The e-5 Jpeg experiment.

[Raist3d]

Not about the E-5? Perhaps you should read your subject title in the OP.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36364265
Apparently, just more double talk.

When you see the title of a book named literally do you think that it is about exactly that for every book you read? Or at least sometimes, some words are actually to set a context that isn't quite what it is being talked about.

This is very simple and for you to present as "evidence" the title of this very thread for that is pretty funny Apparently you decided to read the title and not the contents of the post? Maybe that would explain why you think this is double talk...

Also, if you have issues with me or my posts, I'd appreciate it if you would address them directly to me rather than making sideways comments in your replies to other posters.

I have addressed them directly with you. I mention it to those poster that seem to have a double standard of addressing mine but not yours.

I also believe I sent you a private message mentioning I made a mistake in addressing where we had our initial recent fallout, publicly. Never heard anything from you on that end.

Bill Turner

--

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[dab1]

though to clarify again, the thread isn't in the end about that, as much as seeing how many people all of a sudden "start liking JPEGS more" (i.e. cognitive dissonance kicking in, and the honesty in those that start thinking that way).

But yeah, some are talking as if the RAW of the E-5 is going to yield some sort of new miracle over what Olympus has already out there. Which of course isn't true.

Yes sorry, it was more of a general comment on your thoughts across some other threads.

It makes sense - great jpegs, but dont expect uber flexible RAW files as its the EPL1 sensor. I know there's a lot of snobbery about jpegs, but I've often used them for clients when in a hurry. And been glad I've been using Olympus for that reason. I can't be arsed messing around with developers if I dont have to, or am time limited

As I said earlier, I think it could carve a niche if they market it right and put some goodies in to take the sting out of the price.
ps: i got an s5 pro off ebay on a good deal....another jpeg beauty.

best
dab

 

[Raist3d]

more so because of the Fuji super DR sensor. And Fuji was the first DSLR that was doing 14-bit raw data capture, so they had a very rich canvas to manipulate to begin with.

This is why Fuji makes me cry when all I see they are doing is the "super duper zoom compact." I so wish they did the equivalent of a Sigma DP2- small zoom or prime lens, and even put back the S5 pro 6 MP SR sensor.. to me that would even do it.

To me them and Olympus got the jpegs nailed right. I would even put Fuji a notch above but they are pretty close really. Olympus for Kodak type color, Fuji for Fujifilm type color.

I would say that Leica and Samsung(to my surprise) also have decent JPEG color. Samsung has come a long long way- they started horrible and stayed there for a while.

Many have noted how Leica's JPEGs are similar to the E-1s... not much surprise given probably they also got color know-how from Kodak, like Olympus did.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Bootstrap]

Not about the E-5? Perhaps you should read your subject title in the OP.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36364265
Apparently, just more double talk.

When you see the title of a book named literally do you think that it is about exactly that for every book you read? Or at least sometimes, some words are actually to set a context that isn't quite what it is being talked about.

As much as you might like this to be a "book," it isn't. It's a simple Forum post and the title of most Forum posts indicate its content. Nice try.

This is very simple and for you to present as "evidence" the title of this very thread for that is pretty funny Apparently you decided to read the title and not the contents of the post? Maybe that would explain why you think this is double talk...

I've read every single reply in this thread, yours included and what I've seen from you is unsubstantiated claims about E-5 and E-PL1 JPEGS and ORFs. It is double talk as that is your style.

Also, if you have issues with me or my posts, I'd appreciate it if you would address them directly to me rather than making sideways comments in your replies to other posters.

I have addressed them directly with you. I mention it to those poster that seem to have a double standard of addressing mine but not yours.

That's really nice of you but not necessary. Many of my posts and thoughts have been questioned without the benefit of your invaluable double talk.

I also believe I sent you a private message mentioning I made a mistake in addressing where we had our initial recent fallout, publicly. Never heard anything from you on that end.

And you're not likely to get a PM from me.

