E-5 is a high quality camera

[bobn2]

i really believe, DXOmark posts nonsense.

Did the Oly engineers work 2 years to get the same raw image quality as the E-3 has ?

I really believe your statement about DxOmark is nonsense. They seem to have some of the better-documented sensor tests that are available, so you'd have to come with some real arguments to discredit them.

here:
http://www.biofos.com/esystem/q&a_terada.html

Olympus says "Fine tuning of the image processing devices takes long time. We could improve the optical filter, sensor circuit board layout, processing algorithm, parameter tuning and so on because we chose the 12MP sensor and could spend enough time for the tuning. With this long, basic and steady engineering improvement of the E-5 image processing system, your 4/3rds lens will show its surprising hidden power that we foresaw and incorporated since 2003."

I think the phrase for most of that would be 'marketing fluff' or if you prefer 'making a virtue out of a necessity'. Any competent marketing operation would say something similar in the same situation - i.e. oly having a 2 year old sensor design available.

Image processing begins where the sensor ends. Image processing, especially the cirquits close to the sensor, are very important for the result, also for the RAW result. For example Nikon had very good high-Iso ( also raw iso ) with the trick of multiple-readout of the same data.

That is not established as a fact. I proposed the idea originally, as an explanation as to how Nikon achieves the performance it does, but there has been no conclusive evidence. It could also be other things, such as better conditioned power supplies, or changes to the data acquisition sequence of the sensor. The reason its a topic of interest for the Nikons is that the Sony sensors produce a digital output, so all the analog signal conditioning is on the sensor chip itself, therefore, one would think, should be the same for any camera using that sensor.

Other tricks probably also exist. And: The size matters here also a bit. If there is enough space and power for the interfae to the sensor, the result can be better

I'm not sure what you mean by that - it's not really space dependent, neither power dependent in any hard or fast way.

And only with good data someone can make good JPGs. E5 owners say, the E-5 is 1-2 stops better than the E-3 at higher Iso's, ok, jpgs, but without a good sensor interface this is not possible.

Firstly, I wouldn't say I've seen anything suggesting that the E-5 is 1-2 stops better - for instance





Seems to me that the second (E-5 at 6400) is much noisier than the first (E-3 at 3200) so your whole proposition falls, does it not?

I think more, dxomark has the wrong raw converter. what raw converter does dxomark use ?

DxO does not use a raw converter, that is the whole point. DxO analyses the raw file directly, thus avoiding the issue of a raw converter.

Or what tool to analyse the raw data ? Perhaps something self-written, which perhaps gets confused by high-detail ( low AA filte ) which the Oly raw converter and processing engine is able to handle ?

DxO tells you exactly how the data is collected and what they measure ( http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Learn-more/DxOMark-database/Measurements ). No, the analysis will not be confused by high detail.
--
Bob

 

[Raist3d]

and with DCraw there's no hiding the fact of the original data.

So anything that Capture one can do on the E-5 that may seem like a miracle to you is something they can apply to an E-30. Or E-3. Or Pen.

And only with good data someone can make good JPGs. E5 owners say, the E-5 is 1-2 stops better than the E-3 at higher Iso's, ok, jpgs, but without a good sensor interface this is not possible.

Then why don't any of the RAW samples developed using any software other than Olympus Viewer show anything of the sort?

I do not have the e-5. so, what do you want to say ?

do you want to say that the oly software is the best raw converter for E-x files ?

No.

do you want to say, that non-oly raw converters are not able to achieve the high-iso ability of the e-5 jpgs ?

No.

do you want to say, that non-oly raw converters are able to achieve the high-iso ability of the e-5 jpgs with e-3 raw files ?

Not exactly, but within 1/2 stop (modulo banding), sure.

Olympus' software applies strong NR to the E-5 files, stronger than they did to previous models. If you apply the same level of NR to E-5 files as to E-3 files, the differences in noise are very modest.

More to the point though, with the E-30 or E-620, the differences in noise are even less.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

And I guess that you have an E-5 and have tested it using C1 LR/PS with E-5 support and compared to images you have taken with the E-3 s you can be so sure of your conclusions?

--
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.'

 

[Mr.NoFlash]

do you want to say, that non-oly raw converters are able to achieve the high-iso ability of the e-5 jpgs with e-3 raw files ?

Not exactly, but within 1/2 stop (modulo banding), sure.

