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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 21, 2010, 10:07 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

You guys are making a lot of sense. So there really is a good chance that even the E-5 RAW files are a lot better.

Ted

Edit: Here are some photos from a production E-5:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...review-samples

and here is some discussion of them:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=36395206

Last edited by tkurkowski; Sep 21, 2010 at 10:16 AM.
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 10:32 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

One thing that caught my eye in reviewing the E5 samples on DPReview's site. Andy commented in one forum post they shot those with the noise filter turned off and the overall JPEG file sizes are not that big, so they used a setting that's doing a lot of file compressing....definitely not SHQ files. More like HQ or lower. Anyone shooting SHQ and applying a noise filter setting of Low or shooting RAW and processing in ACR should probably see significantly better-looking images, but the couple of ISO 6400 images I looked at, for no noise reduction and lots of compression, looked pretty darn good.

The only reason one might want to wait a month or two to buy one might be so Adobe can get the RAW profile loaded to ACR.

BTW...I also noticed those firmware updates for my two SWD lenses to improve sequential shooting with the E5. I will be "preparing" my lenses this evening!
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 10:36 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
The only reason one might want to wait a month or two to buy one might be so Adobe can get the RAW profile loaded to ACR.
Even though it's looking good so far, I'd like to see some real testing evidence - that's an expensive camera.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 11:14 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

The noise also seems to be acceptable to me in those samples, noise in itself never really bothered me to much anyways because it simply dosen't pronounce itself to much in prints, what I do find unacceptable with e-3 high iso files is the "Horizontal noise banding" which does predominately display in prints of all sizes, and the PP required to remove it causes to much damage to detail. Although I see very slight banding in the tree pic around the trunk in the red portions, it is miles better than the e-3 & the fact it was shot at 6400 is even more impressive.
Charles
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 11:21 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

The problem with so much of the online testing that's done on these sites is, the test shots are all done using default camera settings for JPEG shots, which I never use (I do shoot JPEG from time to time, but not at the camera default settings), and they only process RAW files in ACR using the standard default settings, which I always adjust trying to get the best results. It makes the results comperable from model to model, but does not really give you a true idea of how good any particular model can be.

When DPreview tested the E30, Adobe had not worked out the processing of RAW files shot with that camera and the resulting image quality shown in their review was worse than I experience today processing those files in Photoshop CS5.

Mid-November to December would be my target date. I'm not going to pull a credit card out and go into debt buying an E5....it'd be a cash deal and I need a little bit of time to save that much $$. When I need to save for something like this vs....say....something like paying taxes, it's amazing how much faster I can accumulate cash...

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Sep 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 12:40 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

The high-ISO E-5 images here are almost too good to be true, regardless of whatever the camera settings were.

http://www.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=11568
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 1:32 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

Did you see this picture...not Olympus, but geeeezzz....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36397208

I commented this looks like something Zeiss Germany would make if they were still building the Contarex SLR and it had gone digital...
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 1:53 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Greg has an excellent point about the limits of the test shots. Personally I'm not that impressed with the ISO800 shot of the bridge but that is because I've just become accustomed to seeing images here that have been tweaked to near perfection. Not to say it isn't way better than the ISO800 on my E-1, just that the real improvement to me would show up after tweaking when the E-5 shot would be miles ahead.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2010, 7:24 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default RAW file processing

Quote:
Originally Posted by cshanaberger View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
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.
Charles, your comment about the necessity to do an analog-to-digital conversion caused me to say "Doh! Of course". In my digital audio world, ADC has been around so long that years ago semiconductor manufacturers started making ADC chips and equipment manufacturers just buy the chip they want depending on the quality and price point of the final audio product. For example, my Marantz pro-level digital recorders use an AKM chip - the AK5380. Less expensive digital recorders (including Marantz) use less expensive chips and someone with experience can hear the difference.

Greg, along with your observation, apparently Oly confirms that the E-5 does process RAW files:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36404353

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2010, 8:19 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Charles, your comment about the necessity to do an analog-to-digital conversion caused me to say "Doh! Of course". In my digital audio world, ADC has been around so long that years ago semiconductor manufacturers started making ADC chips and equipment manufacturers just buy the chip they want depending on the quality and price point of the final audio product. For example, my Marantz pro-level digital recorders use an AKM chip - the AK5380. Less expensive digital recorders (including Marantz) use less expensive chips and someone with experience can hear the difference.

Greg, along with your observation, apparently Oly confirms that the E-5 does process RAW files:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36404353

Ted
Hey Ted: Wow you own Marantz! Small world; back in my youthful audio days I had all Marantz equipment. That was back in the days before CD players, home theaters, etc. I later gave it up and went to Sony when I set up my integration with the TV and DVDs etc. But I missed the old "Marantz sound". A few years back I went on e-bay and bought an old Marantz receiver and cassette deck to put in my office. Still has great sound. I think that kind of parallels my choice of Olympus for cameras. never one to follow the main herd, and I like the more unique items that are not always the most popular sellers.
Steven R 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 11:12 PM.