PDA

View Full Version : E3 vs E1 with ZD12 - 60


Garrie
11th November 2009, 12:29 AM
Hi All,

I'm just trying to get to grips with my E3, its a struggle after using my E510.

I admit I've not had much time shotting with the E3 even though I've owned it a good few months. I'm struggling to get monster sharp shots like I did with my old E510 and kit lens. I pretty sure its myself thats failing my E3 but I'm just needing reassurance.

I keep seeing these superb sharp shots using the E3 and ZD12 - 60 and I gotta admit I'm a little disheartened when I look at mine, I certainly don't have the skill level to use my E3 at its best, however I'm hoping time will cure that.

I'm currently trying to test both the body and lens and came up with this, compare the lens on the E1 and E3, so I've taken the shots below. Straight out the camera as JPG, I had to resize the E3 shot to kinda line up with the E1 shot.

E3 at F8 - Fl50 used.
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E3_F8.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19142)

E1 @ F8 - FL50 used.
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E1_F8.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19141)

Do these look sharp enough? Only difference apart from scale is the lush colours from the E1 shiney through.

Sorry to rabbit on, I just want to feel as happy with my E3 and 12-60 as I did with my old E510 and 14-42 :o

Cheers
Garrie

wet in washington
11th November 2009, 01:14 AM
Garrie, what settings did you use on both cameras? On my monitor the E-3 looks sharper, but the E-1 definitely has better color. *yes

Nick Temple-Fry
11th November 2009, 01:34 AM
Can't see any difference in the sharpness.

On the whole I'd say the the E-1 picture was slightly underexposed, there is some noise/grain/speckling on the colours would not have been on the pen.

The E-3 is much cleaner, look at the purple and the clear tube.

The E-1 seems to be more highly saturated, partly (I think) because of the exposure, but that's really the photographers call in pp

Garrie - I really can't see (from these) the problem, sorry.

Nick

Garrie
11th November 2009, 01:44 AM
Can't see any difference in the sharpness.

On the whole I'd say the the E-1 picture was slightly underexposed, there is some noise/grain/speckling on the colours would not have been on the pen.

The E-3 is much cleaner, look at the purple and the clear tube.

The E-1 seems to be more highly saturated, partly (I think) because of the exposure, but that's really the photographers call in pp

Garrie - I really can't see (from these) the problem, sorry.

Nick

Nick, Thank you, thats all I need to know :)

The problem is totally me or in my head for some reason :o

Thanks guys for taking a look :-)

Have fun
G

Zuiko
11th November 2009, 01:50 AM
Hi Garrie,

Just a thought, what sharpening level have you set on the E3? In-camera sharpening is noticably less aggressive on the E3 than it is on the E510.

For that reason, on my E510 I had sharpening set at -2 but find it only needs setting at -1 on the E3 to achieve the same sort of result. If you have your E3 set to the same level of sharpening as your E510 that could explain what you are experiencing. :)

JackBenedict
11th November 2009, 08:39 AM
:) Sorry to crowd in here guys, but sharpening on the E510 - on what menu is that option ?

meach
11th November 2009, 09:51 AM
:) Sorry to crowd in here guys, but sharpening on the E510 - on what menu is that option ?

It's in the picture mode option in Camera 1 menu - you can set a value for each of the modes - vivid, natural etc. along with contast and saturation.

Cheers,

Paul

Jim Ford
11th November 2009, 11:08 AM
I don't sharpen in the camera, but do it in Photoshop, because the degree of sharpening required on an image depends on the final size of the image and the media on which it is to be displayed.

Sharpening is a big subject - the late Bruce Fraser ('an internationally recognised authority on digital imaging') wrote a 288 page book on it!

Here's a good link on why sharpening is required:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.htm

Jim

Ian
11th November 2009, 11:13 AM
Garrie - did you sharpen after resizing? If you resize there will always be a loss of sharpness.

Ian

EH1
11th November 2009, 12:49 PM
I have to agree with Nick! I can`t see a problem, apart from number 2 looks a tad under exposed! :)

JackBenedict
11th November 2009, 01:02 PM
It's in the picture mode option in Camera 1 menu - you can set a value for each of the modes - vivid, natural etc. along with contast and saturation.