Olympus' software applies strong NR to the E-5 files, stronger than they did to previous models. If you apply the same level of NR to E-5 files as to E-3 files, the differences in noise are very modest.

Here is the jpg comparison E-620 versus E-5





what I gathered is, that the clean e-5 JPGs do not come from strong noise reduction.
Look at the E-5 iso 3200.

You basically say, its clean because the E-5 JPG engine makes strong noise reduction.

If that would be the case, I could take the E-620 JPGs and denoise it and get E-5 quality.

I tried that. The sample in 3rd row is it. the result is very bad compared to the E-5 JPGs.

In addition to that, your opinion means, I can buy an E-30, shoot raw and get E5- JPGs out of it noise-wise.

If that would be true, I could buy the E-30 and get E-5 performance out of it by shooting raw (except some detail ). I really doubt that.

But if that would be true, then I would not anymore aim for buing an E-5 when the E-5 becomes cheap, then I could simply buy a E-30 and shoot raw.

But that is wrong

cheers

Mr.NoFlash

 

[bobn2]

Well E5's DxOMark result is out and we get the picture... it almost same as E-PL1, which makes E-PL1 looks like a bargain (and E5 looks like a turd). However sensor aside, E5 is a high quality camera.

• It has the biggest viewfinder with viewfinder size : sensor size comparison. Manufacturing big VF for small sensor is more expensive than manufacturing the same VF for larger sensor.

The E-5 has the smallest VF of its peers.
E-5 is 100%, 1.15x with a 50mm lens so 0.6 with 26mm (normal) lens.
K-5 is 100%, 0.92x with 50 mm lens so 0.61 with 33.3mm (normal) lens
D300s and D7000 are 100%, 0.94x with 50 mm lens so 0.63 with 33.3mm lens
7D is 100%, 1.0x with 50mm lens so 0.63 with 31.25mm (normal) lens.

The fact that it might cost more to make a higher magnification VF for a small sensor (I'm dubious about that, all it needs is a higher magnification eyepiece) is hardly a feature for the user.

• It has the best JPEG engine, for all we know.

The best for people who like Olympus' JPEG style.

• It has the best weather sealing system.

There has never been any evidence presented to back up this frequently made statement.

• It has the sharpest lens system.

That also is highly debatable. The competition appears to have lenses capable of offering as much resolution in the final image.

• It is one of the most customizable camera.

I don't see it's any more customisable than the competition, and it doesn't have a direct print button.

• It has the best IBIS system.

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that.

• It has the best dust removal system.

Less evidence to suggest that, though plenty of apocryphal tales.

• It has international warranty.

As does every manufacturer.

Bottom line, E5 is a fantastic camera as a whole.

No argument there, though I don't see why you had to claim thing that were not true or unsubstantiated to make the point.
--
Bob

 

[Adjuster]

what I gathered is, that the clean e-5 JPGs do not come from strong noise reduction.
Look at the E-5 iso 3200.

You basically say, its clean because the E-5 JPG engine makes strong noise reduction.

If that would be the case, I could take the E-620 JPGs and denoise it and get E-5 quality.

I tried that. The sample in 3rd row is it. the result is very bad compared to the E-5 JPGs.

In addition to that, your opinion means, I can buy an E-30, shoot raw and get E5- JPGs out of it noise-wise.

If that would be true, I could buy the E-30 and get E-5 performance out of it by shooting raw (except some detail ). I really doubt that.

But if that would be true, then I would not anymore aim for buing an E-5 when the E-5 becomes cheap, then I could simply buy a E-30 and shoot raw.

But that is wrong

cheers

Mr.NoFlash

That is what my tests indicate.

 

[Mr.NoFlash]

First, we differ about the importance of the cirquits close to the sensor. Ok, let the different opinion remain.
Then you say, the good E-5 JPGs are made mostly by the (good) E-5 JPG engine.
What means good/E-5-specific JPG engine ?
Strong noise-reducing JPG engine ?

My strong opinion is, that this is not the case, see my reply above to mfbernstein 10 minuges ago, titled "you say,E-5 is clean because the E-5 JPG engine makes strong noise reduction"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37098873&refresh=1067

Or do you think, the E-5 JPG engine gets the clean iso3200 results by strong NR ?

Assumed, this is not the case:
Then it must be (a) either the good cirquitry around the sensor.
Or (b) Oly intentionally adds noise to the RAW file.

Or (c) currently only Oly Software/Firmware can interpret the RAW data correctly.

I think (a) and/or (c) are true.

Yes, Olympus engineers worked 2+ years to get the same sensor of the 620/e-30/Pens in. That is a fact and it is what DXo is reflecting.

As I also wrote in the reply with title "raw processing", the interface to the sensor, the cirquits near the sensor, are very important for the raw data. Nikon had best high-iso because Nikon had the best interface to the sony sensors. Others are catching up now.

They are but not as much as the sensor fundamentally changed. Also Nikon went one step further and the sensor variant they use does have some extra tolerance specs at the factory level when the sensor itself is manufactured.

You get a weaker AA filter, and it should be no surprise the E-3 holds well- I have been saying- all along- even though you see the nay sayers, the E-3 has the best sensor of all Olympus 4/3rds except for the banding.

In all your text you igniore the importance of the cirquits close to the sensor. The good E-5 jpgs are not possible without good signal processing close to the sensor. this should also affect raw data.

The good jpegs are vastly more a consequence of the JPEG post process engine. You can clearly see this with the Pens. I am not saying the circuits aren't important, but they aren't more important than the sensor itself.

Olympus improved according to what I see of Dxo the total DR by 0.1 ev over the E-30. The e-30 already being a bigger camera had better circuits than say the e-620 (and I have been saying the E-30 seems to do a notch better with the same sensor). So they improved it a tiny bit further and the major difference is the AA weaker filter.

The shots I have seen in RAW so far of the E-5 do not suggest the big jump many are expecting here and DXo is just providing that data. All the other websites that many here found fantabolous are all using JPEGs. See the pattern?

E-5 owners say, the E-5 jpgs are 1-2 stops better than E-3 jpgs at high-iso. I believe, at least 1 stop. If you have other info, you can say this.

I can believe the JPEGS being one stop better. That doesn't mean the sensor itself is one stop better. There were raw's already posted of an E-30 and E-5 and the noise was pretty much virtually identical.

My assumption is, that this is not possible without good data from the cirquits close to the sensor. If you have other info, you can say this.

We already have raw files that show the step in RAW on the E-30 is the weaker AA and the noise is pretty similar. I don't see why total DR would change so much and quite frankly Dxo is just validating completely all of this.

My assumption is, this should also affect raw data. If you have other info, you can say this.

You are giving the circuits way too much credit over the sensor. The sensor is what first captures the data. A different sensor design matters here and greatly.

I suspect Panasonic didn't leave them much choice.

I dont think that Oly cannot ask sony, if oly wants to use other sensors. There are multiple posts which say that the Oly/Panny relationship is not to close.

thanks for the answer

 

[Mr.NoFlash]

what I gathered is, that the clean e-5 JPGs do not come from strong noise reduction.
Look at the E-5 iso 3200.

You basically say, its clean because the E-5 JPG engine makes strong noise reduction.

If that would be the case, I could take the E-620 JPGs and denoise it and get E-5 quality.

I tried that. The sample in 3rd row is it. the result is very bad compared to the E-5 JPGs.

In addition to that, your opinion means, I can buy an E-30, shoot raw and get E5- JPGs out of it noise-wise.

If that would be true, I could buy the E-30 and get E-5 performance out of it by shooting raw (except some detail ). I really doubt that.

But if that would be true, then I would not anymore aim for buing an E-5 when the E-5 becomes cheap, then I could simply buy a E-30 and shoot raw.

But that is wrong

cheers

Mr.NoFlash

That is what my tests indicate.

what ?

 

[mfbernstein]

You basically say, its clean because the E-5 JPG engine makes strong noise reduction.

Yes.

If that would be the case, I could take the E-620 JPGs and denoise it and get E-5 quality.

No. If you start with JPEG that has already had NR applied, and apply more NR, you're going to get much worse results than simply applying one pass of NR to the original RAW file.

I tried that. The sample in 3rd row is it. the result is very bad compared to the E-5 JPGs.

Because you've NRed the NR. Once detail is lost, it's gone. The whole point of RAW is to avoid that.

In addition to that, your opinion means, I can buy an E-30, shoot raw and get E5- JPGs out of it noise-wise.

Yes.

But if that would be true, then I would not anymore aim for buing an E-5 when the E-5 becomes cheap, then I could simply buy a E-30 and shoot raw.

If all you cared about was noise, sure. If you care about other things, like sharpness, or OOC JPEGs, or the quality of the LCD, or Video, then you might reconsider.

But that is wrong

The only thing wrong is your assumption that there is some magic sauce improving the E-5's RAW output over its predecessors.

ISO 3200, ACR, defaults (E-30 on left, E-5 on right).





ISO 3200, Olympus Viewer, defaults.





--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[simpy]

Olympus says "Fine tuning of the image processing devices takes long time. We could improve the optical filter, sensor circuit board layout, processing algorithm, parameter tuning and so on because we chose the 12MP sensor and could spend enough time for the tuning. With this long, basic and steady engineering improvement of the E-5 image processing system, your 4/3rds lens will show its surprising hidden power that we foresaw and incorporated since 2003."

This sounds like typical marketing nonsense to me. If you would work for Olympus and Panasonic refuses to give you their latest sensor tech, what would you tell potential buyers? Indeed: that using this 'mature' technology is somehow better, and allowed you to spend more engineering resources on 'fine tuning'.

Image processing begins where the sensor ends. Image processing, especially the cirquits close to the sensor, are very important for the result, also for the RAW result. For example Nikon had very good high-Iso ( also raw iso ) with the trick of multiple-readout of the same data. Other tricks probably also exist. And: The size matters here also a bit. If there is enough space and power for the interfae to the sensor, the result can be better

Yes, analog processing is important, and I had some hope for Olympus to improve that. Unfortunately, the DxOmark results show that the improvements are negligible (slightly better than E-30). At least they fixed the banding.

And only with good data someone can make good JPGs. E5 owners say, the E-5 is 1-2 stops better than the E-3 at higher Iso's, ok, jpgs, but without a good sensor interface this is not possible.

Owners of new expensive cameras tend to say that they're 1-2 stops better than anything else. If all such statements were true, the E-5 would be about 8 stops better than the E-1.

Having said that, I do believe the results look better, and that's probably down to the weaker AA filter (increased effective resolution) and fine-tuned JPG generation (or heavy-handed noise reduction).

I think more, dxomark has the wrong raw converter. what raw converter does dxomark use ? Or what tool to analyse the raw data ? Perhaps something self-written, which perhaps gets confused by high-detail ( low AA filte ) which the Oly raw converter and processing engine is able to handle ?

I think that's very unlikely. As far as I can tell, DxO extract the raw data using their own tools. Note that it's not a 'raw converter' per se, because they only analyse uniform colour patches. Therefore, there is no need for demosaicing & sharpening, and the AA filter cannot have any effect.

To me, the DxOmark results indicate that the E-5 uses the same sensor as the models that precede it, with minimal or no improvements to the analog circuitry. The weaker AA filter will have an effect on raw files; mostly positive, sometimes negative.

Against this background, I'm even less convinced that the E-5 is worth its price tag. Then again, Olympus clearly only expects to sell it to people who already have 4/3 lenses, so maybe they don't care so much, as long as they have any current product.

Simon

 

[Mr.NoFlash]

You basically say, its clean because the E-5 JPG engine makes strong noise reduction.

Yes.

If that would be the case, I could take the E-620 JPGs and denoise it and get E-5 quality.

No. If you start with JPEG that has already had NR applied, and apply more NR, you're going to get much worse results than simply applying one pass of NR to the original RAW file.

I tried that. The sample in 3rd row is it. the result is very bad compared to the E-5 JPGs.

Because you've NRed the NR. Once detail is lost, it's gone. The whole point of RAW is to avoid that.

There might be a slight disadvantage when denoising JPGs but not so much as the difference my image showed.

In addition to that, your opinion means, I can buy an E-30, shoot raw and get E5- JPGs out of it noise-wise.

Yes.

I yet have to see E-30 raws which after conversion look like E-5 JPGs

But if that would be true, then I would not anymore aim for buing an E-5 when the E-5 becomes cheap, then I could simply buy a E-30 and shoot raw.

If all you cared about was noise, sure. If you care about other things, like sharpness, or OOC JPEGs, or the quality of the LCD, or Video, then you might reconsider.

But that is wrong

The only thing wrong is your assumption that there is some magic sauce improving the E-5's RAW output over its predecessors.

ISO 3200, ACR, defaults (E-30 on left, E-5 on right).

dpr

na lets concentrate on the oly raw converters, because ACR is not better, but thanks for providing also ACR samples

ISO 3200, Olympus Viewer, defaults.

But the E-5 JPG I had looks like this:





so the JPG i have looks totally different compared to your RAW conversions.
Something must be wrong.
Do you have the newest version of all ?

Or is there some magic which makes E-5 RAWs a really bad choice compared to E-5 OOC JPGs ? ( could be )

 

[simpy]

As an addendum to my previous post about the disappointing quality of the E-5 sensor (compared to the competition), let me say that Olympus' colour filters appear to be quite good.

In the DxO data, this shows clearly in the 'color sensitivity' measurement. It measures the number of distinguishable colours, accounting for noise within and between channels. The colour separation achieved by the E-5 makes up for the increased noise compared to the GH2, for example.

In addition, subjectively comparing my Olympus and Ricoh cameras, the Olympus cameras make it much easier to produce decent colour from raw.

Simon

 

[Haris]

do you want to say, that non-oly raw converters are able to achieve the high-iso ability of the e-5 jpgs with e-3 raw files ?

Not exactly, but within 1/2 stop (modulo banding), sure.

Olympus' software applies strong NR to the E-5 files, stronger than they did to previous models. If you apply the same level of NR to E-5 files as to E-3 files, the differences in noise are very modest.

And I guess that you have an E-5 and have tested it using C1 LR/PS with E-5 support and compared to images you have taken with the E-3 s you can be so sure of your conclusions?

I have compared E-3 and E-5 RAW samples from multiple different sources in Lightroom and Photoshop.

You?

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

I have compared the RAWs of the images I have taken with all of those cameras by using C1 Pro. Funny that my version of CS5 doesn't support E-5 files and yours does.
Just for fun, what multilple different sources are we talking here?

 

[jaja_m]

Here we go again.

DxO doesn't make any claim about the system as a whole. It only performs some tests on the sensor.

So it's easy to take that test out of context and condemn the test because it doesn't represent the system.

And I didn't condemn it in my OP either. I believe DxO result is the truth. I have E-PL1 and I confirmed I cant push the shadow 3EV without significant noise. Even in ISO 200 the shadow is noisy. I'm just saying that E5 is better as a whole than its sum of parts.

 

[mfbernstein]

I have compared E-3 and E-5 RAW samples from multiple different sources in Lightroom and Photoshop.

I have compared the RAWs of the images I have taken with all of those cameras by using C1 Pro. Funny that my version of CS5 doesn't support E-5 files and yours does.

Change the model name in the EXIF to E-30.

Just for fun, what multilple different sources are we talking here?

Imaging resource and the set from the Spanish Review linked from http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36852509

For E-30 comparisons, there's also the Russian review:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://olympus.ourlife.ru/forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D16116

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[jaja_m]

Well E5's DxOMark result is out and we get the picture... it almost same as E-PL1, which makes E-PL1 looks like a bargain (and E5 looks like a turd). However sensor aside, E5 is a high quality camera.

• It has the biggest viewfinder with viewfinder size : sensor size comparison. Manufacturing big VF for small sensor is more expensive than manufacturing the same VF for larger sensor.

The E-5 has the smallest VF of its peers.
E-5 is 100%, 1.15x with a 50mm lens so 0.6 with 26mm (normal) lens.
K-5 is 100%, 0.92x with 50 mm lens so 0.61 with 33.3mm (normal) lens
D300s and D7000 are 100%, 0.94x with 50 mm lens so 0.63 with 33.3mm lens
7D is 100%, 1.0x with 50mm lens so 0.63 with 31.25mm (normal) lens.

The fact that it might cost more to make a higher magnification VF for a small sensor (I'm dubious about that, all it needs is a higher magnification eyepiece) is hardly a feature for the user.

you need to look at its multiplier which is 1.15x which is the biggest ratio. Of course in the end it is smaller than it peers but for its sensor size it's quite an achievement.

• It has the best JPEG engine, for all we know.

The best for people who like Olympus' JPEG style.

It is the JPEG engine that makes up its sensor's flaws.

• It has the best weather sealing system.

There has never been any evidence presented to back up this frequently made statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmoskUtCnoY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oDvgDDmSDE

• It has the sharpest lens system.

That also is highly debatable. The competition appears to have lenses capable of offering as much resolution in the final image.

There are plenty of MTFs of Oly's lenses that you can compare with their peers in DPReview, Optyczne, Photozone etc. and I could quote almost limitless comment from them about Olympus lens sharpness.

