Olympus E-30 high ISO comparisons

[Alex Stewart]

Sorry for the lag... my family goes back to Canada for Christmas. I wanted to check the exposures on the E-3/D700 comparison shots I'd made to see if the implied ISO was different on similarly-exposed images. Taking the best exposed image (extreme high contrast - a dark area inside the camera store against a window with bright snow behind it), both at a nominal ISO 1600, I just now checked the EXIF data. If the Nikon had a lower real ISO we'd find that the EV would be higher. As they were both at the same aperture we need only compare the shutter speed (unless I'm really missing something). In fact what I find is the opposite of a less sensitive Nikon sensor. The D700 shot the image at twice the shutter speed as the E3, both at 1600 and both at a small aperture (f/16), with both histograms showing very similar exposures (with clipping at both ends, but about as good a general use exposure as possible). (Of course if I hadn't been testing ISO this shot would have not have needed 1600.)
I want to underscore that I don't mean by this that I am generally dissatisfied with Olympus gear, and that if I do end up getting a D700 I will also stay with Olympus. Now that several of Oly's innovations have been copied, it still has a few advantages that matter to me:
more DOF (for a sociological sort of image if you will),
the 4:3 ratio,
outstanding lenses,
lighter, faster lenses everything else equal, including
greater reach: I think the 12-60 range, which is quite a bit greater than the 24-70 equivalents, is a real strength for my purposes.

[Bandit]

This is an interesting thread and I for one is pleased it has not turned into a Canon/Nikon Olympus bashing topic ( I have been guilty of this in the past).

All cameras have good and bad points, and all things aside the appeal of the four thirds system is it's reduced size and weight. It would be a huge mistake to judge any camera on hi ISO performance alone, while this is to me a very desireable aspect I also apreciate it's not to others ( and not always to me)

ISO1600 is plenty good enough for almost anything I shoot now, one day everything will do this with ease. Bring it on, then we will have a level playing field and we can all talk about something else. DR I guess would be next on the list, and in ther case of Olympus a more important thing to fix.

What will the next five years bring...oh boy I do wonder.

PS the range of the 12-60 would be ideal for me...damn you Nikon for keeping the standard decent zoom so short.

[Alex Stewart]

Bandit, you raise a topic I feel reluctant to raise myself: the possibility of a breakthrough technology. For example, after the E-330 came out there was quite a bit of speculation about a two-sensor solution to the image-taking itself. Clearly this would double the pixels with the same sensor size, and it would cut in 1/4 the need to interpolate (if that's the term). Presumably one sensor would be all green (no interpolation needed) and the other half red and half blue - one half the interpolation. I was reluctant to raise this issue for two reasons: the potential for disappointment down the road and my inability to assess the technical challenges involved (no doubt apparent from my terminology).

[Alex Stewart]

I'm pretty sure this isn't the right way to do this but I am not able to see an alternative. Because I have made a few posts about camera equipment I thought I should indicate that I do actually take photos.. whether one thinks I do this well or badly. In terms of landscapes here is my Flickr set (6 of 32 are from scanned film, 35mm or 6X6):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_stewart/
The digital ones are taken on a range of Olympus equipment. The blurry ones (longish exposures with a moving camera) are mainly with an E-1. There are some with an E-300, and E-330 and several with an E-3.

[John Perriment]

Originally Posted by Alex Stewart

I'm pretty sure this isn't the right way to do this but I am not able to see an alternative. Because I have made a few posts about camera equipment I thought I should indicate that I do actually take photos.. whether one thinks I do this well or badly. In terms of landscapes here is my Flickr set (6 of 32 are from scanned film, 35mm or 6X6):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_stewart/
The digital ones are taken on a range of Olympus equipment. The blurry ones (longish exposures with a moving camera) are mainly with an E-1. There are some with an E-300, and E-330 and several with an E-3.

Hi Alex,

Posting pictures within a thread like this is fine, because we always like to see new images. However, it does restrict the number of potential viewings of your work to those that have an interest in following this thread.

For a wider audience on this forum I would recommend that you take advantage of your free gallery space on this site where, over time, you are bound to attract more viewers and comments. You can then, of course, start a new thread any time you wish to showcase particular images, either in "For The Album" for general sharing or "Critique" if you are looking for constructive feedback.

I particularly like the blurred images you have on your Flickr site, they are original and creative and show you have thought about how you want to interpret the subject rather than just taking a record shot. Hope to see more of your work on this site soon!

[Alex Stewart]

Thanks, John. I particularly welcome your comment after going into your personal website. Unfortunately the computer I'm on doesn't show your photos well but I can see enough to want to access them tomorrow on my LaCie monitor.

One thing I appreciate about the Four Thirds User website is the civil tone. Non-moderated sites tend to have too little of this.