Oh, one side-note: Unless I'm doing something "artistic" and want a
non-standard layout, I do not crop my images. This is one aspect of shooting
with the E-1 which has forced me to "fill the frame" to maximize quality.
However, when shooting portraits, it is important to leave just a bit more
margin on the sides for 5x7 prints. Not much, just a tiny bit. However,
the 4/3 format is so close to either 5x7 or 8x10 crops that as long as you
leave a touch of extra border around the edges it crops either way without
issue. I rarely need to hand-adjust my crops when ordering prints from
Millers.
Compare that to shooting with 3:2 formats where portraiture is a nightmare
because I'm always fighting the ends for an 8x10 crop.
As to my own personal observations about the E-3 vs. the E-1 in
portraiture: The E-3 obviously has more detail and is a bit edgier as a
result. Under controlled lighting conditions, the E-3 seems to definitely
hold an edge over the E-1 in almost every metric, except for the highlight
transitions. The E-3 highlights hit a brick wall and the transition to
maximum value is harsh. The E-1 has more shoulder and the extreme
highlights tend to roll off as the RGB cells saturate at different values
(which can cause a colorcast in the highlights at transition).
Under mixed lighting both cameras hold their own pretty well, but outdoor
fill-flash is where the E-3 files can cause you to yank all your hair out.
Outdoor Fill-Flash is not compatible with Lightroom. Capture One does the
best job that we've seen so far, with the exception of the in-camera
JPEGS!!!!!! Unfortunately, the in-camera JPEGs have accentuated issues with
the highlight transitions, but at least the colorcast is predictable and
manageable. In a brief test with Studio2, the E-3's Fill-Flash images seem
to match Capture One. The E-1 files, in outdoor fill-flash conditions, are
perfectly manageable using any of the software packages mentioned.
One last item I wanted to say about the E-3 vs. the E-1. The E-3 files at
ISO 100 are absolutely beautiful to work with. There is no visible NR
kicking in and the noise is totally luminance and not color. At ISO 200,
the in-camera NR is stepping in and the smudging begins. The E-1 files at
ISO 200 are starting to pick up color noise, but no luminance noise. At ISO
400, the E-3 files have serious smudging and effective detail is no longer
an advantage. The E-1 files at ISO 400 are still easily cleaned with no
loss of detail. I feel that there is no resolution advantage to the E-3
files at ISO 400 and above as compared to the E-1 files. At ISO 1600, the
E-3 files can be reduced to the same size as E-1 files and the effective
noise is approximately 2-stops lower than the E-1. Since my workflow allows
for effective image cleaning of the E-1 files and I'm shooting most event
work at ISO 400-800, there has been no advantage to the E-3 when it boils
down to the end result. However, for out-of-box images at ISO 1600 being
reduced to common output sizes, the E-3 files are beautiful and quite
usuable, but I feel it necessary to downsize them to counteract the
smudging.
Oh, one other thing... (you knew I was going to play "Columbo", didn't you?)
E-1 files are truely unique in this one thing: You can do a midtone bump of
2-stops without fear. Nearly all camera files will result in visible tonal
seperation or an uncomfortable increase in noise when you do this, but the
E-1 files remain natural.
Yes, Richard, I am a romantic when it comes to some things--hopelessly an
engineer when it comes to others.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|