E3 Better Than D3?

goldenlight

goldenlight

Messages
984
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Are there any circumstances where an Olympus E3 might out-perform a Nikon D3 in terms of image quality? My first reaction to this idle thought was, “No, surely not,” but then.......take this scenario:-

Two aspiring wildlife photographers, One the owner of a D3, the other an E3, need the longest reach lens they can get for less than £1000 and both settle on a Sigma Bigma. It has, of course, a maximum focal length of 500mm regardless of which camera it is used on. However, the Nikon is full frame and hence has no crop factor whereas the Olympus has a x2 crop factor that creates an angle of view equivalent to a 1000mm lens on full frame.

Now it just so happens that both photographers have a particular interest in wild birds and need every millimetre of focal length they can muster, ideally at least 1000mm or equivalent. The E3 owner shoots away happily, filling the frame with his subject and producing detailed 10MP images that require no cropping. The D3 owner gets the same images, except that the subject is much smaller in relation to the size of the frame and the crop needed to match the E3 magnification results in 3MP (yes, 3MP) images. Now I've no doubt that they will be very high quality 3MP files, but can they really match the 10MP files from the E3?

Of course, the Nikon owner can always add a x2 converter to match the effective focal length of the Bigma on the E3, but his lens will now have a maximum aperture of around f13. The light levels are quite low and the Olympus owner is shooting 1/250 sec @f6.3, ISO 400. he is comfortable using that comparatively slow shutter speed on such a long lens thanks to in-body IS. The Nikon owner can thankfully crank the ISO right up by virtue of the superb noise control of the D3. Without the benefit of IS, he is wisely shooting 1/1000 sec @f13 with the ISO set at 6400.

Thankfully, the brilliant sensor of the D3 is quite capable of supporting ISO of this magnitude but is this situation getting to the stage where the seemingly inferior E3 has the edge? Don't forget the Bigma is now attached to a x2 converter and even the best of these is bound to degrade IQ slightly, especially when shooting wide open.

The sky darkens and the EV drops another two stops. The Olympus owner wisely won't go slower than 1/125 sec for fear of subject movement, meaning he has to step up to ISO 800 – at which the E3 still performs surprisingly well despite the negative press it has received for high ISO performance. Meanwhile, the Nikon owner is forced to make rather more serious compromises. It's not ideal without IS, but he drops his shutter speed to 1/500 sec and cranks up the ISO to 12800. Now it's truly amazing that the D3 can produce an image at all at this sensitivity, but can it really compare to the E3 which is still cruising at ISO 800?

Food for thought?
 
The D3 pictures will go bigger, as they are bigger files.

It isn't the 10mp that matters, it is the file size produced - shoot RAW in the Nikon and you can translate that into 120MB images without dropping from 300 dpi. You can produce pictures that drop off the side of a building with the D3....can you with the Olypus?

I don't know. I used to like Olympus in the early days of my career - an OM2 was my workhorse, then they decided to go all weird and follow the anoraks...so I changed to Nikon and have stuck with them ever since. BUT, even so, I have a soft spot for Olympus, they made lovely, light, compact SLRs and some lovely glass. They were good enough for Lord Lichfield.
 
Lensflare said:
The D3 pictures will go bigger, as they are bigger files.

It isn't the 10mp that matters, it is the file size produced - shoot RAW in the Nikon and you can translate that into 120MB images without dropping from 300 dpi.
Click to expand...
This is rubbish though, isn't it.

10 megapixels is 10 megapixels, whichever camera they came from. Some cameras will deliver better pixels, and I dare say those that come from the D3 are pretty good (whereas a 10 megapixel compact, for example, will generally deliver much worse pixels). But that doesn't affect the file size.

The Nikon D3 delivers 12 megapxels at 14 bits per pixel, which equates to about 21 MB of uncompressed data in each image. Sure, you can increase the file size to 120 MB if you like, but you're just adding 100 MB of repetition and/or junk.
 
