E510 Poor Quality shots

first some background.

 

I've been using an OM4ti for years, getting excellent results - superb sharpness from 4000dpi transparency scans and 24" prints. (Am a

published photographer - not a novice)

 

 

Recently bought an E510 with a 12-60mm Zuiko lens.

 

Impressions are very bad. Have not managed to get one single shot that gets anywhere close to the quality I was expecting (which was

something approaching the results from my OM4ti)

 

The best shots, which are very very few, are soft. Most are of low "real" resolution; indistinct. Many are downright unusable.

 

 

I shoot raw. Maximum resolution. With a tripod. IS off.

 

 

Take the photos into Photoshop or Lightroom for processing. Initial RAW images look awful, needing severe sharpening, which results in

a horrible plastic look, reminiscent of the painterly effect filters people pollute their photos with. (which are horrid).

 

I persevered and have taken hundreds and hundreds of shots. Maybe one or two are decent. Vast majority are blurry. I can get them to

look okay on a computer screen by reducing dimensions below 50% and applying sharpening. (this is what tends to happen with photos

that people post proclaiming decent quality).

 

However, at 100% resolution - unusable.

 

 

So I sent the camera and lens off to Olympus who have just told me that the camera and lens are perfectly okay - and that the quality I

should be getting is "comparable" to the quality I was getting from my OM4ti and Velvia. (!!!!?????!!!!!).

 

Well, that has snookered me - I am heading off to Europe on holiday and wanted to take a digital camera, but can't trust it. It has been a

VERY expensive (failed) experiment.

 

 

 

Any thoughts?

My E-510 with the Zuiko 14-54 give me excellent shots, as good or better than those I got with my older Leica and Pentax glass. All I can suggest is to read the manual and set the camera up the way you want it to work.

Suggest you post example photos for review, along with exif data and any other relevant information you can think of.

 

I have a 510 and 12-60, and it's a cracking combination. That you're finding the "vast majority" blurry implies flawed equipment or technique, or perhaps your eye is simply tuned to analog image characteristics. Is the 12-60 your only lens? If so, it might be helpful to go to a shop and demo other lenses to isloate whether the body or lens is the culprit.

 

Best of luck,

 

Rick

Rick - the equipment is not faulty - at least that is Olympus' consideration. Flawed technique? Well, I can get pin sharp

shots with my OM4ti and my cybershot point and shoot (better results than my E510!).

 

I'll post some images - of course, they will need to be just sections of the photo - otherwise we are talking about 10mb

attachments.

 

Intrigued to know what you mean by "tuned to analogue images"?

 

 

Jim - read the manual? Why? Surely I should be able to set the aperture, set the shutter speed and press fire? Or even

set it to full auto and press fire. And get a sharp shot - every time, all the time. Why on earth do I need to read a manual

to take a sharp photo?

 

Is there something inherently complex about the E510 that requires a photographer to read a manual before he gets

sharp shots? This is a serious question

An example image would be so much more helpful than text, but, just shooting in the dark here, it is possible that

autofocus is changing just as the shutter is tripped. If focus is locked and kept locked by keeping the shutter release half

pressed, can you then obtain a sharp image when you depress fully. Of better yet, turn auto focus off, manual focus the

lens and then trip the shutter...

yes, I use manual focus - I have some examples - how do I post them here?

Another 2 shots in the dark from an E-510 user.

 

1. If you're using LiveView, the manual focus assist may be helpful for detail focusing. I use that a lot for small studio work.

 

2. If you're using the viewfinder, it has been my experience that the diopter does not stay adjusted reliably. Either that or my big paws move it around in handling.

 

Okay, make that 3 ...

 

3. The addition of a Cat's Eye focusing screen to replace the default one helped me a lot.

William, I was not being impolite in suggesting you read the manual. It has been my experience that DSLRs are much more complex, with many more variables, than even expensive film cameras. It is easy to get trapped in the complexity. Just this morning I shot a series of pictures and did not realize, until I sat down to examine the images and data, that I had done it all in "A" mode, with the aperture fixed at f/4.5. I had used this setup the last time I had the camera out, while using a manual lens on an adapter.

 

I have tried manual focus on my Zuiko 14-54 and have not found a case where I could improve on the autofocus provided by the camera when using the center focus point.

I've had my e510 for almost a year and I haven't experience any such problems. Do use the IS1 setting and auto focus most of the time. No problem with sharpness, and most of my photos are hand held. I just don't understand. See my Spain and Mexico photos, they were all shot with the e510.

to post an image, add a text in the Contribute answer section, and submit, and then confirm, the following screen will allow

you to browse and attach an image file.

[[and my cybershot point and shoot (better results than my E510!)]]

 

And therein hides the real source of your problems: education (aka: the learning curve). You're expecting

results based on a very different system. Digital SLR photography is /not/ the same as film (scanning included)

and is not the same as a digital point and shoot (who's extremely wide-angle lenses and very strong in-camera

sharpening are sledge hammers to photographic images).

 

[[ Initial RAW images look awful]]

 

RAW images can't "look" awful because a RAW "image" cannot be viewed. A RAW file is exactly that: the RAW data.

An image is not RAW data. Ergo, an image you view on the screen that was developed from a RAW file is the

product of your development choices. If you choose to accept the defaults of whatever RAW conversion program you

use as representative of your images then it should not surprise you that your images don't look like you think

they should.

