Got a chance to test shoot the new Olympus E-3 this evening. I mainly wanted to feel the camera in hand and play with the controls to see how intuative they are. Also, 2 concerns for my style of shooting are Image Stabilization and decent 1600 and 3200ISO PRINT quality (I sell prints so I don't care what they look like on a monitor).
THIS ISN'T/WASN'T A TECHNICAL TEST. I don't care about all of the details or benchmarks - - - I just wanted to see results that were satisfying to me, for my work.
I fell in love instantly with the feel in my hand. The E3 sample was mated with the new and impressive 12 to 60mm f2.8-4 ultrsasonic lens (24mm to 120mm in 35mm film format). It was perfectly balanced in my smallish hands and amazingly felt very light compared to my D200 - even though reviews show it as heavier. As it was when I tried the E1 years ago, I could swing my arm all over the place and hang iot by my side and never feel like I was losing the grip. This sample did not have the battery pack. Auto Focusing was incredibly quick.
Here are a few samples using the camera in IS mode and higher ISO settings. It was evening and the room I had to work in was gaudy colouring as a result of the carbon arc lighting the camera store uses. These images except where noted, are straight out of the camera without cropping, levels, sharpening or any processing. They could all be improved slightly with post processing, however I just printed out the series of 1600 and 3200 ISO images AS-IS on 8x10 glossy paper using my Epson 1400 - and the 1600ISO image of the sales lady is stunning, while the 3200ISO shot of the camera bags is incredible considering it is 3200 ISO.
This was the first shot I took when I went in - the camera was set at 800ISO. That was the perfect place for me to start as my standard general purpose ISO when I shot film wsa 800 Fujicolor:
I asked the sales clerk if she minded if I took a shot of her to see the skin tones. Keep in mind that I new nothing about the camera and had little time to play - and so did not change many of the defaults it was set at including Auto WB which accounts for the ruddier skin under the carbon arc lighting - plus the fact that I think the Auto Exposure was trying to retain detail in the bright white signs in behind her. Still not bad though when I printed it out at 8x10. Could easily be adjusted in PS. This was shot at 1600ISO:
This was the true test - - - 3200ISO. Not that I expect noiseless images or grainy deep shadows like the new Nikons exhibit - but I know what the 3200 setting on my D200 looks like and besides the excessive noise, there is a loss of detail and colour. If these camera bags could maintain their texture and colour, I was going to be happy. In the 8x10 glossy print, the detail is amazing and the colour is just fine - - - and this from a file straight from the camera without tweaks. Sure if I look hard enough I can see some noise in the blurred out background - but the print is perfectly usable and probably salable. I'm sure a dose of Neat Image could easily cure any noise if I chose to use it.
I shot these one after the other for a direct comparison of 100ISO and 3200ISO on a white sign. There is a huge difference between the 2 obviously, with the 100ISO being creamy smooth and the 3200 showing more texture or noise. Is the 3200ISO shot useless - it depends - I don't think so for the type of work I shoot. These are the only files from this test, where I tweaked the curves to brighten the whites and also adjusted the WB in photoshop to have them match colour as closely as possible:
100ISO (slow shutter speed so a little movement and blur incurred):
3200ISO (noise/grain is noticable in the dark shadows and orange highlights in the background)
This shot to see the efrfect of image stabilization, was the only one where I free handed the camera in a normal fashion as I would at a wedding. I was standing in the middle of an aisle turned and shot as steadily as I could. Most of the other shots I was able to set my stance for stability or lean against a counter or wall. Equivalent 90mm focal length at 1/15'th of a second isn't too bad I don't think.:
Just before leaving I gave a quick jab at Live View, setting the camera on the counter and using the LCD screen to compose and set the WB. It's pretty cool when you can see the white balance change on the screen before you take the shot. Made it very easy to select the right setting for the light, just by scrolling through the presets and stopping at the one that looked best. It does not function like a point and shoot LCD live view does - - - it is great for shots where you can take the time for the second or two of delay that is required. That doesn't bother me either. I will be using it for the impossible shots that I used to be able to take while laying donw on the floor or climbing up on narrow trespaces when I was young - room shots, cake shots, macro shots where the off axis viewfinder puts the screen right where I want it:
--------
--------
I am a die hard Olympus guy since the early 1980's - who has been shooting Nikon out of necessity (not that I have a problem with that) for the last 6 years - - - and am so pleased that they have finally brought this camera out. I was afraid it was all just going to to be talk and no go. I will start buying into the system next week with an E-510, couple of lenses and the new FL-50R wireless flash. When I get back from Costa Rica in a few months and am ready to start my 2008 wedding season, I will already have a head start with the Olympus system and add in the E-3 and 12-60mm 2.8-4 lens. In my hand, this combo was the perfect setup. For weddings I don't know if I'll need anything more (well I'll need the E-510 backups). What a perfect focal length. I've always felt too restricted in the wide angle end of my standard zooms, with 28mm equiv - 24mm is perfect. I also dislike the short long end of the fast 2.8 standard zooms that only reach to 75 or 80mm - 120mm is perfect.
Just thought some might enjoy the results of my playing tonight. I'm not really trying to convince anyone and am not saying this is the best out there. The battlefield is strong with the mainstream Canon 40D and Nikon D300 - - - and after playing with the Olympus E-3, have to say that it also is a strong contender in my eyes.
You don't have to convince me. I just sold a bunch of Canon stuff and got a e510. For me it is the sensible combination of lenses and body IS that is important. I don't want to carry a big bag of junk around with me all the time. The 12-60 is just a perfect size, focal range, and fstop for most everything. The two kit lenses are fantastic for travel. E3 in future, when the price drops.
Cool, nice to see some one using Oly for weddings. I'll probably stick with Canon. But I've been looking at the Panasonic DMC-L10 for walk around stuff (cause of the 4/3 standards). I like it cause of the rotation LCD. I would love to pair it with the Leica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5. Too bad Panasonic doesn't sell it with out the kit lens. Have you played with it by any chance?
For me it is the sensible combination of lenses and body IS that is important. I don't want to carry a big bag of junk around with me all the time. The 12-60 is just a perfect size, focal range, and fstop for most everything.
Just wondering how you find the comination of E-510 and 12-60 for focusing. My presumtion would be that the built in ultrasonic lens motor on this faster lens may give a boost in Autofocus speed and maybe acuracy - over the E-510 and kit lenses. Do you find that to be true (I am getting this combo for backup next week and so am a little curious)?
Robert Watcher wrote:
[Just wondering how you find the comination of E-510 and 12-60 for focusing. My presumtion would be that the built in ultrasonic lens motor on this faster lens may give a boost in Autofocus speed and maybe acuracy - over the E-510 and kit lenses. Do you find that to be true (I am getting this combo for backup next week and so am a little curious)?
Well, from what I can see the 14-42 kit lens is a pretty fast focuser. The motor in it is fairly quiet, and since the barrel has little mass, it can move it quickly. Nobody in the room will hear this lens but you.
The 12-60 is really quiet, just like Canon USM, and maybe slightly quicker than the kit lens. The nice thing is it can do its focusing work at f2.8, and the viewfinder is brighter. This lens reminds me of the Sony 717 Zeiss lens. It has stunning detail, a nice wide range, wide max aperature, and is small. If you had one of those cameras, you would know what I mean.
I find this very interesting. I have been looking at the Olympus system and thinking of moving from Nikon, the lens range is just perfect. The biggest plus is the small size of the equipment. My biggest issue is the small view finder, and Im not sure the small sensor is going to be perfect for landscapes.
I printed up a set of 8x10 glossys of these shots - and yesterday took them into the the Henry's Camera store where I did the test. They were equally as impressed with the high ISO shots from the E-3 and 12-60 lens.
Just to dispell the myth that the 4/3 sensor is too small and while may be fine for printing from the full frame, is no good when heavy cropping is involved - - - I also printed out this heavy crop that is probably 1/3 of the frame area from the 1600ISO picture I posted above. It held up very well and I suspect would easily blow up larger than the 8x10 size I provided them:
So if anyone is from the London Ontario area, you can go into to the north end Fanshaw Road "Henrys Camera Store" and ask to have a look at the prints.
pahrens wrote:
Im not sure the small sensor is going to be perfect for landscapes.
Depends on the final aim. For printing where standard paper sizes can act as framing I often find I have to crop more from the 3:2 frame format than from 4:3. Same and even more apply for printing square format for aesthetic reasons.
In addition, as I adhere to precise framing any viewfinders less than 100% again result in unwanted cropping.
Considering all of the above for print purposes the actual difference between 10 Mp and 12 to 14 Mr 3:2 format camera could be much smaller than the numbers suggest.
Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.
The lenses are good and the E-3 body is simply what I have always wanted in a digital SLR - all the features that make sense and are easy to get to. I am very impressed with what Olympus has achieved with this body.
While I am a big fan (right now) of Olympus D-SLR's and lenses, still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Sold all my Canons stuff. I currently own an E1 and pan L1 with lenses. I just love the corner to corner sharpness from 4/3rds pics. With my Canon I have try hard to stop down at smaller apertures to get similar results also with certain Canon lenses only. with 4/3rds most of the lenses are good even with kit lenses. With all light rays hitting the chip perpendicularly ... I think it helps.
I have today purchased the Olympus E-510 body and the same 12-60 f2.8/f4 lens that I tested the E-3 with. When I first took the 12-60 lens out of the box I was surprised at how heavy it was - - - hadn't noticed that when it was mounted on the E-3. I immediately worried that it may be a bad choice when used on the small and lightweight E-510, but after opening the E-510 and mounting the lens - was amazed at how the lens felt so much lighter and was really balanced feeling in my hand. I now have to wait for 5 hours for the battery to charge before I can start using the combo - but have to say that even though I am still in love with the E-3 with this lens attached (and will be getting it also before too long), I also love the feel of the the smaller E-510 with this lens attached and look forward to using it professionally without hesitation. I have a wedding next Saturday (Dec 8'th) where the E-510 with 12-60 lens will be my primary camera. I will be sure to post some of the images and my findings on how the camera handled and performed in a professional wedding photography scenario.
The main area of concern for me is compared to FF like the 5D is the 4/3 system can't offer the creative shallow DOF. Even their fastest f/2 lenses act like f/4 lens equivalents on FF. You'll never get the magical super shallow results an 85 f/1.2 could say.
However, I'm mightily impressed by Roberts results at high ISO and seem far superior to any previous 4/3 images I've seen. The detail was maintained.
However, a more tortuous test would be to see what it's like in a very dim lighting situation or try underexposing a stop or 2 and see how it holds up when you bring the exposure back up in the RAW converter. I've got well exposed ISO 1600 shots that are cleaner than poorly exposed ISO 400 shots. Cameras like the Nikon D2X are punishing on underexposure at high ISO's. At some point those tiny little pixels are going to cause problems.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The main area of concern for me is compared to FF like the 5D is the 4/3 system can't offer the creative shallow DOF. Even their fastest f/2 lenses act like f/4 lens equivalents on FF. You'll never get the magical super shallow results an 85 f/1.2 could say.
You don't need to be concerned. Either you need f/1.2 or you don't. I don't.
If I wanted to be concerned, I could choose to be concerned about weight, but I'm not. An E-3, a 12-60, a 50-200 and a Sigma 30/1.4 and/or Zuiko 50/2 is around 3 kilos. Just right when I'm out and about.
The weight of a 5D with some fast primes and similar reach? I don't know, but I seem to remember that the body with the 85/1.2 approaches 2 kilos. No flash, no weather-sealing, no live-view, no in-body IS, and the price?
The 5D is a great camera and the 85/1.2 a great lens, but if I should choose only one system, Olympus wins with a clear margin.
Well I am from London and I will go into the Henry's store in Masonville and check out the pics. I bought the 12-60 last week from Henry's and love the lens. I have the E1/E500/E330 and will get the E3 in the spring.
