Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
The good news is the e520 turned up today. I'm now in the process of testing everything out. But a couple of quickies:-
1. I have the latest CS3 versions but it does not recognise the ORF file. I can get it into Master but it all seems a bit of a pain saving it as TIF etc. I would prefer to use the Adobe RAW screen. Any suggestions?
2. It's quite a noisy rascal when the shutter goes off. Is there a silent mode in the menus somewhere? I can't seem to find it (if it exists of course).
--------------------
Chris
|
RogerMac
Hotshoe Shuffler
Reged: 25/03/2007
Posts: 497
|
|
Sorry to be the bearer of bad new but
1. Adobe do not yet list the 520 as a supported format, see here It is always possible that the 510 format will work but I am not taking bets  However Adobe have a good record of supporting new camera formats soon after launch so you should watch that link
2. Can not speak for the 520 but the 510 does not have a quiet mode.
Roger
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Thanks Roger
In looking at the Adobe website I notice that the last raw translator (4.4.1) is some 3/4 months old now. Given how much Photoshop costs and given that the 520 orf can surely not be much different to the E3's, I'm surprised it takes them that long. But who am I to understand such things?
When I tested the 520 in a shop, I didn't clock the shutter noise because of all the background noise. The noise it makes is quite reminiscent of the silly sound my Nokia phone makes when you take a photo! My other camera (SP560 bridge) has a silent option which I have found to be very useful when in certain locations such as churches etc. Does the E3 also make this noise? Presumably this noise is artificially created by the camera software so perhaps some pressure should be brought to bear on Olympus for a software upgrade?
Anyway, gripe over. Apart from that I am very impressed with the camera. It seems to take very good images indeed. Right...back to working out what all these buttons mean!! 
--------------------
Chris
|
bmul
journeyman
Reged: 11/07/2006
Posts: 99
Loc: London
|
|
Hi Chris,
Due to the way a DSLR (or indeed SLR) works, there will always be some noise when taking a picture. The SP-570 has an electronic viewfinder and an electronic shutter - it (I think) merely captures a moment from the sensor feed.
An SLR however has an optical viewfinder, the image for which is formed through the lens and reflected by a swinging mirror. In order to take a picture, the mirror is swung out of the way and the mechanical (most often) shutter opens to expose the sensor. I think most of the noise will be that of the mirror moving out of the way.
All SLRs exhibit this behaviour to some extent, but the quality of the noise may differ - the Olympus E-1 for example has a fairly quiet shutter, while the Canon 20 or 30D is, I understand, fairly loud.
Google should be able to provide some schematics to explain this layout further.
Hope that helps,
Ben
|
RogerMac
Hotshoe Shuffler
Reged: 25/03/2007
Posts: 497
|
|
I forgot to say congratulations on your choice of camera. You are in fact ahead of me as I have the 510 and probably will not upgrade to the 520 as the 510 is so good, easily ahead of myself. Perhaps I will weaken when the 530 comes out.
I am surprised by your comments on the noise as I do not regard the 510 as a noisy camera, BTW I believe that all the noise comes from the various moving parts flapping around. However they have pushed up the frame rate from 3 to 3.5 per sec and this may well have increased the speed of those moving parts.
[edit] I believe that some DSLRs do have a quiet mode and achieve this by reducing the frame rate[/edit]
Is the noise the same when using live view?
Roger
Edited by RogerMac (23/07/2008 10:54)
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
This is my first SLR for many moons friends. My first was a Zenit which I bought from a Freemans catalogue with my paper round money  . Then progressed to second hand Pentax and Olympus gear. My thing then was motorbikes. Had some pretty good shots of Barry Sheen and his ilk. Ah, those were the days! Got hitched, had a kid, and (some years later I should add) got unhitched somewhat acrimoniously. Ex decided that all my photo gear should go in the dustbin along with all my photos. As you can imagine, we don't talk anymore  .
I think I've just forgotten the noise a mirror and shutter can make. I think I was more surprised that modern cameras had not managed to dampen the noise somewhat (or maybe I've forgotton how noisy that old Zenit was!). Anyway, a few shots later and I'm getting used to it already.
So I have recently remarried and an urge to take up photography again was surprisingly sudden. Hence the 520 (after much research) and CS3. My word, there is so much to learn and re-learn!
PS. Anyone that could point me towards a good book/video tutorial that explains CS3 layer types and what they are best used for would be gratefully received.
PPS. Memo to myself: stop jumping around from place to place like an idiot and create a structured training course for yourself 
--------------------
Chris
|
agp
journeyman
Reged: 13/04/2007
Posts: 78
|
|
I'm surprised about the loudness of the camera. My 510 is the camera of choice when relative silence is needed - vastly quieter than the Canons I also use.
Rugby_Nut - have you used an SLR before? If you've only used compact or bridge, then the Oly will definitely sound loud.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
I think I've just forgotten the noise a mirror and shutter can make. I think I was more surprised that modern cameras had not managed to dampen the noise somewhat (or maybe I've forgotton how noisy that old Zenit was!). Anyway, a few shots later and I'm getting used to it already.
Find someone with a 20D.....then you'll know what loud is........
TBH I think a lot of modern bodies are quieter than we think. I have a number of much older mechanical cameras that are very much noisier than my more recent stuff. Quietest camera I probably have is my old EOS D30 - the snick of the mirror is not much louder than the shutter on it's own.
I'm sure current models could be made quieter but the trend toward fast frame rates plus minimal shutter delay and blackout times inevitably means fast moving mirrors with all the noise fast action mechanisms generate...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
john2
journeyman
Reged: 25/09/2006
Posts: 90
Loc: Manchester. UK.
|
|
Hi Chris,
You could try installing ACR4.5 Beta from here:- http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php?title=Camera_Raw_4.5
This recognises the E520, or you could use the DNG converter that comes with it to convert the ORF files toDNG, then process them as usual in CS3. Hope this helps.
John
|
Craftysnapper
enthusiast
Reged: 05/01/2006
Posts: 327
|
|
Quote:
Hi Chris,
You could try installing ACR4.5 Beta from here:- http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php?title=Camera_Raw_4.5
This recognises the E520, or you could use the DNG converter that comes with it to convert the ORF files toDNG, then process them as usual in CS3. Hope this helps.
John
The beta works perfectly well in CS3 with my E-420 files so I imagine it will for the E-520 as well.
--------------------
My Glass Is 4/3rds Full
Paul
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Thanks chaps. I've just downloaded it and, as you say, it appears to work fine. One more problem solved - on to the next......
--------------------
Chris
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
In order to consolidate this learning curve I'm embarking on, am I correct in assuming that if I use Adobe Raw and CS3 (ie. I set the 520 to save in RAW format) that as far as the camera is concerned I need only concentrate on getting exposure and focussing right? In other words, can I for the time being ignore all the settings to do with noise, shadow/highlights, etc?
--------------------
Chris
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 625
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
In order to consolidate this learning curve I'm embarking on, am I correct in assuming that if I use Adobe Raw and CS3 (ie. I set the 520 to save in RAW format) that as far as the camera is concerned I need only concentrate on getting exposure and focussing right? In other words, can I for the time being ignore all the settings to do with noise, shadow/highlights, etc?
Just fire away and see what you get. If you're not happy with the results, look more into these settings. Eventually, you will probably want to play around with these settings as you get used to the camera. A web site I would recommend is that of Andrzej Wrotniak. This guy is fantastic in his analysis and advice about E-system equipment. If you follow his set-up advice for the E510, it should work the same for your E520. Also, I recommend printing your manual in full and ploughing through it. Pain in the backside, I know, but it definitely pays dividends. But all this when you're ready. For the moment, just shoot away and let the questions and answers occur naturally. Most importantly, enjoy your lovely new camera .
