PDA

View Full Version : My second E-3 arrived...


OlyFlyer
5th March 2008, 09:04 PM
...finally. After 2.5 weeks I got my replacement E-3 body. The manual smells fresh print. This time, I did not jump to the update body command, but took about 200 test shots.

First impression: Better than #1. Not perfect AF, still happens that it front focuses, but the hit rate is definitely much better, about 90%. With the first one it was more like an exception when the focus was right with the 50/2 @ f/2. Now I had about 90% right, which is OK. I will redo the tests tomorrow after the firmware update. If the firmware update causes FF, than I will return the camera once again. I have already done the update, but I am too tired to test more today.

The CCD is definitely cleaner. Not 100% clean, but after some use it may get better. Anyway, now I can use it for macro as well.

Will se how the camera behave tomorrow.

theMusicMan
5th March 2008, 09:22 PM
Hi Olyflyer

It seems at first glance that you now have a correctly functioning E-3. I look forward to hearing how the test shots go tomorrow now that you have upgraded the firmware.

OlyFlyer
6th March 2008, 09:28 PM
Even after firmware update it feels better. At least I can start to use it now. No more 99% FF with the 50/2 @f2, about 90% right on target, at least for now.

jojo
14th March 2008, 12:41 PM
So olyflyer now that it has been a few weeks - how is your second E-3 performing? Is the auto focus merely usable or everything you expected on a $1700 camera ?

OlyFlyer
14th March 2008, 03:43 PM
Thank you for asking. Not few weeks yet, just 9 days, barely more than a week.

Yes, the camera is usable, as it seems, but IMO it is less than what I expected from a camera of this caliber. My biggest problems were the faulty AF and a few ugly dirtspots on the image sensor, visible in almost every image.

The AF has now a hit rate of about 80-90% which is OK, but not what I expected from a pro camera.

The image sensor is almost clean, still a few spots but only visible at high magnifications, over 5:1 and not as large as on my former camera.

I had some other issues as well, these are still there and these are global problems which I am going to write to Olympus Japan about to discuss them. Unfortunately, I did not had tile lately, so I just not done it yet.

250swb
14th March 2008, 04:51 PM
The image sensor is almost clean, still a few spots but only visible at high magnifications, over 5:1 and not as large as on my former camera.

Mine had a dirty sensor when it arrived as well. Two big perfectly round adjacent blobs that looked like the reside that a kids suction cup arrow leaves on a window. They were so big they showed up from f4 on up in skies. I did a wet clean and this solved it.

Glad you are getting better results though. After the initial settling in period between camera and user mine is working well and proving to be rock solid, so I'm sure you can get it sorted out.

OlyFlyer
14th March 2008, 05:30 PM
Mine had a dirty sensor when it arrived as well. Two big perfectly round adjacent blobs that looked like the reside that a kids suction cup arrow leaves on a window. They were so big they showed up from f4 on up in skies. I did a wet clean and this solved it. I have a different philosophy. If I buy something which is new and I just opened the box, it must work. I don't want to spend money or time on cleaning it. I believe, cleaning is not a big issue, but a new camera should be new when I buy it, not having ugly blobs from the start. It is just pure bad QC. I am still angry because it is not perfectly cleaned, but maybe I just let it go and wait how it develops. If the spots grow in size or number than I will send it in once again.

I am for the moment not using LV to not make the situation worse.

Ian
14th March 2008, 07:34 PM
I have a different philosophy. If I buy something which is new and I just opened the box, it must work. I don't want to spend money or time on cleaning it. I believe, cleaning is not a big issue, but a new camera should be new when I buy it, not having ugly blobs from the start. It is just pure bad QC. I am still angry because it is not perfectly cleaned, but maybe I just let it go and wait how it develops. If the spots grow in size or number than I will send it in once again.

I am for the moment not using LV to not make the situation worse.

I have never ever seen any sensor dirt in a Four Thirds camera - and I've used a couple of dozen bodies over the last three or four years.

Ian

Jim Ford
14th March 2008, 08:37 PM
I have never ever seen any sensor dirt in a Four Thirds camera - and I've used a couple of dozen bodies over the last three or four years.

Ian

Nor me (2 bodies).

In between postings about dust on sensors, I forget it's ever an issue on 4/3rds cameras. I'm certainly glad it's not such an irritating problem as clothing fibre hairs when developing film!

Jim

OlyFlyer
14th March 2008, 09:08 PM
Sorry, but I suugest you take a closer look then. I hope you not insinuating that I am a liar. Of course there are dirty sensors even among Olympus cameras. SSWF is good but not 100%.