Bill Turner

--

 

[Raist3d]

or maybe you are wrong.

Not about the E-5? Perhaps you should read your subject title in the OP.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36364265
Apparently, just more double talk.

When you see the title of a book named literally do you think that it is about exactly that for every book you read? Or at least sometimes, some words are actually to set a context that isn't quite what it is being talked about.

As much as you might like this to be a "book," it isn't. It's a simple Forum post and the title of most Forum posts indicate its content. Nice try.

Everything written has context. The title says E-5 JPEG experiment . Maybe you missed the last part. Yes, there is a relation to the E-5 device- it presents a set of pros and cons and people have to make a choice on them. So on that end there is that relation, but ultimately it's about how people choose what I am talking about. And btw, I am not even complaining or saying the E-5 is bad, but you decided to focus on that little piece of literal info in a little man vain attempt to try to make me look bad as if it mattered to what was said.

This is very simple and for you to present as "evidence" the title of this very thread for that is pretty funny Apparently you decided to read the title and not the contents of the post? Maybe that would explain why you think this is double talk...

I've read every single reply in this thread, yours included and what I've seen from you is unsubstantiated claims about E-5 and E-PL1 JPEGS and ORFs. It is double talk as that is your style.

What is the "unsubstantiated claim"? That Olympus RAW converters take more time with Pen files than 620/E-30 files, being both the same megapixel count? Have you bothered doing this comparison? It's pretty obvious.

That ORF files have innately more color more on Pens (and will on a lower AA filter E-5)? That's also pretty verifiable and obvious, more so considering Olympus touted this as one of the key features of their JPEG Pen engine when the E_P1 came out.

What exactly are the unsubstantiated claims?

Also, if you have issues with me or my posts, I'd appreciate it if you would address them directly to me rather than making sideways comments in your replies to other posters.

I have addressed them directly with you. I mention it to those poster that seem to have a double standard of addressing mine but not yours.

That's really nice of you but not necessary. Many of my posts and thoughts have been questioned without the benefit of your invaluable double talk.

I also believe I sent you a private message mentioning I made a mistake in addressing where we had our initial recent fallout, publicly. Never heard anything from you on that end.

And you're not likely to get a PM from me.

So basically you admit that I do address things directly with you contrary to what you said above, that I don't. Thanks for the public confirmation of that. And when I do address them you decide to ignore them. That's cool. Good to know

Bill Turner

--

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[dab1]

more so because of the Fuji super DR sensor. And Fuji was the first DSLR that was doing 14-bit raw data capture, so they had a very rich canvas to manipulate to begin with.

This is why Fuji makes me cry when all I see they are doing is the "super duper zoom compact." I so wish they did the equivalent of a Sigma DP2- small zoom or prime lens, and even put back the S5 pro 6 MP SR sensor.. to me that would even do it.

To me them and Olympus got the jpegs nailed right. I would even put Fuji a notch above but they are pretty close really. Olympus for Kodak type color, Fuji for Fujifilm type color.

I would say that Leica and Samsung(to my surprise) also have decent JPEG color. Samsung has come a long long way- they started horrible and stayed there for a while.

Many have noted how Leica's JPEGs are similar to the E-1s... not much surprise given probably they also got color know-how from Kodak, like Olympus did.

--

yes from what I've seen so far its pretty amazing what i can recover even from the jpegs, it did come with H.U. but i haven't had time to mess with it yet. I'm thinking of using it for more events. It makes me grimace too when i see their digicams. I hope at some point they come back with something serious.

Yes i love Kodak from film days, Portra was great and you can see from E1 and the Leica there is a richness in colour on the prints. I'm hoping in the next couple of chapters that Kodak will become involved again in 4/3s, even if its not in Olympus bodies.

I haven't seen files from Samsung. I will have a look.

I'm trying to reduce my processing time, so anyone with good jpegs is appealing. I thought the output from the a900 looked good from some prints id seen, but i dont know if they were processed.

Forza jpeg monster E5.

