Reading mode: Light Dark

E-420 dynamic range

Go to last post
Amin Sabet

Amin Sabet

Veteran Member
Messages
6,781
Reaction score
182
Location
Boston, US
Olympus says that the E-420 has improved dynamic range over its predecessor, so I decided to do some testing and share the results here. I took an image with the E-420 and essentially the same image with a Canon 5D since I had previously compared the E-410 RAWs to the Canon.

The E-420 ORF (RAW) file was developed from RAW in Olympus Master using Sharpening -2, Contrast 0, Saturation 0, Noise Filter Off, NR Off. The single RAW file was processed at -2, 0, and +2EV.

The 5D CR2 (RAW) file was developed using Raw Developer (Mac only application) with NR and Sharpening disabled. I chose this application since it seems to do a "straight" RAW conversion, similar to dcraw. The single RAW file was processed at -2, 0, and +2EV.

The resulting JPEGS are here at full res (Select "All Sizes" then "Original", Click "More properties" for EXIFs) -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/asabet/sets/72157604509174219/detail/

I don't have the E-410 anymore, so I'm using the 5D as a standard. Based on this test, I'm not seeing a big difference between the E-420 dynamic range and the E-410 dynamic range in terms of how they compare to the 5D. Both the E-410 and E-510 do a good job with DR by my standards.

--
-Amin
http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
 
so you don't see any dynamic range improvement? So you think Olympus made any improvements over the 410/510?
 
Thanks. I'd expect the 5D to do better. I'm happy with crop sensor results considering the price/size difference, but the 5D does have a nice image for those who can afford it. I'd say IQ, including DR, is still remarkably good for crop sensors, so those of us who can't afford the newest FF are still able to get along nicely with advantages inherant to crop sensor cameras.

Cheers, Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
 
rick said:
so you don't see any dynamic range improvement? So you think Olympus
made any improvements over the 410/510?
Click to expand...
Because I'm not directly comparing the E-420 to the E-410, I can't say for sure. However, I thought the E-410 did pretty well compared to the 5D, and I think the same for the E-420 (in both cases, provided that one shoots RAW). There certainly are other improvements with the E-420 besides the issue of dynamic range, but I haven't had mine long enough to go into detail.

Regards,
Amin

http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
 
Amin Sabet said:
rick said:
so you don't see any dynamic range improvement? So you think Olympus
made any improvements over the 410/510?
Click to expand...
Because I'm not directly comparing the E-420 to the E-410, I can't
say for sure. However, I thought the E-410 did pretty well compared
to the 5D, and I think the same for the E-420 (in both cases,
provided that one shoots RAW). There certainly are other
improvements with the E-420 besides the issue of dynamic range, but I
haven't had mine long enough to go into detail.
Click to expand...
DPR's admittedly controversial DR measurements had the E-3 only marginally better in highlight DR (1/3 stop) than the E-510 (substantially better shadow DR, but that's often harder to see, especially in JPGs). Given the similarities between the E-3 and E-420 sensors, I'd guess it would perform similarly.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
i dont really see how you can pick DR from images
but maybe you just have abilities that i dont

why not just wait for the IMATEST results

unlike the spook show here, they put E3 DR in the region of 40D, and they look like testing the 420 soon

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
Rriley said:
why not just wait for the IMATEST results
unlike the spook show here, they put E3 DR in the region of 40D, and
they look like testing the 420 soon
Click to expand...
The Imatest results from which reviewer? Imaging-resources has poor procedures and ended up with a highly suspicious E-510 result.

FWIW, if we assume that the E-410 simply had scaled down E-330 pixels and that the E-3 and E-420 have proportional increases in their photodiode sizes so that they are the same size as those on an E-330, then we'd expect a real increase in DR of about 1/3 of a stop from the E-3 and E-420 over the E-510/410. If they also improved the read noise, it could be a larger improvement.

OTOH, they may be simply referring to different default tonal response curves and there may be little or no real DR improvment.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
at least as far as dealing with highlights. From what I am seeing so far, it looks like there's a real improvement of 1/3rd to 1/5th of a stop.

From the tests I have done the e-420 seems to have the same highlight DR of the E-3 and perhaps a 1/4th of a stop better DR in shadows. Either way they are in the same ball park- at least in ISO 100. The e-3 does clearly have better DR than the e-410.

So I have compared the e-420 and E-3 directly, and the E-3 to the e-410. Haven't compared the e-420 to the e-410 directly but from what I am seeing, I am seeing an improvement, so I don't think Olympus is making a false claim.

--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & 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.'
 
Off the top of my head, it seems that the meteering system in 420 slightly underexposes to preserve the hihglights. The photos at 0EV and +2EV seem to be a tiny bit darker than the ones from 5D.
 
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
why not just wait for the IMATEST results
unlike the spook show here, they put E3 DR in the region of 40D, and
they look like testing the 420 soon
Click to expand...
The Imatest results from which reviewer? Imaging-resources has poor
procedures and ended up with a highly suspicious E-510 result.
Click to expand...
yes the 510 data does look to be a bit of a flyer as a data set

but ive reasonably given up on dpreview for objective comment on any part of 4/3rds equipment, so find me a better site than imaging-resources and i'll study that
Jay Turberville said:
FWIW, if we assume that the E-410 simply had scaled down E-330 pixels
and that the E-3 and E-420 have proportional increases in their
photodiode sizes so that they are the same size as those on an E-330,
then we'd expect a real increase in DR of about 1/3 of a stop from
the E-3 and E-420 over the E-510/410. If they also improved the read
noise, it could be a larger improvement.