• It is one of the most customizable camera.

I don't see it's any more customisable than the competition, and it doesn't have a direct print button.

I didn't say it is the most customizable either.

• It has the best IBIS system.

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that.

See SLRGear test.

• It has the best dust removal system.

Less evidence to suggest that, though plenty of apocryphal tales.

I'm talking with my experience on Sony, Nikon, Pana and Olympus system and I swear I confirm those tales. And you obviously didnt know that recently in Japan Oly got an award for SSWF.

• It has international warranty.

As does every manufacturer.

Big NO. The only international warranty is Oly's lenses and cameras, Nikon lenses, and Pentax lenses. All other warranty on cameras or lenses are domestic only.

Bottom line, E5 is a fantastic camera as a whole.

No argument there, though I don't see why you had to claim thing that were not true or unsubstantiated to make the point.

"not true" or "unsubstantiated" is a prejudice you should avoid. See, I can answer all your point.

--
Bob

 

[Rriley]

As an addendum to my previous post about the disappointing quality of the E-5 sensor (compared to the competition), let me say that Olympus' colour filters appear to be quite good.

In the DxO data, this shows clearly in the 'color sensitivity' measurement. It measures the number of distinguishable colours, accounting for noise within and between channels. The colour separation achieved by the E-5 makes up for the increased noise compared to the GH2, for example.

In addition, subjectively comparing my Olympus and Ricoh cameras, the Olympus cameras make it much easier to produce decent colour from raw.

Simon

The acquisition of better colour means forgiving more noise performance, yet we here claims here that

1/ the colours are no better or different from anything else, and

2/ these cameras are too noisy at high ISO, some of which is going on above this post

Where in 1/, what we are seeing from some opposition cameras in their 'washed out' jpeg colours is directly attributable to their more transparent CFA, were the usual fix is to apply heavier saturation but resulting inaccurate, and to some, less pleasing tones.

and 2/, that the noise penalty, or part of the noise penalty, is rarely associated with the available gamut, even if I may go so far, actually denied. So kudos to you for that



--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[mfbernstein]

na lets concentrate on the oly raw converters, because ACR is not better,

Hardly.

but thanks for providing also ACR samples

The whole point in not using Olympus Viewer is that Viewer does different things to the files, depending on which camera they're from. The E-5 gets much heavier NR than the E-30. The right and left here are both from the same RAW file. But one has the EXIF from and E-5 (on the left) and the other has the EXIF from the E-30 (on the right). Notice the difference:





Using a 3rd party converter you can avoid that issue.

But just for the sake of argument, here is what happens when you use Olympus Viewer, if you copy the EXIF from the E-5 ORF onto the E-30 one.

ISO 3200, defaults, E-30 on left.

so the JPG i have looks totally different compared to your RAW conversions.
Something must be wrong.

Why? You took samples that were already smeared with NR, and smeared them some more. And now you're surprised that they look smeared?

Do you have the newest version of all ?

Yes.

Or is there some magic which makes E-5 RAWs a really bad choice compared to E-5 OOC JPGs ? ( could be )

???

Please tell me you're not being serious.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[Rriley]

na lets concentrate on the oly raw converters, because ACR is not better,

Hardly.

but thanks for providing also ACR samples

The whole point in not using Olympus Viewer is that Viewer does different things to the files, depending on which camera they're from. The E-5 gets much heavier NR than the E-30. The right and left here are both from the same RAW file. But one has the EXIF from and E-5 (on the left) and the other has the EXIF from the E-30 (on the right). Notice the difference:

Bernstein's mission is to make things look as poor as possible for E5.

He would be aware for instance that when these hacks were applied to EPL1 images the colours went all weird. You simply cant expect hacks to be the same as adobe's eventual release, and note that adobe processing has never usually been especially kind to 4/3rds.

He would also be aware that E5 reveals more detail than E30 and can therefore take more NR to advance on E30's apparent noise

and that is, if you 'trust' his processed examples in the first place

given all that, what we do know is that somewhere before ISO3200 E5 noise performance falls off a cliff a bit, but with 'careful processing' ISO3200 files development can reveal nice and quire useful images. John Mason's ISO3200 portrait is proof of that

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36938390

so perhaps the best advice is, to take your stock of what can be done well, understanding the limitations; as opposed to what can be done purely to present those limitations

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[bobn2]

Well E5's DxOMark result is out and we get the picture... it almost same as E-PL1, which makes E-PL1 looks like a bargain (and E5 looks like a turd). However sensor aside, E5 is a high quality camera.

