Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Pen Results

Expand Messages
  • dariome@hotmail.com
    Hello. Sorry if I don´t speak english well, i am spanish. I have a Pen Epl1 and i haven´t tried to take photos of nebulas, galaxies, etc. Please, can you
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 22, 1936
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello.
      Sorry if I don´t speak english well, i am spanish.
      I have a Pen Epl1 and i haven´t tried to take photos of nebulas, galaxies, etc.
      Please, can you show me the photo of M31 with the Olympus Pen ??

      Bye

      --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, Joe Bergeron <joe@...> wrote:
      >
      > Wow, I'd almost forgotten this group existed. It seems to be devoid of anyone actually using Olympus stuff for astrophotography, or at least anyone who wants to talk about it.
      >
      > I will report my results with my new Pen E-PL2 Micro 4/3 camera. Briefly, it's not usable for any kind of long exposure work. Exposures much longer than a minute are rendered useless by huge amounts of thermal noise and also by very intrusive banding noise. It is also all but blind to hydrogen alpha, much more so than an unmodified Canon Rebel XSi. Finally, it's terrible at detecting any kind of faint nebulosity, including the spiral arms of galaxies. On the other hand, it's great at picking up yellow light pollution and yellow galaxy cores.
      >
      > A 5 minute exposure of M31 with a 92mm f/6.6 refractor and ISO 400 is ruined by banding noise. I don't know any way to remove that, other than to hope it would average out by stacking dozens of sub exposures. It shows the core well, but the outer arms are absent. This is a huge contrast to the results I got with the Canon under the same conditions.
      >
      > The camera is okay for short exposures of constellations and the Milky Way using my Olympus OM system prime lenses at f/2.8 and faster. However, it never showed a trace of the Veil Nebula no matter what I tried, an object pretty easy to record with the Canon.
      >
      > Basically, anything you can't record by stacking lots of 60 or maybe 90 second exposures is beyond this camera's abilities. I'm sure glad I didn't buy this camera primarily for astrophotography, because it would have been a waste of money. For general photography, it's great. Maybe I understand why this group is so empty though.
      >
      >
      > Joe Bergeron
      >
      > Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists
      >
      > http://www.joebergeron.com
      >
    • Joe Bergeron
      ... Don t bother. The Pen is terrible for any kind of long exposure work. Very noisy, with banding that can t really be removed or dealt with. I ve moved on to
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 24, 1936
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > Sorry if I don´t speak english well, i am spanish.
        > I have a Pen Epl1 and i haven´t tried to take photos of nebulas, galaxies, etc.
        > Please, can you show me the photo of M31 with the Olympus Pen ??

        Don't bother. The Pen is terrible for any kind of long exposure work. Very noisy, with banding that can't really be removed or dealt with. I've moved on to a Canon DSLR which is 10x better. I still like the Pen for daylight photography.

        Joe Bergeron

        Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists

        http://www.joebergeron.com
      • Mike
        I wish to barge in and a least give you an Olympus E300 user site. Don t know if that will help. Mike W.
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 24, 1936
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I wish to barge in and a least give you an Olympus E300 user site. Don't know if that will help.

          Mike W.

          http://www.astroelda.com/HTML/ASTROFOTOGRAFIA/ASTROFOTOGRAFIA1.htm




          --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, dariome@... wrote:
          >
          > Hello.
          > Sorry if I don´t speak english well, i am spanish.
          > I have a Pen Epl1 and i haven´t tried to take photos of nebulas, galaxies, etc.
          > Please, can you show me the photo of M31 with the Olympus Pen ??
          >
          > Bye
          >
          > --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, Joe Bergeron <joe@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Wow, I'd almost forgotten this group existed. It seems to be devoid of anyone actually using Olympus stuff for astrophotography, or at least anyone who wants to talk about it.
          > >
          > > I will report my results with my new Pen E-PL2 Micro 4/3 camera. Briefly, it's not usable for any kind of long exposure work. Exposures much longer than a minute are rendered useless by huge amounts of thermal noise and also by very intrusive banding noise. It is also all but blind to hydrogen alpha, much more so than an unmodified Canon Rebel XSi. Finally, it's terrible at detecting any kind of faint nebulosity, including the spiral arms of galaxies. On the other hand, it's great at picking up yellow light pollution and yellow galaxy cores.
          > >
          > > A 5 minute exposure of M31 with a 92mm f/6.6 refractor and ISO 400 is ruined by banding noise. I don't know any way to remove that, other than to hope it would average out by stacking dozens of sub exposures. It shows the core well, but the outer arms are absent. This is a huge contrast to the results I got with the Canon under the same conditions.
          > >
          > > The camera is okay for short exposures of constellations and the Milky Way using my Olympus OM system prime lenses at f/2.8 and faster. However, it never showed a trace of the Veil Nebula no matter what I tried, an object pretty easy to record with the Canon.
          > >
          > > Basically, anything you can't record by stacking lots of 60 or maybe 90 second exposures is beyond this camera's abilities. I'm sure glad I didn't buy this camera primarily for astrophotography, because it would have been a waste of money. For general photography, it's great. Maybe I understand why this group is so empty though.
          > >
          > >
          > > Joe Bergeron
          > >
          > > Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists
          > >
          > > http://www.joebergeron.com
          > >
          >
        • dariome@hotmail.com
          If he can, I can take similar photos with the epl1, yes or no?? Is the epl1 more noisy that the e300 ?? Bye
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 25, 1936
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            If he can, I can take similar photos with the epl1, yes or no??
            Is the epl1 more noisy that the e300 ??

