Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Just picked up a copy of the July issue of WDC and there are some interesting features including one about Geotagging.
The Megatest referred to in the thread title however is very interesting. Without giving too much away (I think it's worth buying the mag and reading the feature) What WDC did was take 3 forum menmbers (I assume 3 although I only recognise 2) none of which were Nikon/Olympus/Sony users and let them loose with the 3 cameras for a day. There were some interesting observations where the E-3 is concerned, the main one being, shall we say 'interesting' handling, something I would agree with.
All in all a very good feature, thanks to WDC for producing it and to the 3 photographers who done an excellent job. Thanks also to Jamie Harrison who done a good job summing up.
Go out and buy a copy immediately 
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20214
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
They were three readers of WDC, two just happen to also be members of this esteemed site 
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
Edited by Fen (29/06/2008 18:00)
|
TheFatControlleR
L'éminence Grise, Devil's Advocate & AP Fanboy!
Reged: 24/04/2001
Posts: 10916
Loc: In A Glass Darkly
|
|
Quote:
... two just happen to also be members of this steamed site
Yeah, we need to beef up security. Can't have them their hoodies rampaging through the forums, robbing everyone at knife-point!! 
--------------------
TheFatControlleR
And so, my fellow Benchists: ask not what your bench can do for you - ask what you can do for your bench... Ben Chism
Live fat, die young, and leave a self-basting corpse...
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7226
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
hoodies
They're just jumpers with built in dark cloths 
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
I too have read the WDC article on the E-3,D-300 and A-700 "megatest" and agree with Iloca's initial comments. However, I noted that the pictures published were all (I Think) taken through the Standard Zoom range of each Camera. I think I have noticed a discrepancy that may well have changed the Reviewers minds on their Rankings had they Known. In the style of "PicturePuzzle" can you spot the Discrepancy too?. After a few replies I will post my view.
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
FujiSigmaNolta
I can pan!
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 1400
|
|
OH NO!! Not another disgruntled Olympus user!!??!!....
--------------------
Regards,
FujiSigmaNolta
My Flickr mess
My Blog
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
Easy!! play the game.
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37095
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
OH NO!! Not another disgruntled Olympus user!!??!!....
Come come, Luis, you must've been wrong - he's spotted a discrepancy, so you can't possibly have been right.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
OH NO!! Not another disgruntled Olympus user!!??!!....
I think you done a good job.
Regarding the handling, I found it tricky compared to the E-1, it is better once you set it up to suit but the Dual Function buttons on the L/H side are still a PITA in my opinion, I really hope they change it on the E-4.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 500
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
OH NO!! Not another disgruntled Olympus user!!??!!....
If we Oly users are disgruntled, that means you must be plain gruntled... 
Quote:
...I really hope they change it on the E-4.
A fine rumour started in this very forum!
--------------------
Rob
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
OK,the discrepancy I found was this: In the test the D-300 was mated with the AF-S DX 17-55 2.8 (The Lens valued at £849 as per Warehouse Express in the same Mag).The Sony A-700 was mated with the 16-80 3.5-4.5 Zeiss lens valued at £499(same value as per Warehouse Express) and the E-3 was mated with the 14-45 3.5-5.6 (valued at £164).To put all on an equal footing, surely the E-3 should have had the SW 12-60mm Optic fitted for the test(£599.99) and (TIPA Expert Lens of the year 2008). The fact that the E-3 was mated with the basic kit Lens of the E series (14-45 3.5-5.6), seriously handicapped the Camera in it's ability to show what it could do with a serious optic on it's front. I'm not saying that the 14-45 is a bad lens, it's not, but If one is going to conduct a fair examination of 3 Camera's, there should be a fair playing field.
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 500
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
OK,the discrepancy I found was this: In the test the D-300 was mated with the AF-S DX 17-55 2.8 (The Lens valued at £849 as per Warehouse Express in the same Mag).The Sony A-700 was mated with the 16-80 3.5-4.5 Zeiss lens valued at £499(same value as per Warehouse Express) and the E-3 was mated with the 14-45 3.5-5.6 (valued at £164).To put all on an equal footing, surely the E-3 should have had the SW 12-60mm Optic fitted for the test(£599.99) and (TIPA Expert Lens of the year 2008). The fact that the E-3 was mated with the basic kit Lens of the E series (14-45 3.5-5.6), seriously handicapped the Camera in it's ability to show what it could do with a serious optic on it's front. I'm not saying that the 14-45 is a bad lens, it's not, but If one is going to conduct a fair examination of 3 Camera's, there should be a fair playing field.