• It has the biggest viewfinder with viewfinder size : sensor size comparison. Manufacturing big VF for small sensor is more expensive than manufacturing the same VF for larger sensor.

The E-5 has the smallest VF of its peers.
E-5 is 100%, 1.15x with a 50mm lens so 0.6 with 26mm (normal) lens.
K-5 is 100%, 0.92x with 50 mm lens so 0.61 with 33.3mm (normal) lens
D300s and D7000 are 100%, 0.94x with 50 mm lens so 0.63 with 33.3mm lens
7D is 100%, 1.0x with 50mm lens so 0.63 with 31.25mm (normal) lens.

The fact that it might cost more to make a higher magnification VF for a small sensor (I'm dubious about that, all it needs is a higher magnification eyepiece) is hardly a feature for the user.

you need to look at its multiplier which is 1.15x which is the biggest ratio. Of course in the end it is smaller than it peers but for its sensor size it's quite an achievement.

Of what interest to the user is the notional multiplier or the fact that Olympus made it difficult for themselves to provide a bit smaller VF than their competitors? In what possible way would that be a reason to buy the camera?

• It has the best JPEG engine, for all we know.

The best for people who like Olympus' JPEG style.

It is the JPEG engine that makes up its sensor's flaws.

So you say. I don't believe so.
From IR, E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 6400 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 6400 ISO



I don't believe that the sensors flaws have been 'made up'.

• It has the best weather sealing system.

There has never been any evidence presented to back up this frequently made statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmoskUtCnoY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oDvgDDmSDE

Neither of those were the E-5 and there are similar videos of the competition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu2svc781YA . You can't say one is 'the best' until you've actually done a test which evaluates them all .

• It has the sharpest lens system.

That also is highly debatable. The competition appears to have lenses capable of offering as much resolution in the final image.

There are plenty of MTFs of Oly's lenses that you can compare with their peers in DPReview, Optyczne, Photozone etc. and I could quote almost limitless comment from them about Olympus lens sharpness.

The Olympus' have smaller pixels, which means the camera contributes a higher MTF to the total MTF, so you have no information to back your claims. The same lens tested on different systems will produce different results: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37087497

When tested on comparable pixel size cameras the opposition lenses often achieve comparable figures on DPReview, Optyczne, Photozone, etc. Tested on comparable cameras they often achieve higher resolution figures per picture height, which is what matters.

• It is one of the most customizable camera.

I don't see it's any more customisable than the competition, and it doesn't have a direct print button.

I didn't say it is the most customizable either.

But saying 'it's one of the most' when the actual case is 'its about the same as the rest' is misleading, do you not think?

• It has the best IBIS system.

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that.

See SLRGear test.

• It has the best dust removal system.

Less evidence to suggest that, though plenty of apocryphal tales.

I'm talking with my experience on Sony, Nikon, Pana and Olympus system and I swear I confirm those tales.

That's what I mean by apocryphal tales.

And you obviously didnt know that recently in Japan Oly got an award for SSWF.

How does that prove it's the best system?

• It has international warranty.

As does every manufacturer.

Big NO. The only international warranty is Oly's lenses and cameras, Nikon lenses, and Pentax lenses. All other warranty on cameras or lenses are domestic only.

You scored a hit here, I was wrong - I knew they all had international warranties, I hadn't seen the restrictions.

Bottom line, E5 is a fantastic camera as a whole.

No argument there, though I don't see why you had to claim thing that were not true or unsubstantiated to make the point.

"not true" or "unsubstantiated" is a prejudice you should avoid. See, I can answer all your point.

Only two (on the IBIS, which I gave you in the first place and the warranty) the others remain unsubstantiated at best and some certainly 'not true' within any sensible interpretation (like the VF for instance)

--
Bob

 

[FlipinUS]

greetings,

i can only agree with you that the weakest link with olympus cameras appear to be their sensors. i really wish that they could ditch panasonic for some other manufacturer. i guess it really depends on what their agreement with panasonic is. i use olympus endoscopy equipment. i have noticed that a lot of olympus branded equipment is manufactured by panasonic. so, i guess, the relationship goes much deeper than just sensors. i would not know the impact to olympus by discontinuing this sensor relationship. this is where the politics comes in.

francis