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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 18, 2010, 7:10 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default DCwatch reviews E-5 - compared to E620

DCwatch has posted what looks to be the first poart of their E-5 review

http://translate.google.com/translat...19_400857.html

What was good about this review is there's comparison shots taken with the E5 and the E620 using the 12-60. Now I compared the ISo1600 shots between the two and was shocked to find that I prefered the E620 files - slightly underexposed compared to the E5 even at the same exposure but more surprising is that I think the E620's file has more detail. The E-5 pic looks as if its got some heavy NR being applied - so I;m wondering what the E-5's NR setting was set to ? The ISo3200 file - the E-5 beats the E620 fle but I still think it looks as if its ha some heavy NR applied to it - as if theyve cranked up the luminous NR slider to smooth the noise out.

Cheers

Harj

Last edited by HarjTT; Oct 18, 2010 at 7:19 PM.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 19, 2010, 4:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

One would assume the defaults (Standard) are being applied unless it was stated somewhere in the review, which I have not looked at yet. Most shooting JPEG I assume would turn it down to Low. I'm guessing in the case of most of us here, these images probably tell even less because we are going to be shooting RAW and doing sharpening and noise reduction ourselves. I will probably do as much JPEG shooting with the E5 as movie shooting....none.

High ISO JPEG files from an E30, no matter the noise filter setting, look nothing like high ISO RAW files that have been run through Adobe Camera RAW using an optimized workflow. I would imagine the E5 files will be similar.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Oct 19, 2010 at 5:07 PM.
Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2010, 4:08 PM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Yeah, I'm really not sure what the point is of reviewing a prosumer or pro DSLR and leaving settings on default and shooting jpeg. That's why most "official" reviews of the high end cameras are just not very useful. In the end, as with any high level camera, you have to wait for people in the field to use the camera like prosumers / pros will use the camera. For entry level models I think it's ok to shoot with defaults/jpeg but really - if you're going to try and review a high level camera, part of the time should be invested adjusting the settings and shooting raw rather than jpeg.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2010, 5:06 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Even the few E5 files I have seen that were RAW conversions I'm not putting much stock in because they had to be processed using Olympus' own software, which is little different to just being shot JPEG in the first place.

I won't be looking to pick one of these up until around mid-December, which is just as well since it'll probably be at least then, if not a little later, before Adobe releases an update for Camera RAW that includes the E5.
Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2010, 7:37 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

Hi Guys

Some really fair and on the ball comments on this and the other reviews. I've been itching to email Sean Reid and see if he'd be willing to do an E-5 review and see what he says to that. I'm sure it would be pretty on the ball and thorough but whether he'd have the time to do one that's another thing and then theres a question of getting his mitts on an E-5.

I wasn't expecting any major increase in overall IQ (inc DR) as we know the E-5's using the same 2 year old sensor as in the E-30/E620/EP-X ranges unless the sensor is an updated version. On the whole I've not seen anything thats been truly outstanding or truly bad from the cam.

What surprised me with those sets of pics was the high NR being applied to IS1600 pic, what looks like blown highlights and actually less detail in that E-5 image - my first thoughts was that I must be looking at the E620 image. Don;t get me wrong the ISO3200 for the E5 was definitely better. Regards the default settings, I would have thought that they would have retained the E-3 tone curve for the E-5, where there's noise at high ISo to have it as fine grain and keep the NR to retain detail and remove colour noise as much as possible. We'll have to wait and see the results of the RAW files with ACR/LR and then compare. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with the EPL1 withe the RAW file and OOC Jpegs.

My other concern is whether they have got the AF system right with the E-5 - esp as the beauty head shots on the Russian site had 2 that were clearly out of focus (both shots were front focused) and if they also have fixed the CAF as I mentioned in a previous post. There seems to be no testing of either of these so far.

Cheers

Harj
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2010, 10:38 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarjTT View Post
My other concern is whether they have got the AF system right with the E-5 - esp as the beauty head shots on the Russian site had 2 that were clearly out of focus (both shots were front focused) and if they also have fixed the CAF as I mentioned in a previous post. There seems to be no testing of either of these so far.

Cheers

Harj
I'm pretty confident we'll never really have great continuous AF with this system because there's no servo-tracking to enable along with continuous AF. Without both, and the CPU processing required to really run it "right", the results will never really be consistently predictable like they are in the higher spec models, like what is described on this page..

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kiv/page15.asp
Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2010, 3:57 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Camera stores in the US (including the big NY stores) are getting the E5 in stock, so we should be seeing some user reviews over at DPR.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2010, 7:43 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Camera stores in the US (including the big NY stores) are getting the E5 in stock, so we should be seeing some user reviews over at DPR.

Ted
I had money in the account and didn't have enough brains to say no. It should be here tomorrow.

Part of the decision revolved around Olympus and their wonderful firmware updates that often do just the opposite of what they advertise. I put off doing the 50-200 SWD update to see if I heard anything bad. It seemed positive and I finally went ahead and did it. Wish I hadn't.

I hope the E-5 helps, but the update screwed up the ability of the lens.

The lens update made a better C-AF lens as long as the subject didn't move. Before, it would jump around the correct focus and now its much more stable.

Before the update, if I got focus on a subject moving toward me, I'd get 3 or so pics in focus, it would loose it and get a couple bad, then it would nail a couple more. After the update it gets two, then the rest are bad. Once it lost focus, it would back focus the same amount as long as you held the shutter.

I'm getting to where I won't do another firmware update. V1.0 was the best tracking firmware for the E-3, but it wouldn't work with 90-250, especially with the teleconverters. They sacraficed the tracking to make the lens focus. I think it was v1.3 that was a disaster, and 1.4 made the camera useable again. Now this thing with the SWD update, and I hope it is a compatability thing for the E-5.

If I wasn't in deep enough, now add the E-5. I'm looking forward to what it will offer ISO wise, IQ wise, and hope the thing will be liveable with C-AF.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2010, 8:56 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Ouch, Greg!

I did the FW upgrade on my 14-35 and it seems to be fine. But I side with you and a lot of folks to not fix anything that's really not broken.

Let me know what you think of the E-5. I plan to get one but I was thinking I'd do what I did with the E-3 that worked well: wait for the 2nd production run so I didn't have the problems other folks had (unfortunately, including Harj). But I'm not sure the E-5 will have a 2nd production run.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2010, 8:57 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Greg,

Well, For me it's been more of a situation of not having the funds to pull the trigger rather than the brains or the self-control.

But congrats on getting the E-5. I, along with many others, will be looking forward to hearing your initial impressions


And, I do hope the 50-200mm SWD focusing issue goes away as well.


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
 
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 8:08 PM.