1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Steve Huff: E-P3 vs. NEX5 at high ISO

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by thearne3, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. thearne3

    thearne3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    807
    Jan 28, 2010
    Redding, CT USA
    A very interesting comparison here: ISO WARS: The Olympus E-P3 vs The Sony NEX-5! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

    Two conclusions for me:

    1) My comfort zone for color has moved up from 1600 to 3200 in some situations - can't wait for the RAW converters to finalize.

    2) Based on his examples I have a new Myset: B&W! The B&W shots (Monotone, not Grainy B&W) at ISOs up to at least 6400 are great IMHO. Reminds me of B&W film.

    Tho' I would like even higher ISO performance, I'm very happy with what I have. :biggrin:
     
  2. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    The comparison does a fine job of showing the difference between using no noise reduction and using a little noise reduction.

    Some will prefer the crunch and tartness of the apple while others will favor the citrus-y juiciness of the orange.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I don't trust Steve Huff's reviews. First he said he's leaving m43 because NEX is more future proof and now he's jumped back on the m43 bandwagon. It's also no surprise he gets referral dollars if you click on his sponsor links. Makes me wonder when the NEX-7 gets released if he'll be touting that camera too? :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. jonoslack

    jonoslack Mu-43 Regular

    33
    Aug 2, 2011
    Oh! - I enjoy Steve's stuff - he's so ebullient and cheerful. I think all reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt - even the dpreview exhaustive tests only really tell you what happens in well lit studio conditions. Those shots do, at least, show you the difference between enthusiastic noise reduction and the lack of it.
     
  5. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I know, but he made like a big deal that NEX is the future, and here he is back to m43! :rolleyes::tongue:

    To be honest, I do like his style of shooting versus the sterile shots of other review sites.
     
  6. thearne3

    thearne3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    807
    Jan 28, 2010
    Redding, CT USA
    I offered the link for the comparison shots...not the recommendation (or lack thereof) of the author. I agree with Jonoslack: all reviews should be taken in context.

    BTW, we have more than a few folks on this forum that have changed their minds over time...I don't hold that against any reviewer. :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    What surprised me though with the NEX camera is that it won't let you turn off NR. It looks pretty good, but when you want a little grit to your photos, it seems Sony won't let you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    That is (I am almost certain) just for JPEGS, but still... it should be an option, I agree.
     
  9. starlabs

    starlabs Mu-43 Top Veteran

    856
    Sep 30, 2010
    Los Angeles
    Strange "comparison".

    NR off for E-P3, NR low on Nex.
    Prime lens on E-P3, zoom lens on Nex.

    :confused:
     
  10. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    This is classic Sony, have seen this on a number of their cams across the range.
     
  11. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    This crazy comparison does seem crazier than most. I am not sure why he did not use the NEX with the little prime (much worse optics than the zoom)?

    I do like Steve's images and reviews... make me want to learn how to take better photos, rather than focusing on pixel porn.
     
  12. DekHog

    DekHog Mu-43 Top Veteran

    579
    May 3, 2011
    Scotland
    The NEX with that lens has to be one of the stupidest looking things I've ever seen - just what is the point in having a body so small and hanging things like that off it? If it was a woman I wouldn't complain, but a camera?
     
  13. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    The NEX looks good with the 18-55, but agreed that 18-200 looks massive on that small body! :eek:
     
  14. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Sony has a history of those tiny bodies and BIG lenses. Remember this...

    202350.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Bokeaji

    Bokeaji Gonzo's Dad O.*

    Aug 6, 2011
    Austin, TX
    i like him too
    its like yer own friend thats into photography there with you
    of COURSE hell like the nex7.. i will too! itll be new n shiny!!!
    then ill remember how ridiculous the menus are, and how silly the huge lenses look attached to the nex camera bodies
    and ill be sad and over them! and im sure he will too... just go with the flow! ;)
     
  16. Bokeaji

    Bokeaji Gonzo's Dad O.*

    Aug 6, 2011
    Austin, TX
    or a man.. be open minded! lol!
     
  17. kahren

    kahren Mu-43 Regular

    145
    Mar 21, 2010
    for all the people talking smack about sony's large lenses on the nex, there are awful a lot of people in the adapted thread section here putting even bigger lenses on the m4/3 cameras, and consider it "cool". i wish this would stop already.

    this review does seem weird, imo he should have used the sony 16mm pancake, which would have been perfect. same FOV, same light gathering aps-c+16mm 2.8 vs m4/3+12mm 2.0 and dof. the review seems to show mostly what the jpeg engine can do, nex's seems to mush the pixels e-p3 seems to leave the grain mostly there. i cant say i prefer either, i think something in the middle would be better then either of those. considering the price of the e-p3 and the nex+16mm i think the choice is clear.
     
  18. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Does the Sony have no JPEG setting with lower NR? I greatly prefer the E-P3 results, but it's an irrelevant test to me since I shoot almost exclusively RAW processed in Lightroom.
     
  19. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Funny how the Nex shows more detail than the E-P3 and yet the conclusion is the E-P3 handles noise better. Not quite as bad as the Ken Rockwell Pentax 645D review, but then Ken did not have the advantage of actually having a camera.
     
  20. kahren

    kahren Mu-43 Regular

    145
    Mar 21, 2010
    Nex has LOW and AUTO, i tired both settings a bunch of times taking the same pics, it actually seems that auto does a better job. On the other Hand someone on Steve H. page said somethign abuot the firmware where auto works better because of the firmware bug. In any case the differences are so subtle that its not really an issue. sony's jpeg kinda suck at 1600 and up, (a bit too much mush sometimes), considering what it can put out in raw, its kinda sad. I hope they improve their jpeg engine on the new iterations.