Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 15 of 183 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565115 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 1825
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,146
    Phil-

    As soon as I receive the E-510, in most probably about a week, I will be happy to post side by side E-510 and E-520 comparisons. It also gives me the perfect opportunity to get into shooting RAW which is a bonus. As you say, I have some beautiful E-510 shots over on the www.dpreview oly forum.

    Sarah Joyce

  2. #142
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by Phill D View Post
    e_dawg now I'm depressed as I don't really want to shoot RAW all the time and I can't afford to change my camera. Mind you if I get rubbish pictures I can always blame the camera now Seriously as an E510 owner I'd be curious to see images to show the differences. There has been a lot posted especially on dpr about the differences between the two cameras, most people agree with you but some actually say the 510 is better.
    Well it's not as bad as it sounds, especially if you are not the type who regularly prints 8 x 10's (inches) or larger (that's what, 20 x 25 cm?) or crops and enlarges frequently. Most people display images on-screen or on the Net, and image sizes are often pretty small... a typical image is, what, 1024x768? Downsizing from 10 MP to 1 MP is a 66% reduction in image size... it's hard to tell the difference there. And when most people print, they usually just get 4 x 6's (10 x 13 cm). Again, can't really tell the difference at smaller sizes.

    Unfortunately, I no longer have an actual factory spec E-510, so I can't really compare the E-510 and E-520 in a fair comparison.
    Last edited by e_dawg; 12-12-2008 at 05:50 PM.

    Nikon: D300, D700, Nikkor: 24-70, 70-200, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, 180/2.8,
    Sigma: 10-20, 50-150/2.8, 50/2.8, Tamron: 17-50/2.8, 28-75/2.8, Tokina: 12-24, Zeiss: 25/2.8
    Olympus: E-520, E-3, 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, 14-35/2, 14-54, 35-100/2, 50-200, 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2
    Panasonic: G1, Leica: 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    Sony: A700, A900, 24-85, 35-70, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/2.8, T 90 macro, Zeiss: 24-70/2.8, 135/1.8
    P&S: Canon S90, Panasonic: LX3


  3. #143
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by speaklightly View Post
    Thanks a lot for your input about just e-baying the E-510. I just might do that. But getting into RAW is something that I promised myself that I should do to be a really effective digital camera instructor. So that would be a good challenge to pit myself against during the upcoming 6 month long contract.
    Sure, but you could still shoot and process RAW with the E-520, no? You don't need an E-510 to do that. If you want more "challenging" RAW files to work with, just be more reckless with your exposure, shoot in backlit conditions, and use higher ISOs while underexposing. That should give you plenty of crappy pics to work on in PP

    Do you like the RAW processor that is packaged with the Olympus cameras? I believe that it is a stripped down version of Silkypix?
    No, don't really like it. It comes with Olympus Master as the RAW converter. It's okay, but I don't think anyone would say it's a pleasure to use.

    I will apply your suggested settings and use RAW when I receive the E-510 camera and give it a try. Before making a decision. So perhaps we have found a silver lining in that e-bay mishap. I appreaciate your input a lot.
    No problem Sarah. It's always a pleasure chatting with mature and well-adjusted photographers like yourself. As you know, it's not always like that on discussion boards these days. I'm sure you know what I mean, seeing as you mentioned dpreview's forums, which tend to have an element of... let's call it "teenage angst"

    Nikon: D300, D700, Nikkor: 24-70, 70-200, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, 180/2.8,
    Sigma: 10-20, 50-150/2.8, 50/2.8, Tamron: 17-50/2.8, 28-75/2.8, Tokina: 12-24, Zeiss: 25/2.8
    Olympus: E-520, E-3, 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, 14-35/2, 14-54, 35-100/2, 50-200, 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2
    Panasonic: G1, Leica: 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    Sony: A700, A900, 24-85, 35-70, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/2.8, T 90 macro, Zeiss: 24-70/2.8, 135/1.8
    P&S: Canon S90, Panasonic: LX3


  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874
    E-dawg, good question. I wanted to know the answer too so I asked photoshop, and It looks like this. ??? Hard to say. My new-found knowledge of composition says it is less dynamic but more powerful with vertical fountains. My older sense says it has greater impression of height with them converging up, and is more interesting. I suppose both have their merits. It does reveal my shooting habits though, I like angling the lens up, and I loooove shooting into backlighting. This is the unprocessed version, except for distortion. As you can see, I didn't have much to do in the B&W conversion.

    Phil, if you haven't had a problem with your pictures I wouldn't worry about it. I had a problem with clipped highlights (I am now shooting RAW), but I also live in a very dry climate and high altitude, and as I just said I like contrasty lighting. I think the lighting in England would be much less demanding, with so much air and water between you and the sun.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Derbyshire, UK
    Posts
    2,505
    Blown highlights do happen even here but I see what you mean looking out of the window at the moment .
    Name:  rainsmall.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  176.5 KB

    It most annoys me when I get white skies when I'm sure it should do better. Much of this is probably me though getting the exposure wrong. As I get used to the camera it's becoming less of a problem. Plus in many cases the contrast difference is so great any cam would struggle & only a GND would suffice. I might try RAW though over the Christmas break just to experiment.
    Around every picture there's a corner & round every corner there's a picture
    - the fun's in finding them

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,146
    Good Morning, Phil-

    I see that you are experiencing the very same problems and feelings I experienced when shooting with the E-410. Some shots would be perfect, and then, "bang" the white skies would begin showing up again. I found that very discouraging and now the E-410 sits on the shelf.

    Raven seems to do very well with the E-410. Perhaps he has some hints to get rid of those white skies that are seen on the E-410 and E-510. The other thought that I had been toying with recently was that perhaps RAW was the better and more workable solution for those white skies.

    Here is a nice E-410 example where everything worked well for me.

    Sarah Joyce
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    398
    Raw files will let you adjust the exposure after the shot, if you have a lot of "sky" in the viewfinder it helps to use +1 or +2 exposure compensation.

    Correction - "Other way around, I was thinking about snow when I wrote that"

    Cheers, Don
    Last edited by Don Kondra; 12-13-2008 at 02:44 PM.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,146
    Good Morning, Don-

    What am I missing here?? I would think that you would want to use -EV setting such as EV-0.7 or EV-1.0. to get rid of those white skies. Am I going the wrong way??

    Sarah Joyce

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,146
    Here is another example or reason why the E-410 sits on the shelf. This photo was taken quickly with the E-410 equipped with the ZD 40-150mm lens and the FL-50 flash.

    The weight of the bigger lens and the Flash makes the E-410 hard to hand hold for a quick shot. And this is a typical "product shot" type of photo. Notice that camera movement blurred the focus.

    Sarah Joyce
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,146
    Here is the same "product shot" taken a minute later with the E-520 using the very same lens and flash.

    Notice that the shot is now sharply focused.

    Sarah Joyce
    Attached Images Attached Images  

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •