E510 Poor Quality shots

[william_white8]

Rob, I can't understand your angle? - I posted a sharp photo, which you then responded to by saying I haven't proven

that I can take a sharp photo - now you are saying you have said nothing about the quality of my photos?

 

Are you just picking an argument? Or are you always like this?

 

Any file that has an intrinsic softness cannot be successfully sharpened.

 

That is a fact.

 

Maybe you could post an example of a sharp file from an e510 at 100% size?

 

 

 

Maybe you could post an example

[Tom Wiggins Photography]

I just ran across a article in Shutterbug, November 2007, and discusses the noise reduction seting for the e510. Seems that the nominal setting is too agressive and they recommend using the low setting. See like for the complete article. http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/amateur_digital_slrs/1107olympus/

[john_photo]

William,

 

maybe you need to purchase a 21 megapixel Canon or the Mamiya with ZD digital back.

 

The velvia shot contains lots of grain. Start reducing noise with some algorithms and I bet you loose quite a bit of detail.

 

Your RAW image looks like what can be achieved with a typical 10MP DSLR. You should invest in the Canon with about 4k in the very best L glass also. Get that checkbook out because without a large investment you are not going to achieve what you are looking for.

 

and BTW: its not your glass either. Its the sensor. The new Zuiko pro zooms are pretty sweet and hold up quite well when compared against primes.

[pisq]

The "digital section" and the "window" detail seem equally sharp to me, absent of noise. The addition of random noise can

make an image appear sharper than one without. Perceptually, the first detail is "smoother" in appearance than the second.

If printing the larger image of "digital detail" seems soft, perhaps adding noise, or having less aggressive noise reduction in

the initial image, when printed, might look sharper.

[j.k._york]

i too shoot RAW with an E510 in manual mode. i use Lightroom to develop the RAW files. i also have used an OM-3 for

almost 20 years as well. i would have to agree that images are soft out of the E510, but i find it depends on the lens.

when i use some of my better zuiko legacy glass i get superb images with the 510 so i don't think your issue William is the

body, but the glass. i also use a Nikon Coolscan VED for my fujichromes at 14bit and get fantastic results with my older

gear.

[mrraz]

"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."

 

William, I know what the manual says, but I also know from experience the shots are sharper with IS on. You're using a new camera. the instructions are nice guide lines, but you have to adapt to the camera not try and force into an mode of operation you used previously with a different model.

[r.t. dowling]

It's not really fair to compare the small 4/3 sensor to a piece of 35mm Velvia film. Velvia is one of the highest

resolution color films available. Comparing the 4/3 sensor to 35mm Velvia is like comparing 35mm Kodak Gold

to 645 Velvia. It just isn't a fair comparison.

 

You may wish to investigate a DSLR with a larger sensor... APS-C or full frame, perhaps. Or stick with film for a

while longer, which you do seem to be very comfortable with. The bridge shot on Velvia is beautiful, by the way.

[william_white8]

JK & RT

 

It is nice to hear that maybe my concerns about the camera are correct (rather than my technique).

 

To be honest, I held off from going digital for a long time (other than my P&S). I thought now was the time to jump.

Maybe it isn't, because my OM4ti and Zuiko lenses (50mm F1.2; 24mm F2.4; 135mm f3.5) and the Nikon scanner are

giving me better results than the e510 with a zuiko 12-60.

 

I was comparing the 4/3 sensor to 35mm velvia. I was led to believe they are comparable.

 

I am disappointed.

 

But

 

For those here that are convinced it is my technique; I would love to know what settings to start with in the RAW

conversion.

 

Seriously. Any pointers would be appreciated.

[Greg M]

After reading all this, my only suggestion would be for you to return the E510 and try another one instead of continuing this process, which obviously isn't working....I've been using my E510 now for a little while with nothing but excellent results. Lemon examples do exist in all models produced by any company. Get one that WORKS. I've been nothing but pleased with mine..

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/5068244_r4TMH#305173225_HJ5bC

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/5125003_NnieF#309532718_dexaW

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/4619478_APJqW#272516748_KzBtD

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/5478887_jqJkh#334993841_fd7Dt

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/4365022_qosMV#336178951_RoNeN

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/4762889_qceTS#282390904_iJf83

 

Every one of the images on those files were shot RAW and processed with in either Olympus Studio 2.0, or I converted the file via the DNG converter and I subsequently processed them in Camera RAW with Photoshop CS2.

[r.t. dowling]

I see no reason why now isn't as good a time as any to switch from film to digital, but you just need to bear in mind that in order to match the results you're accustomed to with 4000 DPI Velvia scans, you're going to need something more along the lines of a Canon 5D or a Nikon D3 or D700. It is amazing how good the 4/3 sensor is, considering its size, but it just isn't a match for a bigger sensor (or a bigger piece of film). Also worth noting, as others have mentioned, is that Olympus chose to put a fairly strong anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor on the 510, which further softens things. The Panasonic L10, which also uses a 4/3 sensor, has a less aggressive AA filter, and as a result, the images are indeed sharper than those from the 510, even though the sensors themselves are otherwise nearly identical.

 

If you like film, by all means, keep using it! I was amazed that Fuji brought Velvia 50 back from the dead, but next time they decide to discontinue it, we probably won't see it brought back again. So... enjoy it while you can!

[robert lee]

"... what settings to start with in the RAW conversion."

 

Take a look at the RawTherapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com) converter. The software is free (the authors asks for $10 or $15 donations) but is an excellent RAW converter. Choose the EAHD demosaicing algorithm. Use the deconvolution based sharpener rather than USM.

 

As for film, give Kodak Gold 100 and 100 TMAX a try. Both are sharper and higher resolving than Velvia.

[tim_turner]

You are both right and wrong, E510 is entry level kit with an AA filter to hide the sensor problems.E3 not much better, compare by relative price and you are in full frame territory , mega bucks, mega bulk.

You may like to google for "max max" they remove the "toilet window", D200 results impressive but not for small sensors me thinks.

[william_white8]

Greg, my camera does WORK. At least according to Olympus. They tested it, and the lens. :(

 

I really didn't want to get a huge camera like the full frame Canons - lugging that around all day would be a pain. Plus the

cost - spending that sort of money, I'd demand that the quality was a step UP from the OM line and decent film.

 

After reading endless web sites I came to the conclusion (erroneously it seems) that the 4/3rds sensor could give as

good results.

 

I get the feeling that there is a bias by those that have invested money in a system not to can it. I can understand that

to a degree, but honesty is better.

 

I suppose, one day, hopefully, we will see medium (or large format quality) on these digital sensors, at decent prices.

 

 

Robert - yes I am very familiar with those films. And use them. My scanner seems happiest with Velvia but I use

negative films for ease when people require prints - family occasions, weddings etc.

[akochanowski]

William, you bought a camera that was designed for casual photography and are demanding that it perform like a

specialized piece of equipment. I am completely unsurprised that you are not getting the same perceived sharpness from an

E-510 RAW file and a properly scanned piece of Velvia shot on a tripod. I don't think it has anything to do with your

technique, just an unrealistic expectation. Film plus good lenses resolves an astonishing amount. The 4/3 sensor has

limitations. With good technique and judicious sharpening you can get very nice prints, no question. But it does not reach as

far as a well-scanned piece of film. What you may want for your needs is the Canon 5D, which seems universally to have

the highest image quality of the non-medium format digitals out there. With some rebates going on now, I think you can get

one for $1600 or so. <p>Before getting flamed, let me add that I love the small Oly DSLR's. My E-400 is wonderful for street

photography. I wouldn't expect it to be quite so good for landscapes, though.<p>I'm also an OM-4Ti shooter, and the

resolution with modern negative films is still wonderful. Here is a shot from last week on Kodak Portra 160 NC taken with

the Zuiko 40/2 at f2.8, scanned with a Konica-Minolta scanner at 5400DPI:<div></div>

[mathew_mcgee]

turn the ISO down to 100, turn the AA filter down, and you'll see better results. you just can't compare 4000dpi scans of

high quality film to 300ppi 10mp digital images. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you look at all the mid-range digital

cameras, the 510 is a great camera, and the 12-60 is an outstanding lens.

[GerrySiegel]

Re your last comment--

"I get the feeling that there is a bias by those that have invested money in a system not to can it. I can understand that to a degree, but honesty is better.

I suppose, one day, hopefully, we will see medium (or large format quality) on these digital sensors, at decent prices. "

 

 

I don't think there is strong evidence to support that conclusion, but that is ok if you believe it. Others in the forum have used top line film gear and medium format. Digital is moving along. And Olympus is not standing still. One day as you say is not far off. Wishing you well with your next digital foray. aloha

[william_white8]

Mathew - I have obviously tried that! The picture posted earlier is ISO 100, with the NR off. With a tripid and anti-shock.

 

 

I do understand that you cannot compare the quality of the e510 with film.

 

NOW

 

But I didn't THEN!

 

 

Anybody want the camera and lens?

[robert_jaques]

I do not own an Olympus E510 but I find it pretty hard to believe that this camera cannot produce a sharp photo in an A4 size print comparable to your OMs.

 

I shoot with an OM4Ti and mostly fixed focal length primes (24mm f2.8, 50mm F3.5, 90mm F2 etc) scanned with a Canon 4000dpi dedicated film scanner and printed with and Epson R1800 printer. Generally I'm pretty happy with the results I get from my OMs and scanned slide film.

 

Last year I brought a Nikon D40x with the standard the cheap 18-55 kit lens. The printed results I get from this camera lens combination are easily comparable (if not better in terms of sharpness) than the results I have had from scanned film images. And this is using a cheap kit lens. I can't imagine what kind of results I will get when I start using some decent Nikon Glass.

 

I would imagine that the image quality of the Nikon D40x and Olympus E510 should be comparable at low ISOs. The Olympus E system lens you use, is reputed to be top notch.

 

(BTW I am not a novice also shoot 4x5 Large format so I have a pretty good idea on what constitutes a sharp image)

 

Some guesses to what may be causing your softness. You may have a dud lense (I understand some of the 12-60mms had focusing problems), your focusing is off, the in camera noise reduction settings and/or sharpness settings are contributing to a soft image or maybe your RAW conversion software is not up to scratch. Lastly 100% screen shots can be deceiving. What looks slightly soft at this size can often look very sharp in print, and all digital files weather they are scans or digital require some post production sharpening before printing. The sharpness in the digital crop you posted is about what I would expect straight out of the camera from such a low contrast area.

[carlos_cortez]

William...let me know if you're still selling your E-510.

[mrraz]

William, While sweating through a garage sale yesterday something clicked as I was getting cash for our old OM-PC. Every film lens you mentioned is a prime fixed focal length. You cannot ever expect a zoom lens, no matter how good, to perform at the same level of sharpness as a fixed focal length lens.

 

I've used a couple of our old Zuiko prime OM lenses on my 510. The images are as sharp as anything I ever got from film. With the current zooms, I always have to use some sharpening techniques in post processing. I also have software that allows me to get razor sharp A size prints.

 

When you submit something for publication, is it a print or an image file? You are aware that any publication has their own editing staff to make their product press ready including additional PP, so you know that they will be manipulating what you provide in some way.

[paul_verwer]

Hi William, You probably already took this into consideration, but anyway... Could it just be the small aperture? I notice the picture you have shown is taken at f/11, which is great for 35mm, but not so great for a 4/3 sensor, due to diffraction. Or is sharpness disappointing at any f value?

Paul.

[patrick j dempsey]

I think Paul has a point... f/11 on a 4/3's "normal" range lens will basically be similar to f/22 on a 135 film

normal lens. This is one of the downsides of a smaller sensor, requiring shorter optics and there-fore

physically smaller aperture sizes. This problem becomes compounded considering that most of the 4/3's lenses are

pretty slow, meaning that many of them probably begin losing sharpness due to diffraction when only mildly

stopped down.

 

Considering the DOF effects of the smaller sensor, the old photojournalist's motto "f/8 and forget it" or "f/8

and be there" probably needs to be adjusted to "f/4 and forget it" for 4/3's.... which translates into shooting

wide-open with many of the lenses. Group f.64 preached stopping an 8x10 lens down to f/64.... however when you

scale that down to a 25mm lens for 4/3's you are looking at f/5.6! (Calculated assuming a normal lens for 8x10

of 300mm, resulting in an aperture 4.69mm in diameter... the exact aperture diameter being the primary function

of the diffraction effect).

 

However, even at f/5.6 you are looking at the same amount of diffraction across the 4/3's sensor as on the same

sized rectangle on an 8x10 negative... and then you are talking about blowing that toe-nail sized sensor image up

to 8x10, so any diffraction at-all becomes magnified something like 300 X before being viewed. Your first image

is from a section of the sensor probably 1.5mm square.

 

So considering all of that, try dialing back on the aperture and seeing what happens. Shoot some stuff at f/4

and f/5.6 and see if your results don't look a little better. I would even try shooting the same architectural

scene at all apertures. MTF tests from this lens show it to be sharper across the field at the wide end than the

long end, and conveniently, you have a little more play in terms of stops at that end since it is a variable

aperture lens.

[william_white8]

funny

 

£500 lens that is useless at small apertures.

 

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

 

(how come my old Zuiko primes were pin sharp across the aperture range? My 135 F3.5 was sharp at f22 and that cost

£20)

 

How am I supposed to get long exposures? Invest in a range of neutral density filters because a £500 semi-pro lens is

rubbish closed down.

 

 

hahahaha

[john_photo]

William

 

Clearly you have little experience with Digital Cameras. The lens is fine. Its one of the highest rated digital zooms available. I geuss the millions of photographers who are working with this type of equipment professionally and achieving stunning results dont know what they are talking about.

 

I think your velvia snippet looks grainy and lacks smoothness. Anyone who mulls out to take a photograph of an old bridge on a tripod with a 35mm film camera (why would you not use a medium format for this type of shot?) using oversaturated mickey mouse colors film is probably a little out of touch regardless. Not fine art and not professional in my book but we all have our opinions. Its what photo.net is about. We all get to indulge in our opions about gear. Sometimes the "photography" takes a back seat. I am often guilty of this myself.

 

You are a major whiner.

[william_white8]

I clearly do have little experience with digital cameras, which is what this is about.

 

But 20 years experience with digital imaging - what about you? How many design awards have you won?

 

Why did I not use my Bronica for that shot? Didn't want to lump a big camera around all day - that is the point of 35mm

isn't it? Size and weight vs quality?

 

 

Whether you like the the bridge photo is immaterial to the issue - it was posted because it shows the detail in the photo.

Detail that I expected but did not get with the e510. If you can take a shot with the e510 with that amount of detail then

please go ahead and post it. (and when that photo is reduced to 10megapixels (it is 22) then it is utterly smooth and

razor sharp.

 

But, please feel free to continue to post whining diatribes about others' whining!