OTOH, they may be simply referring to different default tonal
response curves and there may be little or no real DR improvment.
Click to expand...
on that information there would be here though
Jay Turberville said:
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Click to expand...
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
vlatko said:
Off the top of my head, it seems that the meteering system in 420
slightly underexposes to preserve the hihglights. The photos at 0EV
and +2EV seem to be a tiny bit darker than the ones from 5D.
Click to expand...
I set the exposures manually. If there is a difference in apparent exposure, then it is either due to differences in gain applied at ISO 100 or some aspect of the individual RAW converter that I could not control.

--
-Amin
http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
 
Rriley said:
i dont really see how you can pick DR from images
but maybe you just have abilities that i dont

why not just wait for the IMATEST results
unlike the spook show here, they put E3 DR in the region of 40D, and
they look like testing the 420 soon
Click to expand...
I haven't seen a site yet that produces really helpful DR results. Taking two RAWs with the same exposure settings and comparing both shadow recovery and highlight recovery gives, IMO, a rough but practical sense of DR.

--
-Amin
http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
 
Sorry if I implied that. I'll take Oly's word that there is an improvement. What I am saying is that I don't see a large difference in DR between the RAW files. I doubt I'd notice anything under half a stop or so of difference. Those few people who shoot RAW and find the E-410/510 files to have a significant problem with DR will likely still be unhappy with the E-420.
Raist3d said:
at least as far as dealing with highlights. From what I am seeing so
far, it looks like there's a real improvement of 1/3rd to 1/5th of a
stop.

From the tests I have done the e-420 seems to have the same highlight
DR of the E-3 and perhaps a 1/4th of a stop better DR in shadows.
Either way they are in the same ball park- at least in ISO 100. The
e-3 does clearly have better DR than the e-410.

So I have compared the e-420 and E-3 directly, and the E-3 to the
e-410. Haven't compared the e-420 to the e-410 directly but from what
I am seeing, I am seeing an improvement, so I don't think Olympus is
making a false claim.

--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & 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.'
Click to expand...
--
-Amin

Photo contest - 'Natural Textures' @ http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
 
Amin Sabet said:
Rriley said:
i dont really see how you can pick DR from images
but maybe you just have abilities that i dont

why not just wait for the IMATEST results
unlike the spook show here, they put E3 DR in the region of 40D, and
they look like testing the 420 soon
Click to expand...
I haven't seen a site yet that produces really helpful DR results.
Taking two RAWs with the same exposure settings and comparing both
shadow recovery and highlight recovery gives, IMO, a rough but
practical sense of DR.
Click to expand...
I agree 500% with this. Almost every DR test I have seen fares from being a joke to be completely unreliable.
Amin Sabet said:
--
-Amin
http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
Click to expand...
--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & 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.'
 
Amin Sabet said:
Sorry if I implied that. I'll take Oly's word that there is an
improvement. What I am saying is that I don't see a large
difference in DR between the RAW files. I doubt I'd notice anything
under half a stop or so of difference. Those few people who shoot
RAW and find the E-410/510 files to have a significant problem with
DR will likely still be unhappy with the E-420.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that while DR was the complaint people gave for the E-410/E-510, in practice the problems they reported were often tied to:
1) JPG engine used a suboptimal tone curve
2) Metering (ESP especially) was hot and overexposed under common situations

My feeling is that the E-420 improved mainly on these. Well-exposed RAW files will thus not see much of a difference.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
Amin Sabet said:
Sorry if I implied that. I'll take Oly's word that there is an
improvement. What I am saying is that I don't see a large
difference in DR between the RAW files. I doubt I'd notice anything
under half a stop or so of difference. Those few people who shoot
RAW and find the E-410/510 files to have a significant problem with
DR will likely still be unhappy with the E-420.
Click to expand...
If they are unhappy with the E-3, then I agree, but no otherwise.
Amin Sabet said:
--
-Amin
Photo contest - 'Natural Textures' @
http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
Click to expand...
--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & 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.'
 
Amin,
Thanks for the comparisons.

I currently have the 5d and bunch of lenses, I also have a G9 and I am considering E420 and the pancake lens as a serious walk-around solution.

How does E-420 compare to 5d? I know that you also have bought DP-1.

How do these cameras compare? I am not planning to replace 5d, but I am thinking that one of these cameras will replace my Canon G9.

I know that these will be better than G9, but how much better? Also, how do these compare to 5d in terms of quality of files and high ISO performance? Is it safe to assume that E-420 at ISO800 is similar to 5d at ISO1600?
--
Thanks
Ramesh
My gallery: http://www.world-of-photos.com

 
Amin Sabet wrote:
I compared the E-420 -2EV shot to the Canon 5D -2EV shot.

After doing an extrame gamma adjustment in Photoshop, it's obvious that the 420 shot has captured more shadow detail.

I used the JPEGs, so this could just be a result of the superior JPEG algorithm of the E-420 and not a superior sensor.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
 
Hi Mike,

I think the +2EV shots are best for showing the shadow detail. I.e., pushing the shadows up two stops and then looking at them tells more than pushing them down two stops and then pushing them back up again.

I converted those from RAW and therefore think they do a decent job of reflecting the sensor, though I cannot rule out issues introduced by using different RAW converters. Even the same RAW converter may approach files in a very camera specific way.

My conclusion in this particular comparison was that the E-420 is doing about as well with the shadow detail and giving up a bit on the high end compared with the 5D.

Regards,
Amin
BigMike1 said:
Amin Sabet wrote:

I compared the E-420 -2EV shot to the Canon 5D -2EV shot.

After doing an extrame gamma adjustment in Photoshop, it's obvious
that the 420 shot has captured more shadow detail.

I used the JPEGs, so this could just be a result of the superior JPEG
algorithm of the E-420 and not a superior sensor.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
Click to expand...
--
-Amin

Photo contest - 'Natural Textures' @ http://www.flickr.com/groups/seriouscompacts/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top