 

[Raist3d]

more so because of the Fuji super DR sensor. And Fuji was the first DSLR that was doing 14-bit raw data capture, so they had a very rich canvas to manipulate to begin with.

This is why Fuji makes me cry when all I see they are doing is the "super duper zoom compact." I so wish they did the equivalent of a Sigma DP2- small zoom or prime lens, and even put back the S5 pro 6 MP SR sensor.. to me that would even do it.

To me them and Olympus got the jpegs nailed right. I would even put Fuji a notch above but they are pretty close really. Olympus for Kodak type color, Fuji for Fujifilm type color.

I would say that Leica and Samsung(to my surprise) also have decent JPEG color. Samsung has come a long long way- they started horrible and stayed there for a while.

Many have noted how Leica's JPEGs are similar to the E-1s... not much surprise given probably they also got color know-how from Kodak, like Olympus did.

--

yes from what I've seen so far its pretty amazing what i can recover even from the jpegs, it did come with H.U. but i haven't had time to mess with it yet. I'm thinking of using it for more events. It makes me grimace too when i see their digicams. I hope at some point they come back with something serious.

Yes i love Kodak from film days, Portra was great and you can see from E1 and the Leica there is a richness in colour on the prints. I'm hoping in the next couple of chapters that Kodak will become involved again in 4/3s, even if its not in Olympus bodies.

I haven't seen files from Samsung. I will have a look.

To be clear, from Samsung I mean since their mirror less NX10 camera. I was pretty surprised they got this right from where they were. I still see an issue or two but really it was a huge quantum leap from them. I wonder if they paid one of the film guys or they just locked up a bunch of engineers and artists in the same room until they could agree

I'm trying to reduce my processing time, so anyone with good jpegs is appealing. I thought the output from the a900 looked good from some prints id seen, but i dont know if they were processed.

I think the latest Sony JPEGS color wise, overall tone look pretty good. My only beef is when you look up close you still see some post artifacts. But coming from an A900 24 MP file, you can print in a lot of sizes and that won't be an issue since the file is so huge.

Forza jpeg monster E5.

Yeah, I really think the JPEGS of the E-3 are going to be quite amazing, judging by the E-3 files and whatever small samples we have started to see.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Bootstrap]

than your reply in his poem Jabberwocky :
http://www.answers.com/topic/jabberwocky-poem-by-lewis-carroll
Perhaps you should spend more time reading Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman.

Bill Turner

 

[Raist3d]

Ignore the reply, ignore all the points presented and just yell like a little kid "you don't make sense!"



Great way to prove your case Bill. I am sure that makes it right. As for Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman I already had my share of Dragonlance already (not that this has any relation to what the discussion was anyway).

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Bootstrap]

Go ahead, prove me wrong!
Oh! And it's non sequitur

Bill Turner

 

[dab1]

To be clear, from Samsung I mean since their mirror less NX10 camera. I was pretty surprised they got this right from where they were. I still see an issue or two but really it was a huge quantum leap from them. I wonder if they paid one of the film guys or they just locked up a bunch of engineers and artists in the same room until they could agree

i was comparing mirrorless cameras in a shop and the NX10 was the only implementation i liked. Not too big, or small and nice handling with built in VF. For me the NEX was a bit "Mars Attacks" and i like the Pen, but dont like accessory finders.

Samsung must have kidnapped the local camera club

 

[John Mason]

is that a word?
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

 

[Bootstrap]

http://www.answers.com/non+sequitur?gwp=11&ver=2.4.0.651&method=3

Bill Turner

 

[luisflorit]

honestly in all the Pen tries I have done, Olympus seems to deal very well with it. I did see a shot once where the moire was still there but very dimmed.

I am not discarding it could creep in as an issue, but haven't quite seen it. Maybe in more extreme cases (sounds like your shots are that case) it would be impossible to hide completely (a Bayer sensor thing).

They are not my shots, but DPR's (I don't own a PEN, nor I want to). Look at the third crop here, how the EPL-1 shows moire and the EP2 doesn't (nose and below the bottom lip):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl1/page11.asp

Interestingly, the RAW shots show less difference, but moire is still there:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl1/page14.asp

Look at Richard Butler comment about the EPL1 moire in the tests.

I am reasonably good at PPing, but have never had to deal with moire. And I have no idea how to, except by desaturating (not an option for tropical birds, of course).

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250

 

[Raist3d]

Interesting, yup, I see it in the JPEG. The raw seems to have very subtle hints of it but really, it seems a non issue on those. Thanks for the links.

honestly in all the Pen tries I have done, Olympus seems to deal very well with it. I did see a shot once where the moire was still there but very dimmed.

I am not discarding it could creep in as an issue, but haven't quite seen it. Maybe in more extreme cases (sounds like your shots are that case) it would be impossible to hide completely (a Bayer sensor thing).

They are not my shots, but DPR's (I don't own a PEN, nor I want to). Look at the third crop here, how the EPL-1 shows moire and the EP2 doesn't (nose and below the bottom lip):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl1/page11.asp

Interestingly, the RAW shots show less difference, but moire is still there:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl1/page14.asp

Look at Richard Butler comment about the EPL1 moire in the tests.

I am reasonably good at PPing, but have never had to deal with moire. And I have no idea how to, except by desaturating (not an option for tropical birds, of course).

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[luisflorit]

Interesting, yup, I see it in the JPEG. The raw seems to have very subtle hints of it but really, it seems a non issue on those.

True, in the RAW files is less of an issue, but it is obvious in the JPGs.

Anyway, if moire appears in the very first tests DPR makes, that means that moire is likely going to appear in my bird's feathers with the E5. And I don't see how Oly would have corrected that using the same sensor...

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250

 

[dgrogers]

They are using a new processing engine so there is a chance.

Interesting, yup, I see it in the JPEG. The raw seems to have very subtle hints of it but really, it seems a non issue on those.

True, in the RAW files is less of an issue, but it is obvious in the JPGs.

Anyway, if moire appears in the very first tests DPR makes, that means that moire is likely going to appear in my bird's feathers with the E5. And I don't see how Oly would have corrected that using the same sensor...

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250

 

[dgrogers]

I wouold love to see Fuji make 4/3 or m4/3 cameras. The format would be perfect for them.

I too have been impressed from what I've seen from Samsung lately.

more so because of the Fuji super DR sensor. And Fuji was the first DSLR that was doing 14-bit raw data capture, so they had a very rich canvas to manipulate to begin with.

This is why Fuji makes me cry when all I see they are doing is the "super duper zoom compact." I so wish they did the equivalent of a Sigma DP2- small zoom or prime lens, and even put back the S5 pro 6 MP SR sensor.. to me that would even do it.

To me them and Olympus got the jpegs nailed right. I would even put Fuji a notch above but they are pretty close really. Olympus for Kodak type color, Fuji for Fujifilm type color.

I would say that Leica and Samsung(to my surprise) also have decent JPEG color. Samsung has come a long long way- they started horrible and stayed there for a while.

Many have noted how Leica's JPEGs are similar to the E-1s... not much surprise given probably they also got color know-how from Kodak, like Olympus did.

 

[Raist3d]

think of it as 'version 2' of what the pen had. Would be interesting to see, certainly the subject you abhor is a worst case for color moire
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[rssarma]

I am not talking about an investment in LR. I am talking about gaining on a conversion from RAW. Someone else in this thread- a working photography professional pointed out that looks like more pros are starting to consider JPEG, I would imagine this is one of the reasons.

Umm, sorry, no! That is just an unsubstantiated statement at most based on anecdotal evidence. The truth of the matter is, whether it be an E-1, E-3, E-5, EPl1, D700 or D7000, the RAW file in every case will allow greater control over the final output. If you don't think that's the case, then you have a lot to learn. Or maybe your usage of the final product doesn't predicate that amount of fine control to begin with.