Cheers,

Paul



Cheers Paul - Thanks for the info. I have mine set to natural,but I didn't realise you could set a value to it. I will have a look again tonight

gno
11th November 2009, 11:15 PM
Hi Garrie,

I waited until I had a chance to look at the images on different monitors. I can't comment on the colours you will be the best judge of that as you have the tiles to compare with but I find the E-1 image far sharper, more so at the far end of the pen could there be some DOF at play there?
I took the liberty of sharpening both in PS and found that after sharpening the E-1 was still noticeably sharper.

Regards

Gavin

Nick Temple-Fry
12th November 2009, 12:17 AM
Hi Garrie,

I waited until I had a chance to look at the images on different monitors. I can't comment on the colours you will be the best judge of that as you have the tiles to compare with but I find the E-1 image far sharper, more so at the far end of the pen could there be some DOF at play there?
I took the liberty of sharpening both in PS and found that after sharpening the E-1 was still noticeably sharper.

Regards

Gavin

But the e-3 image has been resized - and may well have lost a tad of sharpness (though I can't see it). They are both good images - though I'd favour the e-3 exposure as more true.

Nick

Ellie
12th November 2009, 04:23 PM
The point of the pen looks sharper in the picture taken with the E-3, and so does the detail/texture of the grout between the tiles. This might be because the focus in the E-1 picture is slightly different.

I know these two cameras are top of the range, but I must also admit that I know I'm not using my new E-30 properly, and probably won't have investigated everything it can do for several months. There's a heck of a difference between the old cameras and the new ones, that I think even the most technically minded gets a bit stuck.

gno
12th November 2009, 07:15 PM
The point of the pen looks sharper in the picture taken with the E-3, and so does the detail/texture of the grout between the tiles. This might be because the focus in the E-1 picture is slightly different.

I tend to agree with Ellie regarding the pen tip and grouting being slightly sharper in the E-3.

Below is the cropped area to the pen end where I thought there was a marked difference between the E-1 and E-3. Pehaps as Ellie pointed out it could be slight focusing differences or as Nick said resizing. Perhaps Garrie will post the originals for comparison.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E3_Pen_unsharp.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19168)

Unsharpened E-3

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E3_Pen_sharpened.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19167)

Sharpened E-3

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E1_Pen_unsharp.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19166)

Unsharpened E-1

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E1_Pen_sharpened.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19165)

Sharpened E-1

Regards

Gavin

photo_owl
12th November 2009, 07:40 PM
I don't sharpen in the camera, but do it in Photoshop, because the degree of sharpening required on an image depends on the final size of the image and the media on which it is to be displayed.

Sharpening is a big subject - the late Bruce Fraser ('an internationally recognised authority on digital imaging') wrote a 288 page book on it!

Here's a good link on why sharpening is required:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.htm

Jim

wouldn't disagree Jim, but that's for RAW. I believe Garrie shoots jpeg so there is in camera sharpening in the jpeg engine - one way or another.

photo_owl
12th November 2009, 07:47 PM
Can't see any difference in the sharpness.

On the whole I'd say the the E-1 picture was slightly underexposed, there is some noise/grain/speckling on the colours would not have been on the pen.

The E-3 is much cleaner, look at the purple and the clear tube.

The E-1 seems to be more highly saturated, partly (I think) because of the exposure, but that's really the photographers call in pp

Garrie - I really can't see (from these) the problem, sorry.

Nick

agree - without identical exposure, colour and saturation etc you can't make any meaningful comparison of other factors. and that's before you get to the issue or what you are really comparing - here it could well be just sharpening settings in the jpeg engine.

overall the 510's engine is very aggressive, and the AA filter a little light. otoh the E3 engine is very smooth and the AA filter a little aggressive - but you can use loads of sharpening either in post or through camera settings without if you wish. I don't know where the E1 sits but the scope is obviously significant - and that's before you consider the resizing.

Garrie
13th November 2009, 01:07 AM
Hi,

Thanks for all the comments, I'm a bit confused however (nothing new to me lol)

Yeah I almost always shoot JPG and it totally possible I've got got my E3 setup not as well I had the E510. I love my E3, don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get it to perform like my trusy old E510 :)

Here are the images full size, straight from the camera, there is a slight difference but I didn't move the tripod only the angle as the E1 is slighty smaller than the E3 (including battery grips)

E1
http://www.sonorg.co.uk/e3/test/E1%20F8.jpg

E3
http://www.sonorg.co.uk/e3/test/E3%20F8.jpg

Thanks for the replies :) Pleae excuse my messy table lol

Cheers
Garrie

photo_owl
13th November 2009, 08:43 AM
I don't think set up is a matter of better or worse - it's just understanding the inherent differences and adjusting them to suit your needs.