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
...if I use Adobe Raw and CS3 (ie. I set the 520 to save in RAW format) that as far as the camera is concerned I need only concentrate on getting exposure and focussing right? In other words, can I for the time being ignore all the settings to do with noise, shadow/highlights, etc?
Well............ yes and then again no..........
While it's probably fair to say that you don't have to set up the image parameters I would suggest that you may find life a little easier if you create a basic set up for those available. Not being an Oly user I'm not familiar with the choices on offer but with my own kit (Canon 20D) I do have some parameters preset so they are applied to the image on opening in the RAW converter. Although I may then change them I find it does save a bit of time by applying these basic preset parameters. In my case I generally use Canons own DPP software - if I open the same image in my old copy of RawShooter the preset parameters are ignored and I have to do it all manually from scratch. Not having CS3 I'm not sure whether CameraRaw picks up these kind of preset parameters but if it does I believe it's worth using them.
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Thanks. I've had a quick look at the guy's website you recommended and it does look extremeley comprehensive. It looks as though it could be a major reference point for all Oly users. I shall study it in more detail later.
--------------------
Chris
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37849
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Wrotniak's site is a great, well-written source for Olympus users (and those of us with an interest in the cameras), as for the most part it's a very fair appreciation of the pros and cons of the cameras in question - just bear in mind that like all resources, it's not infallible, and there's the odd bit of incorrect info in there - in particular, a blindness to the difference in size between 4/3 and APS-C, where he ignores the numbers only to accuse everyone else of doing it. Seems pointless, given his acceptance of the slightly more dynamic range of APS-C cameras and greater noise created by 4/3 cameras. Why he can accept the effect but not the cause seems rather odd to me, but that aside, the site is a really good resource.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Nigel
I've spent a couple of hours thinking about your post with a slightly furrowed brow and now I think I understand. What you're saying is that a raw file is not only the original image as taken by the camera (which is all I thought it was) but also the parameters of the camera settings which it would have used at that time to effectively create a jpeg image. Therefore when a raw image is opened in Adobe Camera Raw, it will apply the parameters to the raw image upon display of that image. By clicking on 'default' you presumably revert to the raw image as taken. Therefore I now understand why the camera settings can speed up post image processing and I now understand why it can take Adobe a bit of time to add new cameras to their ACR file. Gadzooks, I hope I've got it right..........
--------------------
Chris
|
Craftysnapper
enthusiast
Reged: 05/01/2006
Posts: 327
|
|
Photoshop or any third party raw software will not pick up any in camera jpeg parameter settings except white balence and exposure when converting raw files so they are defunct unless you are using the camera manafacturers raw software.
--------------------
My Glass Is 4/3rds Full
Paul
|
john2
journeyman
Reged: 25/09/2006
Posts: 90
Loc: Manchester. UK.
|
|
Hi, You may have noticed that the final version of Camera Raw 4.5 has now been released. Also Lightroon 2, which supports the E420 & E520. So there will presumably be no more updates to Lightroom 1. I have thouht of getting an E520 in a while (when the price drops a little), and letting my wife have the E500, but I don't fancy paying £81 to upgrade Lightroom. It appears to me from the trial that most of the improvements are in how it interacts with CS3.
John
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 181
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
I think I've decided to stick with ACR for raw developing. After Paul's post I can see the difference between ACR and Oly Master, in that the latter does recognise the camera settings. ACR, for obvious reasons, does fit more neatly between Bridge and CS3, and is a pretty powerful tool since you can also use it to modify jpeg images. As for Lightroom, I don't think I can justify the extra expense at the mo and I'm not clear what the extra £200 gets you in terms of enhancements over Bridge. At the minute I'm contemplating (struggling?) with file management. Do I convert all raw files to DNG? Should I then delete the raw files? Should any developed raw/dng files be save as DNG or Photoshop native? Should resulting JPEG's (for potential viewing by others) be compressed and/or watermarked? I'm sure these issues have been debated at length on the AP forums if someone could point me in the right direction 
--------------------
Chris
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
