Olympus E-620 (1 Viewer)

NoSpringChicken said:

I don't know about the E-620 but, on the assumption that it is similar to the E-30, I would say that it is definitely better than the E-510/520 but not massively so. I can use ISO 800 with reasonable success but wouldn't normally go beyond that. It still lags way behind the latest Canon and Nikon cameras which can use some ridiculously high ISO settings with excellent results.

I am not sure I would upgrade to the current Olympus cameras just for better high ISO performance but would probably wait to see what the next generation is like.

Ron

Click to expand...

Hi Ron, I also used to get some very useable images at ISO 800 with my Olympus camera (in my case, as you know, an E-510), and after some recent comparisons I'm not wholly convinced that the competition from Canon and Nikon is streets ahead just yet on this particular issue. I do believe however that Nikon currently have more of an edge than Canon, but there are other variables too that perhaps have more of a bearing on overall final image quality than pure ‘ISO performance’.
Attached are two shots, both taken at ISO 800. The Goldcrest is with my Olympus, and the Grouse is with a Canon 40D. Both have been cropped about the same amount, and a little sharpening has been applied to both in roughly equal measure.

Neither image is perfect, but personally I don't think there is that much to choose between them in terms of noise. They both show some, but it isn't too overpowering IMHO. I have taken better images with the Canon than this; this one was a bit soft out of the camera, and would need even more sharpening to bring it up to the level of the Goldcrest, which was a bit sharper to begin with. Of course, further sharpening would add even more noise to the image in order to make it more 'useable' in terms of sharpness.

The point I'm making here, is that nailing the exposure and focus in the beginning can mean that less pp is necessary in the end, which of course means less image degradation, and that this in itself probably has a greater effect on the final image quality than subtle differences in ISO performance between one camera & another.

For what it’s worth, I do believe that Canon currently does have a slight edge at ISO 400-800 over Olympus, and that Nikon perhaps have a similar slight edge over Canon (though I personally have no experience with Nikon), but these advantages are not so marked as some 'experts' would have us all believe.
In summary, if later Olympus cameras like the E-30 and E-600/620 are even closer to Canon than my E-510, then it’s probably of more benefit at the moment to hone your technique than worry about the ‘deficiencies’ of your camera system of choice.

To confuse matters further, from what I've seen so far the new Canon 7D is less than perfect at similar ISOs to the above, though it is distinctly better at higher settings.

Steve

Interesting to hear your experiences with Olympus and Canon, Steve. It's refreshing not hear Olympus getting slated because of the 'small and noisy sensor'. I agree that the real secret to low noise is getting the exposure spot on in the first place. The less post processing an image requires, the better the final results will be. Under exposure in particular seems to be really bad news for noise.

I have found that high ISO settings work better when there is reasonable light, in order to increase shutter speed, for example. They are less successful in gloomy conditions, where there is just not enough contrast and colour in the original subject matter. High ISO settings can't work miracles. I have found that with the 70-300 lens my base ISO setting is 400. I only use 200 or 100 when it is really bright or when the subject is very close or with no chance of movement. If I was using a tripod rather than shooting handheld all the time, I could probably use lower settings more frequently than I do.

Here are a couple of shots at ISO 800. The Sanderling was taken in bright sunlight but the high ISO allowed me to use a fast shutter speed to capture this speedy little bird dashing about. The Marsh Tit was taken under typical, winter light.

'Save for Web' has stripped out the exif data, so the settings are:

Sanderling - ISO 800, 1/8000 sec, f/5.6, 300mm
Marsh Tit - ISO 800, 1/250 sec, f/6.3, 300mm

Ron

NoSpringChicken said:

Interesting to hear your experiences with Olympus and Canon, Steve. It's refreshing not hear Olympus getting slated because of the 'small and noisy sensor'. I agree that the real secret to low noise is getting the exposure spot on in the first place. The less post processing an image requires, the better the final results will be. Under exposure in particular seems to be really bad news for noise.

I have found that high ISO settings work better when there is reasonable light, in order to increase shutter speed, for example. They are less successful in gloomy conditions, where there is just not enough contrast and colour in the original subject matter. High ISO settings can't work miracles. I have found that with the 70-300 lens my base ISO setting is 400. I only use 200 or 100 when it is really bright or when the subject is very close or with no chance of movement. If I was using a tripod rather than shooting handheld all the time, I could probably use lower settings more frequently than I do.

Here are a couple of shots at ISO 800. The Sanderling was taken in bright sunlight but the high ISO allowed me to use a fast shutter speed to capture this speedy little bird dashing about. The Marsh Tit was taken under typical, winter light.

'Save for Web' has stripped out the exif data, so the settings are:

Sanderling - ISO 800, 1/8000 sec, f/5.6, 300mm
Marsh Tit - ISO 800, 1/250 sec, f/6.3, 300mm

Ron

Click to expand...

Two very 'clean' images there Ron, and yes, I agree that there is a a direct correlation between light/shutter speed/noise.

I've even had some noisy shots at ISO 100/200 when using longer exposures, though obviously not with birds! I think this is to do with the sensor getting too hot during longer exposures, so obviously it's preferable to use higher ISOs to 'up' your shutter speeds when you can.

