Macro Shots Comparison between E-330 and E-500

tomcat · 16th May 2006

Here's a Japanese site which posted full sized macro shots taken with the 50mm macro lens and both the E-330 and E-500 for comparison.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/lo...5/16/3800.html

Too bad the site is in Japanese so I don't know what were the comments they made regarding this interesting comparison. Then again, I suspect that own individual preferences would still be subjective.

Hacker · 16th May 2006

Just looking at the 2 pixs for example:

E-330
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/pa...3800-10-1.html

E-500
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/pa...3800-10-2.html

The shadow details give more information for the E-330. Look at the top left corner. The whites seem more washed out for the E-330. Maybe I'm dreaming, but what do the others think?

PS: See my previous post on Blown Highlights on the E-330.

nightpiper · 16th May 2006

i noticed the E500 gives more detail & also image sharper (from the 1st red flower & the 2nd yellow flower). colour wise, E500 also looks richer with deeper saturation. colour accuracy, i still vote for E500 cos i find the yellow flower & white flower looked better.

i suspect there's a file naming error cos the "natural" & "flat" 1st red flower has the bigger subject size labelled as E330, which on the 1st set "vivid" the bigger subject is E500. also the background colour of the E330 looks very artificial from the "vivid" set & the same fake look is found on the "natural" & "flat" E500, which i believe is not the case.

my final vote still goes to E500. i feel the NMOS in the E330 is not as pleasing as E500's FFT-CCD.

lets see what the future successor to E500 brings (perhaps in Photokina?). hope its a more pleasing sensor than NMOS.

slwong · 17th May 2006

hi,

can click on this to view the page in english format:
http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

Hope it help

tomcat · 17th May 2006

Strange... to me the E-300 colours looked richer and more saturated and the flowers looked fresher. Just look at the contrast between the stamens and petals in the first flower. The E-500 flowers all looked duller.
As for sharpness, I don't think the comparison is fair since the resolutions (8MB vs 7.5MB in these photos) are different and the focus points were slightly different for each flower with each camera.
Also, the exposure settings used seemed to be deliberately synchronized. This is OK if the sensors are the same (and we all know they are very different, don't we) and are therefore matched as far as metering and ISO sensitivity are concerned. As it is, it looked like there are some differences between the exposures of the images taken by the 2 cameras.

raycsk · 17th May 2006

Man trying to comprehend the english is giving me a headache.

16th May 2006	#1
tomcat Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 3,456	Macro Shots Comparison between E-330 and E-500 Here's a Japanese site which posted full sized macro shots taken with the 50mm macro lens and both the E-330 and E-500 for comparison. http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/lo...5/16/3800.html Too bad the site is in Japanese so I don't know what were the comments they made regarding this interesting comparison. Then again, I suspect that own individual preferences would still be subjective. __________________ Fish Pics:http://www.pbase.com/pschia/oddballs IR Pics:http://www.pbase.com/pschia/infra_red

16th May 2006	#2
Hacker Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Cyberspace Posts: 3,024	Re: Macro Shots Comparison between E-330 and E-500 Just looking at the 2 pixs for example: E-330 http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/pa...3800-10-1.html E-500 http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/pa...3800-10-2.html The shadow details give more information for the E-330. Look at the top left corner. The whites seem more washed out for the E-330. Maybe I'm dreaming, but what do the others think? PS: See my previous post on Blown Highlights on the E-330.

17th May 2006	#4
slwong New Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 37	Re: Macro Shots Comparison between E-330 and E-500 hi, can click on this to view the page in english format: http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools Hope it help

17th May 2006	#5
tomcat Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 3,456	Re: Macro Shots Comparison between E-330 and E-500 Strange... to me the E-300 colours looked richer and more saturated and the flowers looked fresher. Just look at the contrast between the stamens and petals in the first flower. The E-500 flowers all looked duller. As for sharpness, I don't think the comparison is fair since the resolutions (8MB vs 7.5MB in these photos) are different and the focus points were slightly different for each flower with each camera. Also, the exposure settings used seemed to be deliberately synchronized. This is OK if the sensors are the same (and we all know they are very different, don't we) and are therefore matched as far as metering and ISO sensitivity are concerned. As it is, it looked like there are some differences between the exposures of the images taken by the 2 cameras. __________________ Fish Pics:http://www.pbase.com/pschia/oddballs IR Pics:http://www.pbase.com/pschia/infra_red

17th May 2006	#6
raycsk Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NE Singapore Posts: 405	Re: Macro Shots Comparison between E-330 and E-500 Man trying to comprehend the english is giving me a headache.

16th May 2006	#3
nightpiper Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,798	i noticed the E500 gives more detail & also image sharper (from the 1st red flower & the 2nd yellow flower). colour wise, E500 also looks richer with deeper saturation. colour accuracy, i still vote for E500 cos i find the yellow flower & white flower looked better. i suspect there's a file naming error cos the "natural" & "flat" 1st red flower has the bigger subject size labelled as E330, which on the 1st set "vivid" the bigger subject is E500. also the background colour of the E330 looks very artificial from the "vivid" set & the same fake look is found on the "natural" & "flat" E500, which i believe is not the case. my final vote still goes to E500. i feel the NMOS in the E330 is not as pleasing as E500's FFT-CCD. lets see what the future successor to E500 brings (perhaps in Photokina?). hope its a more pleasing sensor than NMOS.