Stylus 1 to EM10

[beesail]

Hello,

I wanted to ask your opinion regarding upgrading form Stylus 1 to the EM10. I've had the Stylus for a few months and have been happy with the results most of the time beside some DR issue and sharpness. I shoot JPEG and I like my pictures to be natural. I shoot mostly landscape, scenery, architecture, street in good lighting condition so I don't do much low light. The EM10 going down in price I was thinking of upgrading but do you think I will see a difference in picture quality with the EZ kit lens and with my style of shooting?

Many thanks

 

[Ken Croft]

I have the Stylus 1 and the E-M10 with the 12-42 mm EZ pancake kit lens. At first I was very disappointed with the M10 because shooting jpg landscapes at base ISO I saw little or no difference from the Stylus images. So disappointed in fact that within a week I put the M10 for sale on eBay. I thought hard about it and took it off eBay to give it a proper chance. I am glad I did that because trying to get the best out of the M10 I started shooting raw and then I found just how much better Olympus OV3 did with raw conversion than Photoshop CS6. I am now very happy with the M10 but I know that a better lens than the little kit lens is what I need to really make best use of the camera. And no, I haven't tried to get the best from the Stylus by raw and OV3. I now have little interest in the Stylus and it will probably end up on eBay.

So this is a long winded way of saying you will not initially be bowled over by a stunning improvement if you buy the M10 with kit lens and you shoot at normally low ISO. High ISO will definitely improve on the Stylus performance. You loose the Stylus's constant f2.8 which is in truth no big deal, and you loose the 300 mm zoom. But the M10 with pancake is the same size as the Stylus 1, it has a few more tricks, and you have the opportunity for stunning image quality if you buy into better lenses. For holidays, family, garden and shots of your cat the Stylus will serve you well as a great all round camera. If you spend on an M10 be prepared to spend as much as the initial spend on better lenses. In the UK my M10 plus lens cost £479 but the 12-40 mm lens is going to cost me another £500, and that is cheaper than eBay Hong Kong prices.

Think hard and don't fall for the hype.

As they say, just my two cents.


Ken C

 

[Ken Croft]

As a follow-up to my post, why not have a look at some shots from the Stylus and from the M10 of the same kind of shots. I have a little project on the go to photograph all the local lavoirs in my region of SW Frnace. The pictures are very boring to anyone not interested in the subject, and are in no way examples of fine art. or any kind of art. You can find my project here:

https://flic.kr/p/r2Novd

The first 6 images are from the M10 with kit lens, the others are either with the Stylus 1 or the XZ-2.

If you want to see more of my images from the Stylus 1 have a look here:

https://flic.kr/p/qKCpcY

This was a set shot with the Stylus around one of my local towns when I was finding what the Stylus could do. I was at the time very impressed. I suppose I still am... really. All shot as jpg super-fine.

Hope this helps.

C&C of my images is not welcome.


Ken C

 

[beesail]

Thank you Ken for your reply. You answered my question very well. Since I am not planning to post process my pictures and I shoot mostly daylight, the upgrade is not really relevant. I also don't have the budget for prime lenses so it would be the kit lens with eventually the 40-150. I am also afraid I will loose the convenience of the size.

BTW, I like your project, these lavoirs are unique and authentic. Keep working on it!

 

[Ken Croft]

Glad to have helped.

The Stylus1 is an excellent camera...but when you have some time to spare on a cold winter's evening, why not shoot a few raw images and have a try with the free Olympus Viewer that comes with the camera.

OV2/3 is a bone achingly slow and peculiar bit of software but you might discover that for the odd "special" image, raw can produce a better image than a jpg straight out of the camera. More than that, if you shoot raw+jpg all the time, you will always have a raw file to fall back on for the odd jpg where you mess up with white balance or exposure. If you don't mess up just delete all the raw files.. Seems like a no-brainier to me.

Pleased you appreciate my weird lavoir project!

Ken C

 

[Aaron Sur]

Hi Ken,

RAW files don't suffer from the degradation of the image that jpeg files do from repeated post processing. You can play with the same file over and over in non destructive PP software without having to save each variant .

But there is a much more important reason to shoot RAW +jpeg even if you don't do any sort of Raw processing now. RAW conversion software is getting better and better just like we no longer need to learn how to write algorithms to use a computer I see a future where RAW software may be a one click affair, Instead of the camera's puny brain (processor) cooking up a jpeg, a computer with much faster processor, RAM would do the same thing. It's already there in DXO .

I recently put some older Nikon D70 NEF files through Capture One. The Results obtained were much better than anything I could do with the software available 10 years ago.

Highlight and Shadow recovery , Noise , lens correction gets better and better as the software gets more refined.

Here are a couple of my older XZ-1 files put through Capture One.

Cheers

Aaron

 

[Ken Croft]

I wish you wouldn't keep mentioning DXO and Capture One, you will be having me spending some more dosh !

My reference to deleting raw files did not apply to any meaningful shots, just those happy snaps that most of us use our camera for when we are not trying to make "art" but just recording events. I agree that keeping the raw files of those images we are serious about is clearly a good idea.

Back on raw development software, I wonder if your joy with Capture One may be in part due to the rather odd raw files generated by the Fuji X trans sensor which maybe other converters don't handle so well. I have recently found how much better Olympus Viewer handles .orf files than Photoshop camera raw handles them, in particular in dealing with the significant noise in even base ISO level files from the Oly E-M10. I struggled with raw for years on and off and decided that for me it was a dead loss. Only recently have I got to grips with raw but I still lack confidence and often the ooc jpg will look better than my raw conversion! I clearly have a long way to go..


Ken C

 

[Bev81 from France]

I wish you wouldn't keep mentioning DXO and Capture One, you will be having me spending some more dosh !

My reference to deleting raw files did not apply to any meaningful shots, just those happy snaps that most of us use our camera for when we are not trying to make "art" but just recording events. I agree that keeping the raw files of those images we are serious about is clearly a good idea.

Back on raw development software, I wonder if your joy with Capture One may be in part due to the rather odd raw files generated by the Fuji X trans sensor which maybe other converters don't handle so well. I have recently found how much better Olympus Viewer handles .orf files than Photoshop camera raw handles them, in particular in dealing with the significant noise in even base ISO level files from the Oly E-M10. I struggled with raw for years on and off and decided that for me it was a dead loss. Only recently have I got to grips with raw but I still lack confidence and often the ooc jpg will look better than my raw conversion! I clearly have a long way to go..

Ken C

Bonjour Ken

You keep mentioning that Photoshop Raw is not very good at processing ORF, especially when compared to OV3. Do you use a version of Photoshop that includes Olympus Camera Profiles ? I'm personnaly using LR 5.7 which has Oly profiles, and yes, I see a big rendering difference with say a Sony or a Nikon camera (when photographying the same scene), ie LR renders the so-called Oly touch (well, it seems, and I like what I get ). I did try OV3 once but I quit almost immediately when I saw what a slow dog it is... Yet, LR is still not good at sharpening, unfortunately !

 

[Ken Croft]

I have Photoshop CS6 and the current version of ACR.

CS6 does not do a bad job but OV3 just does it better. The problem is that OV3 is so slow and so stupid with not always displaying fine rendering unless you click on the orange triangle to tell it to do so.

I did add a jpg to my gallery here that was converted from raw in OV3 to tiff and then in CS6 to jpg, all otherwise unprocessed out of camera and unsharpened, as an example of results from OV3. When I opened up the file here it was dreadful and nothing like as sharp as the original. It was an 8.4 mb file as a result of saving at level 12. I immediately removed it from my gallery because it did not demonstrate what I wanted, and I now wonder about the usefulness of comparing images shown here on dpreview if they suffer the same degradation as my file did.

I would give DXO and Capture One a try but I am not prepared to spend money on more software. I did download a legal free earlier version of DXO Optics Pro but it didn't support my current cameras so I dumped it. Capture One is a serious spend and for this reason I will not even think about it.


Ken C

 

[Bev81 from France]

I have Photoshop CS6 and the current version of ACR.

CS6 does not do a bad job but OV3 just does it better. The problem is that OV3 is so slow and so stupid with not always displaying fine rendering unless you click on the orange triangle to tell it to do so.

I did add a jpg to my gallery here that was converted from raw in OV3 to tiff and then in CS6 to jpg, all otherwise unprocessed out of camera and unsharpened, as an example of results from OV3. When I opened up the file here it was dreadful and nothing like as sharp as the original. It was an 8.4 mb file as a result of saving at level 12. I immediately removed it from my gallery because it did not demonstrate what I wanted, and I now wonder about the usefulness of comparing images shown here on dpreview if they suffer the same degradation as my file did.

I would give DXO and Capture One a try but I am not prepared to spend money on more software. I did download a legal free earlier version of DXO Optics Pro but it didn't support my current cameras so I dumped it. Capture One is a serious spend and for this reason I will not even think about it.

Ken C

I remember having read (maybe somewhere here on DPR) someone used OV3 in batch process to produce good Olympus Tiff then terminate the pp in LR (or CS6 for your purpose)

I just acquired a second hand E-P3 (my first Oly), but along several other cameras. So I just began looking at Oly rendering (quiet pleasing colors for sure) and I really like the ergonomic and look and quality of the E-P3 but there are a few cases where (for exemple with a Sony Nex) the E-P3 is largely outclassed (mainly IQ and video), so not sure yet what route to follow now...

 

[Aaron Sur]

Hi Ken,

It was actually a helpful member of this forum that put me onto Capture One with the Oly XZ-1, long before the Fuji arrived. That it handled Fuji files well was icing on the cake .

The issues with the Fuji RAF files are from a while back , Light room had some quirks but more people use Light room than Capture One now, with the film simulations etc available in Lightroom.

I have had a play with many Raw converters for almost 11 years now and Capture One is what I currently prefer because it handles cross platform well, I use it on everything from the Nikon D4 to the Oly XZ-1. My preference for it over Lightroom is a personal one both do the job. Something else will come along in the future that is certain.I'm not big into digital manipulation, if it can't be done quick and easy and straight from Raw to jpeg then I lose interest.

I would caution anyone thinking of trying either to have a fairly late model computer with lots of RAM otherwise it will end in frustration.

Think about giving Raw Therapee a go. They have specific white balance presets for bulbs according to manufacturer( Philips, Sylvania etc)among many features.

http://rawtherapee.com/

It's free as well , I can't do you better than that :-D

Aaron

PS A Raw file being the equivalent of a digital negative is a good way of proving ownership of an image should one get used online without your permission. Which is why I never give away Raw files.

 

[wymjym]

and I now wonder about the usefulness of comparing images shown here on dpreview if they suffer the same degradation as my file did.

I have found that I have put my foot in my mouth several times due to my assumption that the image I viewed represented the cameras capabilities and photographers abilities...that was an incorrect assumption.

the dpr compression seems to be set to a certain percentage of the original file size + an upper file size limit. This compression results in varied results on displayed images. If the image doesn't lose a lot of acuity on your computer screen when the file is saved at a stronger compression ratio (BEFORE UPLOADING TO DPR) then it will follow suit on dpr, I just don't have the desire to jump through that many hoops. One must open the 'original' file on dpr in order to best guess at what the actual image quality is or isn't.

I discovered much to my chagrin that OV2/3 always gives me more detail than my other raw sw options; cs6, DxO, photoNinja.

ALWAYS

If I find a special image I'll open in OV, set the detail/noise/color to my liking and then work a resulting jpg in which ever program offers the best solution for the image.

wj

 

[bbq797]

I'm thinking about upgrading to EM10 from Stylus 1 as well -- wouldn't the overall image quality be better from the EM10 as a result of the larger sensor? (even w/kit lens)

 

[Ken Croft]

I'm thinking about upgrading to EM10 from Stylus 1 as well -- wouldn't the overall image quality be better from the EM10 as a result of the larger sensor? (even w/kit lens)

Yes, the E-M10 IQ even with a kit lens can be a bit better than the Stylus 1, buit don't expect the difference to blow your mind. It will not be earth shattering. The differences will be relatively minor, and don't forget that you will loose the long zoom and fixed f2.8, and the macro ability of the Stylus, for that small gain in IQ. And ask yourself why you are seeking better IQ. What will it do for you? Will it make your images more satisfying? Will you enjoy pixel peeping that bit more? Do you print large, or do you even print at all. Many of us don't really need high IQ we just seek it as an end in itself.

Have a look at my jellyfish gallery picture here:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

It took first place in a recent challenge and was taken in 2003 with a 5 mpx camera. What does that tell you about the need for high IQ ?

Ken C

 

[bbq797]

Points well taken -- you might have just saved me $800 ;-)

 

[Ken Croft]

Points well taken -- you might have just saved me $800 ;-)

Glad to have helped.

I say it as I see it, but it doesn't make me many friends.


Ken C

 

[morepix]

I regularly shoot indoor events where a typical exposure with the Stylus 1 is:

f:2.8, ISO 800, 1/50-1/100 sec, up to 250mm EFL

To do the same with my E-M10 and 14-140 II lens would require

f:5.6, ISO 3200, 1/50-1/100 sec, same focal length

because the lens is 2 stops slower at long zoom. IOW, 2 stops higher ISO in order to maintain the same shutter speeds. I've compared images for quality, and it's close, but I think the Stylus 1 does a little better at ISO 800 than the E-M10 does at ISO 3200. And for sure, the Stylus 1 is easier to use because it's smaller and easier to manage frequent changes in focal length.

There is currently no lens for the E-M10 at any price that will overcome this difference. The Panny f:2.8 35-100 comes close, but it costs $1,500 and doesn't handle close shots. To cover closer shots too would require a second body ($600) and a second, reasonably bright lens, ideally the 12-35 ($900).

Stylus 1: big saving, acceptable compromise in IQ -- for this particular, perhaps atypical, situation