Critique Welcomed Bridestowe Revisited

[Bill Watts]

Bridestowe Church taken in 2001 with my first real Digital Camera, an Olympus E-10 with 4 Mp sensor! IIRC the list price was about £1800, at the same time the Nikon D1 was released costing over £3600 with an interpolated 6Mp. Actual sensor was 3Mp. In a magazine shoot out of the two cameras, the E-10 produced the better and sharper pictures!

I still have the camera and it still works. Runs on 4 AA cells!

Just goes to show. Picture below, Bridestowe Church, taken in 2001. f8, 1/200s, ISO 80, 16mm focal length (62mm, 35mm equivalent) The non interchangeable zoom lens had a range of 9-36mm ( 35-140mm, 35mm equivalent) and used a 2/3 CCD sensor. Mutars were available to give 28mm equivalent wide angle and 300mm equivalent telephoto. As they were Mutars, not teleconverters, they did not affect the maximum aperture which was f2 at the wide end and f2.4 at the telephoto end.

Some artifacts generated by downsizing the image.

View attachment bridestowe-church 2000.jpg

You may critique if you wish, but in mitigation I had to stand in the middle of the road to get this shot!

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

Great colours, especially considering the era of digital camera! Nice shot too.

 

[Bill Watts]

Great colours, especially considering the era of digital camera! Nice shot too.

I think the colour rendition comes from the use of a CCD sensor in this camera.

 

[Wes Hall]

Bridestowe Church taken in 2001 with my first real Digital Camera, an Olympus E-10 with 4 Mp sensor! IIRC the list price was about £1800, at the same time the Nikon D1 was released costing over £3600 with an interpolated 6Mp. Actual sensor was 3Mp. In a magazine shoot out of the two cameras, the E-10 produced the better and sharper pictures!

I still have the camera and it still works. Runs on 4 AA cells!

Just goes to show. Picture below, Bridestowe Church, taken in 2001. f8, 1/200s, ISO 80, 16mm focal length (62mm, 35mm equivalent) The non interchangeable zoom lens had a range of 9-36mm ( 35-140mm, 35mm equivalent) and used a 2/3 CCD sensor. Mutars were available to give 28mm equivalent wide angle and 300mm equivalent telephoto. As they were Mutars, not teleconverters, they did not affect the maximum aperture which was f2 at the wide end and f2.4 at the telephoto end.

Some artifacts generated by downsizing the image.

View attachment 19900

You may critique if you wish, but in mitigation I had to stand in the middle of the road to get this shot!

That's a fast lens overall on that Olympus Bill, and as you mentioned the price, a suitable reminder of just how costly a new high end camera has always been. Always nice to see how vibrant the colors from CCD sensors can be.

 

[Bill Watts]

That's a fast lens overall on that Olympus Bill, and as you mentioned the price, a suitable reminder of just how costly a new high end camera has always been. Always nice to see how vibrant the colors from CCD sensors can be.

Thanks Wes, The interesting point was that the E-10 was outperforming a camera at twice it's price, not only were the lenses large aperture, they had enhanced dispersion and aspherical elements in the design. It was designed with a non removable lens system to prevent dirt getting on the sensor, this was probably part of the reason it was not more successful as otherwise it ticked all the Pro boxes, even having a diecast metal body and few plastic parts. In some ways it bears a striking resemblance to the Olympus iS series of bridge cameras.

 

[Tony Warren]

I have a C2000Z from 1999 that produces results like this, just smaller (2Mp). All to do with the CCD sensors I would agree. From what I have read, CCD behaves more like our eyes, clipping levels below mid-grey so as not to burn out highlights. CMOS apparently has wider response in the low values. an image like this one definitely has more of a photographic quality straight out of the camera I think but it is pretty academic really. CMOS has so many other advantages that appeal that has lead to its near universal use. I gather some cine cameras still use CCD though for their image quality.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

I can't see anything wrong with this image Bill, Very nice I'd say and the colours are vivid and much to my liking. I have been reading and listening to many these days about what's best, FF, APC-s or MFT. There are as many varieties and opinions on the matter as there are photographers. All in all, the three formats mentioned have negatives and positives, so I assume it is all up to which tool one feels comfortable with and how content they are with the outcome. I use both Pentax, Fuji and Olympus whereas the latter is mainly used for walks in the neighbourhood. In Nature, I tend to use Pentax and Fuji.