Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Using FL-50R, wedding sample pictures, Eneloop batts, etc...

Subject: Re: [OM] Using FL-50R, wedding sample pictures, Eneloop batts, etc...
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:15:37 -0500
I'm quite in agreement with David Irisarri on this one.  The E-1's
"apparent" dynamic range appears more usable than that of the E-3.

Like my weasel words?  I did that on purpose.

A friend of mine here has an E-3 and we shoot together quite frequently on
event work and self-project work. The differences are sometimes subtle,
sometimes non-existent and sometimes in-your-face.

The E-1 usually has an organic transition in the highlights. Probably the
best highlight transition I've ever seen, however, is in my Minolta A1, but
compared to the E-3, the transitions don't have that same point of "now you
have gradients, now you don't." With the E-1, not all channels reach
saturation at the same point so there is a tendency to get a cyan cast in
what should be a white subject near the saturation point.  Really no
different than one of the more famous slide films. The E-3 doesn't seem to
be plagued with the cyan highlight cast, but when the highlights go into
saturation it is a pure hole in the data and the only way to address it is
to add some random noise to the highlight portion of the curves to smooth
out the stair-step.

Olympus did an amazing job of getting the E-3 to match the E-1 in color,
saturation and tonalities, and when working within the 90% rule, they do
match and you can use them interchangeably. However, the curves are ever so
slightly different. The E-1 has a steeper curve in the mid-tones, which adds
more contrast there and then has a distinct toe and shoulder.  The toe
(shadows) is long and maintains shadow detail long after many other digitals
have blocked up. The highlights, as mentioned above, aren't quite as
controlled and the three channels don't track together.  The E-3 has far
smoother tonal transitions in the mid-high range, keeps the color channels
in sync, and has a touch more usuable highlight recovery right up to the
point where it falls over the cliff. But on the shadow side, the E-3 has
noise patterns which are substantially subdued over the E-1, but have a
mechanical look (pattern noise) as compared to the more organic noise
pattern of the E-1.

I very much disagree with Moose about the generational thing. Granted, the
E-1 is an old beast these days and "modern" cameras are cat's meow.  But
have those advances been in the sensors or in the processing engines?  I
maintain that the major advances have been in the processing engines.  All
you have to do is look at dpreview's noise charts to see that there is HEAVY
noise reduction going on--even on RAW files.  Is the image any cleaner?
Nope, not really.  I can apply watercolor paint brushes to my images too,
it's just that I don't have as many pixels to hide the effect.

If Moose's assertation that the E-1 is inferior in comparison to today's
cameras was true, then the same thinking could apply to other things:  Tube
vs. Solid State Amplifiers, Analog vs. Digital watches....shoot, your wife
could replace you with some young 20-something 6-pack ab'd buck who is
OBVIOUSLY much improved over you!

Are newer cameras improvements?  Absolutely!  Of course there are
refinements and improvements in algorithms and hardware. That is only
logical. However, most of those improvements are incremental instead of
blatantly "wow, this is superior"--especially in the final prints.  You
don't see much change from one model to the next, but comparing models
multiple-generations apart, you definitely see the changes.

The E-3 is superior to the E-1 in nearly every way. In this, I have no
disagreement. The only real advantage the E-1 has over the E-3 is in
grip-shape, body-shape (debateable), control-layout (I love the Autofocus
switch--it is pure genius), shutter-indestructability, shutter-sound, CF
door, and tonalities/colors in certain circumstances.  Other than the last
item, nothing mentioned has anything to do with image quality. I may say
things to promote the E-1, but the E-3 is definitely a superior camera.

But how superior and to what end?  The E-1 is perfectly capable for what the
OP had used it for.  Frankly, that highlight burnout probably would have
happened with Kodak Portra 160NC.  No amount of highlight recovery--either
in-camera or in post-production could bring that back and frankly, I
wouldn't want to.  This has nothing to do with camera generations, but
subject matter.  When presented with a 20+ stop exposure range, even if you
could recover the extremes, to what end?  Do you really want to remove the
dynamic range and turn it into a cartoon?

So, does the E-1 have more dynamic range than the E-3?  Good question.
Technically, the E-3 most likely has greater range.  But effectively, I'd
say no. The E-1 is able to produce an out-of-camera image with greater
range, but the E-3 RAW files can be used to drag out more range by jumping
through a bunch of highlight/shadow recovery hoops.  My buddy is able to get
his E-3 images to match my E-1 images, but not without a bunch of work.

Why would he want to make the E-3 images match the E-1 images?  Because we
both agreed that the E-1 images just look better.

Current RAW converters that we are using:
Studio 2 (best color/tonalities of the bunch for both cameras)
Lightroom (best contrast but horrid colorcasts in E-3 files)
Capture One (very nice compromise between Lightroom and Studio2 for both E-1
and E-3 files)
DCRAW based conversions in PWP and Raw Therapee (Very flat looking files)

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz