E-5 is a high quality camera

jaja_m said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are really scratching aren't you? What about resolution, dynamic range, noise, high ISO performance, speed, feature set, lens range and all the other important factors that go to make up a quality DSLR?

As for Olympus doing almost everything right, well that depends on whether you think abandoning its DSLR customers and leaving them in the lurch just as they did for film SLRs with the OM system is the right thing to do.

I'll give Olympus one thing though, they certainly are consistent.

FlipinUS said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's been a lot of criticism of Panasonic, in my view unwarranted. For a start, Olympus is boxed in with respect to sensor choice because of their own decisions. Striking out with a non-standard format was always going to restrict component choices. Olympus gambled on being able to get enough volume for their own design choices to gather enough companies around them to establish their own standard. they failed and Nikon, Sony and Pentax established the de-facto sensor size standard. Canon did decide to go their own way, but was big enough to make it stick and put in the investment to guarantee a supply of competitive sensors.

Panasonic Semiconductor is a different company from Panasonic AVC Networks, which is responsible for Lumix. It has shown its ability to make sensors which are competitive with the rest of the industry. As a major Semiconductor company trading independently, I am sure it would design and build a sensor to order to any company that funded the development and provided enough volume for the project overall to be profitable to Panasonic Semiconductor. It's highly unlikely to make a speculative part for a very restricted market. My guess, I think informed, that Lumix has access to the GH sensors because they funded the development. Olympus didn't so hasn't. And therein lies the problem for Olympus - if they could guarantee enough volume, there should be no problem putting in the investment to guarantee competitive sensors, either through Panasonic or another manufacturer. But they can't so they don't, and no semiconductor manufacturer is going to make a sensor for Olympus out of kindness or charity.
--
Bob

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

No, it's more sophisticated than that. It's not just strong noise reducing but how the noise is reduced, the color profiling, how much DR from the RAW is being extracted, how edge color transitions are handled, how is the color filtered sensor array data interpolated, how it deals with Bayer color moire, and many other things.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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"

Click to expand...

I will check that but please understand it's impossible to argue with the RAW evidence posted in which it shows the noise being ball park to the E-30's sensor. I mean, at that point, the whole circuit theory or anything else comes crashing down and the only explanation for the JPEGS becomes necessarily some post processing.

Mr.NoFlash said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your link above makes a serious assumption: that it has to be a better RAW due to the JPEG result but we already have RAW samples that show the noise is indeed on par with the E-30. On top of that we have Dxo mark validating exactly that too. In spite of that evidence you decide that somehow the JPEG is proving something where the RAW's already prove that assumption wrong.

So we can debunk (a) form your list. (b) sounds ludicrious and (c) doesn't make much sense considering this is Bayer sensor data from a sensor used in previous cameras. But most importantly why do you leave the Occam Razor's simple explanation that, the sensor being the same, it just performs similar and the JPEG technology is the one that advanced here?

Olympus certainly makes the point they improved for example, the noise quite a bit for the E_PL1 (and you can see the difference) by the post processing. That's all JPEG engine and there's quite a difference in noise perfomrance between an e-620 and the EPL1... yet same sensor.

but people just want to deny it or avoid it.

Remember: Dxo marks are useless or not so useful- that was the point Mr. Flash presented. The counter to that was also presented.

I am sure you can also make nice looking portraits out of an E-30 with the proper noise reduction, though not as good as the E-5, but not as far form it as it may seem.

--
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.'

jaja_m said:

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

Click to expand...

So you say

look at the material textures, the 'presence' of the image crop
From IR, E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



or examine the fine scale detail, you can see at what point it degrades on both
E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



well maybe you are onto something there

jaja_m said:

jaja_m said:

jaja_m said:

• It has the sharpest lens system.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes i think so

and then theres this
from IR Nikon 7000 review images
centre frame, hot pixel



--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Rriley said:

jaja_m said:

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

Click to expand...

So you say

look at the material textures, the 'presence' of the image crop
From IR, E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



or examine the fine scale detail, you can see at what point it degrades on both
E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



well maybe you are onto something there

Click to expand...

All you're looking at is more sharpening (see the halos) and more contrast in the JPEG defaults.

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

• It has the sharpest lens system.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes i think so

Click to expand...

