E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

[raist3d]

Maybe I am missin something, but I do not recognize any banding

Do you authorize me to download your photo so I can point it out? [del]

So maybe there is none, or I am banding blind, which again is good for me as I the can shoot much different cameras without any headache obviously :ROTFL:

[del]

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

I have a list of wants that includes a tack sharp standard zoom, the ability to use legacy lenses, good viewfinder, IBIS, good weather sealing, articulated LCD... do you see where this is leading? :ROTFL:

The fact that I like the output from Olympus cameras helps a lot too of course, as does the detail rendering of the E-5 at low ISO.

Go for it man. Sounds like you know the pros and cons and you have a good match. Really, go for it and congrats when you get it.

- Raist

 

[Godfrey]

... {more E-5 joy} ...

Sheesh, this thread is still rambling on? All of you: get a life, make some photographs.

Sounds like you're enjoying the E-5, Peter. Good luck with it! I remain delighted with it, it is perhaps the most satisfying camera I've owned since I sold my Nikon F3/T ... which is still one of the few finest cameras of all time. IMO, of course. ]'-)

Perhaps Jorgen will join our small cadre of Olympus E-5 users soon.

ps: I like the Nikkor-H 85/1.8 so much that I just ordered another one. The BGN one I got from KEH has perfect glass but needs a CLA badly: the focusing helicoid is rough and it's got many signs of hard use. They had an EXC graded example as well for another hundred bux; I decided it was worth it as a CLA for this one will cost me $150 and won't clean up the cosmetics at all. A friend of mine already wants to buy this one too, so I'm not out any money.

It's a great lens on the FourThirds bodies, fits the E-5 perfectly, and a fantastic focal length and speed.

enjoy!

​

 

[raist3d]

Looks like you missed this:

http://raist3d.typepad.com/photos/small_portfolio_sample/

- Raist

 

[ptomsu]

@raist3d

well, I see that you are starting number of responses and attacks, which I am definitely not willing to go into. I have absolutely no intention to defend an Olympus camera against any other camera, nor to prove that my standards and decision criteria are good or bad or whatever. All of this would go just in a pure waste of time - not only wasting my time but also yours.

Enjoy your K5, make great photos and please do no longer care about what I am doing and thinking it is good. We are not compatible - sorry

 

[raist3d]

@ptomsu - you make some claims but not seeing the backing up. Two people pointed out to you the banding in your ISO 3200 shot, but you can't see it and reply with a "cute" thing which seems rather odd. I offered if you authorized it to download your shot and mark it, but never heard back on that. You say you don't have any intentions to defend a particular camera yet you jump with your alleged observations doing exactly that. Not sure what to make of that.

As for responses, I thought that was what normally happens in a thread or conversation. Otherwise it would be monologues.

I know I do photography, which is why I ask often when others talk about their experience and observations to share what they do. Very commonly all of a sudden upon asking for a portfolio or gallery showing their experience, they vanish, for some reason.

*shrugs*

I'll enjoy shooting with what I have which are multiple brands. My photography goes beyond the concept of a brand.

- Raist

 

[ptomsu]

@ptomsu - you make some claims but not seeing the backing up. Two people pointed out to you the banding in your ISO 3200 shot, but you can't see it and reply with a "cute" thing which seems rather odd. I offered if you authorized it to download your shot and mark it, but never heard back on that. You say you don't have any intentions to defend a particular camera yet you jump with your alleged observations doing exactly that. Not sure what to make of that.

As for responses, I thought that was what normally happens in a thread or conversation. Otherwise it would be monologues.

I know I do photography, which is why I ask often when others talk about their experience and observations to share what they do. Very commonly all of a sudden upon asking for a portfolio or gallery showing their experience, they vanish, for some reason.

*shrugs*

I'll enjoy shooting with what I have which are multiple brands. My photography goes beyond the concept of a brand.

- Raist

Let me know an email address and I will send you the RAW file.

Peter

PS: I am also brand agnostic, having (unfortunately) owned almost all of them - I think I am missing Fuji and yes, Sigma

 

[nugat]

The future is all pen, not 4/3rds. Something to keep in mind when buying the 14-35 though if they honor their promise to support it in the prospec body it should be ok.

What I would warn yo about the 14-35 is this: Yes it is very sharp, and nice. Great contrast. It's excellent *but* in moderate to low light it hunts and takes forever to AF. Now if you are a guy that does MF this doesn't affect you at all. But if you rely on AF, watch out. Even on the E-5, has been reported by quite many.

- Raist

And you surly shoot lot E5+14-35?
Cause I do, and have not noticed "taking forever to AF".
Give your body/lens combo for a check, they must be faulty.

 

[raist3d]

And you surly shoot lot E5+14-35?
Cause I do, and have not noticed "taking forever to AF".
Give your body/lens combo for a check, they must be faulty.

