Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    Hello to all from down under !

    One of my friends from the Malaysian photo forums says that there is a vast room for improvement and adjustment in RAW from the E1 as compared to the E-3 (please refer to his photos below).





    In my experience, I've never gotten such a wide dynamic range in the E-3, except through HDR manipulation.

    Anyone who has the E1 can vouch for this fact? What other advantages does the E1 have over the E-3? If I'm convinced, I might consider getting one.

    Thanks lots!

    brandon
    Last edited by brandoneu; 09-17-2008 at 04:35 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    618
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    I am not seeing a photo.
    God Bless
    Corey

    My Web site:http://midiowaphoto.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Berkeley Heights, NJ
    Posts
    3,459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    The photos are referred to in the html source, but I think that whatever forum the photos are on won't display them unless you are logged in there.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,727
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    The E-1 already has good DR out of the JPEGs. It depends on how you set your E-1. If you turn down the contrast on your E-1 and expose properly (or use negative exp compensation in some scenes), you can get better DR from its JPEGs than from any other Olympus body. Of course, it is noisier than the E-3 and other recent models, so if you're using it at higher ISOs, the DR decreases dramatically.

    But yeah, I can see how the E-1 has more potential DR improvement from RAW files. The sensor is bigger than the E-3 and has half the number of pixels on it. Everything else equal, the E-1 SHOULD have more DR than the E-3. But let's not forget that the E-3 is a better camera in other areas.
    4/3: Oly E-3, E-1, E-520, 9-18, 11-22, 14-54, 50-200, 70-300, 25/2.8, 35/3.5 | Leica 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    m4/3: E-P3 | G1 | 14/2.5 | 20/1.7 | 14-42 IIR | 17/2.8 | 45/1.8 | Nik 20/3.5
    Nikon: D90, D700, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/1.8, 35/2, CV 40/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 180/2.8 | f/2.8 zooms | Zeiss 25/2.8
    Sony: A55, A900, 24-85, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 30/2.8, 35/1.4G, 50/1.7, Zeiss 85/1.4
    P&S: Canon S90

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    Apologies for all who've not seen the pictures, I've edited them and they should work now. The pictures are HDR manipulated and not straight from the camera has stated earlier.

    E dawg - I think the E-1 has half the number of pixels from the E-3, but has the same fourthirds sensor, am I right?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    I tend to agree. I just surveyed all of my E-1 shots and sure enough the tone curve was much better matched to the available light. I won't swear that it is dynamic range (since I don't really know what that translates to in camera), but I get much better highlight control with E1 without eclipsing detail in the shadows than I do with the E3. The E3 shots look great when the light is controlled and I think they are a bit more 3 dimensional, but E1 is hard to beat in high contrast or weird lighting ...... and the WB is better with E1.

    It is easy to lose highlight detail in important areas with E3 if you are not very careful with exposure. Hanging onto these often comes at the expense of shadow details though. My cursory review reveals that E1 was better in this regard, at least for me anyway.

    Lee

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pohangina, New Zealand
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    I haven't got an E1 so can't comment but have noticed that there seems to be a bit of a myth out there about RAW headroom with the E3. I very definitely get more highlight control out of a RAW file than a JPEG. Compared to my E300 (the next stage from the E1) highlight detail is vastly better. Something strange happens with E3 shadows though. Even with everything turned off or using RAW, it's like shadows are amplified a little, even at base sensitivity, and images look much cleaner (and more like the E300) if I clip the shadows deliberately. I guess the point of this is that there is more going on than just the sensor - which on the E1 should have serious advantages due to bigger pixels.

    Don

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,727
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: E-3 vs E-1 dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by brandoneu View Post
    Apologies for all who've not seen the pictures, I've edited them and they should work now. The pictures are HDR manipulated and not straight from the camera has stated earlier.
    Yes, now that I can finally see the pics, it definitely does have that HDR look about them.

    E dawg - I think the E-1 has half the number of pixels from the E-3, but has the same fourthirds sensor, am I right?
    Well yes and no. It is still a 4/3 sensor, but the E-1 used a Kodak sensor that was actually a tiny bit larger than the current Panasonic sensors.

    One thing that should be pointed out is that despite half the number of pixels and a very slightly larger chip, I don't think the pixels on the E-1 were enormously bigger than those on the E-3. The reason? The space efficiency on the newer xMOS style sensors is higher than on the CCD sensors of old. A 5 MP CCD as in the E-1 probably had the same size pixels as an 8 MP current gen nMOS sensor does in terms of light gathering area.
    4/3: Oly E-3, E-1, E-520, 9-18, 11-22, 14-54, 50-200, 70-300, 25/2.8, 35/3.5 | Leica 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    m4/3: E-P3 | G1 | 14/2.5 | 20/1.7 | 14-42 IIR | 17/2.8 | 45/1.8 | Nik 20/3.5
    Nikon: D90, D700, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/1.8, 35/2, CV 40/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 180/2.8 | f/2.8 zooms | Zeiss 25/2.8
    Sony: A55, A900, 24-85, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 30/2.8, 35/1.4G, 50/1.7, Zeiss 85/1.4
    P&S: Canon S90

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •