Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: Learning About the E-1

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Learning About the E-1
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:02:13 -0500
No, I don't agree.  You have two stops difference in ISO and 2-2/3 stops 
difference in shutter speed with the E-520 having a net 2/3 stop 
advantage over the 5DMkII.  The E-520 shot is brighter but I think the 
difference is more than 2/3 stop.  I still think the intensity of the 
lights is changing and the two photos cannot really be compared.

Chuck Norcutt


C.H.Ling wrote:
> Ah! I forgot about that, the shutter speed for 5D II shot was 1/200s F4 (OM
> 75-150mm) and E-520 was 1/30s F4. I have updated the E-520 file with EXIF
> info. just now.
> 
> You reminded me about that, based on the exposure data it seems that both
> shots were illuminated with similar amount of light so that is not a good
> sign.
> 
> I have to find out the shadow color reproduction capability of 5D II in a
> better controlled way.
> 
> C.H.Ling
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
> 
>> You did not mention shutter speed.  Assuming they are the same then the
>> 5DII image should be two stops brighter than the E520 image but it is
>> not... it's dimmer.  The only explanation is that the lights in the E520
>> image are brighter.  I think that also goes for the "stars" and
>> "candles".  I think they're brighter too and that's why it's possible to
>> see "blue sky" on the right.  Yes, I see it too.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> Chuck, I hope you are right with the stage lights. For the ISO, didn't we
>>> expect the 5D II shall do at least two stops better than a E-thing?
>>> Actually, I have another ISO2000 shot without boost in post, same
>>> background
>>> darkness and tone.
>>>
>>> For Ken's comment, I didn't refer to the color difference, I didn't
>>> expect
>>> good natural skin tone under such complex lighting. What I concern is the
>>> tone and totally missing of shadow details in the 5D II shot. For the
>>> E-520
>>> shot, I see dark blue "sky" in the background at the right side, some
>>> dark
>>> monitors may not see it but the blue values of 30-40 shall be visible
>>> with a
>>> reasonable good monitor.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>>>
>>>> I think the E-520 image shows much more white spotlight which also
>>>> extends into the background.  Note the white drape.  Given the two stops
>>>> difference in ISO and, despite that, the brighter E-520 image the
>>>> spotlighting had to be much more brilliant when the 520 image was shot.
>>>>
>>>> You can send me your 5DII.  I'll even pay the shipping!  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>>> Ken, you are really bad, if our Disneyland had not changed the lighting
>>>>> setup I have to buy another E-thing now and throw away the 5D II. The
>>>>> two
>>>>> shots were made at different date, both straightly output from RAW:
>>>>>
>>>>> E-520 ISO 800, no NR.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/PC190478_M2.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> 5D II ISO 2000, develop +0.67 stop (ISO3200 equ), no NR.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_6716.JPG
>>>>>
>>>>> C.H.Ling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>> From: "Ken Norton"
>>>>>> The E-1's biggest issue is chroma noise. The luma noise is actually
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> pleasant, the but the chroma noise reminds me of elcheepo ISO 400
>>>>>> print
>>>>>> film
>>>>>> processed in an uncalibrated minilab. Fortunately, chroma noise is
>>>>>> easily
>>>>>> whacked and when doing so it does not do ANY softening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose that I'm not too worried about the E-1 at ISO 800. I've
>>>>>> developed
>>>>>> a few tricks of the trade when shooting it there and have shot it very
>>>>>> extensively indoors for both recreational shooting and professional
>>>>>> shooting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't stupid-clean like the Nikon D3, but unlike most digital
>>>>>> cameras
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> doesn't lose tonal separation at higher ISOs. The noise floor
>>>>>> increases,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> the assignment of tones to the proper zones is maintained. The common
>>>>>> fault
>>>>>> with digital cameras at higher ISOs is that to counter the raising
>>>>>> noise
>>>>>> floor, the camera reduces the effective dynamic range of the picture
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> keep
>>>>>> the noise below the threshold. The problem with this is that the
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>> dynamic range is squeezed into a reduced scale. It passes DPReview's
>>>>>> tests
>>>>>> with flying colors (or non-colors in this case), but then the grousing
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> that the high ISO images are "flat".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No free lunches either way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>
>> -- 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
> 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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