By the way, I posted myself a thread here including several images out of my E-500. I don't remember if I posted any images out of my E-3 because of the T&C issue, but maybe one day I will. Antway, I posted over at DPR. Not only that, but I know several people (not trolls) who also admit having seen specks on the brand new E-3 sensor. There was even a thread about noise over at DPR not so long ago.

Yes, it is real. There is indeed dust, even on Olympus. The problem is not as severe as for other brands, partly because of the SSWF membrane which keeps out the specks a bit from the sensor, and so is making it OOF and less disturbing or unnoticable for most. There is indeed problem, and with the LV my guess is that it is going to be a severe problem for those who use LV a lot and take macro images like I do. As soon as magnification is increased and small aperture is used it is there, no doubt about that.

So, Jim and Ian, if you ever venture into macro (I mean real macro, not close up of flowers) then you better start practicing sensor cleaning.

OlyFlyer
14th March 2008, 09:18 PM
I'm certainly glad it's not such an irritating problem as clothing fibre hairs when developing film!
Jim

Hi Jim,

You are wrong. It is a much bigger problem. The fibres destroyed one, or a few images only. Dust (or more like sticky pollen) destroys a whole bunch of them. More specifically, all of them until you clean the sensor or let somebody else to do it.

Dust, or lint fibre in the film era was only a very temporary thing, a very small minor problem. Every image was taken on a new 'CCD'. Now we have only one for the lifetime of the camera. I developed quite a few rolls, enlarged in all sizes and got developed and enlarged a whole lot more during the past 38 years. Demaged images was a thing not happend so often. Many times was very easy to fix by a new rinsing or some touch ups. And if it did not work, well, so be it, another day, another film, a new 'CCD'. It is not that easy today, we are stuck with ONE CCD only.

Cheers!

250swb
14th March 2008, 09:54 PM
I have never ever seen any sensor dirt in a Four Thirds camera - and I've used a couple of dozen bodies over the last three or four years.

Well there is difference in the dirt. If it is a residue or stain (like mine) then the SSWF can't remove it, it doesn't use windscreen wipers. And if you use the 'ideal' apertures (nothing beyond f11) you may never see it.

But stop down to f22 where diffraction is well in control of the lens and many people will see blobs of sticky dust stuck to the sensor in areas of sky.

As regards sending a camera back to Olympus for a simple clean, well what can I say? Other than there are those that see things the way they are, and get on and do something to help themselves, and those that ask somebody else to help them. OK, it should be clean when new, but for the sake of two minutes and a sensor swab there is a cut off point where getting on with things is better than surrender. Dirty sensors are a way of life in all dSLRs, and while SSWF can get rid of loose dust, it can't get rid of sticky dust, so why make a big deal about it?

OlyFlyer
14th March 2008, 10:21 PM
No, it's not a big deal. The reson why I sent my camera back was nine different issues. The large black blob, visible already at f11 in normal images was just one of them, but actually the size of it was just horrible, and the fact that it was visible in normal images, AND that the camera was one day old, LV unused, changed lens about twice in a very clean and dry environment. It is not like an old camera.

Actually, I even sent in my E-500 just recently, after 1 year and 9 months of use, but mainly because Oly Sweden said they have never heard of the problem, they want to have a look because the SSWF may just be out of order. So I sent in the camera, it came back repared and cleaned. They changed some parts because I received a long list of service codes, but no clear explanation as of what they did.

IMO, it is not acceptable that they deliver an expensive camera with stains of lubricates or something. Of course thay must handle such thing, since SSWF will never clean that off.

Ian
15th March 2008, 01:53 PM
Sorry, but I suugest you take a closer look then. I hope you not insinuating that I am a liar. Of course there are dirty sensors even among Olympus cameras. SSWF is good but not 100%.

By the way, I posted myself a thread here including several images out of my E-500. I don't remember if I posted any images out of my E-3 because of the T&C issue, but maybe one day I will. Antway, I posted over at DPR. Not only that, but I know several people (not trolls) who also admit having seen specks on the brand new E-3 sensor. There was even a thread about noise over at DPR not so long ago.

Yes, it is real. There is indeed dust, even on Olympus. The problem is not as severe as for other brands, partly because of the SSWF membrane which keeps out the specks a bit from the sensor, and so is making it OOF and less disturbing or unnoticable for most. There is indeed problem, and with the LV my guess is that it is going to be a severe problem for those who use LV a lot and take macro images like I do. As soon as magnification is increased and small aperture is used it is there, no doubt about that.