StewartR said:
I think all you've proven is that a wildlife photographer would be daft to use a D3. It's simply not the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

So to follow that line of reasoning, can we assume that a DSLR with a Four Thirds sensor has a natural advantage over all other DSLRs with larger sensors when it comes to wildlife photography?
 
How dare you, I mean! WHAT!!!? Why you little &^%%%a*&^3 !!!!


In all seriousness though, I recking a Nokia 6350 would outdo the D3 if its me that uses it!!! :D

Gary.
 
StewartR said:
I think all you've proven is that a wildlife photographer would be daft to use a D3. It's simply not the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

A hell of a lot of folks are doing well with the D3.

You need to quality that comment, as a lot of stuff can be shot from hides with as little as 200mm.

The high ISO does allow you to use a TC, and stop down to compensate with little IQ loss (the big pixels are very forgiving)

I think its not as simple as saying its not the right tool for the job - it really depends on what you shoot - ie tiny birds, large mammals etc!
 
the other thing to consider is if you can afford a D3, you wouldn't be limited to £1000 of lens with no enough reach.

Its not really a fair scenario to raise
 
StewartR said:
I think all you've proven is that a wildlife photographer would be daft to use a D3. It's simply not the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...
puddleduck said:
A hell of a lot of folks are doing well with the D3.

You need to quality that comment, as a lot of stuff can be shot from hides with as little as 200mm.
Click to expand...
Fair point. What I meant to say, or course, is that a D3 is simply not the right tool for the job in the following situation:
goldenlight said:
... aspiring wildlife photographer ... particular interest in wild birds ... need every millimetre of focal length they can muster
Click to expand...
 
To the OP - all the D3 owner needs to do is switch to crop mode... and all the benefits? of the smaller sensor are reduced considerably

can the E3 do 11fps? - i think not

of course sooner or later the e3 and d3 owners will want better lenses - the E3 owner will buy Zuiko and the nikon will buy nikon

if they brought a 300mm F2.8 the Zuiko would be £4750.00
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1002691

but the nikon 300mm f2.8 would be £2869.95
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1006066

are oly having a laugh with the lens prices, i thought putting the stabilisation in the camera was to reduce the cost of the lenses? ...?
 
sportysnaps said:
To the OP - all the D3 owner needs to do is switch to crop mode... and all the benefits? of the smaller sensor are reduced considerably

can the E3 do 11fps? - i think not

of course sooner or later the e3 and d3 owners will want better lenses - the E3 owner will buy Zuiko and the nikon will buy nikon

if they brought a 300mm F2.8 the Zuiko would be £4750.00
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1002691

but the nikon 300mm f2.8 would be £2869.95
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1006066

are oly having a laugh with the lens prices, i thought putting the stabilisation in the camera was to reduce the cost of the lenses? ...?
Click to expand...
Haha... except E-3 owners paid a 1/3rd of the price for their bodies in the first place.

Oh, and of course, as you are getting pedantic here, one could also purchase the 150mm f2.0 (faster than the Nikon glass you mention), and still get to take the same shots as one can achieve with the Nikon lens you mention. Oh... and the price... £1,789.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1002727

You have to read the OP's post mr sportysnaps - which posed a legitimate question. There's really no need to get so defensive about the D3, nobody is questioning it's magnificent performance. You though, seem to want to blast all things Olympus. Typical...:thinking:
 
You have to read the OP's post mr sportysnaps - which posed a legitimate question. There's really no need to get so defensive about the D3, nobody is questioning it's magnificent performance. You though, seem to want to blast all things Olympus. Typical..
Click to expand...


not really, although i'm happy to blast anything by canon or nikon, if there is good reason - I just don't like camera's with small sensors,(call it a fetish if you will) although canon and nikon do not make SLR camera's with sensors that small, but if they did - i'd blast them
You have to read the OP's post mr sportysnaps
Click to expand...
yep i read it

nobody is questioning it's magnificent performance
Click to expand...