Photogs like Marc Rogoff who shoot with the E-3 have been making large storefront prints even before Lr3 was out...this statement bears no water whatsoever. I've been making 13 x 19 prints for my clients from files processed in Lr2 and earlier with no issues whatsoever. At any given day the versatility of Lr far exceeds what the camera can directly output.

Certainly every body has their own individual preferences and standards. Whatever works for each works.

Well, then what exactly are you arguing about? The fact of the matter is, no matter how good the camera JPEG, it can never offer the kind of versatility and control one needs if they wish to eek out the very best final output.

No, what I am saying that brings the issue is: why would an E-5 with the EPL1 sensor shot in RAW presents an advantage in image quality vs say a Nikon RAW capture of a cheaper model that does even 14 bit RAW capture? And this pushes other issues. Yes, this isn't about JPEG vs RAW per se at all as I have pointed out.

Wow, now this is a completely different topic all together! RAW files from 4/3s bodies have never been directly competent against APS-C, unless you've suddenly started noticing this two days ago, this is completely irrelevant at this point.

So say if you think you can get Olympus colors with LR, how come you can't get that with a Nikon RAW or Canon RAW? Or can you? And if you can, then doesn't that invite a potential comparison/switch to a competitor product that performs better in other key areas at a lower price?

Are you serious???

Sure, why not.

Because, this isn't exactly a revelation. Profiling and calibration allow you to have the exact same colour not just across bodies but entire systems. Which is what I'm trying to point out to you. Shooting Olympus for its so-called "Olympus colours" is plain and simple silly!

Then what exactly has kept you with Olympus?? Besides, why do you assume that everyone shooting Olympus" wants "Olympus colours"?? I don't.

That's fine. I see most of those apparently switch.

Where are you even getting this info from? The only people who I know are working pros and have switched to a different system is because they needed better high ISO performance or excellent DR. There are tons of people here and off this forum that shoot Olympus, shoot RAW and produce their own final output because that's either what they please or what they require.

Besides, Olympus there have always been competing products that do better than Olympus at better price points...why exactly do you ask this question now and why is this specific only to the E-5??

I am not sure I agree with that statement. Yes, if there were always competing products doing better than Olympus at better price points I wouldn't have bought as many Olympus bodies as I did.

I do ask the question now because the E-5 being at the price it is, and given the level of the current competition (something that never happened when the E-3 was introduced- a mistake to those that still think it was the same thing / deja vu), I want to see what people see in the E-5 to get it.

1. For starters they see an improved imaging sensor. Olympus have already stated this is an E-PL1 sensor with a lighter AA filter, which means people who shoot with HG & SHG glass will now start realizing the true potential of their lenses. Many folks (including myself) have been using HG glass on the PENs and have hoped that this kind of IQ will be made available in a 4/3s body. And now Olympus have done that. To me and I'm sure to many this is big!
2. The 2nd reason is the better LCD. This is the first 4/3s body to sport the new generation LCD, I'm sure "everyone" here would agree that the LCDs on Olympus bodies have been like a splinter in your palm.
3. The 3rd reason is movie mode. Although this may not be attractive to many, I welcome the addition and look forward to shooting clips using HG glass.

I hope these are reasons enough?

I want to see how many if any all of a sudden will focus on a JPEG advantage (which to me is a real advantage) over these models. I want to see how many all of a sudden find "oh JPEG isn't so bad". This is not about JPEG vs RAW, but about human behavior. That's why I called it "the JPEG experiment."

Unfortunately this isn't something you'll know until and unless people actually get the E-5 and start using it. I, for one can say that if the JPEGs are as good or better than the PENs; for most situations where the final output doesn't require absolute control, folks will definitely shoot JPEGs and in situations where one wants absolute control over the final output, they'll continue to shoot RAW. I use this sort of a "hybrid" approach with my E-P2, but I would never switch to a JPEG only workflow because at the end of the day, no matter how pleasing the colours from the PEN, they're not always what I want in my output.
--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n