Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] E-1 discussion

Subject: [OM] E-1 discussion
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:16:09 -0400
At 3:26 AM +0200 6/3/04, Listar wrote:
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:51:51 -0700
>From: Stephen Scharf <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] E-1 discussion
>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>   >From: "Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>><SNIP>
>>   >Even being a die hard Olympus fan, I have to say 10D is at least two stops
>>>better than E-1, at ISO100 the noise is not noticable even if you
>>>underexpose by two
>>>stops and later pull it up; still very low noise at ISO400 and under
>>>one stop. The
>>>problem is the 10D color does not look as good as the E-1 even with the
>>>excellent C1 RAW convertor.
>
>I don't agree with CH on this-he's entitled to his viewpoint as I am
>mine, and granted the perception of color is to some (possibly large)
>degree subjective, but I love the color of C*n*n's CMOS sensor based
>cameras; I prefer it to CCD based cameras including the E-1's which is
>still quite nice, but IMHO, doesn't hold a candle to the CMOS sensors.
>CH has not posted what his post-capture color post-processing
>workflow is, but I have spent the last year getting quite good
>control with respect to post, and I am very happy with the quality of
>color I am getting, both on the monitor, and most importantly, from
>the 2200 (Velvet Fine Art-Yeah!). All capture devices have their
>imperfections, and it's up to the photographer to discern those as
>part of his production values, and develop a workflow to produce
>images whose colors pop, retains shadow and highlight details, and
>has dead-nuts neutrals.
><SNIP>
>
>>So the E-1 has worse noise and yet the pictures look better, likely
>>due to better color fidelity.
>
>I don't agree that the pictures look better-I find the noise levels
>of the E-1 to contribute a significant detriment to the image quailty
>at ISOs as low as 400. I find the metering of the E-1 to be quite
>neutral, but the images' color  tend to be a  little cool and flat
>for my taste. Color neutrality is good, though, and one of the
>biggest pluses I've found is that the E-1 metering produces nicely
>balanced histograms.

The points about the color neutrality and nicely balanced histograms 
aligns with CH's point about trying to capture as much of the 
brightness range as possible, for later processing.  CH intentionally 
underexposes, yielding pictures that look too dark, all to allow 
subsequent processing to recover the full scene.

What happens after capture will reflect the intent of the 
photographer; these tools allow considerable control, and the role of 
the camera is less than it was in the days of film.


>  >The difference in pixel footprint area is about 10%.  The 10D uses a CMOS
>>sensor, while the E-1 uses a CCD, but these technologies are neck in
>>neck.  All in all, one would expect substantially similar raw optical
>>performance, unless one chip is far noisier than the other, which
>>seems unlikely in competing products from major camera manufacturers.
>
>CCD chips are generally noisier than CMOS....no doubt due in part to
>the fact that they require higher voltage gains.

I don't think one can draw any such conclusion.  Astronomers all use 
CCDs, not CMOS sensors, and astronomy works right up against the 
theoretical limits.

And gain per se does not cause or cure noise.  Noise in digital 
cameras is mostly due to self-interference from all the digital 
logic, and of course to the need for low cost everything.  Including 
the amplifiers.  CMOS sensors have lots of digital logic right on the 
chip.


>  >I would have to guess that the 10D does far heavier averaging,
>>especially in flat areas, reducing noise at the expense of color
>>fidelity.  It appears that the 10D may have gone too far in this.
>
>This sounds like a lot of supposition without any facts to me.

Umm, that's what "have to guess" means.  It's based on CH's observations.


>Everyone I know who has a 10D loves the color quality, as does every
>review I've ever read. The E-1 has many nice qualities, it meters
>very well, produces lovely photographs with nice histograms and
>neutral colors that don't require a lot of post-processing, but it
>also suffers notably from balky autofocus, slow write times,  some
>poor design and ergonomic features, and unacceptable levels of noise.

We were discussing photographic image quality, not camera handling.

And, the acceptability of the noise level is clearly an area where 
reasonable people can differ.  Said another way, if the noise were 
truly "unacceptable" to all, we would expect E-1 sales to be zero, 
which is hardly the case.


>I think it's a quite a good first attempt, but it's not a
>knockout, and I find some things wanting about it. I hear the E-1
>replacement will be quite nice, though, and address many of the
>shortcomings of the E-1...it is supposed to come out this fall. I
>always enjoy using it and taking photos with it, but I think of it as
>a camera that's almost there, but not quite....in that respect its a
>bit disappointing.
>
>Here are Phil Askey's comments, which, as I have used the camera
>extensively over three days, I couldn't agree with more...
>
>   *If you're going to be critical (and I normally am) you see a
>superbly designed camera which isn't achieving its full potential."*

While all this may well be true, it's also irrelevant to the present 
discussion, which is about the images and the tradeoff between 
resolution, color fidelity and noise.  (I'm sure the E-2 will be 
better, etc.)  Actually, it's about trying to figure out why the E-1 
photos look better than 10D photos to at least one experienced 
photographer, CH.  The hope is to figure out what the important 
technical differences leading to this are.  This will include the 
post-capture processing.  One can do the same for 10D pictures, using 
you as the experienced photographer.  At the end of the day, we want 
to know which technical issues really matter, and how does the story 
change for different kinds of subjects, and for various photographers.

Joe Gwinn

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz