DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

E1 and Megapixels

>"high quality B&W images in 16x20" with a 5mp E-1?? Good luck! You might get a 16x20 print, but it won't be "high quality".
 
> I did have a Canon with some L lenses and Contax system with CZ lenses and about six months ago i compared scanned images at 100% with some test images the local Olympus dealer let me take with the E 1. At the same magnification the E-1 images were cleaner and crisper. I sent some s&le images to the picture library i subscribe to and they have been accepted. I bought into the sysytem and have absolutely no hesitation in reccomending the E-1. In fact the price at present is being discounted, a sure sign that the new model is on its way. The 5MP is not huge but its all quality, i use Genuine Fractals to boost to a 70 mb file. For me a new body with an increased pixel count would be of little consequence for my useage. The reports i have read of the E 300 are not good, which is a shame. Buy the E-1.
 
Define "high quality," BJ - If you're talking about looking at a print with a loupe, you're right. But only anal compulisives run around looking at prints with loupes. If you're talking about looking at a print from a proper viewing distance, you most certainly can produce quality 13x19s, and bigger if you have the printer. As I said, I had three images shot with an E-20 printed 30x40 for a show and they were stunning.
 
>I guess "proper viewing distance" means far enough away so you don't see either the pixelization or the lack of detail/resolution.
 
Aaah!... Zuiko lenses. Every lens takes the same size filter... Compact lenses covering a wide range of focal lengths. All part of a system... Sounds and awful lot like the OM system. I think I'm sold. Now the only question is, buy now (E-1 or E-300) or wait for the E-3... Hmmm.
 
For what it's worth, I have been using the E-1 for over a year now and, apart from higher noise levels than I would like at 800 ISO and above, find it more than capable of producing high quality images at up to 13"x19" (the largest size I print).Certainly as high a quality as a scanned 35mm transparency (at 2,700 - 4,000 dpi) can produce IMHO.It really is a case of "horses for courses" I believe - after all, even with the finest grain films you are pushing the limits of 35mm if you expect the ultimate in quality at anything over 12"x8".
Plus the E-1 is , for me, a great handling camera and in my opinion that counts for something too.
I do however find the 11-22mm and 50-200mm lenses capable of better results than the 14-54mm for some reason.Has anyone else come to the same conclusion?
 
The 11-22 is wonderful. I talked to a Canon Rep that had tested it and he felt it was better than anything Canon or Nikon had built in that mm range. Please don't start a debate over this, I was just giving his opinion and he shall remain nameless. The 50-200 is very sharp but sometimes slow to focus in dim light. I have no problems with the 14-54 and for someone starting out think it covers the best range if you just have one lens. The 50 macro and 300 are very very sharp. F Roberts
 
Has anyone taken the time to compare sharpness settings on their E-1? I took a range of fixed RAW tripod shots using each sharpnes setting in the range (-3 to +5). Then I compared each at high magnification in Photoshop. Settting -3 was definitely softest. -2 to 0 were slightly harder but indistinguishable from each other. +1 to + 3 were slightly harder again (but also indistinguishable from each other). +4 was softer than +1 to +3!!! And +5 was noticeably the hardest (too much so) of all. I don't have a lot of faith in the integrity of Olympus's sharpening algorithm because it does not seem to give linear results. The +4 setting is a real anomaly. And there seems to be no noticeable difference between some of the other adjacent settings in the range available for user-setting.
 
Back
Top