[JohnR]

I started a new thread with comparison shots of "out of the box" color:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=58292.0

[JohnR]

Um, anyway, so in the end, I've decided to sell the E-410. I'm convinced now that it's overly-complex for the person for whom I bought it, and I myself am not able to set up a satisfactory set of default "point and shoot" parameters for her. Perhaps I just misjudged the intended market for the camera - it's jam-packed with features for someone who wants to get them at a great price in a compact package (really!). But, it's just not doing it for what I thought I would use it for -- basically, an incentive and encouragement for more and better pictures of my niece...!

I disagree with TONEPUB about the quality of the out of the box color - see my other post for some comparisons. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get the in-camera adjustments to compensate. Shooting RAW is not an option in this particular case.

I did consider keeping the camera for myself (and shooting RAW etc), esp. since you can mount Nikon lenses on it with an adapter. But it's just not what I need for now. Kind of a shame, since it really is a neat little camera.

Thanks for reading

JohnR

[Tubes 4 Ever]

JohnR I assume you already parted ways with the 410. I just bought a 420 with the 25mm. I used a Canon 20D and sold it and thought I would buy another Canon but after many test shots with a 40D, d40 Nikon, I found myself just loving the Oly. The size and features had much to do with it along with 4/3 lens. I will try to put up some shots soon after i have time to clear out the debris from my house after Ike.
Tubes

[TONEPUB]

Without seeing how you had the camera set it's hard to tell.
Also without knowing how your monitor is set or calibrated its
hard to know what you have.

On my screen, the LX2 image looks a little pink (in the sand),
the D40 looks a little yellow and the E410 looks a touch more
yellow, but has the most neutral white.  I could work with
either of these, quite honestly, so go for what's the easiest to work
with. The first two also look about a third of a stop light.

You've tipped the camera just enough in the Olympus shot
to weight everything more towards the ground where the upper two
are more towards the sky.

It all depends on your monitor and printer.

I've never had a problem with an Olympus just set to
program mode and auto color balance.

[JohnR]

Jeff - you know what, I tried to be positive about this camera. Frankly, I was really very disappointed with it. Four people in this thread other than me said that the color was warm, so your continued insistence that that isn't the case or that there's a problem with my monitor or printer is a little annoying, and frankly, leaving a bad taste rather than mere disappointment.

My apologies to tubes, I'm he can relate his own experiences / post his own pictures.

[TONEPUB]

If your monitor isn't calibrated to CMYK/SWOP standards, then there
is no telling what you are seeing and there's certainly no way for me to evaluate
what I'm seeing on your monitor.

I'm looking at your files on a calibrated monitor and telling you what I see.

Both Apple and Microsoft set their default monitor profiles to be a bit on the warm
side, so it's highly possible that four people could be seeing warm color.  A third
of the male population is somewhat color blind too, so who knows.

I've been a paid consultant to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Epson, Roland and Adobe
for my expertise in digital and analog photography and printing.  I've used Photoshop
professionally since before it was even a commercially available product.

So, you can either glean something from the years of knowledge that I have to
offer or not.  I don't have any problems with color, on screen or print.

The biggest problem with all of this stuff getting opened up to the amateur market
is that most people don't have a clue how to really use it, just like I wouldn't have
any idea of what to do with most of the tools in the Ferrari garage on the GP
circuit.

Honestly, I'm amazed that it works as well as it does as often as it does.

So grump as much as you want.  If your stuff isn't calibrated from start to
finish, you're just shooting darts at a dart board and praying....  If you get good
results more than half the time with no calibration and no training, consider
yourself lucky.

And I don't blame this on the end user.  It's Adobe, Epson and the rest of them.
They all want to make you believe that it boils down to pushing a button and
being Ansel Adams.  Photography is a craft as much as it is an art.  Like any
craft or trade, it takes a lot of work to get spectacular results.

In the end I don't know why you are so pissed off.  All three of the shots up
there looked more than acceptable, so I don't understand what the big deal
was in the first place.  Also, you don't even need to fully calibrate your system
to SWOP standards, you just need to calibrate it to your printer so that what
you see on your screen is relatively close to what comes out the other end when
you press print.

There are a number of calibration tools that are in the hundred dollar range
that will allow you to do this.  If you aren't using one, you will be amazed
at how much better your prints look.  And don't feel bad, I spent plenty of
time consulting to pros that didn't have a clue about this stuff.

If you don't like the camera don't use it.  I worked for Olympus for 8 years
and I use Canon these days, because my work requires the feature set
that the EOS system offers.  Cameras are just tools for me, I don't have any
emotional attachment to them. I had my share of issues with Olympus, but
color was never one of them and I've had enough of my images taken with
the whole E series published all over the world.

There's plenty of stuff to choose from, so I'm sure you will find something you
will like.

[nathanm]

Measurements can help us here!  The histograms of the first three test photos correlate very well with what I am seeing.  Our eyes are constantly compensating for small changes.  It's exactly like audio. I had the same impressions of the three photos both on my very calibrated ACD at work and my eyeball-it-'til-it-looks-neutral CRT at home.)  The E410 is darker and has a big yellow hump in the middle.  The LX2 is has a bluer balance which is nice for the sky, but the sand goes a bit purplish.  The D40 is a nice balance between them.  I do still subjectively like the E410 but it probably is a bit too colored.

LX2:



E410:



D40:




I don't want to dismiss calibration, it is very important in a closed loop system where you can control every variable, but in practice most monitors are linear enough to make realistic judgements and our eyes\brain adjust for the small shifts.  You only get into serious trouble when you start comparing things side by side.  That's when the torture test begins because your brain goes into hypercritical mode.  I'm on my CRT now and if I had the ACD here next to it I would HATE the way the CRT looked.  But you can see that they both generally are in the ballpark; grass is green, skies are blue, they are in one way massively different—but at the same time, good enough.  I hope that makes sense!

[TONEPUB]

very good analysis!

[JohnR]

There's plenty of stuff to choose from, so I'm sure you will find something you
will like.

I didn't buy the camera for myself, you dope It was intended for someone who needs (in my assessment) good quality out of the box. I wasn't satisfied with the camera in this regard, that and the overly complex UI killed the idea.

Anyway, since you're obviously very keen on calibration, how come you haven't mentioned white balance cards or something similar? Isn't that the first step in the chain?