E-3 image noise visible, but very clean looking

On Oct 20, 5:14 am, D_Mac wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:33 am, RichA wrote:

Nikon-like, but even more clean-looking, IMO. The motocyclist image
is at 400 ISO. The noise is clearly visible, but doesn't detract much
from the image quality owing to the eveness of the luminance noise.
Chroma noise appears to be completely gone, much like current Nikon
images. My guess is (since we don't have any examples) that 800
onward, noise will be higher than the competition, but if it's kept to
a nice, even luminance kind of noise, it will be "ok."

http://marcof.smugmug.com/gallery/3669826#209733197

Well Rich... I'm a long time Olympus user. I also have a few Panasonic
FZ cameras too. These images look to me as if they have been well and
truly processed in Photoshop after the shoot. Basically useless for
any proper evaluation of the camera's ability. Panasonic have almost
certainly made the sensor, if not, Kodak. Neither maker has any magic
formula and Olympus are sadly lacking in on-board processing
technology too.

I hate saying this because I'd love a new Olympus camera that might
shake a few nutters out of the tree but this camera is destined for
obsolescence before ever it reaches many dealer shelves. The E300 was
so overwhelmingly bad, they were selling the twin lens kit in
department stores long after it's predecessor proved a flop for $500
US. Olympus either need to get out of DSLRs or get some advanced
technology really fast.

Doug

Kodak hasn't made an Olympus sensor since the E-400, which was only
released in Europe because Kodak somehow screwed up and couldn't
deliver enough of them. The fact the twin lens and E-300 were selling
cheaply was good for the buyers, they got excellent quality lenses and
a decent 8 meg camera when people where still being forced to pay
$800+ for Canon's Rebel XT and a nearly unusably bad 18-55mm kit
lens. But the Canon looked like an SLR and sheep being sheep....

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 19, 4:31 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Oct 19, 6:26 am, Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 19 Oct, 10:36, "Pete D" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message

oups.com...

Nikon-like, but even more clean-looking, IMO. The motocyclist
image
is at 400 ISO. The noise is clearly visible, but doesn't detract
much
from the image quality owing to the eveness of the luminance
noise.
Chroma noise appears to be completely gone, much like current
Nikon
images. My guess is (since we don't have any examples) that 800
onward, noise will be higher than the competition, but if it's
kept
to
a nice, even luminance kind of noise, it will be "ok."

http://marcof.smugmug.com/gallery/3669826#209733197

Why in Dogs name would you accept a camera that recorded images that
were
only "ok", damn that, I want them to be excellent like all the other
manufacturers.

Ha ha ha.
He's such a hypocrite. He complains about people blindly aligning
themselves with particular brands and he's gone and done EXACTLY that.

Doc

I'm not aligned with any brand, unlike some. I can jump to any system
I want. I merely commented on one camera's image. I saw tight, clean
looking noise that IMO, will not even show up on a medium (11x14)
sized print. IMO, that is acceptable and at least as good as the
current Nikon D80 which is superior to the D200.

You are totally deluded and an Olympus Fanboi to boot.

The D80 can easily print larger as can any current 10MP D-SLR.

So when did you test the E-3?


No need to. You have given me all the data I need. My 6MP D-SLR can do much
better than the E3 from what you say.

Shouldn't that be "image noise audible"?

"David J Taylor"
wrote in . uk:

John Sheehy wrote:
[]
All bayer CFA cameras have the same ratio of luminance to chrominance
noise, in the RAW state.
[]

John, is this still true if you compare RGB and CMY filtering?

The one time I forget the qualifier "RGB" ...

I don't know what happens with CMY cameras.

--


John P Sheehy

On Oct 21, 1:06 am, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 19, 4:31 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 19, 6:26 am, Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 19 Oct, 10:36, "Pete D" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message

oups.com...

Nikon-like, but even more clean-looking, IMO. The motocyclist
image
is at 400 ISO. The noise is clearly visible, but doesn't detract
much
from the image quality owing to the eveness of the luminance
noise.
Chroma noise appears to be completely gone, much like current
Nikon
images. My guess is (since we don't have any examples) that 800
onward, noise will be higher than the competition, but if it's
kept
to
a nice, even luminance kind of noise, it will be "ok."

http://marcof.smugmug.com/gallery/3669826#209733197

Why in Dogs name would you accept a camera that recorded images that
were
only "ok", damn that, I want them to be excellent like all the other
manufacturers.

Ha ha ha.
He's such a hypocrite. He complains about people blindly aligning
themselves with particular brands and he's gone and done EXACTLY that.

Doc

I'm not aligned with any brand, unlike some. I can jump to any system
I want. I merely commented on one camera's image. I saw tight, clean
looking noise that IMO, will not even show up on a medium (11x14)
sized print. IMO, that is acceptable and at least as good as the
current Nikon D80 which is superior to the D200.

You are totally deluded and an Olympus Fanboi to boot.

The D80 can easily print larger as can any current 10MP D-SLR.

So when did you test the E-3?

No need to. You have given me all the data I need. My 6MP D-SLR can do much
better than the E3 from what you say.

Depends on "better." A 6 meg Nikon D40 produces cleaner images than a
D200, because it has less noise at higher ISOs. But then that is just
one aspect to the comparison. If I have to crop a 6 meg image, and 10
meg image, the 6 meg image might not fare so well....Also, if I
isolate the shot to the centre portion of the 10 meg, making it a
defacto 6 meg, my lenses are going to perform better because I won't
be using their edge, which means I can shoot at a lower ISO and use a
wider lens opening, so my images will be better still, if I only use 6
of the 10 megapixels for the image. In other words, I can "create"
the quality of a 6 meg with a 10 meg, but you can't "create" the
resolution of a 10 meg out of a 6 meg, unless you start stitching
shots together.

John Sheehy wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
. uk:

John Sheehy wrote:
[]
All bayer CFA cameras have the same ratio of luminance to
chrominance noise, in the RAW state.
[]

John, is this still true if you compare RGB and CMY filtering?

The one time I forget the qualifier "RGB" ...

I don't know what happens with CMY cameras.



John P Sheehy


Thanks, John. I wasn't trying to be nit-picking, I simply didn't know.

I do recall that there was supposed to be some advantage for using CMY
filters as the luminance component was greater after the filtering, and of
course Kodak have talked about a modified "Bayer" filter matrix as well.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
.uk:

I do recall that there was supposed to be some advantage for using CMY
filters as the luminance component was greater after the filtering,
and of course Kodak have talked about a modified "Bayer" filter matrix
as well.

I've heard that, but that may be speculation based upon a possibly false
assumption that the CMY bands are very wide, because "magenta is red plus
green, and yellow is blue plus green, and cyan is green plus blue".
Filters that wide would make color discrimination very noisy. There is no
reason to believe that CMY filters aren't as narrow as RGB filters, and
have a similar level of overall QE.



--


John P Sheehy

John Sheehy wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
.uk:

I do recall that there was supposed to be some advantage for using
CMY filters as the luminance component was greater after the
filtering, and of course Kodak have talked about a modified "Bayer"
filter matrix as well.

I've heard that, but that may be speculation based upon a possibly
false assumption that the CMY bands are very wide, because "magenta
is red plus green, and yellow is blue plus green, and cyan is green
plus blue". Filters that wide would make color discrimination very
noisy. There is no reason to believe that CMY filters aren't as
narrow as RGB filters, and have a similar level of overall QE.

Thanks, John. I wonder if anyone has measured the noise or the colour
discrimination? CMY seems to have gone out of favour today.

David

In article , David J
Taylor wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
.uk:

I do recall that there was supposed to be some advantage for using
CMY filters as the luminance component was greater after the
filtering, and of course Kodak have talked about a modified "Bayer"
filter matrix as well.

I've heard that, but that may be speculation based upon a possibly
false assumption that the CMY bands are very wide, because "magenta
is red plus green, and yellow is blue plus green, and cyan is green
plus blue". Filters that wide would make color discrimination very
noisy. There is no reason to believe that CMY filters aren't as
narrow as RGB filters, and have a similar level of overall QE.

Thanks, John. I wonder if anyone has measured the noise or the colour
discrimination? CMY seems to have gone out of favour today.

here are some posts i archived about cmy filters versus rgb:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...1b166d0527df?h
l=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...213594cc2eb6?h
l=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...73899030f9eb?h
l=en&

nospam wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor
wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
.uk:

I do recall that there was supposed to be some advantage for using
CMY filters as the luminance component was greater after the
filtering, and of course Kodak have talked about a modified "Bayer"
filter matrix as well.

I've heard that, but that may be speculation based upon a possibly
false assumption that the CMY bands are very wide, because "magenta
is red plus green, and yellow is blue plus green, and cyan is green
plus blue". Filters that wide would make color discrimination very
noisy. There is no reason to believe that CMY filters aren't as
narrow as RGB filters, and have a similar level of overall QE.

Thanks, John. I wonder if anyone has measured the noise or the
colour discrimination? CMY seems to have gone out of favour today.

here are some posts i archived about cmy filters versus rgb:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...1b166d0527df?h
l=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...213594cc2eb6?h
l=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...73899030f9eb?h
l=en&

Thanks. They seem to agree with John's ideas. I'd like to see
measurements, but I suppose that as they are no longer made, it's a moot
point.

Cheers,
David