            Bye

            --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <kmwstar2001@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I wish to barge in and a least give you an Olympus E300 user site. Don't know if that will help.
            >
            > Mike W.
            >
            > http://www.astroelda.com/HTML/ASTROFOTOGRAFIA/ASTROFOTOGRAFIA1.htm
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, dariome@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Hello.
            > > Sorry if I don´t speak english well, i am spanish.
            > > I have a Pen Epl1 and i haven´t tried to take photos of nebulas, galaxies, etc.
            > > Please, can you show me the photo of M31 with the Olympus Pen ??
            > >
            > > Bye
            > >
            > > --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, Joe Bergeron <joe@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Wow, I'd almost forgotten this group existed. It seems to be devoid of anyone actually using Olympus stuff for astrophotography, or at least anyone who wants to talk about it.
            > > >
            > > > I will report my results with my new Pen E-PL2 Micro 4/3 camera. Briefly, it's not usable for any kind of long exposure work. Exposures much longer than a minute are rendered useless by huge amounts of thermal noise and also by very intrusive banding noise. It is also all but blind to hydrogen alpha, much more so than an unmodified Canon Rebel XSi. Finally, it's terrible at detecting any kind of faint nebulosity, including the spiral arms of galaxies. On the other hand, it's great at picking up yellow light pollution and yellow galaxy cores.
            > > >
            > > > A 5 minute exposure of M31 with a 92mm f/6.6 refractor and ISO 400 is ruined by banding noise. I don't know any way to remove that, other than to hope it would average out by stacking dozens of sub exposures. It shows the core well, but the outer arms are absent. This is a huge contrast to the results I got with the Canon under the same conditions.
            > > >
            > > > The camera is okay for short exposures of constellations and the Milky Way using my Olympus OM system prime lenses at f/2.8 and faster. However, it never showed a trace of the Veil Nebula no matter what I tried, an object pretty easy to record with the Canon.
            > > >
            > > > Basically, anything you can't record by stacking lots of 60 or maybe 90 second exposures is beyond this camera's abilities. I'm sure glad I didn't buy this camera primarily for astrophotography, because it would have been a waste of money. For general photography, it's great. Maybe I understand why this group is so empty though.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Joe Bergeron
            > > >
            > > > Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists
            > > >
            > > > http://www.joebergeron.com
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • tincanandstring
            By the time you spend $2000+ on the EQ6 and 6 refractor, plus some tidy sum on software if you do not already have it, you can easily afford an E-300 on ebay.
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 25, 1936
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              By the time you spend $2000+ on the EQ6 and 6" refractor, plus some tidy sum on software if you do not already have it, you can easily afford an E-300 on ebay. One of mine cost $72, one was $48.

              The E-300 uses a Kodak 8300 CCD, praised by terrestrial photographers for very black blacks. It separated the blacks nicely in the forst photo on this page - http://www.fo-to.com/

              It also has a weak IR filter and was the best unmodified Olympus digital for infrared photography.

              A model of the 8300 CCD is sold in both monochrome and color dedicated astro cameras for about $2000.

              Obviously, the Olympus E-300 is not Peltier cooled, etc. but you can see that it commits itself well in those astro photos.

              Frank

              --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, dariome@... wrote:
              >
              > If he can, I can take similar photos with the epl1, yes or no??
              > Is the epl1 more noisy that the e300 ??
              >
              > Bye
              >
            • bill1550
              You can check the performance tests I did on the E-300 in the Files section of this site. Clear skies, Bill
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 29, 1936
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                You can check the performance tests I did on the E-300 in the "Files" section of this site.

                Clear skies,

                Bill

                --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, "tincanandstring" <frank@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > By the time you spend $2000+ on the EQ6 and 6" refractor, plus some tidy sum on software if you do not already have it, you can easily afford an E-300 on ebay. One of mine cost $72, one was $48.
                >
                > The E-300 uses a Kodak 8300 CCD, praised by terrestrial photographers for very black blacks. It separated the blacks nicely in the forst photo on this page - http://www.fo-to.com/
                >
                > It also has a weak IR filter and was the best unmodified Olympus digital for infrared photography.
                >
                > A model of the 8300 CCD is sold in both monochrome and color dedicated astro cameras for about $2000.
                >
                > Obviously, the Olympus E-300 is not Peltier cooled, etc. but you can see that it commits itself well in those astro photos.
                >
                > Frank
                >
                > --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, dariome@ wrote:
                > >
                > > If he can, I can take similar photos with the epl1, yes or no??
                > > Is the epl1 more noisy that the e300 ??
                > >
                > > Bye
                > >
                >
              • George Anderson
                Joe;   Thanks for that work and report.  While I use and really really like the Oly E5 and the excellent lenses for my general photography, I have been
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 2, 1937
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Joe;
                   
                  Thanks for that work and report.  While I use and really really like the Oly E5 and the excellent lenses for my general photography, I have been considering getting a Canon body just for astrophoto work.  If money is an issue, do u have a recommended Canon?  If money was not so important (as if) do u know if the 5D cameras are good astro platforms?
                   
                  Thanks
                   
                  George

                  From: Joe Bergeron <joe@...>
                  To: Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Monday, August 1, 2011 1:20 PM
                  Subject: [Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography] Pen Results


                   
                  Wow, I'd almost forgotten this group existed. It seems to be devoid of anyone actually using Olympus stuff for astrophotography, or at least anyone who wants to talk about it.

                  I will report my results with my new Pen E-PL2 Micro 4/3 camera. Briefly, it's not usable for any kind of long exposure work. Exposures much longer than a minute are rendered useless by huge amounts of thermal noise and also by very intrusive banding noise. It is also all but blind to hydrogen alpha, much more so than an unmodified Canon Rebel XSi. Finally, it's terrible at detecting any kind of faint nebulosity, including the spiral arms of galaxies. On the other hand, it's great at picking up yellow light pollution and yellow galaxy cores.

                  A 5 minute exposure of M31 with a 92mm f/6.6 refractor and ISO 400 is ruined by banding noise. I don't know any way to remove that, other than to hope it would average out by stacking dozens of sub exposures. It shows the core well, but the outer arms are absent. This is a huge contrast to the results I got with the Canon under the same conditions.

                  The camera is okay for short exposures of constellations and the Milky Way using my Olympus OM system prime lenses at f/2.8 and faster. However, it never showed a trace of the Veil Nebula no matter what I tried, an object pretty easy to record with the Canon.

                  Basically, anything you can't record by stacking lots of 60 or maybe 90 second exposures is beyond this camera's abilities. I'm sure glad I didn't buy this camera primarily for astrophotography, because it would have been a waste of money. For general photography, it's great. Maybe I understand why this group is so empty though.

                  Joe Bergeron

                  Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists

                  http://www.joebergeron.com




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Joe Bergeron
                  I don t keep up with Canon s offerings, so I can t make any recommendations. I would probably just look for a used Rebel XSi body, just because I know they
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 3, 1937
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I don't keep up with Canon's offerings, so I can't make any recommendations. I would probably just look for a used Rebel XSi body, just because I know they work well. If I was rich I'd get one of the full frame models. Sensor size seems to be very important for low light work.


                    Joe Bergeron

                    Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists

                    http://www.joebergeron.com
                  • chris266927
                    Interesting...sound like the Pen is similar to the E400. I have found the E620 to be okay for astro work as it does see H alpha But I did purchase an E620 with
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 4, 1937
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Interesting...sound like the Pen is similar to the E400. I have found the E620 to be okay for astro work as it does see H alpha
                      But I did purchase an E620 with the IR and AA filter replaced with a plain filter...initial work indicates it is going to be a great camera...if I can master it...and i can also use my other Oly stuff on it

                      [snip]
                    • RicardoC
                      There s a new one. The E-PL3 http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1572 It has an ISO of ISO 200 - 12800 (!) in manual mode You can
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 23, 1937
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There's a new one. The E-PL3

                        http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1572

                        It has an ISO of ISO 200 - 12800 (!) in manual mode
                        You can open the shutter up to 30 minutes or 8 minutes in the menu.
                        You can buy a relesase cable that plugs into usb port.
                        Filter IR-cut Type hybrid
                        Filter LPF Type fixed
                        RAW 12 bit
                        Full HD 1920 x 1080 (16:9) 60i, 17Mbps (AVCHD)

                        But very expensive...

