fuzzy, soft pics with a 510

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeDif

Unfortunately PSPP X2 doesn't support E510 RAW files at this time :mad2:

---

Lightroom...

The included Olympus software really sucks

Roy-
I looked at your samples and they do look soft. However, you're shooting in low light on Auto and I don't know what exposure settings the camera is deciding on. It may also be having trouble locking on a subject in low light. Please do a new test, outdoors, in bright light. And don't focus on small, close objects. That's introduces potential problems with depth-of-field. Also, make sure to note the aperture setting and focal length in the next sample photo you post. That information is critical to evaluating focus issues.

For a good test, I would recommend setting up outdoors, in good light, and shooting at your house or car or something light that. Make it an easy to focus on subject to start - something that the camera can't miss. With the little subjects you're shooting, there are too many other variables involved for me to accurately judge if there's a problem.

Thanks for sharing. These shots are much sharper. I assume you're a bit happier with the camera? I'm a rank amateur when it comes to photography, but happy owner of the E-100 as well. Because of my limited skills I'm not 100% sure of what the camera is capable of. Your shots are inspiring and prove that the E-510 can take excellent photos in the hands of an expert.

Good luck with your purchase. I look forward to seeing more shots.

erikzen - I hope neither you nor the readers of this take thus as a "brag". I just feel like putting a little history and some of my 61 years as a lens "learning" here.

I started taking pictures at an early age. It fascinated me. My first camera was a Baby Brownie (Kodak). I guess I was 9 or 10 at that time (around 1947). I shot everything in the yard. My father was impressed and gave me his old Retina. (I do not recall seeing any info on the camera that said it was a "1" or any other later models. Just a Retina. This was a 35mm folding camera. I used it until I was 15. At 15 I discovered that two of the engineers at a local TV studio were camera "nuts". I got a Voigtlander Film Pack camera from one of them. It was designed to use sheet film holders, but, had a 120 roll film back. In the next few years I grew in my camera skills. At 15, I worked as a darkroom helper for a portrait photographer who had a studio in one of Mobile's upscale department stores. Here I learned dodging, burning and flashing. I made a darkroom in our old shed. I built my enlarger from a box with a lens in it and 2 sheets of glass to hold the negative. A cardboard box on top of that was the light source.

At 16, I went to work for Thigpen Photography, a commercial photographer. Here I learned to use 4x 5 cameras of various sorts. We routinely took an 8x10 view camera on shoots of buildings and interiors. I obtained a Burke and James 4 x 5 Press camera. This camera stayed with me all the way through college. I learned "swings and tilts". I had a camera with me at all times now and got the name "Lens" from my highschool classmates.

I recall falling and sliding down the stairs of school lying on my chest with my Burke and James between me and the stairs. The camera got a little skinned, but was fine.

College brought me to a bunch of cameras. I was the photographer for the University of Alabama's dept of publication, worked for the yearbook and campus newspaper. My favored camera was a 35mm Exacta with and f2 lens. My available light shots were a great favorite as until then all the indoor shots were flash.

After this I owned and traded Minolta's, Bronicas, Hasselblads, Nikkons, Canons, and an unusual Practica roll film camera built like a 35mm. It had a 2x3 format that I preferred over the Hassleblads 2x2. I had bunches of other cameras from Minox size to a Linhof 4x 5 view cameras.

I am really a newcomer to digital photography. The 510 is my first real digital camera. I have been using "toy" cameras the past few years since retiring from my career in graphics. So, I am still learning here.

All of the above just to tell you, a newcomer, that there can be much to experience. That the secret of good photography is the ability to "see" an outstanding picture and have the proper equipment and intimate knowledge of it's peak abilities and applying them. Read up on composition and lighting. Take lot's of pictures, record settings and conditions in a notebook. Go back and take those pictures again, but, make them better.

Roy
(Here is a shot, from the web, of a Voightlander Film Pack camera like mine)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dumpy

Lightroom...

The included Olympus software really sucks

---

True. But it is usable. I had to process most of the E-520 and E-420 RAW photos I've posted with Olympus Master or Olympus Studio because Lightroom 1.4 couldn't handle the E-520 or E-420 files. And while it's true the Olympus software isn't so great. It will get the job done. I am psyched to be able to use Lightroom 2 with the E-520, though. I did one comparison conversion and I'm not seeing any image quality improvement. But Lightroom sure is a lot more pleasant to use. But I don't think it's necessary.

Photo -John

Thank you for your observations. Cameta exchanged the 510 body for me and I got an instant improvement in sharpness. (See post #25 - These were shot Aperture Priority f8. The camera selected ISO 400 and around a 1/25 sec.) I processed these via PSPP X2. In as much as I have the noise filters "off" in the 510, I ran it through PSP's filter and adjusted the contrast in both. They were just quickee shots with no subject or area prep.

