PDA

View Full Version : Olympus Cameras and Noise


stryker
25th March 2009, 07:58 AM
With all the recent posts about the new E30 and noise, I am beginning to wonder which camera in the opinion of the forum is the best Olympus camera with regard to noise.
I did notice a difference when I changed from my E500 to my E510, so much so that I purchased a E410 for my Wife.
Although I am very happy with both cameras I was thinking of perhapsupgrading to a E30 or E620 but obviously now I am not so sure.
I never seemed to hear of any noise problems with the E1 so is the E3 any better?
What does everyone else think?

theMusicMan
25th March 2009, 08:32 AM
Hi stryker

I haven't used the E-30 nor the E-620, so I can't really make a judgement. However, there is another thread discussing the difference in noise on the E-3 v's E-30, and I have posted some images that use very high ISO @ ISO1600 and ISO3200. You might want to have a read of that thread.

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4925

Dick Bowman
25th March 2009, 09:09 AM
[... deleted ...]
I never seemed to hear of any noise problems with the E1 so is the E3 any better?
What does everyone else think?

In "normal" use the E1 was/is fine, but start going over ISO400 in dim lighting and you will see noise.

The E3 is noticeably better in such situations. Personally I'm relaxed about it.

I can't speak for any other bodies, or compare to other manufacturers' products.

photo_owl
25th March 2009, 09:31 AM
the real problem here is that people's expectations change over time.

if you were to prepare a table of 'absolutes' which managed to balance resolution in some way, you would certainly see significant progress within the range (but arguably greater progress outwith it esp Nikon)

the other issue for many people is that you cannot seperate sharpening from noise when shooting jpeg. for many people that meant they found the 410/510 noisy whilst someone shooting the same camera in Natural Sharpness -2, Contrast -1 Sat 0 might wonder what they were missing as their output would exhibit significantly less obvious noise problems.

the other thing is that for some discussion of noise means high ISO, for others it's about perfection at 100 and for another group it's the lattitude in a raw file when you start pushing and pulling the file around. Different models exhibit different behaviours. Finally there's also the matter of how well files clean up, and if there is an element of pattern noise (banding) that can't be removed.

my overall view is that the later models are definitely better on a like for like basis but that we can expect to see still further improvements in this area because the current output continues to underperform alternative manufacturers even when things are adjusted to take into account the impact of the relative sensor sizes. The gap to many isn't as big as much of the comment would have you believe but to the best in class it's significant.

HughofBardfield
25th March 2009, 02:16 PM
the real problem here is that people's expectations change over time.

the other thing is that for some discussion of noise means high ISO, for others it's about perfection at 100 and for another group it's the lattitude in a raw file when you start pushing and pulling the file around. Different models exhibit different behaviours. Finally there's also the matter of how well files clean up, and if there is an element of pattern noise (banding) that can't be removed.


Absolutely! My mindset (based on film days) is that to get an acceptable colour image at ISO800 and above is pretty amazing... anything beyond that is incredible - to me...

I think some reviewers/ people simply want to be able to use f8 (no more to avoid diffraction!) @ 1/4000th to produce totally noise-free images regardless of light (as well as the ability to use the same aperture @ 4minutes in the next frame and in same light for motion blur...)

All camera systems are ultimately a compromise, and personally I just can't get that worked up about the noise "issue". If I was producing images for commercial use that needed to be reproduced large and for close viewing, I simply wouldn't choose Olympus. But I'm not, and the Olympus version of the compromise suits me fine.