As an example I would believe Natural Sharpness -1 on the 510 to be similar to Vivid Shaprness +1 on the E3 and even then you could tweak the sharpening in pp on the E3 without artifacts. This isn't an observation on appropriate settings - just how I would change jpeg settings to make the underlying cameras more comparable (then there's colour, G+1 on the E3 etc to finish the job ie it's never ending!)

michaelavis
13th November 2009, 01:16 PM
Garrie, you may have already done this, but to help you out of the settings maze on he E-3 you may find that setting some time aside to go through the wrotniak website on the e-Series will allow you to move on and enjoy the E-3 doing what it does best, taking great pictures in all kinds of situations and weather!

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/index.html

In particular http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e3-rev.html is a thorough backgrounder on the E-3.

For the settings, this is a great guide that will get you to a solid foundation from which you can tweak things if you want to:-

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e3-sett.html

gno
13th November 2009, 09:12 PM
Hi Garrie,

I've had another look at the full sized images below. To give similar sizes for review I increased the size of the E-1 image to match the E-3.
While the pen point is sharper to my mind on the E-3 image I think its marginal, again I think the pen end and overall the E-1 is sharper.
Looking at the Exif data there are differences in the settings between the two.
The E-1 Contrast and Sharpness are set at (2) While the E-3 settings are normal (0)
Perhaps thats where the difference is? Try again with the E-3 set at the E-1 settings.


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E-3_PenFS_cropped.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19175)http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E-1_PenFS_cropped.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/19174)

Regards

Gavin

photo_owl
13th November 2009, 09:34 PM
setting the E3 to the E1 jpeg settings will not provide 'equivilence' - they are not a constant.

the only real comparison is to produce the best possible output file from each image capture device (camera) - whether yuou start from the jpeg file or raw doesn't really matter at this level.

gno
13th November 2009, 09:49 PM
setting the E3 to the E1 jpeg settings will not provide 'equivilence' - they are not a constant.

the only real comparison is to produce the best possible output file from each image capture device (camera) - whether yuou start from the jpeg file or raw doesn't really matter at this level.

So what settings would you use as a starting point?

photo_owl
13th November 2009, 10:10 PM
So what settings would you use as a starting point?

depends on what you are trying to illustrate

in this case (where the issue seems to be image sharpness - between the 510 and 3 but a 1 got involved.......) it has to be raw, or 'best processed'.

the point being that it doesn't matter, for the purposed of the debate, whether the processing is done in camera or by a pp package.

Someone has already posted the link to the Wrotniak recomendations for settings - but these (in the main) presume the next steps and, importantly, assume next steps.

I never had to output 510 files straight from camera to client but with the E3 I use vivid + S+1 for newsprint - I wouldn't use the same approach for a wedding!

gno
14th November 2009, 11:49 AM
photo_owl

I take onboard what you are saying regarding comparisons have to be on a level playing field, but surely by your own argument it must be raw only and not 'best processed' as are the internal processing mechanisms of the two cameras (E-1, E-3) different are they not?

Regards

Gavin

photo_owl
14th November 2009, 03:07 PM
photo_owl

I take onboard what you are saying regarding comparisons have to be on a level playing field, but surely by your own argument it must be raw only and not 'best processed' as are the internal processing mechanisms of the two cameras (E-1, E-3) different are they not?

Regards

Gavin

Sorry - my poor wording.

I agree.

What I meant by best processed was from the raw file. I'm not a fan of attempting direct comparison of the raw files themselves as, bluntly, there is almost no way to do this either. The real test is what can be produced for the various types of shot with optimum shooting (exposure) and processing.

But there is also a strong case for the comparison of OOC output but only with optimised settings. Here the optimum settings wouldn't necessarily be Wrotniak's because he's producing jpeg files for final adjustment appropriate for the medium to be delivered (recognising that contrast and sharpening will differ based on this).