Olympus E-30. Worst 800 ISO I've seen in..ever!

Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed areas
would be noisy!!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed areas
would be noisy!!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804


They say that seeing is believing but I have seen several photos from
this camera and even the ISO1600 and 3200 shots I have seen look a lot
better than the one you posted.
Not sure what is going on, but something is very strange.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA" wrote:

Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed areas
would be noisy!!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804



wow that's bad! I just checked some photos of mine taken in a store with a
Nikon D70 at ISO 1600, no noise reduction, and they are far better!

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:05:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:21*pm, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

Wow! *Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it costs
$1400 for the body!). *This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've seen,
ever. *I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed areas
would be noisy!!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804

They say that seeing is believing but I have seen several photos from
this camera and even the ISO1600 and 3200 shots I have seen look a lot
better than the one you posted.
Not sure what is going on, but something is very strange.

Well, looks like Olympus Master "Isn't."
I shot JPEGs at the same time and the stuff from the camera is
definitely better. Still noisy, but better.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107288090

Not wanting to start a fight, but then how do you explain what was
posted he
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/2082...photo-gallery/

Again, don't know what settings you used or they used either,
but there is an extreme difference in the results.

RichA wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:21 am, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:05:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



On Dec 20, 8:21 pm, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:
Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed areas
would be noisy!!
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804
They say that seeing is believing but I have seen several photos from
this camera and even the ISO1600 and 3200 shots I have seen look a lot
better than the one you posted.
Not sure what is going on, but something is very strange.
Well, looks like Olympus Master "Isn't."
I shot JPEGs at the same time and the stuff from the camera is
definitely better. Still noisy, but better.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107288090
Not wanting to start a fight, but then how do you explain what was
posted hehttp://www.letsgodigital.org/en/2082...photo-gallery/

Again, don't know what settings you used or they used either,
but there is an extreme difference in the results.

Here is the entire exif data from the camera:

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306639

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306640

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306641


Rich, Rich, Rich.
You know as well as I do that "ANYONE" can produce a terribly grainy
photo like that with any camera and using ISO 100 too!

How is not rocket science either. Shoot 4 stops under exposed and pull
the picture back to correct exposure during post processing and there
you have it. Simulated ISO 3200!

I can personal attest to the quality of a correctly exposed Olympus E30
image. Certainly there is some grain like texture evident in an E30 image.

This, to me looks like their idea of simulating the look of film, rather
than any shortcoming of the sensor and it's ability to produce quality
images.

Sorry to deflate your little bash up but I'd rather have an E3 system
than a 5D0 Canon system any day of the week.

"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:21 am, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:05:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



On Dec 20, 8:21 pm, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:
Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it
costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've
seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed
areas
would be noisy!!
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804
They say that seeing is believing but I have seen several photos from
this camera and even the ISO1600 and 3200 shots I have seen look a lot
better than the one you posted.
Not sure what is going on, but something is very strange.
Well, looks like Olympus Master "Isn't."
I shot JPEGs at the same time and the stuff from the camera is
definitely better. Still noisy, but better.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107288090
Not wanting to start a fight, but then how do you explain what was
posted hehttp://www.letsgodigital.org/en/2082...photo-gallery/

Again, don't know what settings you used or they used either,
but there is an extreme difference in the results.

Here is the entire exif data from the camera:

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306639

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306640

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306641


Rich, Rich, Rich.
You know as well as I do that "ANYONE" can produce a terribly grainy photo
like that with any camera and using ISO 100 too!

How is not rocket science either. Shoot 4 stops under exposed and pull the
picture back to correct exposure during post processing and there you have
it. Simulated ISO 3200!


Neither is reading the Exif rocket science. Notice the +0.7 stop
compensation I added before I shot? I didn't want the lights causing under
exposure.

RichA wrote:
"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:21 am, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:05:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



On Dec 20, 8:21 pm, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:
Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it
costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've
seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no shadowed
areas
would be noisy!!
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804
They say that seeing is believing but I have seen several photos from
this camera and even the ISO1600 and 3200 shots I have seen look a lot
better than the one you posted.
Not sure what is going on, but something is very strange.
Well, looks like Olympus Master "Isn't."
I shot JPEGs at the same time and the stuff from the camera is
definitely better. Still noisy, but better.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107288090
Not wanting to start a fight, but then how do you explain what was
posted hehttp://www.letsgodigital.org/en/2082...photo-gallery/

Again, don't know what settings you used or they used either,
but there is an extreme difference in the results.
Here is the entire exif data from the camera:

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306639

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306640

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306641

Rich, Rich, Rich.
You know as well as I do that "ANYONE" can produce a terribly grainy photo
like that with any camera and using ISO 100 too!

How is not rocket science either. Shoot 4 stops under exposed and pull the
picture back to correct exposure during post processing and there you have
it. Simulated ISO 3200!


Neither is reading the Exif rocket science. Notice the +0.7 stop
compensation I added before I shot? I didn't want the lights causing under
exposure.




Rich. You have a reputation for starting useless discussions about stuff
mainstream users simply don't experience. You know too that EXIF data
can be edited. I've seen images from a D3 someone put the EXIF from an
Olympus 4 MP Point and **** into and tried to pass off the images as
coming from the Olympus.

If you really took that shot with the camera you claim to have used at
the settings you say are true, I'd send the camera and the image back to
Olympus for a replacement or refund. Simple as that.

"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:21 am, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:05:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



On Dec 20, 8:21 pm, Steven Wandy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:06:51 -0500, "RichA"

wrote:
Wow! Not only is this all-plastic (and if feels it) camera vastly
overpriced (It isn't even in the same league as Sony's A350 and it
costs
$1400 for the body!). This is the worst looking 800 ISO raw I've
seen,
ever. I even overexposed the scene slightly to make sure no
shadowed areas
would be noisy!!
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107281804
They say that seeing is believing but I have seen several photos
from
this camera and even the ISO1600 and 3200 shots I have seen look a
lot
better than the one you posted.
Not sure what is going on, but something is very strange.
Well, looks like Olympus Master "Isn't."
I shot JPEGs at the same time and the stuff from the camera is
definitely better. Still noisy, but better.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107288090
Not wanting to start a fight, but then how do you explain what was
posted
hehttp://www.letsgodigital.org/en/2082...photo-gallery/

Again, don't know what settings you used or they used either,
but there is an extreme difference in the results.
Here is the entire exif data from the camera:

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306639

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306640

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/107306641

Rich, Rich, Rich.
You know as well as I do that "ANYONE" can produce a terribly grainy
photo like that with any camera and using ISO 100 too!

How is not rocket science either. Shoot 4 stops under exposed and pull
the picture back to correct exposure during post processing and there
you have it. Simulated ISO 3200!


Neither is reading the Exif rocket science. Notice the +0.7 stop
compensation I added before I shot? I didn't want the lights causing
under exposure.


Rich. You have a reputation for starting useless discussions about stuff
mainstream users simply don't experience. You know too that EXIF data can
be edited.

Sure, but I can email anyone the raws who really wants them. Then they
could do their own checks.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:30 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:


I just like to add that the E-3 pro camera is now the same price as
this new one and you'd have to be INSANE to buy the E-30 over it.
It's like buying a A350 Sony for the same price as a D300 Nikon, which
no sane person would do.

That might depends on the persons needs and wants. I agree that the
introductory price of the E30 seems a bit high for a camera that is
supposed to be positioned between the E3 and the E520. But the E3 was
last year's technology and if you want the latest (especially when it
first comes out) you have to pay for it.