The PhoBlographer (Click here) compared the high ISO results of the new [shoplink 23568]Olympus E-P3[/shoplink] with the [shoplink 23176]Canon 7D[/shoplink] and [shoplink 23568]Canon 5D markII[/shoplink]: “Based on the image samples, the Canon 5D Mk II is still way ahead of the other two cameras. However, the EP3 is almost on par with the Canon 7D’s high ISO output results. Overall, the new Olympus EP3 has been able to vastly improve the high ISO output and may finally creep up within the next iteration of the camera (or maybe even in RAW).”
Focus Numerique (Click here) made an LCD spectrophotometer and continous autofocus test. The LCD contrast is excellent and makes it comfortable viewing in bright sunlight. The autofocus speed is extremly fast in bright light but has a poor performance in low light conditions.
Pekkapotka (Click here) posted a new continous autofocus test: “While E-P3´s single AF might be at same level as D3x´s single AF, continuous AF is not.”
Simon from Clubsnap had the chance to test the new Olympus 45mm f/1.8 portrait lens. He posted a set of images including 100% crops.
Preorder links (Amazon DE is now accepting preorders on lenses too!):
Olympus E-P3 preorders at Amazon US, Adorama, BHphoto, Amazon UK and Amazon DE.
Olympus 12mm f/2.0 preorders at Amazon US, Adorama, B&H, Amazon DE and [shoplink 23576 ebay]eBay[/shoplink].
Olympus 45mm f/1.8 preorders at Amazon US, Adorama, B&H and Amazon DE.
59 Responses
Isn’t that an E-PL3 NOT an E-P3?
It’s the 45mm f/1.8, from the clubsnap post, which clearly states that it was tested on an E-PL3.
Reading helps, before kneejerk criticism.
“However, the EP3 is almost on par with the Canon 7D’s high ISO output results.”
this is true up to ISO3200 only. beyond that, E-P3 is not even close
Both are crap in other words past ISO3200 🙂
ISO3200 is good enough for me.
Just keep the HG lenses coming Olympus! LOL
hehe i agree. i’m pretty happy with a usable 3200. before, i had e-420 and iso800 already had a lot of chroma noise and banding but i was able to get by
I still have a e420 with “usable” 400 ISO 🙁
3200 usable are damn good to me!
DxOMark results on the EP-3 sensor is out.
“We have tested the PEN EP3, the latest 4/3 camera by Olympus and the first results are now available. The Olympus PEN EP3 apart from changes on the exterior, it is pretty much the same sensor as the Olympus PEN EPL2 and Olympus E5.
… Olympus PEN EP3, a good micro 4/3 sensor already familiar to us
Tests show the new Olympus EP3 provides similar measurements as the previous Olympus model.
In spite of its goods results we still encountered some old problems:
In high ISO (Lowlight ISO score of 536 which is a bit low in comparison with the results of the latest APS-C sensors (the score is 1083 for the Sony NEX C3 on Lowlight ISO, for example).
The Olympus PEN EP3 has still the same behavior in low ISO for the dynamic range and the score at the minimum ISO is not increasing as expected (+1 EV in comparison with the next IS0).”
Thanks for posting this. Thats pretty quick from DxO. I thought it would have taken them longer.
Thats surprising in one way that there appears to be no change in performance from the old sensor.
Thanks for the heads up. This confirms that the sensor is the same; RAW performance has not improved since (at least) E-PL1.
Very disappointing. I’ll have to see if there’s anything worth “upgrading” from my E-PL1.
The more I read about DxO, the less interested I am in their findings. They attempt to back out any and all in-camera processing in their quest to get at the sensor itself. I find this approach to be obsolete, because processing power is so cheap now that a camera now should be considered as a lens/sensor/software combination. The raw sensor performance is only one part of the story of the quality of a camera. And while DxO is up front about this, the consumers of the site seem not to be. I would like to see them run their tests on straight from camera raw files, as well as re-constructed sensor raw.
I know what you mean – but, then again, the ‘naked’ sensor performance is where everything starts. All processing etc. is ‘make-up’ which can make look things ‘nicer’, but always at a cost.
Right now I’m somewhat disappointed, I have to say. For that price I had expected Olympus to deliver a substantially better sensor, particularly in the low ISO range (that’s what I’m most interested in – I don’t buy into this high-ISO fad).
E-P3 = 7D. “almost” 😉
The E-P3 has a very strong noise reduction at ISO 3200. To my eyes, even though the images are very small, it looks quite worse than the 7D. With full size samples the difference would be very big (let alone in raw without noise reduction).
Looks like Olympus is playing the ISO game again. the ISO3200 is not the actual ISO but cheated, it is around ISO 2000 or below, and it reflects on the slower shutter speed.
It’s typo error. If you download JPEG file and see the exif, you’ll find that it was shot with 1/15 sec, as of the others.
True. 1/5s vs. 1/15s. That is more than a stop!
It’s 1/15th., there’s a typo in the article but the exif shows 1/15.
Thanks.
OMG! Is that the new EVF?
Probably the flash…
It doesn’t looks like a any flash made by Olympus, nor the Bluetooth module. It looks like a EVF which the screen is positioned just above the main display of the camera, a low-profile design!
No, it’s the new flash included with the E-PL3 (and E-PM?)
I hope they eventually offer the flash separately. If it wasn’t ridiculous in price, it would go well with the ep2
For a long time I’d thought if only my E-P1 was 1 stop better ISO wise, a bit faster in autofocus, or had touch screen for quick focus point selection I would be totally happy. Well, E-P3 is here and it has all that. But What I’ve found recently is that I don’t really need all that to make my pictures, turns out my E-P1 can still take good pictures.
It seems in fact for the sort of pictures I take, a.k.a handheld shots of static or slow moving objects and landscapes that my E-P1 isn’t a limiting factor. (read this too http://www.bythom.com/blame.htm)
Think they’ll do this lens in black at some point ?
Simon
That exactly what I want as well. The 45mm and the 12mm lenses in black. I much prefer that look. So Oly if you are listening please provide these lenses in black.
OK…I think that the PhoBlographer’s comparison of the E-P3, 7D and 5D Mark II is EXTREMELY amateurish and should be totally disregarded as houey. (and what is up with the snapshot of the stuffed bear taped to the wall in the back of his wardrobe closet??? just thinkin….)
Movin on..
On the other hand…the clubsnap review of the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is really impressive! I am blown away with the performance of this $400 lens. I have not seen any other reviews or images from this lens…but this coupled with reviews I have see of the Olympus 12mm, f/2 leads me to believe that Olympus finally has gotten serious about MFT!!!!!!!
.. not to mention, his videos on the new Oly’s I’ve seen are quite poor. But with a name like the ‘Phoblogopher’, would you really expect anything else?
This.
It looks like the 45/1.8 is optimized for center sharpness and smooth blur of OOF surfaces. Its optical design reminds me of the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM more than other equivalent lenses.
Olympus 45/1.8: http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/21693_accessory_m_zuiko_digital_45mm_1_1_8_-_details_24777.htm
Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Sonnar10.jpg
I saw in some german online sellers that the zuiko 45 1.8 is priced as low as 255€. If that’s the price at the start then i can image it will sell in the near future for about 220€. That’s a more realistic price for most of us i guess. And the lens looks realy neat.
Yes, great thing about 45 is that it will cost 400$ in Europe, not 400€.
So, the price should be around 260-270€
Why the obsession with high ISO?. I think Olympus should address first the problems with base ISO. I am tired of noise in the shadows and clipped highlights…
Ditto to Panasonic as well ! (more the clipped highlights for me).
Totally agree. Low iso performance is more important to me. As for high ISO – I would be very happy with a moderate grain ISO 1600. The new E-P3 looks good enough at 1600 for me. I know 3200 starts to get noisy. But hey dont people remember what 1600 speed film was like !!!!!
Talk about grain. You could have the most expensive film SLR from Nikon or Canon back 5-10 years ago but with 1600 speed film, the grain would be huge no matter what. Film was the great leveller in that respect. I tried some Ektachrome 1600 speed slide film and boy talk about ‘noise’. That was part of the look anyway. I dont seem to remember 6400 speed film and photographers needing such high iso. Even some 400 speed films were pretty grainy. That didnt seem to matter to alot of great photographers and didnt stop them getting a great shot. Thats why I dont get the focus on 3200, 6400 and even higher.
It is indeed good to inject some realism. The fact that people nowadays speak so easily about iso 3200 shows the huge progress that has been made, as compared with the film days. And this progress goes on and on…
Thanks Ferdinand
I agree that progress is a good thing. I am just unsure of the need for a really clean ISO 6400 as being a really important feature for photographers. Yes I know that some people who like to shoot indoor concerts perhaps might ‘need’ that, but they would probably be better with a FF camera. I know that micro 43 has needed to improve at around 800 and 1600 and thats a fair complaint – the G3 seems better and I guess we need to see the E-P3 reviews.
I just think some reviewers who list really high ISO performance as a negative of micro 43 need to qualify that with a statement that such high iso’s are rarely needed and are only for certain photography styles. There are alot of new users who come up from P&S and see the reviews and think yes that G-3/E-P3 is really poor at high ISO like 3200 or 6400 and feel that they should get a APSC dSLR when they may never use/need high ISO performance. Thats all.
And if improving high ISO performance starts to come at the expense of low ISO performance then I think we are putting too much value on high ISO.
ISO is the new Megapixels.
Good post. I also don’t need high ISO, but that’s my style of shooting (on tripod). Good ISO 800 however, it’s very welcome. As for film photography, I find ISO 400’s grain is already in the unacceptable range that I am so used to my E-620’s near grainless/noiseless ISO 200 (comparable to film @ ISO 50 speed’s noise level). The newer Pens don’t have ISO 100… I think. For people who want silky smooth photos that might be a bit of a turn off.
