Thanks Dan. If you A-B some shots a 3200, can you include a flash
version for comparison as well next time? It appears that the E-3
holds good edge sharpness at 3200, which is kind of the only thing
that matters to me, since noise is a fairly minor problem in itself.
Can't tell for sure because the 3200 version is the best one already
in terms of edge sharpness. Your version, if it is full pixels, looks
like it would actually print OK as is, noise and all.
My requests:
1) How is manual focusing with the 50-200? Is the overall experience
improved over the E-1?
2) How indeed is manual focus managed with the E-3? How does one get
to total manual control of focus including focus lock?
3) Firmware update on the E-330 provides the option of AF in LV-B
mode. Same on the E-3?
4) My 330 is permanently switched to doing all AF with the AEL button.
I assume that this is still possible with the E-3? Is it?
Thanks!
Joel W.
On Nov 16, 2007 9:43 PM, Dan Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Picked it up at The Camera Store here in Calgary; one other person had
> already got theirs, and there were five or six more on the "holds"
> shelf. First impressions:
>
> Getting the deepeereview stuff out of the way first:
>
> 1. Is ISO 3200 clean? No. Is it usable? Very much so.
>
> 2. Does IS turn me into a man of concrete with caffiene-free hands?
> No. Is it useful? Definitely.
>
> 3. The viewfinder's nice, though personally I don't really mind
> smaller viewfinders that much; sure, it's not as big as OM bodies, but
> it's big enough. Actually, now that I pay careful attention, I think
> it's about as big as I want a viewfinder to be -- I can see all the
> corners and the info at the bottom, where with an OM4 I have to shift my
> eye back and forth to get everything.
>
> 4. Body feels nice, it's "at home" in my hands much like the E-1 was.
> Niggle #1: the flash popup button is inconveniently located; on the
> E-330, it was easy to pop the flash up with my right thumb, on the E-3 I
> have to fumble around with my left. Similarly, putting the power switch
> on the back seems a bit unnecessary. No PASM dial, but I tend to shoot
> in A mode 95% of the time anyway, so I can live with this.
>
> 5. Builtin flash isn't much for power, _but_ it doesn't vignette
> anything like as much with the 11-22. The E-330's flash is basically
> useless with wideish lenses, because the lens gets in the way -- the
> E-3's is fine all the way out to 12mm.
>
> 6. Live view is nice, not so much for point+shoot-style armslength
> use, as for the "kneepod". (squat down, rest camera on knee -- voila, a
> much stabler base). The flip-out screen, as with the E-330, is what
> really makes this. (and the extra pivotyness means I could theoretically
> use LV with the camera pointing off at 90 degrees to the right of me and
> still take shots; the left, not so much, the image ends up upside-down)
>
> 7. Finally, manual focus in live view has intermediate zoom levels;
> the 10x on the E-330 was always that bit too far in, the E-3 has 5/7/10,
> which is much more like it.
>
> 8. MF through the viewfinder is possible; no split-image screen (boo)
> but the matte seems to work okay, I can focus accurately enough to count.
>
> 9. AF in the dark seems to work pretty well. And AF with older lenses
> is faster than it was with previous bodies. If the lens has to rack all
> the way from one to the other, it takes just as long as it ever did, but
> as long as you're roughly in focus, it can get the final focussing done
> noticeably faster. (now, I picked the thing up at 5:30 today, so I don't
> really know about focussing _not_ in the dark yet.. :) ) Ack, though,
> the "AF assist" is strobing the flash if you're using the builtin
> flash.. With an FL-50, it uses the illuminator on there, but it'll be a
> pain having to flip back and forth.
>
> 10. It's not a small or light camera. It's noticeably more tiring using
> it with a 50-200 on the front than an E-1 or E-330, though it's only 6oz
> heavier; that's possibly the 50-200's fault as much as the camera's, though.
>
> Sample shots -- re: points 1 and 2 above, here's some crops from test
> shots in the shop, for all your pixel-peeping needs (trust me, you're
> missing nothing in the rest of the image worth looking at..)
>
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_sample_1.jpg
> ISO 100, 14mm, 1/2.5 seconds, no IS -- shaky hands
>
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_sample_2.jpg
> ISO 100, 14mm, 1/2.5 seconds, IS on -- not perfectly crisp, but a lot nicer
>
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_sample_3.jpg
> ISO 3200, 14mm, 1/60 seconds. A bit noisy, sure, but definitely usable.
>
> Here's a more colourful ISO 1600 shot; full-size image, so it's a big
> file, beware. It seems like shorter exposures give the system less time
> to show noise, which I think makes sense? Certainly, looking at some
> darker shots, the noise is more noticeable, so it's not just a freebie
> to wind the ISO up.
>
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_sample_4.jpg
> ISO1600, flash on, 200mm, 1/250th (developed from raw)
>
>
> Actual photographically interesting shots coming soon, I promise.
>
>
> -- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