E3 Better Than D3?


Typical..? Typical of what?

ok you win we all need smaller sensors not bigger ones
 
I am fairly new to digital photography and I am curious why the D3 isnt good for wildlife. I only ask as I used to always use Nikon film cameras and have bought a new Nikon digital and thought I might get into wildlife shots at some point. Just wondering really.
 
BigLoada said:
I am fairly new to digital photography and I am curious why the D3 isnt good for wildlife. I only ask as I used to always use Nikon film cameras and have bought a new Nikon digital and thought I might get into wildlife shots at some point. Just wondering really.
Click to expand...

Because some people think that it's more important to be able to take a photo from half a mile away than to learn about the subject they're shooting and get proper photos...

Ooops did I type that out loud :thinking:
 
BigLoada said:
I am fairly new to digital photography and I am curious why the D3 isnt good for wildlife. I only ask as I used to always use Nikon film cameras and have bought a new Nikon digital and thought I might get into wildlife shots at some point. Just wondering really.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with using a Nikon or any other full frame camera for wildlife photography i think the OP is trying to justify buying into a system that uses a sensor a similar size to a point & shoot.
 
sportysnaps said:
To the OP - all the D3 owner needs to do is switch to crop mode... and all the benefits? of the smaller sensor are reduced considerably

can the E3 do 11fps? - i think not

of course sooner or later the e3 and d3 owners will want better lenses - the E3 owner will buy Zuiko and the nikon will buy nikon

if they brought a 300mm F2.8 the Zuiko would be £4750.00
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1002691

but the nikon 300mm f2.8 would be £2869.95
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1006066

are oly having a laugh with the lens prices, i thought putting the stabilisation in the camera was to reduce the cost of the lenses? ...?
Click to expand...

But the 300mm Zuiko is the equivalent of 600mm on the D3. The Nikon owner would need to buy a 600mm f4 - which is just shy of £7,000!

Now let's put this in perspective. these lenses are silly money to most people on this forum. My scenario doesn't feature Andy Rouse as one of the photographers, it features mere mortals like myself and, I would guess, you who might well aspire to be wildlife photographers. Many hobby photographers with these aspirations, regardless of their brand of camera, rely upon the versatile, reasonable quality and realistically priced Bigma as their workhorse. I maintain that my scenario is valid, although maybe with a D700 rather than a D3.

However, please do not think I'm knocking Nikon. I agree that the D3 (and D700 for that matter) is a remarkable camera and overall can be considered significantly superior to the E3 in most situations, with the caveat that you've got to be able to afford the glass to realise it's full potential. It must be acknowledged, for instance, that the Bigma probably delivers better IQ on the E3 than the D3 because the x2 crop factor means the mucky edges are automatically cropped and also "full frame" sensors are much more demanding of optics than equivalent sized film ever was.

I do, however, wish to make the point that the E3 has unique qualities that in certain situations make it the best tool for the job. Amongst non-Olympus users I get the impression that it is sometimes not fully appreciated just how versatile the E3 really is and how good the IQ is, although I readilly acknowledge that it is more of a natural match to the D300 than the D3!

Now, please excuse my ignorance, but what is "crop mode?" Doesn't it still result in an image that does not utilise all the pixels available on the sensor - or is there some sort of advanced interpolation at play? Please educate me! :shrug:

Now I have a little confession to make: If money was not an issue I would own a D3, or at least a D700. But I would also keep my E3 for the occasions (surprisingly more than just the scenario in my OP) when it would be more suitable than the D3.

And Nikon owners, please don't feel I'm trying to undermine you or the equipment you use; on the contrary, we have much more in common as keen photographers than could possibly divide us over the relatively unimportant issue of what equipment we use.

And notice (tongue-in-cheek) that I haven't felt the need to mention Canon in all of this! :whistle: :exit:
 
as i said
ok you win we all need smaller sensors not bigger ones

- indeed why is the E3 sensor sooo big, if it was half the size we would only need 250mm lenses instead of the 500mm ones above. this has nothing to do with canon nikon or oly - only sensor size, and to a lesser degree resolution.

a digital image (as i understand it) is made up from information captured by a sensor. If everything else is equal (and this really is the important point) then more information captured = more information to create the digital image. A larger sensor can capture more light, in same way that a larger mirror in a telescope can, a larger aerial in a radio can, larger solar panels...

The bigma is not the best lens for the d3, and would limit what it can do. bigger sensors need bigger lenses.

In crop mode the d3 would use less pixels but (i believe) would use a larger area then the E3 as a sensor, so should be able to capture more information, although this would be divided into around 6million(d3) sections instead of 10million(e3)

whilst the number of pixels in an image is important the quality of the information in each pixel is important also, if you doubt this is important - open two images on your screen - a low and high res one - both set to fill your screen - ie you can see all of the image and it fills the screen say one is 2 million pixels the other 10 million - can you see a difference between the two?

if you are looking at a typical screen - say 1024 x 768 then you are looking at both images at 786432 pixels - less then 1 million - but you can see the difference between the two images - why? because of the differance in the quality of the information provided to each of the pixels on your screen
 
This might throw up a few thoughts.

Turn the situation round the other way, take 2 avid landscape photographers, using the same 2 cameras and (just an example) the Sigma 12-24mm lens. Who comes up with the better photos then.....

It all comes down to selecting the right equipment for the job.
 
I'm a little confused here, I see many debates involving the crop factor, as I understand, the difference between a full frame and a cropped sensor is that the cropped sensor will have a higher resolution at a smaller image area and not a higher magnifcation in comparison.
A 500mm telephoto is still a 500mm telephoto regardless of what sensor is recording the information.
Am i way off? Or is the OP confused?
T.
 
Thomas, no the OP is not confused. With the same lens on each camera, a FF (full frame) Nikon D3 would see a wider field of view than the same lens on a 4/3 Olympus E-3. As an example of wildlife photography - say taking shots of birds - this effectively means that on the Nikon FF you see less of the bird for the same (more or less) number of pixels than you do on the 4/3 Oly - thus the bird is effectively magnified.

Note here - the number of pixels that makes up the bird on the D3 would be significantly less than the number of pixels that make up the bird on the E-3 - thus, in these circumstances, the E-3 would possibly (as the OP points out) be more effective, and manage better images - than the D3.

To use Steve's scenario in post #24, then the results are reversed - the FF D3 would produce significantly better images than the 4/3 Oly E-3 because the FF D3 would see more of the image in the frame as it has a wider field of view.

As Steve says - it's all down to using the right equipment for the job in hand.
 
theMusicMan said:
To use Steve's scenario in post #24, then the results are reversed - the FF D3 would produce significantly better images than the 4/3 Oly E-3 because the FF D3 would see more of the image in the frame as it has a wider field of view.

As Steve says - it's all down to using the right equipment for the job in hand.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying and I agree completely that the right tools for the job in hand is the most sensible way.

Personally I would choose a cropped sensor over a full frame for longer ranges, provided that the same facilities are available (reasonable high ISO, frame rate etc), but I make this preference down to the resolution of the sensor, forgive my ignorance but I just don't get how there is any magnification involved, it seems to be an illusion of magnification and not true magnification.
Surely it's a higher res (more good pixels) at a reduced image area that makes a higher IQ image on a cropped sensor?
Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult or argumantative as I am not, I'm merely trying to wrap my head around the theories.
all the best
T.
 
Not at all Thomas, not at all matey - your questions are 100% valid.

You are right of course, there is no actual magnification involved here, a 500mm lens is a 500mm lens and that's that. It's just a smaller area of the field of view being captured on the same number of pixels which is an effective magnification for cropped sensor cameras - thus possibly yielding a better image.
 
Using a 4/3 senor will also give you some other effects that are not so welcome like a larger DOF which will make it harder to isolate the subject from its background, as the sensor is smaller it has to use smaller light receptors that are squashed together closer on the sensor which will produce more noise and less dynamic range than a full frame sensor. If smaller sensors were so good we would all be running around with point & shoot or bridge camera's with interchangeable lens's.
 
theMusicMan said:
Not at all Thomas, not at all matey - your questions are 100% valid.

You are right of course, there is no actual magnification involved here, a 500mm lens is a 500mm lens and that's that. It's just a smaller area of the field of view being captured on the same number of pixels which is an effective magnification for cropped sensor cameras - thus possibly yielding a better image.
Click to expand...

A ha! The penny has firmly dropped and is snuggly in place! I thank you sir.
(y)
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Using a 4/3 senor will also give you some other effects that are not so welcome like a larger DOF which will make it harder to isolate the subject from its background, as the sensor is smaller it has to use smaller light receptors that are squashed together closer on the sensor which will produce more noise and less dynamic range than a full frame sensor. If smaller sensors were so good we would all be running around with point & shoot or bridge camera's with interchangeable lens's.
Click to expand...


The DOF point is a double edged sword with 4/3rds.

The difference in real life betweein 4/3rd and APS-C DOF is very small, but the difference is that the 4/3rd lenses are sharp wide open edge-to-edge which cannot always be said about the competition. To get the same sharpness on APS-C you have to stop down a stop or two thus negating any difference (unless you-re happy with soft edges / corners :shrug:) The other thing to point out is that at full telephoto the DOF is minute anyway so the additional bit helps the 4/3rds sensor to keep more of the bird in focus.

In landscap the extra DOF is a welcome bonus meaning you dont have to stop down as much as full frame and therfore more light hits the sensor meaning shorter exposure times.

As for the small light receptors, the latest Canon 50D has a Pixel density of 4.5MP / cm2 agains the E-3 Pixel Density of 4.2MP / cm2 and everyone is raving about the performance of that.

Chris
 
It still depends on the quality of the sensor - more pixels does not necessarily equate to better quality, in many cases it results in POORER picture quality. It depends on the make up of the sensor rather than just the number of pixels. The D2X has the same number of pixels as the D3 - anyone going to argue the point that the D2X is a better camera than the D3? If it is, why did Nikon spend all that money on developing the new model (or Canon, Pentax, Oly......for that matter) if they have actually gone backwards using the logic applied above.

The number of pixels covered by the subject is still not the point. A crop within the angle of coverage of the lens is not a magnification. It seems as though it is because of the viewfinder picture. All you are doing is cropping in the camera instead of cropping in the computer - but the result is the same.

The picture quality of the pixel numbers comes down to how much space is lost between each sensor spot. More pixels that are smaller each does not improve quality - more pixels crammed onto the same size sensor due to saving space between the sites WILL result in better picture quality.

Using a cropped sensor will result in a closer crop of the subject taken with the lens. Using that same lens on a bigger frame will result in a the same rendition of the subject, even though there will be more wasted space, provided the area covered is the same.

If the cropped sensor is half size and the FF captures the subject at half frame, then the image will be the same and differences will be down to lens quality and sensor quality - not angle of view, or the "crop factor".

As with film capture, where everyone understands (or understood) that the bigger the piece of film, the higher the quality. An APS camera could not match a 35mm camera which was bettered by a 645, which was blown away by a 6x7 (I'll ignore 6x6 because if you used it to fill a page it was 645, due to chopping off a strip from one side) in turn was beaten by 5x4 which was a way below 10x8........but in these cases the sensor was the same, because it came from the same source - Fuji Velvia was Fuji Velvia. Get more of it behind the lens and you got higher picture quality.

To improve the situation when using a 35mm you had to get a longer lens to get the subject bigger in the frame, and so bigger on the sensor (tranny). Getting more subject on the sensor was the way to get better pics WITH THE SAME SIZE SENSOR (which was film). Putting a longer lens on an APS film camera did not give better pictures than using a 35mm with the same lens.......the same is true of digital. To get higher quality, you need a bigger sensor. True, to make BEST USE OF IT, you then need to fill the frame. THIS is where the confusion is coming in.

Filling a smaller sensor does not necessarily give better quality......just because the frame is filled further. It depends on the relative quality of the two sensor images. In other words - compare the two image areas captured that are of interest and ignore the periphery. It then comes back to the question of lens quality and sensor quality.
 
Cool thread, I thnk the long and short of it is (See what I did there? :)), is that if you are serious about your work, and your field, you will simply research like mad and make an educated guess, erm Choice :D. I haven't a clue so can't pass judgement. What I can say is this, if I were totally hooked on nature, and wanted that extra reach, and the smaller sensor being debated here were to do the job better, I would simply build my collection and have the camera.

I keep banging on about the Fuji S5 Pro, and I will definately pick one up soon, the D3 I love, but the dynamic range of the Fuji is apparently something to behold. I want it as a 3rd body, at which point I will probably permanently detach myself from my old D200.

It would be great if someone did have the full frame AND the Oly, to go out for us all and do side by side shots so we can all pxel peep :D

Gary.
 
Another point to note is that no mater how good a sensor is, if you put crap glass in front of it you'll get crap pictures.

The resolution of the glass on a cropped sensor has to be of a higher quality as it has to resolve more detail from a smaller area. At the moment all of the HG and SHG Olympus glass, and some of the SG, (Standard Grade, High Grade and Super High Grade) out-resolve the 4/3rds sensor - sometimes up to a factor of 3:1 so there is plenty of headroom available for more / better pixels when the technology catches up.
 
Louis Dobson over on DPReview has the D3 and E-3 and did some comparison posts (dont know if they included pictures or not).

I'll go and dig out the links shortly.

Chris
 
My take on this is that people shouldn't be relying on extra focal length at the expense of learning field craft. In 99.9% of situations if you know what your doing, you can get twice as close to the subject you're shooting anyway.

So for example, light isn't great in autumn, so high ISO comes into play. I take my D3+300mm ( using the D3 as a FF example ) out to shoot a few squirrels ( Pictures, not shoot dead... lol ) and another tog takes an oly and his 300mm. ( to use as a 4/3 example )
Now say for arguments sake, I know loads about squirrels, have learnt to read the signals in their behaviour, and can place myself half way distance wise between the oly tog and the squirrel. ( Not blocking him, we both have an un-obstructive view )

Who will get the better image?

If we're talking wildlife photography, I think generally people have had it easy with cropped sensors, and now rely on effective focal length more than knowing the subjects.
 
icecavern said:
My take on this is that people shouldn't be relying on extra focal length at the expense of learning field craft. In 99.9% of situations if you know what your doing, you can get twice as close to the subject you're shooting anyway.

So for example, light isn't great in autumn, so high ISO comes into play. I take my D3+300mm ( using the D3 as a FF example ) out to shoot a few squirrels ( Pictures, not shoot dead... lol ) and another tog takes an oly and his 300mm. ( to use as a 4/3 example )
Now say for arguments sake, I know loads about squirrels, have learnt to read the signals in their behaviour, and can place myself half way distance wise between the oly tog and the squirrel. ( Not blocking him, we both have an un-obstructive view )

Who will get the better image?

If we're talking wildlife photography, I think generally people have had it easy with cropped sensors, and now rely on effective focal length more than knowing the subjects.
Click to expand...


I see what you're saying with that one and the better pixels would win, although there would be very little in it i suspect, but try it at an airshow :LOL:
 
it would be interesting to fit a full frame SLR with medium format lenses, to effectivly use smaller % of the availible light circle - in the same way OLY have with the lenses to see how this improves quality - from my own experiance the canon 1ds (full frame) shows many more flaws in the lenses then the 1d (1.3 crop), although the full frame was better then the croped frame when the lenses were stopped down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top