There was a thread in which several E-5 owners mentioned that the issue still happened though it seemed a little better than say E-3 or E-30. The issue doesn't happen in good light. It's in low light/or moderate low and I can only imagine (this part I haven't tried), tungsten since tungsten is just traditionally nasty or fluorescent. The lens does lock focus, but it basically goes to AF fast, then as it approximates the point of focus starts doing this "little steps". It easily takes more than a second.

Given this issue has been reported with E-5, have seen it myself with 420, E-3, E-30 and Olympus has not addressed it with the previous cameras I certainly do believe the E-5 still has it with it.

Again, low light.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

Let me know an email address and I will send you the RAW file.

Peter, sent you a message. Let me know if you want posted it here or privately.

I'll be busy tomorrow but should find time at night, thanks again.

- Ricardo

PS: I think Nik's whatever it is noise reduction program they do, supports banding removal. I also believe since then there's another one that does too (forgot if it was something DXo did or someone else).

 

[Riley]

That is not true, the E-5 doesn't outperform the A900 in low light. Using modern raw conveyers like LR 3.3 gives at best the same kind of 100% view performance, but since the A900 has so much more megapixels than the E-5, for a valid comparison you resize down and the A900 wins that hands down. That is- if the A900 doesn't perform a bit better at high ISO to begin with which could very well be the case. Moreover, the A900 has definitively more DR.

- Raist

thyre very close as noise reading per ISO, at print sizes A900 has a fraction more than a stop on E5 (not enough to call 1.3 stops).
Like E5 A900 isnt a high ISO machine, and E5 would give it a run for its money in jpeg at any ISO and probably has faster zooms available to it,
so I think Godfrey might just be right,..... thats the way it is

 

[ptomsu]

Peter, sent you a message. Let me know if you want posted it here or privately.

I'll be busy tomorrow but should find time at night, thanks again.

- Ricardo

PS: I think Nik's whatever it is noise reduction program they do, supports banding removal. I also believe since then there's another one that does too (forgot if it was something DXo did or someone else).

Ricardo,

sent you the image! Not sure if it is useful as it could be because it is a LR3.3 DNG conversion.

Feel free to post here!

If you need more stuff, just let me know

Peter

 

[raist3d]

thyre very close as noise reading per ISO, at print sizes A900 has a fraction more than a stop on E5 (not enough to call 1.3 stops).
Like E5 A900 isnt a high ISO machine, and E5 would give it a run for its money in jpeg at any ISO and probably has faster zooms available to it,
so I think Godfrey might just be right,..... thats the way it is

I can't agree to that. The megapixel difference is too big to not account for it. And they don't suffer from banding, and do have more dynamic range/better shadows. The early raw conversions of the A900 didn't look very good originally, but the ones after the RAW converters got tuned for it showed that the A900 wasn't as noisy as it was first thought.

Something like LR 3.3 actually makes it look pretty decent actually and you have tons of data to use (compared to the E-5). It's thanks to that extra data that while you will have to "burn" a lot of it at higher ISO you can still come out ahead.

The best: download raws from both and see your yourself (said in general).

And a note on zooms: not all lenses are or have to be zooms. There are primes too. Just because someone likes to use zooms shouldn't in any shape or form those who shoot with primes (and viceversa).

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

I used the one you posted....

Ricardo,

sent you the image! Not sure if it is useful as it could be because it is a LR3.3 DNG conversion.

Feel free to post here!

If you need more stuff, just let me know

Peter

Ill check the raw later. I highlighted some of the bands. There are more (see another one at the very bottom of the shot all the way across).

Here's another example in a thread- look at the bird shot (not linking directly so you can see the original post).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37298036

There is more to this issue that simply getting it. If you need to do any kind of post where you need to brighten the RAW image, the image falls apart super fast. This behavior was documented int he E-3 review at Luminous Landscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/E-3-Second.shtml

Look a the section "A more serious issue:"

"An E-3 frame shot at 1600ASA.
Banding is manifesting itself quite obviously in the flat areas of the frame
and there is absolutely no latitude for pushing the exposure in post production."

----

There are things you can do to minimize the impact:

- Avoid high iso shots with areas of dark and bright
- Avoid tungsten light
- Try your darndest to get the exposure right- exact. This is a rule that all cameras benefit from obviously but here you have to really get it. Don't think about under exposing and having to develop up.
- Try out software that does noise reduction and supports banding noise reduction.

Nik's Define 2 does this:

http://www.niksoftware.com/company/usa/entry.php?info=company/pressroom/dfine2.1_announcement.shtml

I have tried it the first time they came out with my e-330 and it did help a bit, though varied by banding situation. But this is "version 2" of that process, so it should work hopefully pretty good for many situations.

- Raist

PS: Thank you Peter for allowing me to use your image.

