E5 vs other cameras - Studio test shots.

[bobn2]

While the E-5 images seem to be underexposed, both the 7D and the D300 are definitely overexposed, blowing the details in the images.

"Bob" would claim otherwise. You can argue over it with him when he turns up.

If he turns up, that's fine, but my comment was not addressed to him, so why drag him in here? If he likes to comment or correct me in any way he is of course welcome, never the less, overexposing an image without reason is wrong.

For a start, I'm not sure what you mean by 'overexposing', we'd need to discuss that before we decided whether it's 'wrong' or not. I agree, it is not a good idea to give an image sufficient exposure that the sensor saturates, that means that the highlights clip. Short of that, though, I think it's a good idea to use the biggest (in terms of EV) exposure that you can without getting too little DOF or too much motion blur (and you alone can be the judge of what is too little or too much). If that exposure doesn't result in the density of output image that you want, I would submit that you've set the ISO control wrongly.
--
Bob

 

[luisflorit]

You never print but you are still viewing a greatly magnified image. So before making conclusions about the noise, it makes sense to (A) wait for controlled tests, and (B) view the results under typical viewing conditions. Pixel peeping can be deceptive.

I ALWAYS crop, and quite frequently a lot . Sometimes even to 100%. Those are my "typical viewing conditions". Sorry about that.

Corollary: Some (most!) photographers have needs that are not your own.

The E-3 is lacking in sharpness; the E-5 appears greatly improved in this regard. The extra sharpness should allow the E-5 images, under proper post processing, to clean up better than the E-3 images. At least, I hope so.

It is extremely difficult to clean up such artifacts like jaggies. It is much easier is to apply adaptive contrast to recover sharpness.

Cheers,
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

 

[msusic]

When do you shoot high iso in studio?

They're ok for determining lens sharpness and contrast, for close distances, but that's it.

Studio tests are bad - they don't serve any purpose.

Not even for studio photography? ;-)

--
Rikke

--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[luisflorit]

You never print but you are still viewing a greatly magnified image. So before making conclusions about the noise, it makes sense to (A) wait for controlled tests, and (B) view the results under typical viewing conditions. Pixel peeping can be deceptive.

"Never print" does not mean a person never needs to magnify the image to produce a final one. Think about it...

It never cease to amaze me the large number of amateur photographers that believe that their own needs are the only ones that exist...

BTW, how is your Nikon experience going? Waiting for the D400?

Cheers,

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

 

[jkrumm]

What I've seen is that any time the E5 has the "standard" noise filter on, it looks too smeared, like it's stronger than standard on previous cameras. Low looks good, and off looks surprisingly good.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

 

[olyflyer]

Surly a blind man can see that the images are exposed at severely different levels, even without looking at the EXIF.

The light and the dark parts of the D300 images are just too light, the camera was set to +1.33EV for no reason. To me, that's overexposure. The dark parts of the Oly image has lack of detail, I call that underexposure.

Download the images and look at the histogram. I just did that, and CNX2 clearly shows the blown highlights. Even CS shows clearly in the histogram. Call it whatever you like, I am not going to argue on that. Besides, the D300 images are also wrongly named, the ISO100 file is the ISO200 file and the ISO200 file is the ISO100 file. Not that it matter, because they are all blown. That’s one reason why the colours are so pale, also washed out. Not just the WB, but the exposure is also severely wrong.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

[olyflyer]

You never print but you are still viewing a greatly magnified image. So before making conclusions about the noise, it makes sense to (A) wait for controlled tests, and (B) view the results under typical viewing conditions. Pixel peeping can be deceptive.

"Never print" does not mean a person never needs to magnify the image to produce a final one. Think about it...

It never cease to amaze me the large number of amateur photographers that believe that their own needs are the only ones that exist...

Yes, it's amazing that as soon as someone magnifies an image he is immediately called an idiot and a pixel peeper. I envy those people since they are perfect in composition and never need to crop. I am not that good and I admit I some times crop my images and have done so for 40 years now.

BTW, how is your Nikon experience going? Waiting for the D400?

My experience is fine so far. Yes, I am waiting but not in a hurry to get the D400. I can wait and I don't mind that all I have is an old 12MP camera with a strong AA filter...

Cheers
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

[bobn2]

Surly a blind man can see that the images are exposed at severely different levels, even without looking at the EXIF.

Well, the output density of the images is a matter of processing, not exposure, so it's not really easy to make that assessment without the EXIF - they could have been equally exposed and differently processed.

The light and the dark parts of the D300 images are just too light, the camera was set to +1.33EV for no reason. To me, that's overexposure. The dark parts of the Oly image has lack of detail, I call that underexposure.

To me, both of those are wrong processing for the exposure selected. The distinction is important, because the level of exposure affects the image noise directly, the processing doesn't (so directly - the analogue gain bit affects the shadow noise a bit).

Download the images and look at the histogram. I just did that, and CNX2 clearly shows the blown highlights.
Even CS shows clearly in the histogram. Call it whatever you like,

if there are blown highlights in the raw, I would call that 'over' exposure. The point is, though, that only negatively affects detail in the highlights. In the non-blown bits, the higher exposure gives a greater SNR, which will allow more detail, not less.

I am not going to argue on that. Besides, the D300 images are also wrongly named, the ISO100 file is the ISO200 file and the ISO200 file is the ISO100 file. Not that it matter, because they are all blown. That’s one reason why the colours are so pale, also washed out. Not just the WB, but the exposure is also severely wrong.

