PDA

View Full Version : Noise and Olympus E3 compared with Olympus E500


PeterD
19th October 2008, 04:57 PM
Just a question for those with experience of both cameras.

I get the impression that the E500 noise performance is better than that of the of the E3. I make this comment having viewed images from both at the same (ISO 400) setting.

Has anyone else noted this or believe it not to be true from your own experience?

Cheers

Peter

photo_owl
19th October 2008, 09:34 PM
jpeg noise or raw noise and if the latter which processing system....

I ask because whilst I don't have the 500 I have tried making direct comparisons for between the 3 bodies I do have and gave up trying to be objective.

Subjectively the 3 wins hands down 'for equivilent sharpness' at anything but 100, where the 400 does well. In fact 200 is pretty much my default with the E3 nowadays.

PeterD
19th October 2008, 10:54 PM
jpeg noise or raw noise and if the latter which processing system....

I ask because whilst I don't have the 500 I have tried making direct comparisons for between the 3 bodies I do have and gave up trying to be objective.

Subjectively the 3 wins hands down 'for equivilent sharpness' at anything but 100, where the 400 does well. In fact 200 is pretty much my default with the E3 nowadays.

I only shoot RAW. My comments are based on taking similar images on the same day and comparing them in Lightroom as RAW images. The E3 seems to produce far more luminance noise than the E500. I have noticed this when comparing my E500 with two E3 bodies. The results seem to be consistent. I realise it is subjective hence the post. It is very noticeable though.

Peter

Nick Temple-Fry
20th October 2008, 09:22 AM
Peter

Does Lightroom read the camera settings for jpg in developing orf - as Master does. In which case it is worth checking how you set the camera up. As I believe the e-5xx cameras default to more noise suppression than does the e-3.

Nick

Ian
20th October 2008, 10:19 AM
I definitely saw a big improvement in noise with the E-400 over the E-500 and the E-330 over the E-500. The E-3 is no worse than an E-330 for noise, despite having a third more pixels on the same sensor space.

Luminance noise is not necessarily bad and it's easily filtered out if you don't want it. I'd rather have it and filter it out myself than have the camera get rid of it for me.

Ian

PeterD
20th October 2008, 10:21 AM
Peter

Does Lightroom read the camera settings for jpg in developing orf - as Master does. In which case it is worth checking how you set the camera up. As I believe the e-5xx cameras default to more noise suppression than does the e-3.

Nick

Thanks for the reply Nick.

I take you point about the settings. Only one of the E3s belongs to me but I shall check what settings are used on this camera (mine is still with Oly for investigation). I shall also check the relevant settings on the E500. I shall also re-read the articles produced by Wrotniak to see if there are clues there.

One of the things I recall was the CCD, where I believe the noise is sourced from, is different in the E500 as compared with the other E series cameras.

Thanks for your help

Peter

PeterD
20th October 2008, 10:30 AM
I definitely saw a big improvement in noise with the E-400 over the E-500 and the E-330 over the E-500. The E-3 is no worse than an E-330 for noise, despite having a third more pixels on the same sensor space.

Luminance noise is not necessarily bad and it's easily filtered out if you don't want it. I'd rather have it and filter it out myself than have the camera get rid of it for me.

Ian

Thanks Ian,

I agree its usually easy to filter out luminance noise but not always. You can end up losing a lot of detail as the effect is to smooth out the image. Where it is particularly bad I process through Neat Image first which seems to be the most succesful method I have tried so far.

I am not knocking the E3 in any way, just curious as to why I find a difference. Both cameras produce very good images and I am pleased with both of them.

Peter

Ian
20th October 2008, 10:44 AM
Thanks Ian,

I agree its usually easy to filter out luminance noise but not always. You can end up losing a lot of detail as the effect is to smooth out the image. Where it is particularly bad I process through Neat Image first which seems to be the most succesful method I have tried so far.

I am not knocking the E3 in any way, just curious as to why I find a difference. Both cameras produce very good images and I am pleased with both of them.

Peter

Part of my point is that some cameras clearly filter out luminance noise even before the RAW file is created. I'm glad that this doesn't appear to be the case with Olympus, at least not with the LiveMOS sensor models (E-330 onwards, apart from the E-400, which has a Kodak sensor). The E-500 pre-dates the E-330, and has a (FFT) Kodak sensor too, but unrelated to the E-400 sensor (not FFT), according to Kodak.

Ian

PeterD
20th October 2008, 11:26 AM
Part of my point is that some cameras clearly filter out luminance noise even before the RAW file is created. I'm glad that this doesn't appear to be the case with Olympus, at least not with the LiveMOS sensor models (E-330 onwards, apart from the E-400, which has a Kodak sensor). The E-500 pre-dates the E-330, and has a (FFT) Kodak sensor too, but unrelated to the E-400 sensor (not FFT), according to Kodak.

Ian

Ian,

Thanks for your reply. Just to check, FFT means Fast Fourier Transform?

Peter