Digital Resource does EM1 hands on

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,006
Like?
Digital Resource does EM1 hands on
11 months ago

It's a good once over, in my opinion.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A.HTM

Interestingly (for me) they also slam the photographic industry for the trend of weak or no AA's.

"At IR, we feel strongly that eliminating low-pass filters is a bad idea, and a mistake for the industry."

They also give photographic examples of why.

boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,286Gear list
Like?
Thanks
In reply to rovingtim, 11 months ago

rovingtim wrote:

It's a good once over, in my opinion.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A.HTM

Thanks for the link.

Interestingly (for me) they also slam the photographic industry for the trend of weak or no AA's.

"At IR, we feel strongly that eliminating low-pass filters is a bad idea, and a mistake for the industry."

What they seem to be ignoring is that this move to lighter or no AA filter is not a "mistake" but a deliberate decision to make the trade-off. Avoiding the more serious moire issues by blurring the image can be reproduced after the fact -- by blurring the image.

I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

They also give photographic examples of why.

They should try a different raw developer. It is always a good idea to shoot JPEG + raw, rather than JPEG, just in case there is a problem such as moire or colour balance etc.

My bet is that a different demosaicing process would cure the problem.

Edit:

Just thought I'd mention this while on the subject (more or less).

Why don't manufacturer's offer different JPEG development options?  You could, for example, set the camera to use a more processor-intensive (slower) but better process by default and offer a 'high speed' option for e.g. maximum fps shooting (or even lock the different processing to different modes).

And, why not offer a fine-tunable 'soft focus' option for cases where you know you'll likely run into moire problems?

As cameras become more powerful they should be able to offer a lot more flexibility.  It is somewhat frustrating that manufacturers are so conservative.  (Look at how big an improvement was made to the Panasonic GH2 and the Canon 5D II by third-party 'hacking'.)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,795Gear list
Like?
Re: Digital Resource does EM1 hands on
In reply to rovingtim, 11 months ago

Thanks for the link, Tim.

I'm currently reading the preview. Agree with you so far that it appears to be pretty thorough.

-- hide signature --

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,782Gear list
Like?
With this size imager ..
In reply to rovingtim, 11 months ago

rovingtim wrote:

It's a good once over, in my opinion.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A.HTM

Interestingly (for me) they also slam the photographic industry for the trend of weak or no AA's.

"At IR, we feel strongly that eliminating low-pass filters is a bad idea, and a mistake for the industry."

They also give photographic examples of why.

They need to do whatever they can to appear equal with their competitors.

But is an observation. Nikon gives a warning and an advice to D800/800E shooters to stop the lens down into the diffraction zone if moire is expected to be present. They also show examples in the accompanying publications. Can't say I ever heard complaints, but still I wonder - will Olympus ever do the same?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,782Gear list
Like?
You'd rather .. ?
In reply to boggis the cat, 11 months ago

boggis the cat wrote:


I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

But is there really more detail, or is this only an appearance of more detail? People on mFT forum do not seem to be finding much of difference. What says you?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olymore
Senior MemberPosts: 1,166
Like?
Re: With this size imager ..
In reply to Sergey_Green, 11 months ago

Well I expect the three fashion photographers in the world who use m43 will have to buy something else. For the rest of us....

-- hide signature --

There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,782Gear list
Like?
I will say it differently
In reply to Olymore, 11 months ago

Olymore wrote:

Well I expect the three fashion photographers in the world who use m43 will have to buy something else. For the rest of us....

To appear competitive in the reviews, Olympus need to push everything they can. What photographers do with it is an entirely different story.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,286Gear list
Like?
For people who like to argue for more pixels...
In reply to Sergey_Green, 11 months ago

It's quite surprising that you can argue for more pixels but then also, apparently, argue for less detail.

Sergey_Green wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

But is there really more detail, or is this only an appearance of more detail?

This argument arose with the E-5.

It was easy enough to check by using a shot of the same scene taken with a Pentax medium format camera, having much greater resolution.

There was more detail present.

OTOH you may get a greater likelihood of artefacts (including 'moire' patterns).  Nothing comes for free.

People on mFT forum do not seem to be finding much of difference. What says you?

Compared to the E-M5?

Doesn't look much different to me.  But the E-M5 was supposed to have a very light AA filter anyway, was it not?

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,286Gear list
Like?
I certainly hope Olympus are "pushing everything they can"
In reply to Sergey_Green, 11 months ago

Sergey_Green wrote:

Olymore wrote:

Well I expect the three fashion photographers in the world who use m43 will have to buy something else. For the rest of us....

To appear competitive in the reviews, Olympus need to push everything they can.

Well, I'd hope so.

Canon seem to prefer to coast along and that seems to annoy a few people.  Olympus aren't really in a position to be as blasé as Canon.

What photographers do with it is an entirely different story.