I find I use ISO3200 every once and a while. I just need a really good ISO1600 (my EP1s is marginal in color, OK for B&W). So, I just need a 1 stop improvement, but I don’t think the new EPs will offer that in RAW. They just have been smearing more in jpgs. Still, I’ll likely get the EPL3 or EP3 (think I’m leaning to the EPL3) because of the other new features.
Expose to the right and don’t use Olympus noise reduction in camera or in their software. Then you will get very good results at 1600 ISO.
Agree completely, though i was always more of an Ilfords man, (still am to large extent) 🙂
Exposing to the right really helps.
High-Iso is the new religion! Honestly, except for some very special purposes, hardly anyone ever needs Iso 1.600 or higher. Nevertheless, people tend to speak about nothing else.
Well, people have different needs. If you like to shoot in lower light, than you need better higher ISO performance. There aren’t a ton of fast m43 lenses yet (although they’re getting there).
Also, saying hardly anyone needs > 1600 is like how people used to say nobody will ever need more than 256mb of ram. We know how that worked out. Personally, I’d love a camera/lens combo that can see in the dark.
Well, you can basically get a see-in-the-dark camera now – full frame with fast glass! But, you won’t fit that in your coat pocket 🙂
High ISO performance is certainly important, depending on what sort of shooting you’re doing it may be the primary factor in your purchase. Obviously 4/3 and µ4/3 don’t lend themselves to this sort of shooting as well as bigger sensors, so you just have to decide if they’re “good enough” for the way you shoot. In my case they are and I’m happy 🙂
Agreed. Everything with cameras is a trade-off – weight, cost, performance. It all factors in. I’m holding out for a x100/rf style body (good vf and manual controls, interchangeable lenses) before I make the leap to m43. The latest round of upcoming lenses looks pretty good.
I love my 7D for certain things, but its size is not one of them.
I know…, 7D is HUGE. If I want to get something that big, I might as well just get an E-5 with SHG lenses (which are still smaller than Canon’s high end lenses).
For indoor sports it’s important, but that isn’t the forte of m43 — yet. At least not until they solve focus-tracking and come out with f2.8 zoom lenses.
I think i would agree with the previous poster, m4/3 wont (at least for a very long time) be great for indoor sports, f2.8 zooms kinda go against the small compact ethos, and while it looks like the AF has improved with the EP-3 i doubt that tracking focus will match a DSLR. If indoor sports is your thing i would really recommend looking into FF DSLR, even with a lower cost F4 zoom you will get superior results to m4/3 and you will find the difference with fast glass unbelievable 🙂
I have seen a price in the UK of £225 for the 45mm f1.8, so I would have thought US prices should be nearer the $300 mark.
I totally agree with the above comments about low ISO performance and highlight clipping. Often I outdoor situations I can hand hold the camera and use 100 ISO comfortably. Improving the dynamic range, and reducing highlight clipping in particular, at low ISO would make it easier to obtain good results.
if i didn’t already have a 50mm, that 45 zuiko would be my next purchase…nice lens!
I already have a 50mm, but that 45 is still in my pre-orders. I’m likely to get it before my pre-ordered PL25 (ordered over a month ago, and still no ship date — that’s why I don’t buy Panasonic anymore!)
why are they saying that e-pl3 does not have touchscreen (clubsnap)?
did I miss this?
http://gallery.clubsnap.com/data/768/epl34.jpg
hm that lens mount seems to stand off of the rest of the body housing quite a bit
Yes it does, any super slim µ4/3 body will need that kind of mount (especially Olympus with IBIS, which probably adds a few mm itself). It kind of puts some bounds on how slim a body makes sense to even develop. E mount has an edge on this one, with its shorter register distance.
I sort of come down on both sides of the ISO argument. On the one hand, better high ISO performance can be really beneficial to a lot of users, and in fact I’d say perhaps more beneficial than to a pro wedding or concert photog. The pro has the money to buy and the willingness to lug around fast glass, but most people don’t. I’m thinking of situations like taking photos of the dance recital or Christmas program in a poorly lit auditorium or such environment. That’s a really challenging place to shoot, and the shoot probably isn’t going to get terribly close to the action either. So in that situation (and I think taking picture of their kids’ performances is a common desire for a lot of buyers) a camera with better low-light performance is a real asset. As if such a camera exists on the market for a similar price, why shouldn’t that be a factor?
At the same time, I agree that high-ISO performance can be overplayed. As other have said people did take nice photos in the film days, so almost any modern digital can do as well as that. Also, factors like portability and usability are probably more important, but harder to quantify. I’d argue the first consideration these days in camera buying is to find the one you will most enjoy using.
So, ISO isn’t the be-all, end-all of the camera would. At the same time, all things being equal, why not purchase greater capability if it’s available?
@Danillo Nicely put. 🙂
Yeah, different people, different needs. I am low ISO shooter. The only time I ever turn on auto ISO (which I set the cap so my E-620 will only use ISO 200-800, the acceptable range of ISO for it) is at a museum where you can’t use a flash either. ISO 800 is good enough for most shots, especially you can always turn on IS!!!