 

[Riley]

I can't agree to that. The megapixel difference is too big to not account for it.

lets keep this short
well you are an advocate of DxO, go take a look
you are wrong

And they don't suffer from banding, and do have more dynamic range/better shadows. The early raw conversions of the A900 didn't look very good originally, but the ones after the RAW converters got tuned for it showed that the A900 wasn't as noisy as it was first thought.

Something like LR 3.3 actually makes it look pretty decent actually and you have tons of data to use (compared to the E-5). It's thanks to that extra data that while you will have to "burn" a lot of it at higher ISO you can still come out ahead.

The best: download raws from both and see your yourself (said in general).

And a note on zooms: not all lenses are or have to be zooms. There are primes too. Just because someone likes to use zooms shouldn't in any shape or form those who shoot with primes (and viceversa).

- Raist

zooms offer more utility than primes
fast zooms offer more utility than slow zooms
whats not to like....

 

[raist3d]

lets keep this short
well you are an advocate of DxO, go take a look
you are wrong

(edited)
I can't quite agree to that- dxo says:

E-5 DR = 10.5 ev. Sony A900 = 12.3 EV
ISO score (low iso) = 519, Sony A900 = 1431 (that's almost 3 times the score of the e-5)
Color bits = 21.6 bits , Sony = 23.7 bits

(edited) If there is something wrong, by all means point it out.

The S/NR graph favors the A900 even without taking into account print (i.e. the extra resolution) and separates more as ISO goes up.

(edit)as I encourage everyone to download A900 raws, E-5 raws and convert and see for themselves.

zooms offer more utility than primes
fast zooms offer more utility than slow zooms
whats not to like....

Size and price for marginal improvements? Zooms offering more utility than primes depends. Primes can be faster (F1.4) and far smaller at a fraction of the price with comparable quality. I am not going to make "the case for primes" because this case has been long made since film photography. That doesn't even take into account the issue of seeing, which zooms can let you slide oh so easy without remembering the issues of perspective. Faster zooms don't mean anything when the other bodies outclass the ones you put those in ISO performance by a significant amount.

There's pros and cons.

 

[Riley]

I don't think so- I mean, dxo says:

E-5 DR = 10.5 ev. Sony A900 = 12.3 EV
ISO score (low iso) = 519, Sony A900 = 1431 (that's almost 3 times the score of the e-5)
Color bits = 21.6 bits , Sony = 23.7 bits

What did I miss here? Where am I wrong?

well Im a bit used to the way you backpedal from dpr, this is what I said

"thyre very close as noise reading per ISO, at print sizes A900 has a fraction more than a stop on E5 (not enough to call 1.3 stops).
Like E5 A900 isnt a high ISO machine, and E5 would give it a run for its money in jpeg at any ISO and probably has faster zooms available to it,
so I think Godfrey might just be right,..... thats the way it is"

see any mention of DR there?

The S/NR graph favors the A900 even without taking into account print (i.e. the extra resolution) and separates more as ISO goes up.

at print sizes A900 has a fraction more than a stop on E5 (not enough to call 1.3 stops)

 

[raist3d]

(!!!!!) Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

well Im a bit used to the way you backpedal from dpr, this is what I said
see any mention of DR there?

I am sorry but I am not back pedaling at all. Ignore the DR, you certainly mentioned ISO. Then you said I was wrong because Dxo which I go by proved me wrong. So I mentioned everything I saw at Dxo which does include ISO performance btw and I couldn't see where I was wrong. I asked you what I missed on that and you replied with "I am used to the way you back pedal from dpr."

Nobody mentioned dpr. (edit) I don't understand. (edit) The dxo ISO score and the ISO S/N ratio chart talk about all these things.

(edit) I am going to focus on the banding that was the last big thing being talked about anyway.


- Raist

 

[Riley]

I said
"thyre very close as noise reading per ISO, at print sizes A900 has a fraction more than a stop on E5 (not enough to call 1.3 stops)"

to which you said
"I can't agree to that. The megapixel difference is too big to not account for it."

now you know what I said was vindicated by DxO and I was right all along

 

[raist3d]

I said
"thyre very close as noise reading per ISO, at print sizes A900 has a fraction more than a stop on E5 (not enough to call 1.3 stops)"

to which you said
"I can't agree to that. The megapixel difference is too big to not account for it."

now you know what I said was vindicated by DxO and I was right all along

No, (edit) I do not believe that's not what Dxo says but the opposite. The claim was - that DXo supports the claim presented and I posted what DXo talks about in the comparison; don't see where does DXo supports that claim. (edit)

I asked for supporting evidence for that claim and doesn't look like it's been produced (edit).

If you could please, point out where exactly Dxo proves the claim presented. Having an ISO score at DXo 3 times the one of the E-5, I don't understand how is so (edit).

- Raist