Re: Digital Rebel XT vs. E-300 - need opinions, sooner better than later :>

Hi David, in a sense you have simply underlined my point. You can read lab
test results all day long, but it needs quite a lot of skill to interpret
these findings and to decide whether or not any of these findings really
adds up to anything *really* significant. Imaging Resource use Imatest -
which produces almost unintelligible data. I use DxO Analyzer, which I think
produces more easily absorbed data, but still far from perfect.

But I ask you this, do you think that the E-300 doesn't take good pictures
in normal circumstances? By 'good' I don't mean according to lab tests, I
mean according to results that are viewed and printed in a normal fashion,
by ordinary people?

I test a lot of cameras each year and I have to say that I find very few
that produce very 'poor' results relative to their immediate competitors any
more. There are still big differences in ease of use, speed of operation,
design and feature set, but in general there are few major differences in
the quality of images produced that most people will notice or be bothered
about.

If we must examine image quality with a microscope, the Rebel XT/EOS-350D is
not perfect by any means. I felt a slightly 'plastic' feel to the images and
their colour. Others have related similar observations. It's possible that
my film days have left a lasting influence on my perception of image quality
and that may put us on the opposite ends of a scale of perception, who
knows?! Which is more correct than the other - cinema, TV, HDTV? They all
have their strengths and weaknesses and they are all very different.

But in the end, I stand by my recommendation that the E-300 is a perfectly
good camera for Jim's purposes, especally at the prices they are going for
now.

Ian

Digital Photography Now
http://dpnow.com
Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.htmlI



"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:didng7$ii$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> There is too much obsession about sensor noise. A bit of luminance noise
>> can do an image some good and pros routinely add noise to images when
>> upsizing them.
>
> Even if you sometimes want a particular noise pattern in some of your
> final
> prints, you don't want the same noise in every image all the time.
> Personally, replacing smooth surfaces with artificial textures is
> something
> that strikes me as totally bogus and unacceptable (I don't shoot 35mm).
> But
> there's no accounting for taste.
>
>> There is no doubt that the E-300 is noisier than a Rebel XT/350D, but
>> lots
>> of people prefer the colour and dynamic range of the E-300.
>
> While the exact definitions differ slightly from context to context,
> dynamic
> range (the ability to record a large range of levels) and signal-to-noise
> ratio (i.e. the 'noise') are almost exactly the same thing. Dynamic range
> is
> usually (max signal)/(noise floor), whereas SNR is sometimes exactly that,
> sometimes (rms signal level)/(noise floor), sometimes (actual signal
> level)/(actual noise) for a measured signal.
>
> What that means is that the claim that the E300 has bad noise but good
> dynamic range is a physical and logical impossibility.
>
> Oh, yes. Color.
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E300/E30IMATEST.HTM
>
> "Overall, the Olympus eVolt E-300's color management was a bit less
> accurate
> than average, particularly in the blue part of the spectrum. Cyans are
> shifted toward blue (generally a good thing, as it tends to make sky
> colors
> look better, but blues were also shifted toward purple, and yellows and
> greens were somewhat undersaturated. In the real-world photos, I saw some
> of
> the tendency to render blues with purple tints, but other colors looked
> better than what the plot above might indicate. On average, color
> saturation
> of swatches on the MacBeth ColorChecker(tm) chart are 107.1% of their
> ideal
> values. (An average oversaturation of 7.1%, resulting from the
> oversaturation of blues and bright reds.) Average "delta-E" color error is
> 6.98, a bit higher than average, but not terrible. The variance in the
> delta-E was rather high at 8.71 though."
>
> Weak yellows and greens, oversaturated reds and blues, less accurate hues.
> OK, I give up. What is there to prefer???
>
> Oh, yes. What does the XT do with colors???
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EXT/EXTIMATEST.HTM
>
> "Color is obviously a key factor in digital cameras, and for the most
> part, I prefer to let readers arrive at their own conclusions, based on
> test shots and "gallery" photos we take. It's safe to say though, that the
> Canon Digital Rebel XT has excellent color rendition. Like most "prosumer"
> digital cameras, it does over-saturate some colors a bit, particularly
> those that are highly saturated in the subjects in the first place. The
> amount of its over-saturation is slightly less than that of the original
> Rebel though, and the Rebel XT also offers slightly greater hue accuracy
> as well. Most Canon cameras that I test tend to shift cyans slightly
> toward richer blues, a tendency that I suspect is a deliberate choice made
> to enhance sky colors. (Rich blues are also typically shifted slightly
> towards purples, which is a bit more problematic in my experience.) In the
> case of the Rebel XT, this cyan-to-blue shift is noticeably reduced, as is
> the blue-to-purple shift other colors are likewise somewhat more accurate
> as well."
>
>> And certainly at ISO 100 or 200, noise on the E-300 simply isn't an
>> issue.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page17.asp
>
> The E-300 at ISO 100 is getting close to the 20D and D70 at ISO 400 (see
> the bar graph at the bottom of the above page). That will be an issue if
> you try to pull up shadow detail, or underexpose to record more highlight
> detail.
>
>> The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images
>> in the hands of a good photographer.
>
> Holgas and pinholes and lensbabies produce great images in the hands of
> good photographers quite regularly. That doesn't mean they are good
> cameras.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Digital Rebel XT vs. E-300 - need opinions, sooner better than later :>
    ... Even if you sometimes want a particular noise pattern in some of your final ... the tendency to render blues with purple tints, ... "Color is obviously a key factor in digital cameras, and for the most part, ... > The fact is that both these cameras are capable of producing great images ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Finepix F30 first test [all the brag is correct!]
    ... similar to that of DSLR cameras, ... Notice that the 20D softens its images as ISO increases to ... hide the effects of noise. ... > "The weakest point of the F30 in terms of image quality is purple ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Long zoom EVFs
    ... Unfortunately the images it creates have incredible noise even at the ... the utility of the EVF cameras is undeniable. ... Maybe the system that Canon uses on it's DSLR cameras of in-sensor noise ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Image stabilization silently increases ISO?
    ... It's better at removing the visibility of noise. ... cartoon-like images with random, jagged edges. ... 3200 sensor. ... has far better detail than the other two P&S cameras tested at this ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Nikon D80/200 - Canon 30d
    ... than an el cheapo Point&Shoot camera with a tiny teeny-weeny CCD ... from a manufaturer that its CMOS sensor has less noise than a CCD ... just look at the images (not the ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)