Starting with selecting a good system for their needs.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,006
Like?
hi
In reply to boggis the cat, 11 months ago

boggis the cat wrote:

It's quite surprising that you can argue for more pixels but then also, apparently, argue for less detail.

More megapixels doesn't give you aliasing.

Sergey_Green wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

But is there really more detail, or is this only an appearance of more detail?

This argument arose with the E-5.

It was easy enough to check by using a shot of the same scene taken with a Pentax medium format camera, having much greater resolution.

There was more detail present.

More detail than what? I invoke my thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40447782

People on mFT forum do not seem to be finding much of difference. What says you?

Compared to the E-M5?

Doesn't look much different to me. But the E-M5 was supposed to have a very light AA filter anyway, was it not?

A number of people suggest there is no AA in the EM5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AccidntlTourist
Contributing MemberPosts: 561Gear list
Like?
I think the E-510 had it right (in terms of AA filter strength) - nt
In reply to rovingtim, 11 months ago
-- hide signature --

Will -

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
esco
Senior MemberPosts: 1,780
Like?
e400
In reply to AccidntlTourist, 11 months ago

AccidntlTourist wrote:

-- hide signature --

Will -

Had a great balance too. Shots look lovely.

-- hide signature --

Photographer first, gear second

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CollBaxter
Forum ProPosts: 12,438Gear list
Like?
Re: Digital Resource does EM1 hands on
In reply to rovingtim, 11 months ago

rovingtim wrote:

It's a good once over, in my opinion.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A.HTM

Interestingly (for me) they also slam the photographic industry for the trend of weak or no AA's.

"At IR, we feel strongly that eliminating low-pass filters is a bad idea, and a mistake for the industry."

They also give photographic examples of why.

Sharpness being the holy grail.

Thanks Tim.

Interesting read some encouraging and some not so.

What I still cant understand is the assumption that due to PDAF being on sensor it is going to sort out back/front focus on 4/3 PDAF  lenses . That has nothing to do with it. These  adjustments are there as this misalignment is lens/model  specific. It has more to do with the the mechanics of the focus system under/over shoot on the lens than the location of the PDAF sensor as per say. Otherwise why did Olympus allow offsets per lens on the 4/3 lenses on the E-M1.

-- hide signature --

Collin
(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=21652&username=collin
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
New Seventh Wonder of the World.
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter/image/95297052.jpg

 CollBaxter's gear list:CollBaxter's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Olympus E-500 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olymore
Senior MemberPosts: 1,166
Like?
Re: e400
In reply to esco, 11 months ago

I think the colour from the E400 is great as well. The lack of DR used to drive me to distraction but everything else about the IQ at low ISOs is great.

-- hide signature --

There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,286Gear list
Like?
Different types of aliasing (or artefacts)
In reply to rovingtim, 11 months ago

rovingtim wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

It's quite surprising that you can argue for more pixels but then also, apparently, argue for less detail.

More megapixels doesn't give you aliasing.

My understanding is that it will.

You need to think about the causes of aliasing.  It doesn't lead to more false-colour moire type, sure, as that is to do with the interaction with the Bayer filter -- but it does potentially contribute to artefacts where higher frequency lines are involved.

So, in the case of the article you referred to in the OP, it would not cause more of the fabric colour-moire issues, but it could lead to more of the "swirly lines" type of moire as seen in the NYT building shot.

If you believe this is incorrect, then please explain why.

Sergey_Green wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

But is there really more detail, or is this only an appearance of more detail?

This argument arose with the E-5.

It was easy enough to check by using a shot of the same scene taken with a Pentax medium format camera, having much greater resolution.

There was more detail present.

More detail than what? I invoke my thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40447782

This was your thread where you claimed that increasing the contrast of any image results in more detail.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40460220

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40454218

So you'll have to excuse me not taking you seriously on this topic.

People on mFT forum do not seem to be finding much of difference. What says you?

Compared to the E-M5?

Doesn't look much different to me. But the E-M5 was supposed to have a very light AA filter anyway, was it not?

A number of people suggest there is no AA in the EM5.

Yes, I have also seen that suggested.

Given that there does appear to be a slight difference in detail, I think it likely that the E-M5 has a stronger AA filter than the E-M1.  Or it may be some sort of processing improvement, I suppose.  It appears that nobody knows for sure.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,286Gear list
Like?
PDAF only vs. 'hybrid'?
In reply to CollBaxter, 11 months ago

CollBaxter wrote:

What I still cant understand is the assumption that due to PDAF being on sensor it is going to sort out back/front focus on 4/3 PDAF lenses . That has nothing to do with it. These adjustments are there as this misalignment is lens/model specific. It has more to do with the the mechanics of the focus system under/over shoot on the lens than the location of the PDAF sensor as per say. Otherwise why did Olympus allow offsets per lens on the 4/3 lenses on the E-M1.

