My Oly - I'm In Love

[robertwatcher]

Got a chance to test shoot the new Olympus E-3 this evening. I mainly wanted to feel the camera in hand and play with the controls to see how intuative they are. Also, 2 concerns for my style of shooting are Image Stabilization and decent 1600 and 3200ISO PRINT quality (I sell prints so I don't care what they look like on a monitor).

THIS ISN'T/WASN'T A TECHNICAL TEST. I don't care about all of the details or benchmarks - - - I just wanted to see results that were satisfying to me, for my work.  

I fell in love instantly with the feel in my hand. The E3 sample was mated with the new and impressive 12 to 60mm f2.8-4 ultrsasonic lens (24mm to 120mm in 35mm film format). It was perfectly balanced in my smallish hands and amazingly felt very light compared to my D200 - even though reviews show it as heavier. As it was when I tried the E1 years ago, I could swing my arm all over the place and hang iot by my side and never feel like I was losing the grip. This sample did not have the battery pack. Auto Focusing was incredibly quick.

Here are a few samples using the camera in IS mode and higher ISO settings. It was evening and the room I had to work in was gaudy colouring as a result of the carbon arc lighting the camera store uses. These images except where noted, are straight out of the camera without cropping, levels, sharpening or any processing. They could all be improved slightly with post processing, however I just printed out the series of 1600 and 3200 ISO images AS-IS on 8x10 glossy paper using my Epson 1400 - and the 1600ISO image of the sales lady is stunning, while the 3200ISO shot of the camera bags is incredible considering it is 3200 ISO.

This was the first shot I took when I went in - the camera was set at 800ISO. That was the perfect place for me to start as my standard general purpose ISO when I shot film wsa 800 Fujicolor:



I asked the sales clerk if she minded if I took a shot of her to see the skin tones. Keep in mind that I new nothing about the camera and had little time to play - and so did not change many of the defaults it was set at including Auto WB which accounts for the ruddier skin under the carbon arc lighting - plus the fact that I think the Auto Exposure was trying to retain detail in the bright white signs in behind her. Still not bad though when I printed it out at 8x10. Could easily be adjusted in PS. This was shot at 1600ISO:



This was the true test - - - 3200ISO. Not that I expect noiseless images or grainy deep shadows like the new Nikons exhibit - but I know what the 3200 setting on my D200 looks like and besides the excessive noise, there is a loss of detail and colour. If these camera bags could maintain their texture and colour, I was going to be happy. In the 8x10 glossy print, the detail is amazing and the colour is just fine - - - and this from a file straight from the camera without tweaks. Sure if I look hard enough I can see some noise in the blurred out background - but the print is perfectly usable and probably salable. I'm sure a dose of Neat Image could easily cure any noise if I chose to use it.



----

[robertwatcher]

I shot these one after the other for a direct comparison of 100ISO and 3200ISO on a white sign. There is a huge difference between the 2 obviously, with the 100ISO being creamy smooth and the 3200 showing more texture or noise. Is the 3200ISO shot useless - it depends - I don't think so for the type of work I shoot. These are the only files from this test, where I tweaked the curves to brighten the whites and also adjusted the WB in photoshop to have them match colour as closely as possible:

100ISO (slow shutter speed so a little movement and blur incurred):



3200ISO (noise/grain is noticable in the dark shadows and orange highlights in the background)

[robertwatcher]

This shot to see the efrfect of image stabilization, was the only one where I free handed the camera in a normal fashion as I would at a wedding. I was standing in the middle of an aisle turned and shot as steadily as I could. Most of the other shots I was able to set my stance for stability or lean against a counter or wall. Equivalent 90mm focal length at 1/15'th of a second isn't too bad I don't think.:



Just before leaving I gave a quick jab at Live View, setting the camera on the counter and using the LCD screen to compose and set the WB. It's pretty cool when you can see the white balance change on the screen before you take the shot. Made it very easy to select the right setting for the light, just by scrolling through the presets and stopping at the one that looked best. It does not function like a point and shoot LCD live view does - - - it is great for shots where you can take the time for the second or two of delay that is required. That doesn't bother me either. I will be using it for the impossible shots that I used to be able to take while laying donw on the floor or climbing up on narrow trespaces when I was young - room shots, cake shots, macro shots where the off axis viewfinder puts the screen right where I want it:



--------
--------

I am a die hard Olympus guy since the early 1980's - who has been shooting Nikon out of necessity (not that I have a problem with that) for the last 6 years - - - and am so pleased that they have finally brought this camera out. I was afraid it was all just going to to be talk and no go. I will start buying into the system next week with an E-510, couple of lenses and the new  FL-50R wireless flash. When I get back from Costa Rica in a few months and am ready to start my 2008 wedding season, I will already have a head start with the Olympus system and add in the E-3 and 12-60mm 2.8-4 lens. In my hand, this combo was the perfect setup. For weddings I don't know if I'll need anything more (well I'll need the E-510 backups). What a perfect focal length. I've always felt too restricted in the wide angle end of my standard zooms, with 28mm equiv - 24mm is perfect. I also dislike the short long end of the fast 2.8 standard zooms that only reach to  75 or 80mm - 120mm is perfect.

Just thought some might enjoy the results of my playing tonight. I'm not really trying to convince anyone and am not saying this is the best out there. The battlefield is strong with the mainstream Canon 40D and Nikon D300 - - - and after playing with the Olympus E-3, have to say that it also is a strong contender in my eyes.

http://rwoutsidethebox.com/?page_id=91

--

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for the feedback Robert.

The E3 is definitely an iteresting contender.

Cheers,
Bernard

[SecondFocus]

Thanks. I was just looking at the Olympus E-3, almost by accident. I was early for an appointment with a client and happened to walk into a large camera store (pro as well as consumer). The Olympus reps were there so I took a look. I was impressed with the comparative weight and size of the system, especially the long lenses. The science behind the concepts also seemed to make sense.

I was also impressed with he E-410 which is just tiny, barely bigger than a point and shoot. That would be really nice when I really need to just run out with a body and lens but still need digital as opposed to film.

[Ray]

Also, 2 concerns for my style of shooting are Image Stabilization and decent 1600 and 3200ISO PRINT quality (I sell prints so I don't care what they look like on a monitor).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your impressions, Robert. However, without appearing to be too critical, I have to say that, whilst you may not be concerned with how the images look on the monitor, the rest of us don't have the opportunity to view 8x10 prints.

The sample images you've posted appear on my laptop about the size of 3"x4" prints, perhaps a bit bigger. At this size, those high ISO shots certainly look very clean. But the fact is, when people are in love they tend to lose objectivity. Is this not so?  

I've always had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Olympus 4/3rds system was let down by a sensor which could not match the stellar performance of the Zuiko lenses. Image quality is always a product of lens and sensor quality. If one of them is lacking, the image suffers, whichever it is.

In the E-3, the sensor now appears to be on a par with Canon sensors, with regard to high image quality at high ISO. I think there's still a question mark against dynamic range though.

[robertwatcher]

However, without appearing to be too critical, I have to say that, whilst you may not be concerned with how the images look on the monitor, the rest of us don't have the opportunity to view 8x10 prints.

I simply posted my feelings about the camera - they may or may not be relevant to anyone else - doesn't matter to me as it's not an official report. What I always recommend is that people looking for a camera do exactly what I did and take a memory card with them into the store and takes some shots at various settings - and then take the card home and look at the images on their system and even spend a few bucks tp have some prints made to see if it suits their needs. If anything, I am trying to encourage that mentality with this post. If I can do it, anyone can. 4 years ago when I got into digital, that is exactly how I made my choice between the Olympus E-1 and the D70. The camera reviews had little relevance to what I needed from cameras - and my resulting snapshots in the store using both cameras, showed far less difference between the two than was being presented and so it was way less confusing to figure out for myself. I ended up getting the D70 based on the price difference and virtually the same image. BTW - my D200 that just fried, that I have used heavily (60,000 shots plus) for the last year and a half has noise on the screen if I look for it at even ISO's of 200 and 400 with some scenarios - - - and there are threads on different forums  where people are upset because they are getting noise in their images (on screen obviously) from cameras such as the 5D when  they have been told by everyone there is no noise and so they have made the heavy investment. Then replys are that they don't understand how it is possible, or that there must be something wrong with the camera or technique, or in one case saying that it is a result of using incremental ISO's like 250ISO instead of the whole 200ISO. The only way to know for sure is to check it out yourself with some real images that you've taken in a way that you normally would in a shooting situation, processed and printed to see if the results meet your standards - and do that before you buy by takeing a card along with you. When I went in to check the E-1 and D70, I didn't even know what a memory card was, but had no problem investing the $50 required for a 256MB memory card from the store so that I could made an informed decision in my purchase.

But the fact is, when people are in love they tend to lose objectivity. Is this not so?