At the risk of sounding "disgruntled"( ), seems like a sound observation to me. The 14-45 has been discontinued for quite some time (replaced with the 14-42) and as you point out, this is not a like for like (or even closely equivalent) comparison.
--------------------
Rob
Edited by Photocracy (01/07/2008 01:54)
|
FujiSigmaNolta
I can pan!
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 1400
|
|
If I recall well there was a problem getting exactly that optic for the Olympus. We had in mind this when we took the test. But I still fail to see, at least in my opinion of it, where does the optic affect the amount of noise in the Olympus images in comparison to the other cameras for example.
I took some shots with the SWD 55-200 which is in itself a very decent optic (I actually comment about it in my Flickr page) and I would still not buy the Olympus over the other two.In fact, the shot of the lemons and limes you see in the mag, I took that with the SWD 55-200. It's not that the Olympus is a bad camera, it is just that the competition is particularly good. For what it is and whom its aimed at, I would not choose it over the other two.
Perhaps you were expecting the Sony to be last, but ultimately, I could perhaps get used to the smudginess of the Sony images at higher ISOs than the noise of the Olympus at medium to high ISOs.It is also higher resolution (even if 2MP difference corresponds to bearly anything, but it's still more for the money). Also other factors like the dynamic range were taken into consideration, the Sony apart from offering stabilisation like the Olympus also offers Dynamic Range Optimisation which the Olympus despite improvements in this area, could use. It's the smaller sensor folks!
For me the deciding factor was image quality and no, it's a 3rd ranking from me in comparison to the other two.
But that's only my side of it.
PS: Three of the pics were taken with similar optics at similar focal lengths in my review.
--------------------
Regards,
FujiSigmaNolta
My Flickr mess
My Blog
Edited by FujiSigmaNolta (01/07/2008 03:09)
|
Matt Golowczynski
WDC Technical Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 129
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
OK,the discrepancy I found was this: In the test the D-300 was mated with the AF-S DX 17-55 2.8 (The Lens valued at £849 as per Warehouse Express in the same Mag).The Sony A-700 was mated with the 16-80 3.5-4.5 Zeiss lens valued at £499(same value as per Warehouse Express) and the E-3 was mated with the 14-45 3.5-5.6 (valued at £164).To put all on an equal footing, surely the E-3 should have had the SW 12-60mm Optic fitted for the test(£599.99) and (TIPA Expert Lens of the year 2008). The fact that the E-3 was mated with the basic kit Lens of the E series (14-45 3.5-5.6), seriously handicapped the Camera in it's ability to show what it could do with a serious optic on it's front. I'm not saying that the 14-45 is a bad lens, it's not, but If one is going to conduct a fair examination of 3 Camera's, there should be a fair playing field.
As Luis said, it was a case of being able to get this lens in on time. Manufacturers don't always have the lenses we want to hand... but on the other hand, we did have the 7-14mm and 50-200mm SWD lenses with the E-3 which are both excellent performers, and, unless I'm mistaken, also the most expensive lenses used as part of this test. Each camera was tested with a number of lenses, not just the one that they may have been pictured with in the magazine and I'd say that the readers' findings were largely consistent with what's been said before about each model.
Matt
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20214
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
Quote:
I'd say that the readers' findings were largely consistent with what's been said before about each model.
Ah, but some people don't want to hear that.
Obviously the three members of the public were threatened so severely that they had to write what the magazine wanted to print. They had no freewill or opinions of their own. Perhaps they were all rewarded with Canon/Fuji/Nikon/Sigma/Pentax/Sony biscuits
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Matt Golowczynski
WDC Technical Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 129
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
Obviously the three members of the public were threatened so severely that they had to write what the magazine wanted to print. They had no freewill or opinions of their own. Perhaps they were all rewarded with Canon/Fuji/Nikon/Sigma/Pentax/Sony biscuits
They were, but Pentax couldn't get its highly-praised chocolate biscuits in time for the test, so we had to do with some Pentax digestives we had knocking about the cupboard.
