[]
Yes it is unfounded, I own and use an E-P2 very regularly and have had no issues with moire.
I never said issues as in quality with Moire in all raw converters. I know the Olympus raw converters are much slower on the Pens. I also know LightZone has shown color moire. I never said all raw converters would have issues.
And lastly, I didn't say the Pen in conjunction with the Olympus system (JPEG or Olympus RAW converters) have any image quality issues with RAW but the contrary- that Olympus deals with color moire superbly well.
Unless you shoot regularly with a PEN, I'm afraid you haven't seen enough. I have used LR3 with thousands of E-P2 shots and so far not once has moire been an issue.
I never referred to the image quality with all RAW converters.
How often have you run into issues with moire? I'm curious.
I saw them in LightZone. Saw them in another raw converter I don't remember. Olympus converters do not have this issue. But Olympus converters run significantly slower with any of the pens vs an E-30/e-620.
Here's the good part about this:
you don't have to take my word for this just try it for yourself and compare between those generations of cameras.
However, if the E-5 can improve on what the E-PL1 already does well, I for one, don't see why there would be any reason to complain.
That's not my point. This is another point entirely.
You wondered how many RAW shooters will switch to JPEG given the assumed better JPEG processing and the allegedly dubious RAW files which will have problems with moire.
I am saying this because-
- many raw shooters still use the RAW converters to get the Olympus color. Those will notice a performance hit on those applications
- some raw converters do show the color moire more. Something new to deal with.
- because once you go RAW, what advantage exactly the E-5 has in imagequality over a competitor? Sure, lower AA filter- which helps close a megapixel gap. So say a D7000 at 16 MP may have same or near same detail as the e-5, but now shooting raw tosses away any R&D color image quality advancements Olympus made because that extra resolution stuff they are touting is all for JPEG, not RAW (other than lowering the AA filter).
In other words: Shooting in RAW takes away one big advantage the E-5 has over the competitors. All those reasons together is what make me wonder.
So very very important: this thread never was about raw vs jpeg by themselves, or about "the E-5 has bad image quality or issues." It's more about the people and behavior.
Besides the fact that you're speculating on both the JPEG and RAW quality, all I'm saying is that both JPEG & RAW files from the E-PL1 are better than what the E-3 offers, so if the E-5 can further improve on that, why complain?
First I am not complaining about the E-5 image quality (read above what I said this thread is really about). Two, if you shoot in RAW, then what exactly makes the e-5 attractive image quality wise over some of the competitors... Once you go with RAW, total sensor DR start ruling and a lower AA filter won't make 12 MP jump past 16-18 MP sensors.
You still can say shoot with Zuikos I suppose.
Funny thing: let's wait for Panny to announce the GH2, having a better sensor than the E-5 itself with both more DR and higher resolution (and better iso), at the same or even lower price... and you can use Zuikos on it!
What's confusing about it? $1700 USD?
Complaining about price is one thing, but complaining about IQ and file quality when no one (you included) has either seen the camera or its files is definitely confounding (and confusing).
First, you are only
probably right that I haven't seen it, but I am not saying anything of course! I mean, if I was actually under some sort of NDA I would have to not confirm nor deny, but that's not even the point so we can safely forget about that part.
I am
NOT complaining about IQ or file quality! If you actually believe that, go ahead and re-read my post, and read what I said this post is about. And also read my post on "E-5 thoughts" because I actually have even said the E-5 is an overall nice camera with three issues. One of them I would like to think quite solvable and it's the main one really (in my eyes anyway).
My only complaint is, why not a year earlier and at a better price point, but that's water under the bridge now.
It isn't when you have to buy it.
Fortunately you don't
have to buy anything.
That's right! I don't. Many others don't either.
If the E-5 is definitely the camera that you absolutely need as a working pro, then a couple of hundred is really not a big deal, is it? OTOH if you're simply looking to buy the camera because you'd like to have one, then yes, the price is high and the best option is to wait.
The E-5 price invites competitor exploration.
--
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.'
