ISO 1600 Test Pics from the E-510

[vendeta]

got to hold a friend e510 fresh from the store, just did a quick test on the IS it really works, the maximum handheld shot usable pic was about 1/4 at F4, ISO 400, noise filter standard and noise reduction on, using my 50mm macro lens. I guess some people would do better, my hands a little shaky hehehehe.

 

[OlyFlyer]

Hi OlyFlyer,

I don't have any OM lenses and so can't check if they would work with the IS camera bodies. There is a group of Olympus users from Mytikas who are meeting this Sat morning to carry out a group review of the E-510. Some of them do have OM lenses and MF-1 adapters. They could probably include that aspect in their review, I suppose. I'll bring this to their attention in any case.

Hi and thanks. I think it is an interesting question for many people. I am aware that the camera may need to know the focal length of the lens but that should not be a problem to set manually or by som smart firmware algorythm to calculate. I read on fourthirdsphoto.com that it does not work, but I don't know if it is a definite answer, it may partially work, say for lenses between 200 and 400mm or something like that.

Thanks for trying to get it cleared.

 

[tomcat]

Dang... suddenly I feel like adopting a cat!

Anyhow, the high ISO and crispy sharp images at large DOFs really astound!

Now I'm not sure if I had made the right choice to get the 50-200mm two months ago when the same amount of money can get me the E-510 now and with its IS along with the 40-150mm, it'll be a great combo.

Does the servo motors in the lens move when the IS function is on?
If not, then it's just solely the sensor moving and there's a very high likelihood manual lenses can benefit from IS as well. But the key hindrance to manual lenses would still be accurate focussing through their smallish viewfinders and without focus-confirmation indication.

The motors in the lenses do not move during image stabilisation. Can't even feel it working in the camera body in fact. It's only when you switch off the camera that there is an inkling that IS was active (apart from the led indication in the viewfinder of course) as the camera would vibrate for a brief instant before shutting down.

The viewfinder of the E-510 (and the E-410) is significantly brighter and more contrasty than those of the E-330 and E-500 by the way.

 

[nightpiper]

Here's some more proof that IS works very well on the E-510....

#6
*Snip*
1/8s f/8.0 at 50.0mm ISO 100

#7
*Snip*
1/15s f/8.0 at 50.0mm ISO 100

IS is therefore useful in those situations where we want to use small apertures for greater DOF and don't want to use high ISO so as to maintain greater details but have to cope with the resulting slow shutter speeds.

those r some very nice pussy shots u got there. the IS indeed is a miracle pill.

camera talk aside, i wud actually prefer the kitty to display blurry bokeh so they stand out from the backgnd. maybe F2.8 or F3.5 is good? while u r at it Tomcat, how about some macros of insects or flowers using IS? wud love to see some macros at work.

thx again for the samples!! :thumbsup:

 

[tomcat]

camera talk aside, i wud actually prefer the kitty to display blurry bokeh so they stand out from the backgnd. maybe F2.8 or F3.5 is good? while u r at it Tomcat, how about some macros of insects or flowers using IS? wud love to see some macros at work.

thx again for the samples!! :thumbsup:

Yes that's preferrable but it depends on the lens used. It is easier to get blurry bokeh and sufficient DOF to get every essential parts of the cat sharp with a tele lens like the 105mm, 50-200mm, etc. With a shorter focal length lens, it could be a bit dicey with opened wide apertures as it might result in eyes sharp-nose blur or vice versa, etc as some cat shooters have complained about when using the 50mm at f/2 say.

 

[bousozoku]

Every photo looks as though Olympus has done the job extremely well. I can only imagine how the E-1 replacement will improve upon the technology in the E-510.

If the E-510 would hold up under poor conditions and lots of frames per second, it could certainly replace the E-1 for a lot of people.

 

[vendeta]

Hi and thanks. I think it is an interesting question for many people. I am aware that the camera may need to know the focal length of the lens but that should not be a problem to set manually or by som smart firmware algorythm to calculate. I read on fourthirdsphoto.com that it does not work, but I don't know if it is a definite answer, it may partially work, say for lenses between 200 and 400mm or something like that.

Thanks for trying to get it cleared.

I did a quick test using the IS with an 50mm 1.8 OM, well I can say is it's not as effective as in the digital lens using the 50mm macro ZD, tried it at 1/4 and there's a little difference between the shot with an IS and without. Will do more testing later and report back the result.

 

[OlyFlyer]

I did a quick test using the IS with an 50mm 1.8 OM, well I can say is it's not as effective as in the digital lens using the 50mm macro ZD, tried it at 1/4 and there's a little difference between the shot with an IS and without. Will do more testing later and report back the result.

Thank you. If that is true than I think it is a new problem issue. If Canon can fix the backfocus issue in their body by allowing to manually adjust the focus for (I think) 20 lenses and save those settings for each, why can't Oly provide user selectable settings for like 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 600 and 800mm focal length. Even if that would exclude the use of old zooms, it would be very useful and really simple thing to do, especally in combination with the AF indicator LED enabled too. I know now for fact that the AF indicator needs nothing else than enabling it in firmware, as you can see in my own thread that I started on the focus LED.

 

[tomcat]

I did a quick test using the IS with an 50mm 1.8 OM, well I can say is it's not as effective as in the digital lens using the 50mm macro ZD, tried it at 1/4 and there's a little difference between the shot with an IS and without. Will do more testing later and report back the result.

Why don't you try checking out the IS effect visually on the LCD screen while using the OM lens and compare that with the IS obtained when a ZD lens is used?

 

[VSonic06]

Thank you. If that is true than I think it is a new problem issue. If Canon can fix the backfocus issue in their body by allowing to manually adjust the focus for (I think) 20 lenses and save those settings for each, why can't Oly provide user selectable settings for like 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 600 and 800mm focal length. Even if that would exclude the use of old zooms, it would be very useful and really simple thing to do, especally in combination with the AF indicator LED enabled too. I know now for fact that the AF indicator needs nothing else than enabling it in firmware, as you can see in my own thread that I started on the focus LED.

The Pentax K10D asks you to select the focal length every time it powers up with a manual lens attached. With the correct value selected, the in-camera "SR" (Shake Reduction) works very well. I seriously hope Olympus will be able to incorporate this feature in a future firmware update...hopefully its not a Pentax-patented 'feature'.

 

[vendeta]

another sample of 1600 shots at low light using 50mm macro:

and here's the link for the bigger image http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1244/538593566_da820d4760_b_d.jpg

It's really awesome, it makes my old e500 cries.

 

[dorts]

That makes me and my E-500 cry too. :cry:

 

[u2nofear]

any idea low noise CCD from which manufacture ? fujifilm superCCD ???

 

[tohcp]

any idea low noise CCD from which manufacture ? fujifilm superCCD ???

It's from Panasonic, not a CCD but MOS.

 

[VSonic06]

Some nice noise bands from a brand new E-510

ISO1600 1/10 f/3.5 manual exposure

 

[cjtune]

I've posted some more obvious examples as Post #252 on the thread about the E-330's horizontal noise bands: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=224562&page=13

Generally equal severity level as the E-330's ISO1600 setting. More of the 'annoying' kind of banding severity than something severely debilitating to the image, unlike the 'badly-banding' E-330's Blu and me once had. Limited to shadow/low-exposure regions. Image Stabilisation makes up really well for it by expanding the usefulness of the lower ISO sensitivities, and the lower ISO settings do seem to be noticeably better (more details preserved with the noise-filter turned-off) than the E-330's. Well, let's see if it's totally gone in the E-3 by the time it is out!