Before anyone accuses us of bias, I just wanted to get the biscuit situation cleared up.
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 500
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
...It's the smaller sensor folks!
Other than seeing a smaller sensor as a negative feature, you show no appreciation for the fact that 4/3rds is a miniaturised DSLR system. It is designed to produce high, publishable quality images up to a size which is useful enough to users, but which is inevitably going to be smaller than a larger format.
The Canon G9 has a much smaller sensor, yet it is applauded for its great image quality. It can't possibly compete with larger format cameras, but the great image quality is justifiably accepted as within the context of a compact camera. Crucially, it is capable of producing high, publishable quality images up to a size which is useful to the user. This is why it is deservedly seen as a great camera to carry around all the time.
As a miniaturised DSLR system, 4/3rds cameras will never produce publishable quality up to the same size as larger format systems, but will produce publishable quality up to a thoroughly useable size while providing the user with all the benefits of a miniaturised system.
As I have said in another thread, my E-500 (which is now old in DSLR terms) provides me with images which appear in the company of those produced with larger format Nikon and Canon gear. As printed images in exhibitions and competitions, or projected images, IQ has never been an issue - not even once. While one can easily enough show the point at which the larger format overtakes the smaller format on IQ, it has little relevance in terms of real life useage, and for most people, what other useage is there beyond magazine/book/exhibiton/competition publication?
A more meaningful way to test cameras would be to first determine if they are capable of producing publishable quality images, and then to determine the size up to which publishable quality is maintained. That way, people can decide if the image size/format is sufficent for them. Instead of making cameras appear to fail against competition, this would more usefully tell people what they are suitable for, and what they are not suitable for.
By present methodology, a Canon G9 would fail against all current DSLRs. But to label it as somehow lesser and conclude that its small sensor was to blame would be seriously missing the point. Likewise with the 4/3rds miniaturised DSLR format.
--------------------
Rob
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7226
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
...you show no appreciation for the fact that 4/3rds is a miniaturised DSLR system.
It still doesn't fit in my pocket so it's still a rucksack sized camera same as other DSLRs. Personally I draw the line at not wanting a full size body with built in 'booster' as it gets in the way for macro.
Quote:
It is designed to produce high, publishable quality images up to a size which is useful enough to users, but which is inevitably going to be smaller than a larger format.
Ditto all other DSLRs available otherwise everybody would use large format?
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Matt Golowczynski
WDC Technical Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 129
Loc: London
|
|
I think some wires are getting crossed here. The purpose of this test was to give three readers three cameras for a day and see what the overall opinion was at the end of it. I'm not sure if you've seen the test Rob, but a lot of the comments about the E-3 related to its handling and accessibility, which are ultimately down to personal opinion. The small sensor debate is only one side of it - the cameras were judged on everything from speed, image quality, handling, AF performance, accessibility... therefore I don't think it would be 'more meaningful' to have used the issue of output size as a base for the test. In some way, all three cameras are capable of 'publishable' image quality, though the purpose of the test was to determine which camera would be the most tempting for a potential purchaser to buy.
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
the Sony apart from offering stabilisation like the Olympus also offers Dynamic Range Optimisation which the Olympus despite improvements in this area
I'm not sure if you tried it but the E-3 had a 'Gradation' feature, it won't work with RAW files unless you process using Olympus software but will work on jpegs (it needs to be set to 'Auto' the other settings being Normal, High Key, Low Key
Likewise the Noise reduction (actually called Noise Filter, Noise Reduction refers to Dark Frame subtraction, it's effectively 'Off' if you shoot RAW and don't process in Olympus software. Shooting jpeg it can be set to Off, Low, Standard, High
None of which makes your opinion any less valid, just wanted to point it out in case you weren't aware of it.
Of course the sensor being smaller has certain limitations, that said you'd have needed a 300mm lens on the other cameras to achive the same FOV as using the 50-200 on the E-3. It isn't a particularly small lens, try the 70-300 (effectively 600mm) though and compare with an APS-C lens giving a similar FOV.
Richard
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
