Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:34 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:35 am 
http://www.optyczne.pl/94.7-Test_aparat ... w_RAW.html

Its hard to tell by looking at the picture of the girl, but look at the squares on the right and the amount of noise on the E30 is significantly more than the E3.

Im convinced now that there is no good argument to spend the extra 300 dollars for the E3.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:58 pm 
i've seen both cameras listed for about the same price online. i've seen the e-3 for even cheaper. if i'm going to pay roughly the same price, i'd rather take the weather sealing & better ovf.

have you seen any "real life" comparisons between the 2 (shots taken outside)?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:54 pm 
I've never used either camera, but I think the comparisons in the ISO1600 and 3200 samples are not very good, because the E-3 samples look much less colorful than the E-30 samples. Given that noise in photos is a bunch of white speckles, the more colorful the sample, the more obvious the white speckling becomes. On the E-3 samples, the color is so light that the noise is much harder to see. I'm sure there is probably some technical terms to describe the lack of color. If you look at the boxes to the right of the lady photo samples, you'll also notice how the grey and the black boxes for the E-30 is much darker than the E-3 grey and black samples. That's just my opinion from looking at those test samples on the link.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:08 pm 
Armanius wrote:
I've never used either camera, but I think the comparisons in the ISO1600 and 3200 samples are not very good, because the E-3 samples look much less colorful than the E-30 samples. Given that noise in photos is a bunch of white speckles, the more colorful the sample, the more obvious the white speckling becomes. On the E-3 samples, the color is so light that the noise is much harder to see. I'm sure there is probably some technical terms to describe the lack of color. If you look at the boxes to the right of the lady photo samples, you'll also notice how the grey and the black boxes for the E-30 is much darker than the E-3 grey and black samples. That's just my opinion from looking at those test samples on the link.


I'm not sure why the colors looked the way they did on the E3, especially relative to the Nikon. Olympus is generally known to have better colors.

Either way, your logic isnt exactly right. Its easy to see that the E30 has much more noise, vibrant colors or not.
Notice the girl is bigger in the E30's samples but the squares are the same size. This means that the E3's image was in a more significant crop, which makes this all the more impressive.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:10 pm 
idavis wrote:
i've seen both cameras listed for about the same price online. i've seen the e-3 for even cheaper. if i'm going to pay roughly the same price, i'd rather take the weather sealing & better ovf.

have you seen any "real life" comparisons between the 2 (shots taken outside)?


The E3 body goes for about $1000 USD new from reputable eBay stores.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:24 pm 
Atomic wrote:

Either way, your logic isnt exactly right. Its easy to see that the E30 has much more noise, vibrant colors or not.
Notice the girl is bigger in the E30's samples but the squares are the same size. This means that the E3's image was in a more significant crop, which makes this all the more impressive.


What do you mean by a more significant crop?

I think the E3 lady image is smaller in size than the E30, b/c E3 has 10 megapixels v. the 12 in E-30. As far as the boxes are concerned, I am assuming that the testing was performed in the same manner as the lady image, and that the tester did not zoom in to give us an image of the same size as the E-30 (given that he didn't do that with the lady image).

I think the color totally has to do with the noise that we see. The colors of the E-3 are washed out, and almost white. It's harder to see the white speckles when it blends in with the photo. This opinion is of course based on a purely logical point of view, and has nothing to do with photography knowledge (which I barely have more than my 3 year old nephew). The lady image on the E-3 @ ISO1600 also seems softer.

I cannot read the language on that site. If you can, does it say anything about applying noise filter on the head to head comparison? I can see that in the sample JPEG images @3200, they have a comparison of JPEG with noise reduction at different settings.

One thing is for sure though, @ high ISO, the D300 looked better than either the E-3 or E-30.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:54 pm 
Armanius wrote:
What do you mean by a more significant crop?

I think the E3 lady image is smaller in size than the E30, b/c E3 has 10 megapixels v. the 12 in E-30. As far as the boxes are concerned, I am assuming that the testing was performed in the same manner as the lady image, and that the tester did not zoom in to give us an image of the same size as the E-30 (given that he didn't do that with the lady image).


Im saying that because the E30 has more pixels, a 100% crop of the same image would be LARGER coming from the E30 than coming from the E3. This is why the picture of the girl is larger.

However, because the images of the squares are the same size, it means the E3 image has been cropped a larger amount than the E30's in order to make them the same size. Does that make sense? Basically the square in the E30's image contains more pixels than the square in the E3's image.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:43 pm 
Image

8)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:10 pm
Posts: 355
Location: Netherlands
If you ask me, the E30 is better then the E3, especially, when you scale down the E30 picture.

_________________
Olympus E-M5, 9-18, 12-50, 25 f1.8, 45 f1.8, 12-60, 40-150, 70-300


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:32 pm 
Looks like that other site whose name shall not be mentioned really liked the E-30. I still don't quite see the reason to get an E-30 with the E-620 just around the corner. I suppose big lenses would feel more balanced on the E-30 than the E-620.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:19 am 
I can see the argument between E3 vs E620, but I could never see myself getting an E30.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:48 am 
if the e-30 were to come down in price, it'd definitely be one to consider. the 620 looks good. some users in japan reported that the 620 viewfinder isn't really a major difference between the viewfinder of the 620 & 4xx/5xx series, but that the 620 is overall a great camera.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:07 am 
Geeish ... is it that difficult or much more costly to make a bigger and brighter viewfinder? Reminds me of Apple refusing to put a "cut and paste" feature in its iPhones ... which is apparently finally going to happen with version 3.0.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:18 am 
Armanius wrote:
Geeish ... is it that difficult or much more costly to make a bigger and brighter viewfinder? Reminds me of Apple refusing to put a "cut and paste" feature in its iPhones ... which is apparently finally going to happen with version 3.0.


Such a viewfinder exists on both the E3 and the E30. I think they are going for more compact bodies.

I have a feeling that size of the viewfinder has to do with the form factor. The view finders on full frame bodies are HUGE, so the opposite is true, the viewfinders on the smaller 4:3 sensor bodies are small. Magnifying that image is probably a very difficult thing to do and requires a lot of space maybe...?
At least thats my take on the matter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:10 pm
Posts: 355
Location: Netherlands
Armanius wrote:
Looks like that other site whose name shall not be mentioned really liked the E-30. I still don't quite see the reason to get an E-30 with the E-620 just around the corner. I suppose big lenses would feel more balanced on the E-30 than the E-620.

The E30 seems to be a better camera then the E620, so I would consider it if the price difference would be less. The E30 is now 350 euro more expensive and the E620 is not even available yet.

_________________
Olympus E-M5, 9-18, 12-50, 25 f1.8, 45 f1.8, 12-60, 40-150, 70-300


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group