I am an old photog (post #29), but, new to Digital. I have made a few assumptions, would you advise me if I am correct.

1. The 510 has an image area around half of a 35mm frame - therefore the equivalent length lens is twice that of the stated. (Just trying to relate this camera to a familiar area.) So, my 14 -42mm is like a 28 -84mm 35mm lens? The 40 -150 an 80 -300?

2. I recall way back when ISO began to replace ASA that there was a difference then. Somehow tied to DIN. ISO is the same as the old ASA now?

3. That higher ISO settings produce more noise?

Thanks,
Roy

Glad you got the camera exchanged, Roy. It was hard for me to tell if there was really a problem. But the proof is in the pudding so it's a good thing you took it back. My experience with the Olympus DSLRs has been generally good and the problems you were having didn't sound right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy Walton

1. The 510 has an image area around half of a 35mm frame - therefore the equivalent length lens is twice that of the stated. (Just trying to relate this camera to a familiar area.) So, my 14 -42mm is like a 28 -84mm 35mm lens? The 40 -150 an 80 -300?

---

That is correct. The focal length isn't actually changed. So to be accurate, we say "digital crop." And the Olympus crop factor is 2x. With APS-C sensors on cameras like the Nikon D60, D80, Canon EOS 40D, and Pentax K20D, the crop factor is 1.5x or 1.6x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy Walton

2. I recall way back when ISO began to replace ASA that there was a difference then. Somehow tied to DIN. ISO is the same as the old ASA now?

---

ISO is the same as ASA used to be. ISO stands for "International Standards Organization." They measure and certify all kinds of stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy Walton

3. That higher ISO settings produce more noise?

---

As higher ASA/ISO film had larger grain, higher sensitivity (ISO) settings will produce more noise. We use a different word to describe it. But for all intents and purposes, noise is pretty much digital grain. However, I do think we're getting less noise at high ISO settings than we did with comparable high sensitivity film. And that's wonderful for photographers who shoot action or find themselves shooting in low light a lot.

Happy to have you on the site. Even though you're just sorting out the digital stuff, I'm sure you've got lots to share with and teach us. It's just technology. Seeing and composing haven't changed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

That is correct. The focal length isn't actually changed. So to be accurate, we say "digital crop." And the Olympus crop factor is 2x. With APS-C sensors on cameras like the Nikon D60, D80, Canon EOS 40D, and Pentax K20D, the crop factor is 1.5x or 1.6x.

---

:devil: hold on there, buddy...Olympus does not have a crop sensor, it has a 4/3 standard full frame sensor - that means olympus lenses have a 2x multiplication factor, not a "digital crop" factor. :rolleyes: I know it's splitting hairs, but one of the things I really like about 4/3 is the theory behind a digital specific system - we aren't just reusing film lenses on digital bodies, olympus has specifically designed an optimized system and has redesigned its lenses to accomodate. A 4/3 lens would take a pretty sorry photo on a 35mm camera...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

:devil: hold on there, buddy...Olympus does not have a crop sensor, it has a 4/3 standard full frame sensor - that means olympus lenses have a 2x multiplication factor, not a "digital crop" factor. :rolleyes:

---

Interesting. And I understand what you're saying. But then why is Olympus using 35mm lens focal lengths? I believe the lenses still have the same focal lengths as a 35mm camera. But they can have a smaller image circle and therefor a smaller lens because the sensor is smaller.

I will investigate further with my friends at Olympus :p

well, I figure that Olympus offers the 35mm equivalent focal lengths because they are competing in a market dominated by 35mm products. I see it similar to the marketing of the foveon chips...is it 3 mp, or 9 mp? is it possible to sell a 3 mp camera in 2008 and market it as an improvement over existing 10 or 12 mp cameras? Is it possible to market a consumer level DSLR system in 2008 and not offer lenses with a general range offered by 35mm systems?

Photo - John

Thank you.

I did some tests at ISO 1600 and just as you say the noise is less than equiv. film speed. I would say that the noise is equal to the grain of PlusX (ASA150) processed in Microdol. A huge improvement. Plus, PSPP's noise filter eliminated it and hardly affected the sharpness!

By the way - Grain - In the late '50's Eastman sent me an evaluation 4x5 box of a film called SO1177. It was rated at 400 ASA developed in DK76. It was grainy, really grainy. However, the grain was tight and sharp and did not detract from the picture. Of course this film was later released (with some modification) as TriX.

Roy