Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Deconstructing photo gear [Moose's new toy]

Subject: Re: [OM] Deconstructing photo gear [Moose's new toy]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:54:28 -0800
On 11/14/2010 11:09 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Thanks for that summary of tests and results, Moose.
> I'm really glad that you have found a useful tool; I see that it was joint 
> first in a "Compact Shootout" on DPR.

Not hard to choose between the two, as the Casio emphasizes rapid shooting, but 
has about the worst IS, the Sammy has 
perfectly adequate frame rate for me and about the best IS and they are 
otherwise pretty evenly matched. In my use, the 
IS has proven to be close to amazing, as you may have noticed if you read my 
lengthy commentary or looked at the shot 
data. 1/20 @ 360 mm eq. and the only blur is subject motion! WOW

> I would have worried about the size of the sensor vs the megapixels (50mp/cm2 
> according to DPR), but the results, as you say, are impressive.

That is indeed a concern. It's part of the reason I didn't consider other 
cameras, like the Fuji 300 that Andrew 
mentions. Just look closely at the DPR shootout, and you'll see that there are 
variations in performance in various 
categories that I could never know about without tests. And they don't always 
get better with a new model; mostly, but 
not always. Just look at the shootout IS test page and tell me you could have 
know which would be winners and losers 
without it. Any of these light, little cameras with long lenses and only LCD 
viewfinders would be far less useful 
without good IS

If one wants to peer at one's images at 100% (or more), these cameras aren't 
likely to please. I'm one of those 100% 
pixel peepers, but decided that I could either back off that or get used to IQ 
weaknesses in order to get images great 
for web and for reasonable sized prints, that I would otherwise miss.

> These are delightful shots, ... However, I am interested to note that the 
> older girl's arm shows speckling at anything other than the normal 
> magnification; I zoom my screen and see strange colours appear in the skin

First question is why are you looking at 200%? :-)   Really. The larger 
original size image has been down sampled, then 
sharpened for the presentation size. The algorithms in browsers for increasing 
viewing size are designed for speed, not 
quality. The image at 100% is already one image pixel to one screen pixel, so 
all viewing it at 200% does is create a 
bunch of groups of four pixels for each one. At worst, they will be just the 
same as the original. At best, some 
guessing based on surrounding pixels will shade the individual values. There 
isn't anything more to see.

You are quite right about #68. This was not a shoot with the main purpose of 
getting good images. It was about testing 
the camera's limits. #s 60 & 68, and many others, were about finding out about 
what I can do with it in high DR 
situations. Although the EXIF says -0.7 EV, that's misleading. Using Shutter 
priority, fixed ISO and the maximum lens 
opening at 360 mm forced them to be about four stops underexposed.

I did that to see if I could keep the very bright elements in direct sun from 
blowing out and still get usable quality 
for the rest of the image. Did I care about the highlights, or even this 
particular shot? Not much. I just wanted to see 
what was possible. As it turns out, I was able to hold the highlights. The 
histogram of the original just kisses the 
top. And I was able to get a pretty nice looking exposure of the rest of the 
image by pulling up the shadows.

Tonal detail down that far on such a small sensor camera is inevitably 
compromised with noise. It also suffers from the 
fewer digital values available for each stop down on the low end, reducing 
tonal subtleties. And yet, it made for a 
perfectly good image.

#68 was a further test to see if anyone noticed the noise. You win. I've 
temporarily added a copy of the original, as it 
looks out of the camera, 
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots&image=SAM_0068.jpg>
and one with noise reduction using NeatImage, which will soon replace the 
original in the gallery. 
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots&image=SAM_0068NIia70.jpg>

I think it takes care of your problem without sacrificing anything at this size.

>> 69. Light or dark?
> Light

Thanks.

> I note your requirement for long telephoto in the lens, but I am reasonably 
> happy with my short zooms (LX3 and G12).  However, I will go for the tele 
> converter for the G12, when I can find one at a reasonable price.

I've used the teleconverters (and WA ones). The whole process is just awkward 
for me. Much less convenient than just 
dropping one camera in its belt holster and plucking the other out. And I'm not 
wild about the image quality. Go to 
http://www.lensmateonline.com/ and look at their samples. Well, foo! They seem 
to have dropped their samples image 
gallery. You should go there anyway, if you opt for a aux, lens, as their 
adapters are MUCH nicer than Canon's.

Anyway, they used to have a great gallery comparing images from various Canon 
and other auxiliary lenses where one could 
also download samples for closer study. I was able to compare the TC-DC58N aux. 
lens I have to the TC-DC58D Canon 
recommends for the G10-12.

The TC-DC58D is only 1.4x, for 196 mm max, while the TC-DC58N is 1.75x, for 245 
mm. Down sampling the 1.75x sample and 
comparing it to the 1.4x one, I concluded that they were very close to 
equivalent at 1.4x, although subtly different. So 
I decided to stick with the lens I have and its longer reach.

Still, although I've carried around the adapter and lens many times, I've yet 
to take a shot with them on the G11 except 
in tests, and only a handful on its predecessors.

You may imagine that the aux. lens is smaller than it is. Here's a comparison 
with the Samsung camera. 
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=IMG_1838ia.jpg>
  Adapter plus lens is both 
longer and wider than the camera, and much deeper. It's a really odd shaped, 
awkward package that's quite nose heavy and 
there's just no convenient way to carry it short of a shoulder bag. The 1.4x 
converter is slightly smaller, but not 
enough to make a significant difference.

And thanks for looking!

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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