So, Jim and Ian, if you ever venture into macro (I mean real macro, not close up of flowers) then you better start practicing sensor cleaning.

I'm simply telling you the truth from my experience. I deal with test images all the time, so I'm looking at the images very closely. Test images are often shot through the entire aperture range too.

I see dust all the time in Canon, Nikon and Pentax bodies. I own a Sony Alpha A100 and there is dirt on its sensor. But never seen it on any of the Four Thirds bodies I have used and I currently have seven of them.

It's a shame you are having so much hassle from your equipment - I do feel you are very unlucky.

Ian

jojo
15th March 2008, 03:37 PM
Why does LV make the matter worse ? Also, with your second camera at what aperture is the dust visible ?

Jim Ford
15th March 2008, 05:50 PM
It's possible that with the sort of extreme macro Olyflyer uses, _no_ digital camera will produce blemish free results. Maybe this is an area where film will always be more suitable.

The greater the lens extension and smaller the aperture become, the more the rays of light striking the sensor/SSWF screen will approach parallel, producing a sharper image of any detritus. It's conceivable that in these extreme conditions, the ubiquitous pollen, smoke particles, fungal spores, and cysts of microscopic organisims will occlude sufficient light reaching sensor photosites to produce a 'dust' image.

It's a fact of life that you can't maintain clean room conditions inside a interchangeable lens camera in the 'real' world. It's commonly agreed that the best solution camera manufacturers have come up with so far is the Olympus SSWF system. Until something better comes along, we'll just have to live with any 'dust problem' or go back to film.

Jim

OlyFlyer
15th March 2008, 10:27 PM
I'm simply telling you the truth from my experience. I deal with test images all the time, so I'm looking at the images very closely. Test images are often shot through the entire aperture range too.

I see dust all the time in Canon, Nikon and Pentax bodies. I own a Sony Alpha A100 and there is dirt on its sensor. But never seen it on any of the Four Thirds bodies I have used and I currently have seven of them.

It's a shame you are having so much hassle from your equipment - I do feel you are very unlucky.

IanIan, I mean a CLOSER LOOK. Look at my ball point pen, or other high magnification images and take some similar test images. I bet you will find a few specs. This is nothing new to Oly, it has always been there, but not many want to admit. No point pretending Oly has a 100% protection, because there is no such thing. It is also my theory that the E-3 and the other 10 MP cameras are more sensitive than the E-1 because obviosly, the E-1 had half of the pixels, wich are much larger than the E-3 pixels, so a grain of dust is not having such a proportionally large effect on the E-1 pixels as the other cameras. Already the E-300, 330 and 500 hve ~50% more pixels than the E-1, and also smaller pixels, so even those are more sensitive. Of course, I may be all wrong about that, but I don't think so.

No, I don't feel I am unlucky with my equipment. I am happy with what I have, expanding all the time, but I see things more realisticly, not trying to pretend what my gear is not. Olympus is definitely better than other brand, but fact is fact, in digital, you never change 'film', all images are taken on the same 'film frame' which is bound to cause some problems occasionally. Olympus realized that, that's why they implemented the SSWF, one major reason why I chose Olympus before Nikon two years ago. Never had any second thoughts after that, even if I have identified a few weaknesses in the system. One of them is that the SSWF is not a 100% protection, even our cameras need an occasional cleaning, especially if one likes to use macro bellows and similar stuff. Of course, in normal images these won't show up that clear, that's why I would not have accepted my brand new E-3 with such a large spot, which showed up in normal images as well. Of course, that was just pure bad QC. Sadly, I think Olympus QC is not as it was before. I have never before heard so many problems as there seems to be with the E-3. I really hope they get back the control over the quality.

No big deal, but it is real.

OlyFlyer
15th March 2008, 10:39 PM
Why does LV make the matter worse ?

When you use the LV you open up the shutter curtain. As you focus the lens works as a vacuum cleaner, sucking in the air. If there is pollen or humid dust, it will get stuck to the image sensor. If you are lucky next time the SSWF is activated it will shake it off.

Even worse with bellows. Those really create some heavy turbulance in the camera, especially when expanding from minimum expansion to maximum.

Also, with your second camera at what aperture is the dust visible ? Yes, but I don't worry about them right now. Those are really very small, not as large as the one I had in my previous E-3. Also, there were many more smaller ones on the first one. Now I only have a few.

I really think a closer look would show on everybodies image, but not everybody is willing to see or interested to find. If people never go beyond f/11 and never that real macro images, i.e. more than 1:1 AND if the images is a mixture of colours than it won't be visible, but it is there.