E-5 is a high quality camera

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.
• It has the best JPEG engine, for all we know.
• It has the best weather sealing system.
• It has the sharpest lens system.
• It is one of the most customizable camera.
• It has the best IBIS system.
• It has the best dust removal system.
• It has international warranty.

Bottom line, E5 is a fantastic camera as a whole. And so were Oly's previous cameras. Even the ugly side -the sensor- is manufactured by Panasonic, not Olympus.

Regarding E5, Olympus's mistake is only one... the price. Heck it will be going down as time passed.

I think currently Oly is a manufacturer that does almost everything right. I really hope Oly could ditch Panasonic as their sensor partner. WRT sensor, Panasonic is Oly's doom. They dont bring significant advancement in 4/3 era, and they are embargoing their best sensor to Oly in m4/3 era. I hope Oly choose Sony as their new partner, Sony looks the most dependable right now. I'll pay more even they should stick larger-than-needed APS-C sensor in 4/3 or m4/3 camera. Why not? GH1 also has larger multi-aspect sensor, and NEX showed us that sensor size affects nothing to body size.

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 ?

As long as I like what I see in my screens and what comes out of the 54" and the P-400 printers the Diwa, the DXOmark, the DIYS, the DUI, the XO-XO and the pixelpeppers can kiss my rear!
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

would that work?
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

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.

Is that another rumor or what? I'm very curious on this one.
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

What makes you think the Olympus engineers have any influence on the sensors they get from Panasonic? They may have tweaked the color filters a bit, and used a weaker AA filter (for higher resolution and/or lower noise), but otherwise I suspect their hands were tied. That's the disadvantage of using a boutique sensor size (4/3) and (if the reports are true) an exclusivity agreement with your competitor (Panasonic).

Simon

I don't think the DXo should make the E-5 as a whole "look like a turd." As you say, there are key things to the E-5 and right now it frankly has the best JPEG engine on the market.

I am all for truth and being realistic. Many here were saying the E-5 outclassed other cameras based on JPEGS alone, I kept saying it was worth if we are going to talk about camera potential to compare raws. I think DXo pretty much settles that end.

Now like you said, the E-5 as a whole, as a camera, as system does have its advantages. This shouldn't mean "Dxo is nuts."

--
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.'

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.

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.

THe sensors are supplied by Panasonic and designed by them, these aren't Olympus designs. The fact the E-5 is matching the E-3 sensor at 2 more megapixels considering it's also an old sensor design speaks well for Olympus as improving an old design.

I suspect Panasonic didn't leave them much choice.

--
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.'

simpy said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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

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.

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 ?

cheers

Mr.NoFlash

Bluephotons said:

As long as I like what I see in my screens and what comes out of the 54" and the P-400 printers the Diwa, the DXOmark, the DIYS, the DUI, the XO-XO and the pixelpeppers can kiss my rear!
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

Click to expand...

Exactly, let's try to make photography fun again.
--
Ken

Raist3d said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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

Member said:

I suspect Panasonic didn't leave them much choice.

Click to expand...

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 said:

simpy said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Olympus' marketing spin does not constitute a serious argument.

--
STFU and do it.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

--
MFBernstein

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

mfbernstein said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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 ?

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

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 ?

thanks

Mr.NoFlash said:

mfbernstein said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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 ?

Click to expand...

No.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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

Click to expand...

No.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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

mfbernstein said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

mfbernstein said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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 ?

Click to expand...

No.

mfbernstein said:

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

Click to expand...

No.

mfbernstein said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

Mr.NoFlash said:

Raist3d said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr.NoFlash said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Mr.NoFlash said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

I suspect Panasonic didn't leave them much choice.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--
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 said:

simpy said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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

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.

Click to expand...

You really need to take a look at E-5 raws, E-30 raws and Pen RAWs. You can improve ISO noise greatly with the JPEG processing. This is what the Olympus RAW files show. Go ahead and take a look at them before believing it is the circuitry surrounding it.

And btw, you are basically saying you rather believe what a company says rather than independent testing! Come on!

Mr.NoFlash said:

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,

Click to expand...

It is their own stuff. They even sell it too. They know what they are talking about.

Mr.NoFlash said:

which perhaps gets confused by high-detail ( low AA filte ) which the Oly raw converter and processing engine is able to handle ?

Click to expand...

I really hate to tell you this but this last sentence is completely absurd. There isn't such thing. It wouldn't be any more difficult than handling full frame camera files and they sure handle them with aplomb.

Mr.NoFlash said:

cheers

Mr.NoFlash

Click to expand...

--
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.'

Haris said:

mfbernstein said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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