Nikon D700 & Olympus E3
- Thread starter Nikon301
- Start date
- Status
redtealongan
Member
I think spidey89 definitely got the idea but just expressing it in a different direction from OlyFlyer, who was emphasizing more on the need to up the iso as a result of thinner dof on FF cameras to get the same exposure. Anyway i just read the thread and found it highly informative. Big thanks to OlyFlyer for taking the time to explain something that we might not have realised for FF systems (well, at least it was certainly informative for me
)In fact, I did a less than extremely scientific test. No, I did not rush to buy the D700, even if I am tempted, but I took the SP570 and compared with the E-3. Surely the relation should be similar. Unfortunately there seems to be no way of getting all the data so I had to do some calculations. My calculation shows, based on the data sheet lens equivalence that the SP570 has a crop factor of 5.652. We all know that the E-3 has a crop factor of 2, so to calculate the equivalence between the two 5.652 / 2 = 2.826 which is the crop factor between the two.
Unfortunately I could not find any way of reading the actual focal length from the display, so I had to use a ruler to take the image. I took this image:
The exposure was set to ISO 100, 1/60s and f/5.6 and of course the camera was in manual exposure mode.
I then took the calculator and based on the crop factor between the two cameras I got an f-number of 15.8256, so I selected f/16 on the lens. I had to use the ED50/2 macro to get this close and then I tried to get the same field of view by moving out from closest focus. This was not very scientific, but this was the best I could do. In fact this was totally wrong, since I no longer had the same FOV, since I had to move out. I think this test must be done at infinity to make it right, or at least one must know the focal length more precisely to be able to use the same equivalent FL. Anyway, by doing so I got almost the right exposure at ISO 800, which later on I discovered in Studio was also a bit on the low side, to get it right, I had to increase another +0.7 to +1 EV in Studio. This was however no surprise to me.
Well, in the end, this is the image I got, after exposure compensation at PP.
Conclusion? Well, just like in the comparision between the E-3 and the D700 (or any other FF), the high ISO performance of the E-3 is way better then the SP570UZ. These advantages are a bit lost (but not totally) by the fact that the E-3 demands the increase of ISO to get identical exposures. The increase needed was somewhere between 3 and 4 EV. This was also no surprise, but since I can not calculate the real +EV needed (I don't have the size of the SP570 sensor) this is as far as I get in this test. I think it proofs my point anyway, even if not everything is done as I wished to do. Maybe if I have time I will redo the test a bit more scientifically at a later stage, another time.
Unfortunately I could not find any way of reading the actual focal length from the display, so I had to use a ruler to take the image. I took this image:
The exposure was set to ISO 100, 1/60s and f/5.6 and of course the camera was in manual exposure mode.
I then took the calculator and based on the crop factor between the two cameras I got an f-number of 15.8256, so I selected f/16 on the lens. I had to use the ED50/2 macro to get this close and then I tried to get the same field of view by moving out from closest focus. This was not very scientific, but this was the best I could do. In fact this was totally wrong, since I no longer had the same FOV, since I had to move out. I think this test must be done at infinity to make it right, or at least one must know the focal length more precisely to be able to use the same equivalent FL. Anyway, by doing so I got almost the right exposure at ISO 800, which later on I discovered in Studio was also a bit on the low side, to get it right, I had to increase another +0.7 to +1 EV in Studio. This was however no surprise to me.
Well, in the end, this is the image I got, after exposure compensation at PP.
Conclusion? Well, just like in the comparision between the E-3 and the D700 (or any other FF), the high ISO performance of the E-3 is way better then the SP570UZ. These advantages are a bit lost (but not totally) by the fact that the E-3 demands the increase of ISO to get identical exposures. The increase needed was somewhere between 3 and 4 EV. This was also no surprise, but since I can not calculate the real +EV needed (I don't have the size of the SP570 sensor) this is as far as I get in this test. I think it proofs my point anyway, even if not everything is done as I wished to do. Maybe if I have time I will redo the test a bit more scientifically at a later stage, another time.
