Camera Labs

That perception of people not using ISO over 800 is coming from shooting events and the such. When I am just playing around with my camera, I'm always shooting indoors or at night. I find myself shooting at above 400 at least 50% of the time.

_________________
E-3!
12-60 2.8-4.0
12-60 2.8-40 [Also going]
40-150 3.5-4.5
70-300 4.0-5.6
Fl-48

I find myself using high ISO quite often, especially when using slow lenses like the 40-150 or 70-300. I've switched to shooting almost exclusively with RAW, especially after my two stints with the E620. Sure increases the amount of time sitting in front of the computer, but I suppose it's the price that I gotta pay.

_________________
Olympus E620 | 25/2.8 | 50/2 | 12-60 | 14-42 | 14-54 | 40-150 | 70-300
Olympus E-P2 | Panasonic GH2 | 20/1.7 | 14-42 | 14-140
Leica M7 | M9 | 21/4 | 35/1.4 | 50/2.5 | 50/1.5 | 70/2.5 | 90/2
Sony NEX-3 | 16/2.8| 18-55
My FlickR!

Yes, when using the 70-300 I an increasing iso as well. With my E500 I took a lot of photo's at iso 400 or 800, but this is without stabilization. With stabilization iso 200 or 400 would be enough most of the time.

I don't take many photo's at night, but sometimes I do.
The following photo is at iso 200.

_________________
Olympus E-500, 12-60, 40-150, 70-300

That's a great shot Hans! Nicely done!

_________________
Olympus E620 | 25/2.8 | 50/2 | 12-60 | 14-42 | 14-54 | 40-150 | 70-300
Olympus E-P2 | Panasonic GH2 | 20/1.7 | 14-42 | 14-140
Leica M7 | M9 | 21/4 | 35/1.4 | 50/2.5 | 50/1.5 | 70/2.5 | 90/2
Sony NEX-3 | 16/2.8| 18-55
My FlickR!

Thank you! It's nice because of all the lights of the advertisements. And I think the fact that it is not completely dark makes it actually better.

Btw, I read the first review of the E450 and according to the reviewer, the picture quality has improved and there is less noise.

Hans

_________________
Olympus E-500, 12-60, 40-150, 70-300

Isn't the 450 using the 10 megapixel sensor?

_________________
Olympus E620 | 25/2.8 | 50/2 | 12-60 | 14-42 | 14-54 | 40-150 | 70-300
Olympus E-P2 | Panasonic GH2 | 20/1.7 | 14-42 | 14-140
Leica M7 | M9 | 21/4 | 35/1.4 | 50/2.5 | 50/1.5 | 70/2.5 | 90/2
Sony NEX-3 | 16/2.8| 18-55
My FlickR!

yep. i've heard from 1 source that the 450 would have a 10.1mp sensor resembling the e-3, then i heard it's merely the 420 with art filters.

_________________
www.iandavisphoto.com
aim s/n: idotddot

I have a similar photo
Also ISO200

_________________
E-3!
12-60 2.8-4.0
12-60 2.8-40 [Also going]
40-150 3.5-4.5
70-300 4.0-5.6
Fl-48

Hi, Olympus lover,

It’s time for change! It’s time for customer to tell Olympus what to do. Noise is always the problem and the biggest issue for Olympus camera. The E-30 didn’t improve any noise problem. The new E-620 even causes the bigger issue of noise problem (see the review of Popular Photography magazine and others). E-620’s ISO at 200 is worse than E-520’s ISO at 1600 from Popular Photography. I am an Olympus fan and I think that we need to ask Olympus to do some change since we have invested the whole system for years. Isn’t it right that the stock holders have the right to challenge the company’s direction in annual report?

My major is not in optical engineering but I do know that the fixed size of 4/3 sensor need to be modified. But how? In general, 4/3 sensor is about ¼ size of full 35mm sensor, thus Olympus has actually made 12 X 4 = 48 MP sensor if in full 35mm sensor which is double of the current 24 MP full 35mm sensors of other brands. Its technology is ahead of other brands in this standpoint. However, the noise problem also comes with the limited sensor size. (Someone say that it is not because of the sensor). I do believe that Olympus researchers also work hard to improve the noise problem.

After thinking this problem for a long time, an idea just comes out of my mind. Since the 4/3 sensor size is limited at 2D dimension, why don’t we improve its 3D dimension? CMOS catch up with CCD after the maturing of its technology. Foveon 3X technology may not mature years ago, but now its mature technology has been installed in Sigma camera. I do believe that the new Sigma SD15 with its super high image quality will bring a huge impact to the market if they improve their entire previous problem (speed). Why doesn’t Olympus collaborate with Foveon 3X Company or developing the similar technology by their own? Even the current Olympus sensors, just like Nikon, are not made by its own company. Sony? After adapting the Foveon 3X technology, the current 12 MP (E-30/E-620) or 10 MP (E-3/E-520//E420) can achieve 36 MP or 30 MP easily or maintain total 15 MP with much bigger photosite unit to reduce noise problem.

