Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Jono i saw that comparision and it looks great.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hi Jono,Mark Cargill did a detailed comparison of image quality against the Nikon D300, and up to 1600 ISO the E3 won convincingly. I'm noticing no problems printing up to 17X24, and I'm sure you could go a great deal bigger.
The OM Zuiko lenses don't all work well at all apertures. The best ones do, lenses like the 100/2.8 are best stopped down to f/5.6, while very few of the zooms are any good. There are exceptions though.Here's one with the 100/2.8, at f/5.6 I believe.
HI Jorgen
Great shots all - I think it's sad to find so many people who've just written off 4/3. I haven't explored all the old Zuiko full frame lenses, but the modern ones certainly do the business.
Olympus actually made a table which was distributed with the MF-1 OM to 4/3 converter. It lists all OM lenses and at what aperture they are sharp. Their requirement was that only the best will do, so it's more strict than necessary for everyday use, but it's a very useful guideline.
Thanks for the information - I think I'll stick to the modern lenses! They seem to do pretty well.The OM Zuiko lenses don't all work well at all apertures. The best ones do, lenses like the 100/2.8 are best stopped down to f/5.6, while very few of the zooms are any good. There are exceptions though.
Olympus actually made a table which was distributed with the MF-1 OM to 4/3 converter. It lists all OM lenses and at what aperture they are sharp. Their requirement was that only the best will do, so it's more strict than necessary for everyday use, but it's a very useful guideline.
Hi SeanHi Jono,
Where would I find that? BTW, before I forget, I'll be away Weds. helping a sick friend but lets keep looking for a time.
Cheers,
Sean
HI SeanHi Jono,
Thanks. Unfortunately, I needed to stop reading when I saw that they were done at F/11.
Cheers,
Sean
The acid test for the E-1's WX-prufing was the lady in Walnut Creek, CA who investigated a funny smell and found that her dog had put his mark all over and in her camera bag. It washed out just fine.The believable weatherproofing is another factor (do you remember that mad fool who shot his E1 holding it under water?).
I agree. I was nervous about the change in sensor going to the E-3, since I thought that Kodak was owed some of the credit, but color taste seems as good as ever.For me, the real deal is the colour that Olympus manage to crank out, model after model
OK, here goes with some E-3 available light stuff -- my daughter and friends at basketball practice, first at ISO 800 and then at ISO 1600. I thought the tonal renditions were nice. I haven't done any noise cleaning. For some really stylish results, look for sports shots by a guy named Don Chin, who posts things on dpreview like swimming meets and indoor volleyball, always at ISO 1600, in better light than my examples. I'll edit in a link if I can find it quickly...I've always found 4/3 interesting and reviewed the E-1 for LuLa (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml) because I thought it was such a promising camera. I owned one for awhile, in fact. I've been waiting for a successor to that camera for a long time. If the ISO 1600 files are good, and resilient, my wife may switch to Olympus for her work. The weather seals are important, the lenses are quite good and the AF on the example I tried in NYC was excellent. In camera IS is also a real asset, as I found in the K10D.
So the million dollar questions for Melissa are: Is ISO 1600 really 1600? (It wasn't with the E1) and how well do those files hold up for professional work that is often shot at that ISO.
Cheers,
Sean