Steve

Ron, IMHO the shutter speed was too high for the shot with the Sanderling. For good shots with birds taken with ZD 70-300 I would recommend shutter speeds around 1/600 - 1/1000 and apertures around f8. So, I would say that for the light available for your shot with the Sanderling, you didn't need ISO 800 and f5.6. My proposal would be ISO 400 and f6.3. I'm pretty sure that the shutter speed would be around 1/1000 in these conditions. Most of my pics with birds are taken at shutter speeds slower than 1/2000. I use faster shutter speeds only for BIF (IS off).

Hi Cristian. I didn't intend using anything like that shutter speed but the bird was running up and down the beach, in and out of the shadow of a breakwater. The shutter speed was varying greatly according to which way I was facing in the directional sunshine. It just happened that it was a very fast shutter speed when I took this frame. I wouldn't usually shoot at 1/8000 sec!

Ron

Never mind all the gobble de gooo about which ISO is better than what.. I think the pictures are great and as its me who started the post then i think it is my opinion that matters so there..LOL
Ian

The voice of reason, lol. Thanks for bringing us back on topic Ian. It's so tempting to go wandering off down all those enticing alleyways and side roads.

Ron

Sorry for my technical rambling, Ian.

iveljay said:

(finding the highest quality JPEG settings is a challenge - but won't effect most folks)

Click to expand...

Same as the E-520, I assume. Rather than just being able to select the jpg compression settings from a menu, they configure which of the settings will be available to the menu. By default, the best quality settings aren't configured, so it took me a while to work out how to do it. It would be easy to assume you have found the best setting when there is a better one hidden away.

Certainly not many camera salespeople are going to be able to do it for you if you go to a shop to test one out.

I would have thought that all bird photographers would want to set the camera to the best quality.

Hi ps
I have to say that as a " Bird photographer " personally my main concern is not the high quality of the photo but being able to ID the bird. Everyone has their own idea of what is best quality. I have shown pictures to friends that i think are rubbish and they think they are great. A pro with a £10k outfit would not be happy with the point and shoot photo's i take, but to me they are good enough to ID the bird and to stick in my album. THanks
Ian

Morning Cristan, Only kidding i like tech rambling, it is always helpful to have people who know what they are talking about.
Ian

Imace said:

Hi ps
I have to say that as a " Bird photographer " personally my main concern is not the high quality of the photo but being able to ID the bird. Everyone has their own idea of what is best quality. I have shown pictures to friends that i think are rubbish and they think they are great. A pro with a £10k outfit would not be happy with the point and shoot photo's i take, but to me they are good enough to ID the bird and to stick in my album. THanks
Ian

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you can't id a bird if you can't see enough detail. With superfine compression and maximum resolution, you should see a little more detail. When the bird is a long way away, you need every bit of detail your camera can give you.

pshute said:

Fair enough, but you can't id a bird if you can't see enough detail. With superfine compression and maximum resolution, you should see a little more detail. When the bird is a long way away, you need every bit of detail your camera can give you.

Click to expand...

I quite agree you do need a certain amount of detail for ID. Let me say this.. I started this post asking about the new E-620 with all the bells and whistles its quite an expensive outfit. As i only take pictures for my own enjoyment i would be just as happy with the E-1, E-300 etc.. I am not a pixel nut, infact the best birding picture i have taken is with a Nikon Coolpix 950 (2 megapixel ) attached to a scope.

Ian

ok Ian looks like you are very much like me, it is a hobby i don't like to spoil it with too much concern about IQ, so as i said before if it was not for the MP i would not have changed the E 300 and also the compatibality with the 70-300 mm lens.

there is another thing i have not used it with the Sigma 50-500 mm, just have to wait until my off day and try it and get back to tell you about it.

Imace said:

I quite agree you do need a certain amount of detail for ID. Let me say this.. I started this post asking about the new E-620 with all the bells and whistles its quite an expensive outfit. As i only take pictures for my own enjoyment i would be just as happy with the E-1, E-300 etc.. I am not a pixel nut, infact the best birding picture i have taken is with a Nikon Coolpix 950 (2 megapixel ) attached to a scope.

Click to expand...

My point was not that you need to buy the best equipment to get the most detail in your pictures, just that whatever you buy needs to be set up to get the best results that camera can give you. Hence my comment that this is slightly tricky in the E-520, and presumably the E-620 too.

I would have preferred to own the E-620, but got the E-520 because it was way cheaper.

a word of warning, it is no fair to compare the E 620 to the E 520, the first one is much much better, IMHO the focusing in the E 520 is not reliable, unlike the E 620.

Hi Ammadoux, Does Olympus have firmware updates for the older camera's so they can work with the new lenses

Ian

Yes Ian they do, you can either check there site or see your local olympus dealer, i did not update, and as i said before the only trouble was that i have to turn on the cameras without the lens then i get it mounted, which means you will not get use of the sleep mode that saves the battery, it has to be on all the time, otherwise you will have to unmount the lens and turn it on and so on.

ammadoux said:

a word of warning, it is no fair to compare the E 620 to the E 520, the first one is much much better, IMHO the focusing in the E 520 is not reliable, unlike the E 620.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard that before, can you elaborate? Are there particular situations where the E-520 has trouble?

I don't have any AF lenses yet, so it's not something I would have noticed.

pshute, Ammadoux is a MF fan...