Hi. I have several E-series cameras: E-1, E-300, E-510, E-620 and E-5. The only one that is, for me irreplaceable, is the E-1. I think the E-1 is a remarkable camera in every respect, with the only real caveat being that you really need to use it in good light. The colours and the rendering are distinctive, and i think the CCD reputation comes from these small, early sensors - they are 'filmic' to a degree that later CCDs (even the currently fashionable E-300) are not. Perhaps it is because the first digitals really had to take the film aesthetic as their reference point and, as the potentials of digital became clearer, the technology and its implementation moved in a new direction. Or maybe i'm completely wrong.... What i found particularly interesting in your video was the marked difference between the Olympus and the Lightroom output. I haven't got the Olympus suite (or, i have, but it's buried in some box somewhere), but i liked the way it presented. I haven't tried most of my 4/3 glass on the E-1, but both the 28mm f/2.8 pancake and the 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye are reliable - but, as you found, some lenses just don't seem to work. I like it with vintage glass, however - usually Takumar primes and Tamron SP zooms - as the way it renders is nice with these lenses. I find the viewfinder is good enough for manual focusing, unlike the E-300 which is like looking at mud, and the screen - being pretty useless for anything but the menu - means no chimping and an even more film-like shooting experience. The E-1 5mp thing i think is good too as you don't have much option for cropping which means getting the framing just right when you shoot. Anyway... have fun with your lovely E-1, as i do with mine. Lkd&Subd. All the best from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
That's what I think too, but it's hard to sort out with straight out camera files. My 2004 ccd kodak camera make vivid colors pics. And it's probably a firmware factory setting to "look" like film...only to match actual film from these days. Digital cameras where supposed to be invented in the 80's but it took years to reach the average household.
There is a big difference in the HIGHLIGHTS. Try to photograph a lightsource and with cmos it will be clipped very ugly, while with ccd like film it creates a bloom effect. It looks very soft. Everyone is testing the sensors in a wrong way, you should test photographing lightsource or high contrast situations. That is because the way the sensor captures the colours. If something is overexposed it will also over expose the surrounding pixels a bit. That is why CMOS is much sharper, because it saves each pixel separately, but for an analog en warm look you actually want to have some light bleeding to make it more natural looking. Without a CCD there are filters you can put on your lens like pro-mist filter, but I don't think it will create the exact same look.
@@flixfan1 years using DSLRs from Nikon and Canon and still I haven't found any difference. Being clear, there are differences, but not so much between CCD and CMOS sensors: the bigger differences are between models even from the same manufacturer. It's my experience and as fast as I know I still have good sight. But of course I could be wrong.
Nel 2004 sono passato al digitale proprio con la Olympus E-1, e scattavo direttamente in jpg quando fotografavo i matrimoni e cerimonie in genere. Basta saper esporre zonalmente ed esporre di destra, ovvero al limite dell'istogramma senza bruciare le alti luci che si vogliono ancora con dettagli. Come facevo con le diapositive... Detto questo, sono passato alla successiva Olympus E-3 dopo 4 anni perché la E-1 si era gustata, senza rilevare grandi differenze nei colori. Sicuramente il sensore stabilizzato, il monitor posteriore ampio ed orientabile, il sensore da 10mp più moderno che mi permetteva tranquillamente di scattare anche a 1.600 iso accettando un pochino di rumore... dava dei vantaggi rispetto alla E-1. Quest'ultima ha una migliore ergonomia e piacevolezza nell'uso, compreso uno otturatore più silenzioso che aiutava ad essere discreti. Ultimamente mi sono comprato una Olympus E-5 e mi godo ancora più i vetri Zuiko 4/3 professionali che ancora avevo. Con Olympus si hanno bei colori anche in jpg, a prescindere dalla fotocamera.
It is not really about the colours, because that depends on the whitebalance or algorittme. Sometimes CMOS looks warmer. When It comes to CCD. The big difference is the way it captures highlights. Try to photograph a light source and you will notice big difference.
wow you are getting incredibly deals on your cameras (i just watched your canon 5d video) especially considering that you are in the expensive suomi finnland.
I think i did run it before. I wanted to showcase the hot pixels for the absurd amount of them and don't think i will ever use this camera for long exposures.
Hi. I have several E-series cameras: E-1, E-300, E-510, E-620 and E-5. The only one that is, for me irreplaceable, is the E-1. I think the E-1 is a remarkable camera in every respect, with the only real caveat being that you really need to use it in good light. The colours and the rendering are distinctive, and i think the CCD reputation comes from these small, early sensors - they are 'filmic' to a degree that later CCDs (even the currently fashionable E-300) are not. Perhaps it is because the first digitals really had to take the film aesthetic as their reference point and, as the potentials of digital became clearer, the technology and its implementation moved in a new direction. Or maybe i'm completely wrong.... What i found particularly interesting in your video was the marked difference between the Olympus and the Lightroom output. I haven't got the Olympus suite (or, i have, but it's buried in some box somewhere), but i liked the way it presented. I haven't tried most of my 4/3 glass on the E-1, but both the 28mm f/2.8 pancake and the 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye are reliable - but, as you found, some lenses just don't seem to work. I like it with vintage glass, however - usually Takumar primes and Tamron SP zooms - as the way it renders is nice with these lenses. I find the viewfinder is good enough for manual focusing, unlike the E-300 which is like looking at mud, and the screen - being pretty useless for anything but the menu - means no chimping and an even more film-like shooting experience. The E-1 5mp thing i think is good too as you don't have much option for cropping which means getting the framing just right when you shoot. Anyway... have fun with your lovely E-1, as i do with mine. Lkd&Subd. All the best from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
I think there's no real difference in CCD vs CMOS output. All is in the processor and firmware instead.
That's what I think too, but it's hard to sort out with straight out camera files. My 2004 ccd kodak camera make vivid colors pics. And it's probably a firmware factory setting to "look" like film...only to match actual film from these days. Digital cameras where supposed to be invented in the 80's but it took years to reach the average household.
There is a big difference in the HIGHLIGHTS. Try to photograph a lightsource and with cmos it will be clipped very ugly, while with ccd like film it creates a bloom effect. It looks very soft. Everyone is testing the sensors in a wrong way, you should test photographing lightsource or high contrast situations. That is because the way the sensor captures the colours. If something is overexposed it will also over expose the surrounding pixels a bit. That is why CMOS is much sharper, because it saves each pixel separately, but for an analog en warm look you actually want to have some light bleeding to make it more natural looking. Without a CCD there are filters you can put on your lens like pro-mist filter, but I don't think it will create the exact same look.
@@Bbbbbb-zr2yg no it is because of the highlights a ccd looks different. Not the colours themselve.
There is a difference. You see it mostly in skin tones. I think the people who can't see the difference might be slightly colorblind.
@@flixfan1 years using DSLRs from Nikon and Canon and still I haven't found any difference. Being clear, there are differences, but not so much between CCD and CMOS sensors: the bigger differences are between models even from the same manufacturer. It's my experience and as fast as I know I still have good sight. But of course I could be wrong.
Nel 2004 sono passato al digitale proprio con la Olympus E-1, e scattavo direttamente in jpg quando fotografavo i matrimoni e cerimonie in genere.
Basta saper esporre zonalmente ed esporre di destra, ovvero al limite dell'istogramma senza bruciare le alti luci che si vogliono ancora con dettagli.
Come facevo con le diapositive...
Detto questo, sono passato alla successiva Olympus E-3 dopo 4 anni perché la E-1 si era gustata, senza rilevare grandi differenze nei colori.
Sicuramente il sensore stabilizzato, il monitor posteriore ampio ed orientabile, il sensore da 10mp più moderno che mi permetteva tranquillamente di scattare anche a 1.600 iso accettando un pochino di rumore... dava dei vantaggi rispetto alla E-1.
Quest'ultima ha una migliore ergonomia e piacevolezza nell'uso, compreso uno otturatore più silenzioso che aiutava ad essere discreti.
Ultimamente mi sono comprato una Olympus E-5 e mi godo ancora più i vetri Zuiko 4/3 professionali che ancora avevo.
Con Olympus si hanno bei colori anche in jpg, a prescindere dalla fotocamera.
10:21 On E-450 there are also hot pixels and it's a very good camera too
I think the camera has built in pixel mapping function..
@@bansheep1 maybe no, it's very old camera
@@iraklisun1701 uhh i dont have this exact camera but i had an E-1 before and it already had pixel mapping
The E-450 has inherently punchier colors - which may partly explain the pastel colors that the CCD sensors are known for vs CMOS .
It is not really about the colours, because that depends on the whitebalance or algorittme. Sometimes CMOS looks warmer. When It comes to CCD. The big difference is the way it captures highlights. Try to photograph a light source and you will notice big difference.
wow you are getting incredibly deals on your cameras (i just watched your canon 5d video) especially considering that you are in the expensive suomi finnland.
Run pixel mapping , it helps against hot pixels
I think i did run it before. I wanted to showcase the hot pixels for the absurd amount of them and don't think i will ever use this camera for long exposures.
Would you tell that child to stop messing about on the keyboard in the background.