You're quite entitled to your opinion, but your evidence has always been wanting.

Rriley said:

and then theres this
from IR Nikon 7000 review images
centre frame, hot pixel

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. So?
--
Bob

bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

jaja_m said:

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

Click to expand...

So you say

look at the material textures, the 'presence' of the image crop
From IR, E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



or examine the fine scale detail, you can see at what point it degrades on both
E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



D7000 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO



well maybe you are onto something there

Click to expand...

All you're looking at is more sharpening (see the halos) and more contrast in the JPEG defaults.

Click to expand...

no amount of sharpening will bring that detail out for the D7000, look at the difference between how the scales are rendered, which is turned to mush earlier, it simply doesnt exist to be sharpened.

Look at the blue script on the slide rule, its so washed out its nearly illegible on the Nikon

OTOH you can reduce sharpening on the E5 and bring it back later in post. B/se the detail is there to begin with

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

• It has the sharpest lens system.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes i think so

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

You're quite entitled to your opinion, but your evidence has always been wanting.

Click to expand...

i dont see any contrary evidence, and you havent presented any
what i do see here is mush from nikon were there should be comparable detail

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

and then theres this
from IR Nikon 7000 review images
centre frame, hot pixel

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. So?

Click to expand...

yep, it is so, yes it is

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

"You're quite entitled to your opinion, but your evidence has always been wanting"
....

I presume you have evidence stating otherwise (including pics as shown by Rriley)?
Can you show please?

mfbernstein said:

ISO 3200, Olympus Viewer, defaults ( E-30 left, E-5 right ).

Click to expand...

In the above discussion I thought, the noise in the background would be noise, now I found out, the structure of the BG is the same on both photos, so you have taken a photo of a BG that looks noisy of itself, because the subject has a noise-like looking structure.

In that photo there is no image part where you can really check the pure noise.

A noise-testing image should contain unstructured image parts and structured image parts, so its possible to judge (a) the noise the camera has and (b) how much structure got lost during NR. DPReview does this by providing 2 photos: (a) a photo of a coin ( structured ) and a photo of grey, made with the same settings.

In addition to that, the right image looks underexposed compared to the left.

If I would get the info that the E-30 is noise-wise as good as the E-5 if I just shoot raw, then this would save me money.

But Until now I am convinced that your posts are misleading, as Rriley said.

In addition to that, I believe that some RAW conversion inclusive DXO misinterpret the high-detail of the E-5 as noise.

mfbernstein said:

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:

Click to expand...

Proper E-5 Raw conversion has to simulate the AA-Filter.
In the E-30 the AA-Filter is hardware, in the E-5 the AA-filter is software.

So no surprise that the result of the E-5-process (left) is softer, because it adds the AA filter via software

mfbernstein said:

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

Click to expand...

My text indicates its a feature, not a issue

mfbernstein said:

mfbernstein said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

the E-5 Iso3200 samples are default noise reduction. Its an image of a partly Out-of-focus area, and the purpose is to show the noise which remains after default E-5 NR. But it also has a bit of structure in it, a line, and the result is, the line remains

I didn't bothered to read the whole topic, because I'm sure that I will see Raist3d or Bobn2 or Olyflyer trolling and talking rubbish as on every topic that claims Oly cameras are good.

I just wanna say that after I tested the E-5 (had an E-520 and have a E-620) I must say that this really IS a very high quality camera.

I shoot with Nikon and pro lenses all the time, but I must say that the E-5 is upthere with the D300s in image quality. OK, D300s is a little old but still a benchmark for mini format.

The E-5 CAN match the autofocus, the noise, DR and the speed of the D300s. I'll admit the D300s still have the edge in all of those, but that is only if you shoot lab charts. In the real world the E-5 is the better camera image quality wisw, and I'm a big fan of the D300s.

Where the E-5 is much better : build quality, OK the D300s is very well built but the E-5 is just fantastic, you see that kind of quality only from one other manufacturer of consumer cameras: Leica. No Nikon or Canon can match the build quality.

It's more pleasant to use, it has IBIS, swivel screen. Those turned out to be more important than I thought after I bought the E-620.

With the E-5 you can use the best lenses of ANY DSLR system. Yes, I shoot Nikon pro lenses and some of them are great, Canon have some lenses even better than Nikon, but Oly lenses are in a different league.

