DCRP review of E330 is out!

[Moonstone]

Check it out here:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ol...ew/index.shtml

[hammer_400]

lookin good! juz need ta wait for imaging-resource to put thier up

[nightpiper]

thx. u were fast.

noise aside, personally i still prefer the image quality from the older FFT-CCD sensor.

[tao]

Originally Posted by nightpiper noise aside, personally i still prefer the image quality from the older FFT-CCD sensor.

especially the colour rendition and the tonality too

[NMSS_2]

my personal views on image quality of e-330:

the good:
1) more 3-d feel
2) better iso noise control
3) good wb control
4) better DR(tonality) than e-300

the bad:
1) colour rendition is better in e-300 (in iso 100-400, looks alot creamier).
2) not as sharp as e-300 but better than the rest of e-bodies.
3) patterned noise when upping brightness/contrast in high iso images.

looks like a battle between cmos and ccd!

[tao]

I don't see any difference in the so called '3D feel'... IMO, that is determined by the superb Zuiko Optics.

[nightpiper]

Originally Posted by NMSS_2 my personal views on image quality of e-330: the good: 1) more 3-d feel 2) better iso noise control 3) good wb control 4) better DR(tonality) than e-300 the bad: 1) colour rendition is better in e-300 (in iso 100-400, looks alot creamier). 2) not as sharp as e-300 but better than the rest of e-bodies. 3) patterned noise when upping brightness/contrast in high iso images. looks like a battle between cmos and ccd!

more 3D feel??? i choose to differ bro. yet to see any E330 as good looking as the E500 in print & on screen. but then, this is strictly personal preference. u bot the E330 NMSS_2?

[plastic]

3D-ness is definitely the result of ZD lenses.

[NMSS_2]

my past pics from e-300 and present pics from e-330 tells me a different story on the 3d-ness! my old eyes must be playing tricks on me!

[plastic]

Originally Posted by NMSS_2 my past pics from e-300 and present pics from e-330 tells me a different story on the 3d-ness! my old eyes must be playing tricks on me!

Maybe we can all do another shoot out together? (Another excuse for kopi session). LOL.

[NMSS_2]

Originally Posted by plastic Maybe we can all do another shoot out together? (Another excuse for kopi session). LOL.

so you are coming down from hk or we are going up to hk? dont tell me to lim kopi over in "cybercafe".

[plastic]

Originally Posted by NMSS_2 so you are coming down from hk or we are going up to hk? dont tell me to lim kopi over in "cybercafe".

Definitely kopi in Singapore whenever possible. I will let you know.

ps : How to "lim kopi" in cyberspace? c[_]~~ ?? wah kao!

[VR Man]

Originally Posted by plastic Definitely kopi in Singapore whenever possible. I will let you know. ps : How to "lim kopi" in cyberspace? c[_]~~ ?? wah kao!

Use webcam loh! iChatAV but only max 3 person

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by nightpiper thx. u were fast. noise aside, personally i still prefer the image quality from the older FFT-CCD sensor.

Agree, the E500 is marginally better than the E330 in terms of pix quality.

[tomcat]

When I got the E-330, my overall impression of the image quality compared to the E-300 was that the E-330 is better - better dynamic range, better white balance, lower noise.

This impression was substantiated later by the findings of Anders Uschold, technical expert to many camera manufacturers on the test results he derived from testing the E-500 and E-330 in his testing institute and which he posted in the www.fourthirdsphoto.com forum.

For those who have not seen them, his findings were:

The cameras show the following mean standard deviation hat represents noise level over the the full brightness range, the lower the better, and input dynamic ranges in stops, the higher the better, at the different ISO settings 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 ISO

Luminance channel:

Noise:
E-500: 2.5 - 3.1 - 4.2 - 4.9 - 5.4
E-330: 2.6 - 3.1 - 4.1 - 4.7 - 5.1

Here the E-330 is just slightly better at high ISO speed


Red color channel:

E-500: 3.8 - 4.8 - 6.7 - 9.1 - 13.5
E-330: 3.4 - 4.3 - 5.6 - 5.1 - 5.8

Here the E-330 is remarkably better especially at high ISO speed. That means chroma noise has improved significantly.


Dynamic range:
E-500: 8.3 - 7.9 - 7.4 - 6.9 - 6.2
E-330: 8.4 - 8.2 - 7.5 - 7.3 - 6.9

The E-330 shows better dynamic range, even in vivid mode. Tone reproduction and OECF are almost identical.


The MOS is better than the CMOS.

[plastic]

Originally Posted by tomcat When I got the E-330, my overall impression of the image quality compared to the E-300 was that the E-330 is better - better dynamic range, better white balance, lower noise. This impression was substantiated later by the findings of Anders Uschold, technical expert to many camera manufacturers on the test results he derived from testing the E-500 and E-330 in his testing institute and which he posted in the www.fourthirdsphoto.com forum. For those who have not seen them, his findings were: The cameras show the following mean standard deviation hat represents noise level over the the full brightness range, the lower the better, and input dynamic ranges in stops, the higher the better, at the different ISO settings 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 ISO Luminance channel: Noise: E-500: 2.5 - 3.1 - 4.2 - 4.9 - 5.4 E-330: 2.6 - 3.1 - 4.1 - 4.7 - 5.1 Here the E-330 is just slightly better at high ISO speed Red color channel: E-500: 3.8 - 4.8 - 6.7 - 9.1 - 13.5 E-330: 3.4 - 4.3 - 5.6 - 5.1 - 5.8 Here the E-330 is remarkably better especially at high ISO speed. That means chroma noise has improved significantly. Dynamic range: E-500: 8.3 - 7.9 - 7.4 - 6.9 - 6.2 E-330: 8.4 - 8.2 - 7.5 - 7.3 - 6.9 The E-330 shows better dynamic range, even in vivid mode. Tone reproduction and OECF are almost identical. The MOS is better than the CMOS.

Chiminology in Photography..... Thanks for sharing, tomcat...

[Hacker]

I've seen the findings by Anders before I posted my comment, but it addresses DR, luminance and other factors which is better at the higher ISO levels.

Per pixel sharpness?

[tomcat]

Those were the findings that were directly relateable to my impression of the difference in image quality between the E-330 and E-300 ie noise and DR. While noise is more applicable to higher ISO speeds (and rightly so), DR applies across all ISO speeds.

I don't practise pixel peeping and so it never once cross my mind to compare the 2 cameras with regard to per pixel sharpness. There are so many factors that could affect the visual impression of image sharpness that any observation could be quite subjective in any case. To my eyes, I don't see any difference in the sharpness of any photos taken with either camera with the same lens. I am not saying there isn't an iota of difference but I just can't see any on the screen and in print.