I think spidey89 definitely got the idea but just expressing it in a different direction from OlyFlyer, who was emphasizing more on the need to up the iso as a result of thinner dof on FF cameras to get the same exposure. Anyway i just read the thread and found it highly informative. Big thanks to OlyFlyer for taking the time to explain something that we might not have realised for FF systems (well, at least it was certainly informative for me
i think this is not just between 4/3 and FF, its also valid for cameras that has different sensor sizes, such as 1/1.6", 4/3, aps-c and FF. it swings both ways, some pple need the deeper dof, while some need better high iso output at a desired shutter speed but the aperture is already maxed out or when the shallower dof is not apparent such as shooting landscapes in low light without tripod or the subject is near to the background. so in the end its still boils down to what a user needs more.
tomcat
Senior Member
I am not saying that the academic principles propounded by Olyflyer is wrong. What I did not like was the way he exagerrated it to cast doubts on the usefulness of full-frame DSLRs eg selecting ISO 400 for the E3 in his scenario and insisting that the D700 perform at the same shutter speed and at ISO 1600 to match the DOF of the E3 in that scenario and then suggesting the image quality of the D700 at ISO 1600 would be undesireable as compared to the noise of the E3 at ISO 400.
The fact is also that Exposure is dependent on Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO and there is no real need to increase the ISO such that the D700 could match the shutter speed used by the E3 at ISO 400. As long as the shutter speed is still fast enough for the shot to be taken at the lowest ISO setting, that should be the first choice in order to avoid high ISO noise... at least that's how I would prioritise my selection of camera settings when I shoot. And that was what I tried to show in my first set of images.
Another thing, it is well and good to say that the E3 can provide more DOF at a given FOV and aperture and that a Full-Frame DSLR would have to use a lens with 2x the focal length and at 2x the aperture to match that DOF. The point that was not mentioned was that at least a full-frame DSLR can match any DOF set by the E3... but can the E3 (or any APS-C sensored DSLRS for that matter) match the DOF afforded by a lens at f/1.4 at full frame? You would need a lens at f/0.7 for that and all the money in the world would not get you one at the moment.
And why stop at DOF? Maybe we should also consider Diffraction, an optical effect that could limit the resolution of any camera setup. Theoretically the larger the camera sensor, the smaller the aperture that could be used to achieve greater DOF before the softening effects of diffraction offset any gain in sharpness due to better depth of field. Those who are interested can read up on it on many web-sites eg.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
In the second set, I was just trying to show that the visual differences between the unprocessed E3 and D700 images could be due to the difference in contrast levels and the colour casts even though the exposure is essentially the same (since the exposure was selected automatically by each camera and therefore can't really be too far from the true exposure). In my post-processing, I did not change the exposure level in either images at all so that they would match each other. I only corrected the colour cast (in the E3 shot) and the adjusted the black and white levels. By removing the visual distractions caused by differences in colour casts and contrast levels, it makes it easier to see what the 2 images would look like at the exposure that they were taken. It is a bit funny that later Olyflyer too chose to compare an image taken with a consumer digicam (which like all consumer digicams, carries out heavy post-processing in-camera as compared to typical DSLRs) with a lesser post-processed in-camera image taken with the E3.
In any case, there are many reasons why the default settings used by each camera are what they are. One reason has probably to do with the capabilities and/or eccentricities of the sensors used. For example, the NMOS sensor in the E3 is prone to blowing highlights (and I have owned and used enough 4/3 NMOS sensor DSLRs to experience this first hand) and so Olympus prefers to keep the contrast and exposure low by default to minimise the chances of this happening. The full-frame sensor of the D700 is however much less prone to blowing highlights and so Nikon 'dared' to set a higher contrast level in their default settings for this camera.
Let me try you guys' patience by posting another set of unprocessed images....
#1
1/80s f/2.0 at 50.0mm ISO 200
This is an unprocessed image from the E3. Notice the low contrast.. already it has blown the highlights (as indicated by the 'flashing' on the camera's LCD screen in Highlight Mode)
#2
1/50s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 200
This is the unprocessed image from the D700 at a setting deemed by the camera to be the correct exposure.
#3
1/80s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 800
In this shot, I did what Olyflyer suggested and that is to use the same shutter speed as that of the E3 shot but at +2EV ISO speed ie. ISO 800. I don't know about you guys, but to me, it now looked slightly over-exposed.
#4
1/80s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 400
In this shot, I kept the shutter speed at 1/80s and experimented with increasing the ISO by +1EV to ISO 400. This probably 'looked' visually closer to the image from the E3 but still slightly punchier in colours.
So perhaps between the E3 and the D700, it is only necessary to increase the ISO by +1EV instead of the theoretical +2EV in order to have matching DOFs and shutter speeds and this could be due to various technological mitigating factors incorporated in the D700 sensor and camera hardware. After all, we are comparing 2 very different cameras with different sensors and hardware and not 2 identical camera bodies and sensor design but only different sensor size.
If you have reached this far, thanks for bearing with me.
The fact is also that Exposure is dependent on Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO and there is no real need to increase the ISO such that the D700 could match the shutter speed used by the E3 at ISO 400. As long as the shutter speed is still fast enough for the shot to be taken at the lowest ISO setting, that should be the first choice in order to avoid high ISO noise... at least that's how I would prioritise my selection of camera settings when I shoot. And that was what I tried to show in my first set of images.
Another thing, it is well and good to say that the E3 can provide more DOF at a given FOV and aperture and that a Full-Frame DSLR would have to use a lens with 2x the focal length and at 2x the aperture to match that DOF. The point that was not mentioned was that at least a full-frame DSLR can match any DOF set by the E3... but can the E3 (or any APS-C sensored DSLRS for that matter) match the DOF afforded by a lens at f/1.4 at full frame? You would need a lens at f/0.7 for that and all the money in the world would not get you one at the moment.
And why stop at DOF? Maybe we should also consider Diffraction, an optical effect that could limit the resolution of any camera setup. Theoretically the larger the camera sensor, the smaller the aperture that could be used to achieve greater DOF before the softening effects of diffraction offset any gain in sharpness due to better depth of field. Those who are interested can read up on it on many web-sites eg.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
In the second set, I was just trying to show that the visual differences between the unprocessed E3 and D700 images could be due to the difference in contrast levels and the colour casts even though the exposure is essentially the same (since the exposure was selected automatically by each camera and therefore can't really be too far from the true exposure). In my post-processing, I did not change the exposure level in either images at all so that they would match each other. I only corrected the colour cast (in the E3 shot) and the adjusted the black and white levels. By removing the visual distractions caused by differences in colour casts and contrast levels, it makes it easier to see what the 2 images would look like at the exposure that they were taken. It is a bit funny that later Olyflyer too chose to compare an image taken with a consumer digicam (which like all consumer digicams, carries out heavy post-processing in-camera as compared to typical DSLRs) with a lesser post-processed in-camera image taken with the E3.
In any case, there are many reasons why the default settings used by each camera are what they are. One reason has probably to do with the capabilities and/or eccentricities of the sensors used. For example, the NMOS sensor in the E3 is prone to blowing highlights (and I have owned and used enough 4/3 NMOS sensor DSLRs to experience this first hand) and so Olympus prefers to keep the contrast and exposure low by default to minimise the chances of this happening. The full-frame sensor of the D700 is however much less prone to blowing highlights and so Nikon 'dared' to set a higher contrast level in their default settings for this camera.
Let me try you guys' patience by posting another set of unprocessed images....
#1
1/80s f/2.0 at 50.0mm ISO 200
This is an unprocessed image from the E3. Notice the low contrast.. already it has blown the highlights (as indicated by the 'flashing' on the camera's LCD screen in Highlight Mode)
#2
1/50s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 200
This is the unprocessed image from the D700 at a setting deemed by the camera to be the correct exposure.
#3
1/80s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 800
In this shot, I did what Olyflyer suggested and that is to use the same shutter speed as that of the E3 shot but at +2EV ISO speed ie. ISO 800. I don't know about you guys, but to me, it now looked slightly over-exposed.
#4
1/80s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 400
In this shot, I kept the shutter speed at 1/80s and experimented with increasing the ISO by +1EV to ISO 400. This probably 'looked' visually closer to the image from the E3 but still slightly punchier in colours.
So perhaps between the E3 and the D700, it is only necessary to increase the ISO by +1EV instead of the theoretical +2EV in order to have matching DOFs and shutter speeds and this could be due to various technological mitigating factors incorporated in the D700 sensor and camera hardware. After all, we are comparing 2 very different cameras with different sensors and hardware and not 2 identical camera bodies and sensor design but only different sensor size.
If you have reached this far, thanks for bearing with me.
Last edited:
:dunno:
And it is the case that these, academic or not academic, facts are willingly overlooked by those who are devoted to larger sensors. Your arguments about the ability of using f/1.4 and 1.2 lenses on your camera are on the other hand always thrown in out faces, we all know we will never have those lenses for 4/3, so there is nothing new about that. But, regardless of what you say, I believe the "normal" FF shooter rarely uses his f/1.2 lenses wide open and more then willing to stop down to increase DOF, details and sharpness.
Of course, if you can then just like I, you prefer to decrease shutter speed instead of increasing the ISO, but that is also not always an option, not even if you shoot FF. The possibility of slower shutter speed largly depends on what you shoot. Of course, rulers and small figurines can be shot at almost any speed, but as you go outdoors or shoot moving objects, macro or using tele lenses you MUST increase the shutter speed. So, as far as I can see, you can't overöook the fact that you indeed have to increase ISO if you for any reason need to use the same exposure as we need to.
Regarding the academic +2 EV increase I have already answered that either the E-3, or the D700, or both displays wrong ISO. This is of course, not important for my point. It can also be camera individual dependent, it can also be so that if you'd have had an A900 or a D5 you'd get different results, never the less, there is nothing false in what I have said, you need to compensate using higher ISO.
Also, I think I was a bit misunderstood regarding the ISO advantage. I also said:
I am not against the FF, but also not a big fan of constant narrow DOF. Quite the opposite, I'd love to have dual system, but not the D700 only because of several reasons. I don't know how much you follow me, but I just recently made up my mind about keeping the E-3 and staying with Oly for a while more. I was planning to sell and but the D700 since last summer. After a lot of thinking and testing I decided not to do that because:
In the UWA or short tele range the D700 may be an alternative to those who can afford it, but still, I think my original comment about comparing E-3 and D700 is still valid, just like the ISO comment. Two different systems, so the D700 should be compared with the 5D, D3 or the A900. That is more interesting IMHO.
Tomcat, I think you misunderstood me and interpreted my message the way it usually is when the ISO is brought up in discussions. I never said the D700 or the larger sensor formats don't have advatages. Remember, my last sentence was:
And it is the case that these, academic or not academic, facts are willingly overlooked by those who are devoted to larger sensors. Your arguments about the ability of using f/1.4 and 1.2 lenses on your camera are on the other hand always thrown in out faces, we all know we will never have those lenses for 4/3, so there is nothing new about that. But, regardless of what you say, I believe the "normal" FF shooter rarely uses his f/1.2 lenses wide open and more then willing to stop down to increase DOF, details and sharpness.
Of course, if you can then just like I, you prefer to decrease shutter speed instead of increasing the ISO, but that is also not always an option, not even if you shoot FF. The possibility of slower shutter speed largly depends on what you shoot. Of course, rulers and small figurines can be shot at almost any speed, but as you go outdoors or shoot moving objects, macro or using tele lenses you MUST increase the shutter speed. So, as far as I can see, you can't overöook the fact that you indeed have to increase ISO if you for any reason need to use the same exposure as we need to.
Regarding the academic +2 EV increase I have already answered that either the E-3, or the D700, or both displays wrong ISO. This is of course, not important for my point. It can also be camera individual dependent, it can also be so that if you'd have had an A900 or a D5 you'd get different results, never the less, there is nothing false in what I have said, you need to compensate using higher ISO.
Also, I think I was a bit misunderstood regarding the ISO advantage. I also said:
Yes, I may have said that in case I use ISO 800 you MUST use ISO 3200, but I never really meant that there are no advantages in favour of FF, although I think it is important to point out that there are even disadvantages. Shooting at f/1.4 is one thing, but definitely if you need DOF, which many people indeed need more than the rasor thin DOF of f/1.4, then there are indeed some disadvantages wich are gladly overlooked by the FF enthusiast, including yourself. Even you speak the same language here, saying we will never have f/0.7 lenses to get the same DOF and so on, talking about what every other person already knows. OK, so what's new under the sun? :dunno:
I am not against the FF, but also not a big fan of constant narrow DOF. Quite the opposite, I'd love to have dual system, but not the D700 only because of several reasons. I don't know how much you follow me, but I just recently made up my mind about keeping the E-3 and staying with Oly for a while more. I was planning to sell and but the D700 since last summer. After a lot of thinking and testing I decided not to do that because:
- I like macro and I think that woud be more difficult with an FF due to narrower DOF and higher ISO demand.
- I also like long lenses and those are both heavier and way much more expensive than the Oly alternatives, especially since it needs to be VR lens. Again, I think Oly is a better alternative here.
In the UWA or short tele range the D700 may be an alternative to those who can afford it, but still, I think my original comment about comparing E-3 and D700 is still valid, just like the ISO comment. Two different systems, so the D700 should be compared with the 5D, D3 or the A900. That is more interesting IMHO.
tomcat
Senior Member
I do agree that it is really unfair to compare a full-frame camera like the D700 with the E3. Besides the much larger sensor, it's high ISO and dynamic range performance is superb as well. It would be much better to compare the D700 with other full-frame DSLRs but that was what the threadstarter wanted and that was the way this thread has progressed along.
As everybody seems to agree, shallow DOF is more for portraits and deep DOF is good for landscapes and macros. I for one am not really a portrait person and preferred to shoot landscapes if I could. So UWA, fisheyes and short telezooms are actually more useful to me. But I wouldn't mind getting a full-frame f/1.4 lens as it meant that I would still be able to use it at large apertures for those once-in-a-blue-moon portrait shots when the situation calls for it. Most of the other times, I would of course be using it at high f/nos. So FF allows me to have a wider range of DOF at my disposal regardless of whether I need or use it frequently or not. It's just nice to know that I'm covered, that all.
As for the need to occasionally increase the ISO, it is the saving grace of the D700 (and other FF DSLRs) that their high ISO performance is so good that I would have a lot less hesitation to raise the ISO level if it becomes necessary. I worry more when I had to increase the ISO level on my E3. So, although I am really adverse to shooting at high ISOs even with the D700, it is good to know that I can get relatively noise-free results if I have to do so.
I do agree with you that the D700 and the Nikon lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm) are terribly heavy. I could get much lighter and cheaper alternative lenses but at the expense of image quality. But image quality is everything to me, so much so that I am willing to bear the burden of lugging these heavyweights with me on my travels and shoots.
By the way, I don't think that these lenses are more expensive than Olympus lenses as these 3 pro-grade lenses all cost less than S$2,500 each. In fact, the 14-24mm f/2.8 is quite a bit cheaper than the ZD 7-14mm f/4 which I have too and is sharper too. They are really heavy, long and clumsy though.
Generally, I do find it rather futile to compare cameras. There are no perfect cameras and all cameras have their own good and bad points. I have gotten good and bad photos from every camera that I have ever used over the years and only hope that I would get more good photos than bad over time. Otherwise the best camera in my hands would be no better than my first Kodak Brownie camera. :dunno:
As everybody seems to agree, shallow DOF is more for portraits and deep DOF is good for landscapes and macros. I for one am not really a portrait person and preferred to shoot landscapes if I could. So UWA, fisheyes and short telezooms are actually more useful to me. But I wouldn't mind getting a full-frame f/1.4 lens as it meant that I would still be able to use it at large apertures for those once-in-a-blue-moon portrait shots when the situation calls for it. Most of the other times, I would of course be using it at high f/nos. So FF allows me to have a wider range of DOF at my disposal regardless of whether I need or use it frequently or not. It's just nice to know that I'm covered, that all.
As for the need to occasionally increase the ISO, it is the saving grace of the D700 (and other FF DSLRs) that their high ISO performance is so good that I would have a lot less hesitation to raise the ISO level if it becomes necessary. I worry more when I had to increase the ISO level on my E3. So, although I am really adverse to shooting at high ISOs even with the D700, it is good to know that I can get relatively noise-free results if I have to do so.
I do agree with you that the D700 and the Nikon lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm) are terribly heavy. I could get much lighter and cheaper alternative lenses but at the expense of image quality. But image quality is everything to me, so much so that I am willing to bear the burden of lugging these heavyweights with me on my travels and shoots.
By the way, I don't think that these lenses are more expensive than Olympus lenses as these 3 pro-grade lenses all cost less than S$2,500 each. In fact, the 14-24mm f/2.8 is quite a bit cheaper than the ZD 7-14mm f/4 which I have too and is sharper too. They are really heavy, long and clumsy though.
Generally, I do find it rather futile to compare cameras. There are no perfect cameras and all cameras have their own good and bad points. I have gotten good and bad photos from every camera that I have ever used over the years and only hope that I would get more good photos than bad over time. Otherwise the best camera in my hands would be no better than my first Kodak Brownie camera. :dunno:
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