 

Hopefully this response doesn't sound harsh and critical (it's not meant to). You just need to understand that

digital photography is not a drop-in replacement to film. It's a different system with different responses and

different requirements for creating images. The more you learn about these differences the better you will be at

producing images you are happy with in a proficient manner.

I've been using a 510 for almost a year now. I've had no problem with image sharpness. First of all turn the IS on even with a tripod, get a cable release so you don't have to touch the camera while making an exposure, do your framing with live view, then turn it off to focus manually and expose the shot.

Hi William. Why not look at some sample images from the E510 review on dpreview.com. I think you'll agree there's nothing wrong with the model.

Rob - I have been dealing with RAW files for years - I understand digital processing having been a contributor to several

best selling photoshop books (Photoshop WOW for example).

 

When I open a RAW file, my default is no sharpening and colour balance as shot. I DO know that there will be contrast

variables that need adjusting. However, I would expect the shot to be sharp, straight out of the camera. (and your

explanation is not quite correct - ALL image files are just data.

 

This has been past experience when processing RAW files for other photographers. The initial image was sharp.

 

 

Glenn - using IS and a tripod is discouraged in the manual (I did read it!). And to be fair, it does make the photos worse.

 

 

Anyway, here is a section of a photo with no sharpening:

 

 

Hugh - I have seen many images on the net. Not seen (m)any that are full 10 mega-pixel resolution. Mostly they are

reduced to well below 50% which of course gives the impression of sharpness. My photos look great, pin sharp, at

smaller sizes. That, however, is pointless to me!

 

 

Tim - I don't understand why the focus has to be ultra critical (for the vast majority of shots). Taking a street scene, at

say F11 and 12mm, should render almost the entire scene, from just a few metres away to infinity, sharply.<div></div>

one small clarification, is it true to say that the unprocessed RAW file will not require sharpening? I had the understanding

that without some degree of sharpening ALL RAW files will be soft, due to the filtering required to make digital color from

RGB sensors...

of course, but there is a difference between "soft" and blurred. I've done a bit of googling and it seems I am not the only one with the

problem. (I did look at the dp review examples, and yes, there is an intrinsic softness to the files at 100%)

 

Finally got through to a technician at Olympus this morning who told me, "of course the quality of the 4/3rds system is not as good as the

OM4ti and a good Zuiko lens - the OM4ti was a top of the range SLR."

 

 

This 510 and 12-60 lens is getting sold. :(

[[- the OM4ti was a top of the range SLR." ]]

 

Can you explain how a film camera body would affect sharpness?

 

[[there is an intrinsic softness to the files at 100%) ]]

 

And how do they look printed? If you've had experience with RAW files, what are you comparing these results with?

better dampening.

 

 

 

Do you think the section of photograph above is sharp? That was taken with a decent Manfrotto tripod, and anti-shock of

4 seconds. F11 at 1/60th second. Do you think it is acceptably sharp?

 

I must say, the questioning of my technical ability is somewhat surprising - I have been in the design and print industry

for 25 years - I know what a sharp photo looks like and how to print one!

 

This is a straight scan from a 35mm velvia slide (4000dpi scan).

 

Do you think it is sharper than the above image (which was one of the sharper photos I've managed to get from the

e510)?<div></div>

and the photo from which it is a section - to show how much detail is there:<div></div>

and the digital file showing which section.

 

 

Honestly - I thought I would come here and find some answers as to why these images were softer than I was expecting.

Instead it seems that my technique is at fault. Which is obviously not true.

 

Thanks anyway.

and the digital file showing which section. Don't mention the blown whites. I can live with that.

 

Honestly - I thought I would come here and find some answers as to why these images were softer than I was expecting.

Instead it seems that my technique is at fault. Which is obviously not true.

 

Thanks anyway.<div></div>

[[nstead it seems that my technique is at fault. Which is obviously not true ]]

 

I don't think you've proven anything about your technical abilities. No one here is a mind reader and no one here knows what you do and do not understand about digital imaging.

 

[[i know what a sharp photo looks like and how to print one! ]]

 

Yet again, what does the image from the RAW file look like printeD?

I think I have. I've shown that I can take a photograph that is at least sharp and in focus. Maybe you could point out

what it technically faulty with the scan above? That has been litho printed on a double page spread in the Evening

Standard magazine, and is pin sharp at that size)

 

 

I've also said that I am in the print industry and have contributed to best-selling books on digitial imaging (photoshop

WOW). I know how to prepare and print files for optimum output. (okay RAW is not optimum, but sharpness needs to be

there to begin with)

 

 

 

How do the RAW files from my e510 look printed? At full-size, 300dpi, (A4) they are soft. I have output them from a

Indigo Digital Press at work to check. I did this before I sent the camera to Olympus.

[[Maybe you could point out what it technically faulty with the scan above? ]]

 

Maybe you could stand up a few more straw men? I never said anything about the quality your film work or your

film scans.

 

[[However, I would expect the shot to be sharp, straight out of the camera. ]]

 

[[okay RAW is not optimum, but sharpness needs to be there to begin with]]

 

I would not, especially not at 100% views. The anti-alias filter in front of the sensor, as you are well aware,

would affect sharpness in order to combat morié. Try shooting with a camera without a anti-alias filter for

comparsion.

 

There's a ton of information on the web and in print about various sharpening techniques for digital files.

Perhaps the connection is non-obvious?

[[the quality your film]]

 

...the quality of your film...