Again, I'd argue the processing is wrong, though I'd agree if the highlights are clipped in raw, that's too much exposure. No excuse though for presenting for comparison incomparable images (for whatever reason)
--
Bob

 

[Robert Schroeder]

The examples were made from RAW with Olympus Viewer 2, probably with little noise reduction. The PENs' in-camera noise reduction eliminates the blotchy noise better than that, even the E-P1 does, so I suppose the E-5 out-of-camera JPEGs would look better, too.

That doesn't make it better, though, for RAW shooters who already used to have a bad time trying to get rid of similar blotches with earlier E-System cameras.

Cheers,
Robert

 

[Big Ga]

When do you shoot high iso in studio?

When you want extended DOF and/or you need fast strobe recharge time.

Or you could be shooting stuff like babies using continuous lighting.

 

[Robert S2]

From your photographs, I'm quite sure you know what you are doing. I was not trying to imply that my needs trump yours. I'm sorry it came across that way. I take your point about cropping.

As for waiting for the D400, no, I'm not. But I have a mint E-3 I'd be happy to fly down to Rio.

 

[msusic]

One "domestic" sample, LSF jpeg@1600 ASA, no NR, Normal gradation.
http://www.pohrani.com/f/3j/Li/1N7VVvoS/q9xx0001.jpg

NR using Topaz DeNoise
http://www.pohrani.com/f/3w/NM/3efbGTwW/q9xx0001nr.jpg

Pretty good, noise is mostly luminance, so cleans up good.

Imo camera is perfectly usable at ISO1600, I'm waiting for some 3200 files to work with, but should be ok (I guess similar to E-3 at 1250ASA?).

--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[Robert S2]

It just seems like conclusions are being drawn about noise and sharpness based on preliminary results.

I have never been happy with the sharpness of the E-3, even with mirror lock-up and a sturdy tripod. But I'll admit, I'm far from an expert at post-processing, having only used the tools available in Lightroom.

 

[bobn2]

When do you shoot high iso in studio?

When you want extended DOF and/or you need fast strobe recharge time.

Or you could be shooting stuff like babies using continuous lighting.

You need to be careful about using phrases like that, there's people here who'll say you admit to shooting babies just for the rhetorical effect.
--
Bob

 

[Robert S2]

I'd like to learn what it is that you, and others, are seeing in the noise in these photos that is troubling. When I look at the comparison at ISO 1600, I see the E-5 shot is sharper and cleaner than that from the E-3. Can you please explain? I have a lot to learn is this regard.

 

[msusic]

However, you can still have 2 stops lower iso over FF in those cases

When do you shoot high iso in studio?

When you want extended DOF and/or you need fast strobe recharge time.

Or you could be shooting stuff like babies using continuous lighting.

You need to be careful about using phrases like that, there's people here who'll say you admit to shooting babies just for the rhetorical effect.
--
Bob

--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[bobn2]

However, you can still have 2 stops lower iso over FF in those cases

Yeah, but with FF the sound of the mirror clack will drown the shots.

When do you shoot high iso in studio?

When you want extended DOF and/or you need fast strobe recharge time.

Or you could be shooting stuff like babies using continuous lighting.

You need to be careful about using phrases like that, there's people here who'll say you admit to shooting babies just for the rhetorical effect.
--
Bob

--
Cheers,
Marin

--
Bob

 

[MAFAv8r]

Someone who received their E-5 yesterday had posted a pic of the included Viewer software and it said version 2 on the DVD. I wonder if it is really 2.XX. Could someone who has the E-5 confirm if there is a newer version of Viewer included with the camera. Thanks.

Like all software these days you install then update software

 

[Kent Moore]

Thanks. Some were hoping that the E-5 would come with a newer version of Viewer to take advantage of the new camera. There isn't an updated version on the Olympus website yet but that may come shortly. My E-5 is coming tomorrow so I will find out which version is included with the camera. I wish the E-5 manual was available too but it should be soon.

Someone who received their E-5 yesterday had posted a pic of the included Viewer software and it said version 2 on the DVD. I wonder if it is really 2.XX. Could someone who has the E-5 confirm if there is a newer version of Viewer included with the camera. Thanks.

Like all software these days you install then update software

 

[boggis the cat]

Surly a blind man can see that the images are exposed at severely different levels, even without looking at the EXIF.

Well, the output density of the images is a matter of processing, not exposure, so it's not really easy to make that assessment without the EXIF - they could have been equally exposed and differently processed.

Just an FYI: there is a reason I included the histograms in the crops I made.

The histogram should give a reasonable indication of correct (enough) exposure, or not.

Download the images and look at the histogram. I just did that, and CNX2 clearly shows the blown highlights.

I haven't checked the D300 samples. The D300s is the contemporary camera in the same class as the E-5, in any case.

Even CS shows clearly in the histogram. Call it whatever you like,

if there are blown highlights in the raw, I would call that 'over' exposure. The point is, though, that only negatively affects detail in the highlights. In the non-blown bits, the higher exposure gives a greater SNR, which will allow more detail, not less.

It emphasises the contrast in less bright areas, which is perceived as detail -- or "noise", or "moire". It isn't possible to check the actual items in the test shots, so we each make an estimation of how "correct" the shot looks, which can be coloured by our personal biases.

I am not going to argue on that. Besides, the D300 images are also wrongly named, the ISO100 file is the ISO200 file and the ISO200 file is the ISO100 file. Not that it matter, because they are all blown. That’s one reason why the colours are so pale, also washed out. Not just the WB, but the exposure is also severely wrong.

Again, I'd argue the processing is wrong, though I'd agree if the highlights are clipped in raw, that's too much exposure. No excuse though for presenting for comparison incomparable images (for whatever reason)

You can argue that no comparison between images taken with different systems is valid. There are a lot of variables involved.

My purpose was to see how the extra detail from the E-5 compared with the best available 12 MPixel body, the D3s.