PDA

View Full Version : Is it me?


greenguru
4th October 2010, 07:19 AM
Guys,

I have owned an e400 for several years and wanted to experiment with a few more techniques; such as longer exposures with the bulb setting; and so I picked up an e520. The e520 images seem a little softer and the colours don't seem as snappy. I have been playing with the menu settings with varying degrees of success. I have heard that there is a difference in the sensors used in the two cameras and wondered if I am chasing my tail a bit?

Appreciate your comments,

Rob

I can post sample images later.

snaarman
4th October 2010, 07:50 AM
I've owned the E400, E510 and E620 and each time I changed, I found the newer camera had some slightly different image characteristics, quite apart from the obvious specification differences. In each case I've been using RAW files....*

The E510 came with the received impression that it was easy to clip its highlights, so I was wary of that. However I found that highlights can be recovered from the E510 more sucessfully than the E400, which tended to leave a tiny horizontal venetian blind effect in the white areas on occasions. As to subtleties of colour, I can't say I noticed a big difference.

When I switched to the E620 I was surprised that the images were no better than the E510, in fact they seemed a bit noisier to me. My solution was to set the E610 to 1/2 EV overexposure to ensure that I was never attempting to lift the shadows.

Of the three cameras - the E620 is definitely the best: The images are about the same quality as the E510, but the handling of the camera and the screen is much better.

So, I guess each camera has its own traits and needs to be set up very carefully to get the best from it.

Pete

*edit Oh, and the E400 raw files are needlessly huge...

Greytop
4th October 2010, 07:50 AM
I suspect you are right Rob.
I've not used a E-400 but I can say without doubt that my old E-510 (sadly sold on some while ago) had more obvious per pixel sharpness than my current E-30. I think the pre e-x20 cameras had a less intrusive AA filter in front of the sensor.
Now with regard to colours I don't see a huge difference (Panasonic-v-Panasonic sensor) but I think I'm right in saying that the e-400 had a Kodak sensor where as the e-520 has a second generation Panasonic, this may explain the slightly different colour rendition.

I'm sure others more knowledgeable will 'chip' in :)

By the way how do you find the e-520 handling compared to your 400?

greenguru
4th October 2010, 06:54 PM
Thanks for your comebacks. It appears most of my issues appear to be with the in-camera porcessing; the differences are not as noticeable now I have looked at the RAW files.

The handling seems positive so far. I have owned the e400 for a few years and it just feels right. I often have the neckstrap wrapped around my hand and wrist which helps with creating a stable shooting platform with the smaller body but the e520 feels completely different and a lot more bulky in the hand.

One thing that has surprised me is the ISO settings. The e400 has much more choice than the e520 with increments of 50s and 100s. Does anyone know why this is?

More time playing with the e520 will determine which camera stays for the long run but in the meantime it is a great excuse to get out 'testing'.

Rob