. While I like what the Canon 350d offers, I HATE the cheap feel of it and the small body.

What do you guys recommend? This is my first dSLR. Any thoughts about how Noise Ninja, or somehting similar, works?

Thanks.
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 12, 2006, 4:17 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

The E-500 has better noise characteristics than the E-300 I currently use as my main camera. I recently returned from a trip to Paris where I went through many, many beautiful cathedrals that ranged from somewhat dim to pretty darn dark and ISO 400 and, in some cases, ISO 800 shots worked just fine. Here's where those images are:

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/1547796

Mind you, I was very careful to exposeall filesso the histogram went across to the right-hand side of the graph- Underexposures with the E-300 are a bad thing andshould be avoided if at all possible to avoid noise due tounderexposure. I'm sure to an extent the E-500 may suffer the same, but as I said, it's newer technology and should be better if your exposures are good.

Work on being able to release the shutter with minimal movement and develop a good, steady stance for those times when there are no chairs, railings, pews orcolumns to help support your outfit in lieu of a tripod. This, along with good exposure technique will go a long ways towards making your experiences with the E-500 a better one. Yes, the Nikon and Canon bodies are better at high ISO's, but the absolutebest image quality possibly from ANY DSLR is at ISO 400 and below.

I've created my own noise profiles with Neat Image that I use as a plug-inwith Photoshop- it works well for the times I need it, but I only use it as a last resort.

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 4:37 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Greg: Thanks. What lense did you use? Will getting the 14-54 lense help (since it has f2.8) my cause?

Your posts look great.
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 4:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

stripperdave wrote:
Quote:
I just bought an e-500. I love many aspects of it but am very concerned about the noise "issue" past ISO 400.

Are you actually experiencing problems or is the concern based on 'net reports?

The reason Iask is that, I have just passed the 1000th exposure mark with my E-500 (note my thread on the subject) and I haven't actually experienced this issue. I've read just about everything e-500 related that I can find and I'm aware that this is an oft repeated concern. I just haven't personally seen any problems (and I was shooting in a museum yesterday).

I've read the reviews. I've seen the comparison photos on this site and others. I'm not turning a blind eye to the situation. But I think there is a distinction to be made between test results and practical application. While test results can demonstrate below average performance at high ISO, it's a non issue for me so far.

If you are having problems at high ISO, I'm not going to tell you to ignore it. If you see an image that you aren't happy with, changing cameras is not unreasonable. If your concern is based on 'net reports, I'd think long and hard before questioning the camera*

*Seriously, about 75% of the high ISO noise complaints I read are from non-Olympus owners who use the issue to justify their Nikon or Canon purchases.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 5:16 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

stripperdave wrote:
Quote:
Greg: Thanks. What lense did you use? Will getting the 14-54 lense help (since it has f2.8) my cause?

Your posts look great.
Severalof the imagesposted to that sitewere capturedwith the 14-54. The marginallyfaster lens speed on the wide sideis always a good thing, the 14mm setting of the 14-54 also produces less distortion than the 14-45 when set to 14mm too. At the tele end, you're talking f3.5 vs. f5.6, so well over 1 stop faster..an even better thing.

Many ofthe other shots were captured with some much more expensive pieces of glass- the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 and the 7-14 f4. I bought the 7-14 with this trip in mind because I knew I'd want the extreme wide angle view.

Below each of those images posted to my website, you can click the EXIF data button and see all the exposure data from every image, from focal length to ISO to shutter speed, f-stop, time of day shot, etc, etc.

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 5:28 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Greg: Thanks again. Your pictures helped a great deal. I was mostly looking at the church shots, which appear NOT to have been taken at tele distances. These are exactly the scnese I was concerned about. I will be looking into the faster lens. I would prefer to shoot at ISO 400 than anything higher and I appreciate that with the faster lens I can get away with 1/15 shutter speed. Perfect.

Brent: Much appreciated as well. I experienced what I thought were poor images. I am just going to get Neat Image or something like that. Do you have any examples of indoor photos.

I want to keep the Olympus and you guys helped.
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 1:13 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

I just saw these images posted by a new user of the E-500. He seems to have it down pretty good!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=19177296
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 6:58 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

I dunno, on the pc the D50 shots look a little more "crisp" in terms of its detail than the e500. Thoughts?
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 7:47 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I am an E-300 and E-500 user. I have found that you have to nail your exposure with particularly the E-300 if you want to see real crispness and pop to your images. Perhaps it is just my perception, but it has really gotten me working hard on exposure.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 7:57 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

And how about the e-500?
stripperdave 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 5:04 AM.