Surely the PDAF adjustment is for where PDAF is used exclusively?

If CDAF is used either stand-alone or in the 'hybrid' mode then they can get the focus dead on using that.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DDeMars
Forum MemberPosts: 94
Like?
Re: Thanks
In reply to boggis the cat, 11 months ago

boggis the cat wrote:

What they seem to be ignoring is that this move to lighter or no AA filter is not a "mistake" but a deliberate decision to make the trade-off. Avoiding the more serious moire issues by blurring the image can be reproduced after the fact -- by blurring the image.

No, that's not true. Aliasing destroys detail that cannot be recovered after the fact.

I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

They also give photographic examples of why.

They should try a different raw developer. It is always a good idea to shoot JPEG + raw, rather than JPEG, just in case there is a problem such as moire or colour balance etc.

My bet is that a different demosaicing process would cure the problem.

Mathematically, information destroyed by aliasing cannot be recovered. There isn't any magic software algorithm that will do it.

And, why not offer a fine-tunable 'soft focus' option for cases where you know you'll likely run into moire problems?

Some kind of adjustable solution would be ideal, although adjusting the focus of the lens (if that is what you are suggesting) has some problems; for one, the lens is always focused on _something_.

Nikon has developed something neat: an anti-alias filter with adjustable strength:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/30/nikon-creates-selectable-strength-low-pass-filter

You can set it to strong, weak, or none. I would love something like that on my camera. Maybe other manufacturers (e.g. Olympus) can license this from Nikon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CollBaxter
Forum ProPosts: 12,438Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks
In reply to DDeMars, 11 months ago

DDeMars wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

What they seem to be ignoring is that this move to lighter or no AA filter is not a "mistake" but a deliberate decision to make the trade-off. Avoiding the more serious moire issues by blurring the image can be reproduced after the fact -- by blurring the image.

No, that's not true. Aliasing destroys detail that cannot be recovered after the fact.

I'd rather have as much detail as possible and deal with moire if it occurs.

They also give photographic examples of why.

They should try a different raw developer. It is always a good idea to shoot JPEG + raw, rather than JPEG, just in case there is a problem such as moire or colour balance etc.

My bet is that a different demosaicing process would cure the problem.

Mathematically, information destroyed by aliasing cannot be recovered. There isn't any magic software algorithm that will do it.

And, why not offer a fine-tunable 'soft focus' option for cases where you know you'll likely run into moire problems?

Some kind of adjustable solution would be ideal, although adjusting the focus of the lens (if that is what you are suggesting) has some problems; for one, the lens is always focused on _something_.

Nikon has developed something neat: an anti-alias filter with adjustable strength:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/30/nikon-creates-selectable-strength-low-pass-filter

You can set it to strong, weak, or none. I would love something like that on my camera. Maybe other manufacturers (e.g. Olympus) can license this from Nikon.

Maybe try a cheap UV filter that induces a bit of blur. only kidding.

There have been discussion here before about vibrating/moving  the sensor with the IBIS to induce a bit of blur .  I don't know if that would help at all.

-- hide signature --

Collin
(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=21652&username=collin
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
New Seventh Wonder of the World.
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter/image/95297052.jpg

 CollBaxter's gear list:CollBaxter's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Olympus E-500 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CollBaxter
Forum ProPosts: 12,438Gear list
Like?
Re: PDAF only vs. 'hybrid'?
In reply to boggis the cat, 11 months ago

boggis the cat wrote:

CollBaxter wrote:

What I still cant understand is the assumption that due to PDAF being on sensor it is going to sort out back/front focus on 4/3 PDAF lenses . That has nothing to do with it. These adjustments are there as this misalignment is lens/model specific. It has more to do with the the mechanics of the focus system under/over shoot on the lens than the location of the PDAF sensor as per say. Otherwise why did Olympus allow offsets per lens on the 4/3 lenses on the E-M1.

Surely the PDAF adjustment is for where PDAF is used exclusively?

If CDAF is used either stand-alone or in the 'hybrid' mode then they can get the focus dead on using that.

You can't use hybrid on 4/3 lenses its PDAF or Manual.

-- hide signature --

Collin
(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=21652&username=collin
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
New Seventh Wonder of the World.
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter/image/95297052.jpg

 CollBaxter's gear list:CollBaxter's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Olympus E-500 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,006
Like?
hi Coll
In reply to CollBaxter, 11 months ago

I think the answer might have to do with alignment. The PDAF sensor is in a different place than the sensor itself. Olympus was saying that things were so sensitive that they had to put a thermometer in to keep the AF adjusted over different temperatures. But, of course, all this is simply more technology trying to solve the basic problem of detecting focus in a place that isn't the sensor.

PDAF on sensor solves all these problems.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads