Having used both e3 and d700, i would say that both cater to different needs. D700 lets you shoot in high iso which smaller sensors dslr can only dream of. It also has a shallower depth of field. If you need these, then get the d700. If you want great colours, want deeper dof, want to shoot tele a often, then get the e3. Imo, the d700 and e3 aren't directly comparable.
Nikon D700 & Olympus E3
- Thread starter Nikon301
- Start date
- Status
err... I use the D700 but I come to oly forum.....
I used to love the E330 a LOT. used the E510 for some time but did not really like it.
I agree the E-3 and the D700 are not really comparable, it would be fairer to compare the D700 with the D3 or the 5D or the A900.
One thing should however not be forgotten. With an FF, not just the D700, there comes a time when the narrow DOF is not wanted and one wants the same DOF or more than the Oly 50/2 can provide at f/2. Here comes a small problem. As soon as you want the same FOV and DOF and exposure you must increase the ISO quite considerably. So it is only natural that Nikon and other FF manufacturers needed to produce better high ISO capabilities or else nobody would pay the price of those cameras. An example:
If you use the E-3 with the 50/2 @ f/2.0, 1/125s and ISO 400 then the D700 must use a 100mm lens at f/4 and ISO 1600 to get 1/125s and the same DOF and exposure. That is even worse if I need to use ISO 800, which is still very good in the E-3 because in that case the D700 must be used at ISO 3200 which is no longer as nice as ISO 800 in the E-3. Even the lack of in body IS in the D700 is something which may call for higher ISO than necessary, unless the user has the more expensive VR lenses. So, while there are advantages of both systems, there is definitely a flipside of the high ISO advantages as well, since as I see it, it is really a necessity in every FF.
tomcat
Senior Member
I just don't get this at all. While I agree with the FOV and DOF part, I just don't understand why it is necessary to increase the ISO by 2 EV to achieve the same exposure when shooting with the D700. :dunno:
Since I have both cameras and lenses required, I decided to test this out for myself. I would shoot my Pi Xiu with the E3 and the 50mm macro at f/2 and ISO 200 and the D700 and the 105mm macro at f/4 and ISO 200 and let both cameras decide what is the correct exposure at those settings according to their respective exposure meters and see what kind of shutter speeds were set by each camera.
These were the images as shot without post-processing except for size reduction:
#1 Olympus E3
1/3s f/2.0 at 50.0mm ISO 200
#2 Nikon D700
1/2s f/4.0 at 105.0mm ISO 200
So I could have taken the same shot with the D700 at the same ISO setting even though the aperture setting is 2x slower to achieve the same DOF, albeit with slightly different shutter speeds perhaps but certainly not 2EV difference.
Last edited:
But the images definitely look differently exposed. I suggest you do the same test during daylight when you get daylight, measure the light and use the exact settings for shutter speed, set the aperture to 2 x E-3 on the D700 and see what exposure you get. After that set the ISO on the D700 to 2 x as well and you should see that the exposures are in that case the same. Use manual WB to get the colours right because it is confusing. AWB is not very reliable in the E-3, I don't know about the D700.
I think it is logical because of the crop factor. Even in your quick tests, the E-3 chose 1/3 second and the D700 1/2 according to you. No EXIF in the D700 image, only the E-3. Never the less, IMHO the E-3 image looks exposed right while the D700 is underexposed as I see it.
I think it is logical because of the crop factor. Even in your quick tests, the E-3 chose 1/3 second and the D700 1/2 according to you. No EXIF in the D700 image, only the E-3. Never the less, IMHO the E-3 image looks exposed right while the D700 is underexposed as I see it.
tomcat
Senior Member
I don't think that there is a great difference in real exposure levels between the 2 unprocessed images posted. It is just the results of the differences in the control curves used by each camera at the exposure setting each camera felt is correct. If the exposure set by the D700 was off by 2EV, it would be totally obvious. As it is with most cameras and personal user preferences, some users could feel it was necessary to set their cameras' exposure anywhere between +/-0.3 to +/-1.0 EV permanently sometimes.
In the 2 unprocessed images posted, the illusion of a difference in exposure level was compounded by the warm color cast and the slightly lower contrast in the E3 shot as compared to that of the D700.
If I was to post-process the 2 images by just correcting to my personal preferences the contrast level, color cast, black & white levels without changing their exposure levels, the differences in exposure levels are even less significant as shown below.
#3 Olympus E3 Post-Processed
#4 Nikon D700 Post-Processed
Now, which image looks better is more a matter of personal perferences.
In the 2 unprocessed images posted, the illusion of a difference in exposure level was compounded by the warm color cast and the slightly lower contrast in the E3 shot as compared to that of the D700.
If I was to post-process the 2 images by just correcting to my personal preferences the contrast level, color cast, black & white levels without changing their exposure levels, the differences in exposure levels are even less significant as shown below.
#3 Olympus E3 Post-Processed
#4 Nikon D700 Post-Processed
Now, which image looks better is more a matter of personal perferences.
Last edited:
yes, 4/3 is good for pple who need the deeper dof, while ff for pple who need the shallower dof. i myself sometimes find i need the deeper dof sometimes also, guess can't have best of both in 1 camera, so see what each person needs. i personally need high iso in low light, so thinking of adding a g1 sooner or later to d700.
i think what Olyflyer meant was that in low light,to achieve a deeper dof on a FF camera,as compared to a 4/3,4/3's required settings for low light example's exif would be something like 1/4s f2 iso 200,but for a FF to achieve the same dof,the require setting example would be something like 1s at f4 at iso 200,1s a bit hard to hand hold,without VR/IS so they have to increase ISO to gain a faster shutter speed so it will be something like 1/4s f4 iso 400
Is my understanding correct Olyflyer?
Is my understanding correct Olyflyer?
I don't want to argue, but it is not about how you can change the image during PP. As far as I know it is facts. Now, if that can not be proven between the the E-3 and the D700 it can be so for several reasons. It is very logical indeed why it is (in theory) the way I say it is.
The 4/3 image are (almost) one fourth of the FF image sensors. If you take the exact same image, i.e. same exposure and FOV then one fourth of the light will reach the same sensor area of the FF sensor. Obviously, as I see it this results in a need for compensation. You can increase the light, the aperture opening or decrease the shutter speed (or both) if you want to use the same ISO, but if you want to keep the same exposure you can't do any of that, you must increase ISO. The increase should logically be 2EV as that is the crop factor. If you don't need to do that and you can with less ISO increase get the same image (without PP) then that clearly indicates that one of the cameras (or both) displays wrong ISO settings and in fact ISO 200 is not real ISO 200.
If I have time this weekend I will try to make my own tests. I don't have any FF, but the relation must be the same using any different cameras assuming the crop factor between them is known and you can control them manually. I have an SP570 and plan to compare with the E-3 as a kind of practical test. The way you have done the test is a bit uncontrolled because you have to exclude any personal preference when taking a test image, PP is strictly forbidden in tests because it is not about making images look the same and pleasantly looking, it is just a technical test.
Please note, the aim of my comment was not to bash the FF format, but when FF cameras are discussed some facts, which may sound favourable for the FF are often overlooked. High ISO performance is often mentioned as an advantage, but as I see it, that is an absolute must for those cameras, which is never mentioned because it is not favourable to mention it.
No, my reasoning has nothing to do with low light or slow shutter speed. I think Tomcat understood what I said but did not really do the right test. It is explained even more in my answer to him. To put it simply, narrow DOF is not always wanted, even if you can get it. An example is wild life or macro, where too narrow DOF can be a killer. If I shoot birds with my E-3 and use the 50-200 at 200mm to get a full size image of a bird on my sensor then an FF camera needs to have a 400mm lens to fill the image with the same bird. That is the same FOV. I will need the same equivalent shutter speed, so I will use 1/500s which is the same as the FF user selects. I will set f/8 to get enough DOF in that scene from that distance. The FF shooter must select f/16 to get the same DOF or else the head of the bird may be in focus but the tail will be out of focus. I will set ISO 400 but the FF shooter can not set the same, unless he wants to underexpose by 2EV, so he must set ISO 1600 in that situation with those settings. All that assumes that the ISO display is actually correct, which is not the case for Tomcats cameras if Tomcats test is right, but should be the case in theory. You must exclude IS and VR because that changes everything and is not really part of the test. I am talking about equivalent exposures.
hmmmm.......so many words to process,but I think I get what you mean and my explaination isn't clear,from my 2nd sentance,the part about 1s at f4 iso 200,but if it were to be 1/4s f4 iso 200,the picture will be underexposed,increasing the iso to 400 solves this,which is the same as your answer,so I guess I do understand but just that my answer doesn't really help and now I'm just plain confusing myself XD
mm... theoretically olyflyer is correct.
As to why the actual experimental results (from Tomcat) differs, could be due to
1) the D700 pic does look a little underexposed compared to the E3. maybe by 2/3 stops?
2) the ISO200 in D700 is more sensitive than the ISO200 in E3. 2/3 stops?
3) the shutter speed in D700 is slower by around 2/3 stops...
so all add up to 2 stops
err.... mathematically not correct lah but u get the idea. A little delta here, a little delta there, you can probably find the 2 stops difference somewhere.
As to why the actual experimental results (from Tomcat) differs, could be due to
1) the D700 pic does look a little underexposed compared to the E3. maybe by 2/3 stops?
2) the ISO200 in D700 is more sensitive than the ISO200 in E3. 2/3 stops?
3) the shutter speed in D700 is slower by around 2/3 stops...
so all add up to 2 stops
err.... mathematically not correct lah but u get the idea. A little delta here, a little delta there, you can probably find the 2 stops difference somewhere.
srinivasanj
Member
I think this is best explained using the f number. I might be totally wrong so please correct me.
f = focal length of lens/diameter of its opening => diameter of its opening = focal length/f
4/3 --> 50/2 = 50mm
FF --> 100/4 = 25mm
So there is a need to up the ISO to compensate for this loss of light in FF due to the smaller opening, assuming you want the same shutter speed.
Am I right?
Cheers.
f = focal length of lens/diameter of its opening => diameter of its opening = focal length/f
4/3 --> 50/2 = 50mm
FF --> 100/4 = 25mm
So there is a need to up the ISO to compensate for this loss of light in FF due to the smaller opening, assuming you want the same shutter speed.
Am I right?
Cheers.
I think wat olyflyer is saying is that if a desired deep dof is required, then a 4/3 can use a lower iso as compared to a ff camera as the ff needs needs to stop down more in order to have the same dof, which results the ff needs to use a higher iso as the aperture is stopped down now and slows down the shutter speed. I think no one is bashing the 4/3 or the ff format, just see which one you need more, more dof or less, need iso to freeze moving subjects or use in low light or not.
Yes, you are totally wrong. Apart from that, I don't think you have understood what I said. Anyway, I have already explained twice, not going to explain a third time.
This is right...
...but this is wrong. I know this was a typo from your side, but just to be correct and accurate, 50 / 2 = 25 for me...
Of course there is. The area of the FF sensor is 4x the area of the 4/3 sensor, so only 1/4 of the light is hitting the same spot. You have to do something about that, reduce the shutter speed, increase the light, the aperture opening or the ISO.
No, you are not right. Please read up on the relation between exposure, sensor (or film) area and ISO. This is not new information, just that not many are willing to talk about.Am I right?
Cheers.
srinivasanj
Member
Oops...yeah think 50/2 has been 25 for long time! Atleast it was the last time I checked...
Exactly. If you want to get the same field of view, the same DOF and the same shutter speed there is no other way to add to the loss of light but increasing ISO, assuming you have no way of increasing the light.
Maybe this is too much of a technical thing, not many are looking deep into these issues. I think however that it is important that when people discuss the advantages of FF they often ignore these basic facts and don't really look deeper into it in a more unbiased way. I'd definitely be the last one to say that FF has no advantages over 4/3, but less high ISO noise is not just an advantage, it is also a necessity for FF to make it usable at all.
Of course, going the Hassy MF world, this issue is even more emphasized, since their sensors are even larger. To circumvent the problem, they have actually a more limited ISO range and don't go above ISO 400 in the H3DI-50, the flagship, and ISO 800 in the "budget" H3DI-31 at the moment. These very facts and the shutter speeds of 32 seconds to 1/800 second actually limits the use of those cameras to studio works with no action and high and controlled light intensity. Of course, price is another limiting factor (for me
) for their usefulness, but that's another subject.Don't worry, I knew you knew that but I couldn't help myself...:angel: :nono:
Benares
Senior Member
One thing I am certain is, the entire range of ISO values of the E3 sensor will never be the same as what is seen on the D700 and vice versa. dxomark did their experiments and made their comparison charts about these and it might somewhat contribute to the difference in exposure.
- Status
Similar threads