I'm a professional that makes my living from my cameras, place heavy demands on my gear, and someone who has to produce images that befit the higher price that I charge for my abilities. That is the objective behind what I do and my choices in photographic equipment. I can be happy with any equipment that can provide that - but if there is little difference in the results of different brands, I will make my choice based on what I love or what appeals to me.  

[Ray]

What I always recommend is that people looking for a camera do exactly what I did and take a memory card with them into the store and takes some shots at various settings - and then take the card home and look at the images on their system and even spend a few bucks tp have some prints made to see if it suits their needs.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's not enough Robert. We don't live on the basis of need, at least most of us in the West don't. We want the best, or the best value for money in relation to both our wants and needs.

In order to get a clear sense of what are the competing merits of different brands and formats at different prices, we need clear and detailed information. Only then can we apply our subjective preferences, weigh the pros and cons and make an informed decision.

[robertwatcher]

That's not enough Robert. We don't live on the basis of need, at least most of us in the West don't. We want the best, or the best value for money in relation to both our wants and needs.

In order to get a clear sense of what are the competing merits of different brands and formats at different prices, we need clear and detailed information. Only then can we apply our subjective preferences, weigh the pros and cons and make an informed decision.

I don't agree on this point. Obviously all that matters to me is that the end results satisfy me and that a camera or any gear works well with my shooting style and has a comfort level to me - - - but you certainly have the right to your opinion and I know that there are many that share that opinion also. A variety of opposing viewpoints  though does help round out a discussion - so I do appreciate you expressing yours.

[Ray]

Obviously all that matters to me is that the end results satisfy me and that a camera or any gear works well with my shooting style and has a comfort level to me - - - [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I guess that could apply to anyone, amateur or professional. The amateur's shooting style is mostly snap shot, hence the P&S digicam. The professional's is something higher.

I can understand the E-3 could be ideal for many applications. I just want to see detailed comparisons so I know what the weaknesses are and the trade-offs compared with the next larger format.

[alert_bri]

Hi Ray, have you actually tried the E-3 for yourself yet? it's good to challenge other people's experience, but better from a position of personal experience imho.

I know you're coming from the position of a happy Canon shooter, but surely there's no need to defend your choice by diminishing other people's experience?

Kind Regards

Brian

[Ray]

I know you're coming from the position of a happy Canon shooter, but surely there's no need to defend your choice by diminishing other people's experience?

Kind Regards

Brian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Brian, I'm not defending my choice of Canon gear. I have no brand loyalty. I'm just a little frustrated that I can't get any hard facts about the Olympus 4/3rds system and some direct and meaningful comparisons with other systems at equivalent DoFs and shutter speeds etc.

So often reports of these 4/3rds cameras seem to focus only on how nice the camera feels in the hand, how nicely balanced it is and how responsive and light it is.

We never seem to get below the surface. The E-3 is now looking as though it can take on the 40D and perhaps even the almost obsolete 5D. In fact, if I were buying a camera for the first time and was considering a camera in the price and quality range of the 40D, I'd also be seriously considering the E3.

[robertwatcher]

I printed up a set of 8x10 glossys of these shots - and yesterday took them into the the Henry's Camera store where I did the test. They were equally as impressed with the high ISO shots from the E-3 and 12-60 lens.

Just to dispell the myth that the 4/3 sensor is too small and while may be fine for printing from the full frame, is no good when heavy cropping is involved - - - I also printed out this heavy crop that is probably 1/3 of the frame area from the 1600ISO picture I posted above. It held up very well and I suspect would easily blow up larger than the 8x10 size I provided them:



So if anyone is from the London Ontario area, you can go into to the North end Fanshaw Road "Henrys Camera Store" and ask to have a look at the prints.

[Ray]

I printed up a set of 8x10 glossys of these shots - and yesterday took them into the the Henry's Camera store where I did the test. They were equally as impressed with the high ISO shots from the E-3 and 12-60 lens.

Just to dispell the myth that the 4/3 sensor is too small and while may be fine for printing from the full frame, is no good when heavy cropping is involved - - - I also printed out this heavy crop that is probably 1/3 of the frame area from the 1600ISO picture I posted above. It held up very well and I suspect would easily blow up larger than the 8x10 size I provided them:

 ). Thanks for posting the enlargement. I think perhaps the 4/3rds system has finally arrived. Prior to the E-3 there was always the nagging doubt that one would really be trading off image quality for a savings in weight and/or cost when buying into the Olympus system. This might no longer be the case.