E-510 vs E-620: Noise

[luisarguelles]

<p>I'm thinking about upgrading from an E-510 to the E-620. Is there a difference of two stops in noise between these cameras? That is, the E620 at ISO 1600 shows more or less the same noise than the E-510 at ISO 400?</p>

[porter]

<p>I'd search through flickr and find some high iso pictures to compare. Personally, I find that the 620 performs better then my 520 (not 510) did. I never liked going past 400 on my 520 and on my 620 I'm quite comfortable with 1250-1600... One of the issues on my 520 (not sure if it is the same on your 510) was that at higher iso's there was noticeable banding. Noise is one thing and I don't mind it as much as the next guy. Banding though... YUCK</p>

[anthea50]

<p>Hi, I have a 520, and I don't find the 'noise' to be too problematic - I guess i see it as if I need to go to a high ISO to get the shot, so be it! I haven't seen any banding tho, here's a link to one of my shots taken at 1600, see the comments below as to people's reaction to the noise <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9767114">http://www.photo.net/photo/9767114</a> <br>

I'm really happy with my 520, I thought the 510 was a similar camera, so is the noise factor the only reason why you are considering upgrading to a 620? Just curious......I am aware that the 620 has a swivelling LCD screen, and some art filters, is there any other overriding reason (the noise factor?) why someone would upgrade to the 620?</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>I don't have a 510, but do have a 620, along with another brand at about equal price. I love the 620 for outdoor use, but there is noise at 400, and 800 is close to unacceptable for me. Of course, there is Noise Ninja (and will become your best friend). I use the 620 for outdoors, and my other camera for indoors. The other problem, without an external flash is it searches continually in a low-lit room. I had it at a wedding reception that I was attending, and got hardly any pictures. Ended up using my friend's Nikon.<br>

For outdoor use, I highly recommend it.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Yep, you definitely want an external flash for low light, low contrast shooting. I have an E620 I've not used yet for that subject, but have used an E520 to shoot weddings where certain shots were taken where no flash was used, but I was able to set either the FL50 or FL50R flash to emit the AF assist light to aid the AF process with the flash tube disabled.</p>

<p>For indoor or night-time sporting events where contrast is better, the E620's AF works great. It does great keeping up with NHL action, and these images, shot at either ISo 1600 or 2000, are plenty good quality for my use of these, which is simply my own entertainment.</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/NHL-Images-2009-2010-Season/9727585_e6Br5#683551988_fnHPC">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/NHL-Images-2009-2010-Season/9727585_e6Br5#683551988_fnHPC</a></p>

<p> </p>

[harlequin]

<p>I have been using the 620 since May and have been very pleased with the results. I purposely waited for it to come on the market instead of purchasing the 520 earlier because of the various extra features it had. I don't know that the noise factor has been a problem and have in fact started trying to shoot more at lower ISO anyway. There are so many options in this camera that I am still learning how to use many of them. Each time I experiment or try something new with it I am pleasantly surprised.</p>

[trakakis]

<p>I have the E-510 and I have never hesitated to use 1600 ISO. I find it acceptable. I also used the E-620 for two weeks because I was thinking to upgrade, too. Although the 620 is a little bit better at the noise behaviour, I don't think it worths to move from 510 to 620. Wait for a next model!</p>

[tseng_tony]

<p>here are some high ISO samples for e-510 & e-620, you can review them in 100% size.</p>

<p>

<p>e510 ISO1600<br>

http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=4&dc_model=33&iso1=1600&iso2=0&len_id=0&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&B1=Query</p>

<p>e620 ISO1600<br>

http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=4&dc_model=131&iso1=1600&iso2=0&len_id=0&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&B1=Query</p>

<p>e620 ISO3200<br>

http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=4&dc_model=131&iso1=3200&iso2=0&len_id=0&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&B1=Query</p>

</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>Tony, you took those pics at the Milwaukee zoo, right? I would recognize Stella the Jaguar anywhere. <br>

The whole thing is, the pictures look great at that size, but you do 100%, they look terrible. The majority of my pictures I use either on the web, or 4x6, only a few would over be blown up. Unfortunately, I took a class online this last summer, and every single picture the instructor looked first at it at 100%. He said my camera equipment wasn't good enough. Now it has become a habit that I just do that to my pictures even though their purpose would be to remain small.</p>