Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 20, 2010, 3:38 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Hi Ted

Just wanted to clarify my point about the Raw files and it will all come down to :

(1) is the E5 sensor the same as the pen or a variation (all indications are its the same) ?

(2) How much thinner is the AA filter on the E5 compared to the EP-X ?

If (1) newer and (2) thinner then there would be a difference in the RAW files, so that might explain any increase in DR and High ISo and the quality of the files you'll be able to get. For OLY to state that the E-5 has a worthwhile improvement (HG/SHG glass only) we'll need to wait and see for some reviews and sample images. The other point is whether theyre stating the improved high ISO/IQ is compared to the E3 or the Ep-X ? Otherwise, I doubt whether you'd see that much difference between the Ep1 and E-5 at RAW files anyway.

Cheers

HArj

Last edited by HarjTT; Sep 20, 2010 at 4:06 PM.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 5:05 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Thanks, Harj

This has been an interesting time for me. I just finished a great vacation during which I had time to shoot a lot of photos and use most of the equipment I have. (The old Windoze2000 laptop I had with me didn't allow PP so I have a lot of digital darkroom to do.) It caused me to recall my film days when I had a lot more time to shoot, and to remember that during those decades I only had three successive cameras. There were long periods of time where there wasn't a reason to get a newer one.

When digital cameras came out I tended to upgrade a lot because each version came closer to delivering what film had been delivering. Then the E-5 specs came out, which (if they really hold up to testing) indicates the E-5, by improving the few things I want improved in the E-3, is everything I want in a camera long into the foreseeable future. It looks like it will give me better IQ than I used to get from film at its best, without the hassle of processing film. I don't need more than that - I'm not making wall-sized prints.

Ted

Hi Ted,

Even if you did have a requirement to make larger prints, the 12MP sensor is more than enough to allow you to do just that. I regularly print and sell panorama landscape scenes at 13" high by 36" long at anywhere from 240 to 300dpi. The files are processed thru CS5 and printed on an Epson Photo 2200 printer.
This, is not a wall sized poster, but it is very demanding and the E-30's output is clean enough to do that and more.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 6:09 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Thanks, Zig. That just confirms my feeling that I no longer need to chase after better equipment after the E-5 fixes - after that what I have (which is extremely good) will be fine. What i need to do is spend less time working and more time taking pictures.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 6:37 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
A lower-strength AA filter will benefit both JPEG and RAW shooters, and you know Olympus will not set the processing up for the E5 the same way they did for the E-PL1 or any other Pen any more than the JPEG processing is the same comparing an E3 to the E520 or E510. The Pen's JPEG engine is going to produce a much more consumer-friendly image where the E5 professional body will have a much more conservative tone curve applied.
Thanks, Greg
I was thinking along those lines but wasn't sure about that.
Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 7:00 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Thanks, Zig. That just confirms my feeling that I no longer need to chase after better equipment after the E-5 fixes - after that what I have (which is extremely good) will be fine. What i need to do is spend less time working and more time taking pictures.

Ted
Hi Ted,

With your current collection of Olympus SHG lenses as well as your Panny glass, if the E-5 is what Olympus claims and we hope it to be, you'll be set well into the next millennium.

When Olympus drops the four thirds design, and it will, I hope to be in position to pick up some wonderful SHG lenses at bargain basement prices.

Oh, and about the working part, yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 7:57 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarjTT View Post
I doubt whether you'd see that much difference between the Ep1 and E-5 at RAW files anyway.
I'm not sure about the E-P1, but if E5 RAW files are similar to E-PL1 files, I will be happy .

There is one aspect of the E5 that seems a little weird. If one is to assume this is the final, or one of the final DSLR's they are to make, why in the world does Olympus redesign something like the battery? It certainly works with no micro body. It sounds like the BLM-1 will still work with an E5. I need to read up some more to see what the differences are.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Sep 20, 2010 at 11:02 PM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 6:07 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
I need to read up some more to see what the differences are.
See this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36328790

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 6:51 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
I feel the same way. Question: does the Tru-Pic processor affect RAW files? I had always assumed it was only used to create the jpegs, in which case I don't see how it affects the high-ISO performance. What am I missing here?

Ted
I'm not as sure as the others in reference to the processing of RAW files. Take the light AA filter and reliance of processing power to correct moire. I think there has been a separation of false signal (noise and color abberations) from raw files for some time now. I shoot RAW and there has been big changes over a few years. The E-PL1 is cleaner at ISO 1600 than my E500 was at ISO400.

I think the processor is involved in RAW processing.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 8:16 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

There has to be processing involved even with raw because you are taking an analog signal from the photosites and converting it to a digital signal, also the amplifiers that give us higher iso are analog devices that have to be controlled digitally again requiring processor power. The e-3 has 3 separate processors as apposed to the one processor of the other Olympus DSLR's, I'm sure the E-5 has at least 3 also & are most likely newer generation processors which will give incremental gains all around.(hopefully). If there was truly no processing to the raw file then all raw files from all manufactures would be the same therefore interchangeable.
Charles
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 9:56 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

Color noise alone (or lack thereof) shows there's plenty of processing going on in-camera before we ever open a RAW file in software. When I open E30 and E-PL1 RAW files in ACR the color noise in even higher ISO files is pretty much not there before I start moving any sliders to the right. It had to go somewhere. Compare that to an E1 or, worse yet, the E300....those were/are some U-G-L-Y files when it comes to color noise, with the E300 from as low as ISO 400 in low light shots.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:27 PM.