The developing of 3D sensor is not the major problem for the Olympus. I do believe that the major problem is how they share the benefit of the upgrading sensor with Foveon 3X Company. It’s all about business. Sooner or later, the 2D 4/3 sensor will achieves its limit (maybe now) and need to improve to 3D 4/3 sensor. Do you think the same way as I think? Why don’t we push Olympus to do the improvement right away? There is no any benefit to me from either company and I don’t work for them. I am just an Olympus fan who wants to see the better dSLR to the market. Please spread this article to others or to the other related forum if you think that we need to push Olympus to work harder on low ISO sensor.

Thanks

I read over on dxomark that the e-30 iso is overstated, so the same is probably the case with the e-620 also.

This might account for the supposed better noise of the new generation, when dxomark compared the equated noise curves of the e-30 versus the previous generation, it was found that the noise on the e-30 was the same or slightly worse than the noise on the e420 and e520. Dynamic range was also very similar, with better highlight control but noisier blacks on the e30.

iso 800 is actually 500, while iso 1600 is actually 1000, and iso 3200 is actually 2000.

This site backs up what dxomark and a few other reviewers have been saying. This backs up what dxomark stated in that the Canon 450 itself overstates its iso by 0.3ev and the Nikon D90 is the only one which seems to be in the ballpark of the stated iso. In other words, Oly 620 overstates its iso by 0.7ev, Canon 450 by 0.3ev and the Nikon D90 is in the ballpark.

I noticed the previous generation of Olympus cameras are also close to the stated iso... My Oly 520 is 100 (129), 200 (211), 400 (440), 800 (896) and 1600 (1702). One feature the new Oly 620 does have though, is being able to select iso in 1/3ev steps. Is this a valuable feature?

_________________
https://www.photoshop.com/user/alex_the_great

YES, 1/3 stop ISO steps is great. The E-500 had it but the E-510 did not and I missed it when I switched.

Now the E-3 has it and I love it, I noticed ISO3200 has pretty significant banding and colorshift, but ISO2500 does not have nearly as much banding, and no colorshift at all.

_________________
E-3!
12-60 2.8-4.0
12-60 2.8-40 [Also going]
40-150 3.5-4.5
70-300 4.0-5.6
Fl-48

Thanks for the quick reply! Do you have an e-30 or an 3-620 by any chance? Im thinking of upgrading from my e-520 to the e-620 and was wondering if it was worthwhile. I dont like to use the flash much, so iso 800 and iso 1600 performance would be important to me. I also like to do handheld IR... so iso 800 at least is necessary with that (even in broad daylight.)

I like to use manual exposure mode, so the 1/3 ev iso steps would be valuable. BTW is this camera 14 bit?

_________________
https://www.photoshop.com/user/alex_the_great

I have an E-3, and I dont know the bits.

However I can tell you, the E-3 has SOOOO much less noise than the E-510 I cam from, its ridiculous. I used to be afraid to even go ISO800, and now I cant even tell the difference between 100 and 800. ISO 3200 is effectively useless I found, but surprisingly, ISO2500 is perfectly fine. I think its less noise at 2500 than the 510 had at 800.

_________________
E-3!
12-60 2.8-4.0
12-60 2.8-40 [Also going]
40-150 3.5-4.5
70-300 4.0-5.6
Fl-48

One thing I like with the new generation of cameras is the 1/3 ev steps for iso. My camera (e520) is limited to 100,200,400,800,1600. Having the in between steps manually selectable is a good feature to have.

_________________
https://www.photoshop.com/user/alex_the_great

I wouldn't jump the gun and say iso3200 is useless on the e-3. as i've stated before, i've printed 8x10 prints from iso3200 files and you do not see the noise on the print. the e-3 is a great camera to use once you get used to the ergonomics. while many feel the buttons are illogically placed, give yourself a little time to learn the controls and before you know it you'll be adjusting settings without even having to look at which button you pressed.

having 1/3 ev steps is great, though i never had a major issue with high iso shooting on my e-520. i've also printed out 8x10 shots from iso1600 shots of the e-520 and once again you don't see the noise on the print.

while the e-30 has more noise, if you don't notice it when looking at the image as a whole (don't let noise you can only see @ 100% scare you) & you don't notice it on your prints, then you're good. if you really want to reduce visible noise, the best thing to do would be to practice getting as good of an exposure as you can.

_________________
www.iandavisphoto.com
aim s/n: idotddot