                        Ricardo


                        --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, Joe Bergeron <joe@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Wow, I'd almost forgotten this group existed. It seems to be devoid of anyone actually using Olympus stuff for astrophotography, or at least anyone who wants to talk about it.
                        >
                        > I will report my results with my new Pen E-PL2 Micro 4/3 camera. Briefly, it's not usable for any kind of long exposure work. Exposures much longer than a minute are rendered useless by huge amounts of thermal noise and also by very intrusive banding noise. It is also all but blind to hydrogen alpha, much more so than an unmodified Canon Rebel XSi. Finally, it's terrible at detecting any kind of faint nebulosity, including the spiral arms of galaxies. On the other hand, it's great at picking up yellow light pollution and yellow galaxy cores.
                        >
                        > A 5 minute exposure of M31 with a 92mm f/6.6 refractor and ISO 400 is ruined by banding noise. I don't know any way to remove that, other than to hope it would average out by stacking dozens of sub exposures. It shows the core well, but the outer arms are absent. This is a huge contrast to the results I got with the Canon under the same conditions.
                        >
                        > The camera is okay for short exposures of constellations and the Milky Way using my Olympus OM system prime lenses at f/2.8 and faster. However, it never showed a trace of the Veil Nebula no matter what I tried, an object pretty easy to record with the Canon.
                        >
                        > Basically, anything you can't record by stacking lots of 60 or maybe 90 second exposures is beyond this camera's abilities. I'm sure glad I didn't buy this camera primarily for astrophotography, because it would have been a waste of money. For general photography, it's great. Maybe I understand why this group is so empty though.
                        >
                        >
                        > Joe Bergeron
                        >
                        > Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists
                        >
                        > http://www.joebergeron.com
                        >
                      • Joe Bergeron
                        ... Considering the poor astrophoto characteristics of the E-PL2, I ll have to see some actual results before concluding that this new camera is actually
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 24, 1937
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                          > Olympus Digital SLR Astrophotography
                          > Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
                          > 1a.
                          > Re: Pen Results From: RicardoC
                          > View All Topics | Create New TopicMessage
                          > 1a.
                          > Re: Pen Results
                          > Posted by: "RicardoC" rjsc2000@... rjsc20032000
                          > Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:48 am (PDT)
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > There's a new one. The E-PL3
                          >
                          > http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1572
                          >
                          > It has an ISO of ISO 200 - 12800 (!) in manual mode
                          > You can open the shutter up to 30 minutes or 8 minutes in the menu.
                          > You can buy a relesase cable that plugs into usb port.
                          > Filter IR-cut Type hybrid
                          > Filter LPF Type fixed
                          > RAW 12 bit
                          > Full HD 1920 x 1080 (16:9) 60i, 17Mbps (AVCHD)
                          >
                          > But very expensive...
                          >
                          > Ricardo
                          >

                          Considering the poor astrophoto characteristics of the E-PL2, I'll have to see some actual results before concluding that this new camera is actually better. I have a humble Canon 1000D now, and there's no comparison between them, the Canon is vastly superior for low light stuff.



                          Joe Bergeron

                          Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists

                          http://www.joebergeron.com
                        • hitch
                          Hello, I would have toay that the E-PL3 would almost have to be better than the E-PL2. The 2 gives some of the noisiest long-exposure low-light images I have
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 28, 1937
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello,

                            I would have toay that the E-PL3 would almost have to be better than the E-PL2. The 2 gives some of the noisiest long-exposure low-light images I have seen in a modern camera.

                            --- In Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com, Joe Bergeron <joe@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Olympus_Digital_SLR_Astrophotography@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                            >
                            > > Olympus Digital SLR Astrophotography
                            > > Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
                            > > 1a.
                            > > Re: Pen Results From: RicardoC
                            > > View All Topics | Create New TopicMessage
                            > > 1a.
                            > > Re: Pen Results
                            > > Posted by: "RicardoC" rjsc2000@... rjsc20032000
                            > > Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:48 am (PDT)
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > There's a new one. The E-PL3
                            > >
                            > > http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1572
                            > >
                            > > It has an ISO of ISO 200 - 12800 (!) in manual mode
                            > > You can open the shutter up to 30 minutes or 8 minutes in the menu.
                            > > You can buy a relesase cable that plugs into usb port.
                            > > Filter IR-cut Type hybrid
                            > > Filter LPF Type fixed
                            > > RAW 12 bit
                            > > Full HD 1920 x 1080 (16:9) 60i, 17Mbps (AVCHD)
                            > >
                            > > But very expensive...
                            > >
                            > > Ricardo
                            > >
                            >
                            > Considering the poor astrophoto characteristics of the E-PL2, I'll have to see some actual results before concluding that this new camera is actually better. I have a humble Canon 1000D now, and there's no comparison between them, the Canon is vastly superior for low light stuff.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Joe Bergeron
                            >
                            > Fellow, International Association of Astronomical Artists
                            >
                            > http://www.joebergeron.com
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.