If you don't believe me just put the 70-200 VR on Olympus with an adapter and then put the 35-100mm f/2. My god the 35-100mm f/2 just trashes the 70-200mm and that is a very good lens. The 35-100mm is ultra sharp wide open corner to corner, no distorsion no CA no nothing and that's just the first part of the story. The color rendering, the micro contrast are out of this world. That applies to many lenses if not all.

E-5 is a clear winner backed up by some stellar lenses (I own a few). I'll still use Nikon at work because that's what they have there, but for me, Oly all the way, I already ordered the E-5.

wow d3xmeister...I'm not experienced as you in using Nikon DSLR's and their pro lenses, but your comment surely help me. I'm considering the E5 (up from E3), and I'm gathering as much info as I can get (user reports and tests/reviews).
Thnxs for your info.

thanks for the long answer,

but i now have to postprocess some of my last weeks images and i just have answered a similar topics here and its somehow also an answer to your text:

Proper E-5 Raw conversion has to simulate the AA-Filter.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37103468

The image is misleading
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37103297

Raist3d said:

Mr.NoFlash said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

No, it's more sophisticated than that. It's not just strong noise reducing but how the noise is reduced, the color profiling, how much DR from the RAW is being extracted, how edge color transitions are handled, how is the color filtered sensor array data interpolated, how it deals with Bayer color moire, and many other things.

Member said:

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"

Click to expand...

I will check that but please understand it's impossible to argue with the RAW evidence posted in which it shows the noise being ball park to the E-30's sensor. I mean, at that point, the whole circuit theory or anything else comes crashing down and the only explanation for the JPEGS becomes necessarily some post processing.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your link above makes a serious assumption: that it has to be a better RAW due to the JPEG result but we already have RAW samples that show the noise is indeed on par with the E-30. On top of that we have Dxo mark validating exactly that too. In spite of that evidence you decide that somehow the JPEG is proving something where the RAW's already prove that assumption wrong.

So we can debunk (a) form your list. (b) sounds ludicrious and (c) doesn't make much sense considering this is Bayer sensor data from a sensor used in previous cameras. But most importantly why do you leave the Occam Razor's simple explanation that, the sensor being the same, it just performs similar and the JPEG technology is the one that advanced here?

Olympus certainly makes the point they improved for example, the noise quite a bit for the E_PL1 (and you can see the difference) by the post processing. That's all JPEG engine and there's quite a difference in noise perfomrance between an e-620 and the EPL1... yet same sensor.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can show me how to get E-5 results from my E-420 sensor ;-)

Hi Raist!

Nothing to be sorry about, it is not I loose something, my self-esteem (compared to some people here) doesn't rely on a posts in an internet forum.

I am surprised that you have so much more believe in one single photo posted in almost every thread about E-5 (you such an your opinion even before the DxO results were posted) and totally neglect the reviews from magazines and opinion from people that own the camera.

If the difference is clearly visible for so many users, why trust to someone who doesn't own a camera in question in the first place. Maybe the sum of all parts is bigger than a separate laboratory data can say? Why does it always has to be quantifiable? Because math/computer nerds need to put a numbers on something in order to be capable to discuss about it?

Borrow the camera, use it for a while and get your own conclusions, for me that is the only sane and adult approach, no matter what kind of product we are talking about.

Regards
Haris

Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

or examine the fine scale detail, you can see at what point it degrades on both
E-5 Ex-camera JPEG, 200 ISO

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

well maybe you are onto something there

Click to expand...

All you're looking at is more sharpening (see the halos) and more contrast in the JPEG defaults.

Click to expand...

no amount of sharpening will bring that detail out for the D7000, look at the difference between how the scales are rendered, which is turned to mush earlier, it simply doesnt exist to be sharpened.

Click to expand...

Rreally? Seems like a little sharpening and contrast adjustment gets it pretty similar

Rriley said:

Look at the blue script on the slide rule, its so washed out its nearly illegible on the Nikon

Click to expand...

Seems to have come in OK

Rriley said:

OTOH you can reduce sharpening on the E5 and bring it back later in post. B/se the detail is there to begin with

Click to expand...

If it's real detail. Have a look between 40" and 45". On the D7000 I'l give you, it's 'mush'. On the E-5 there seem to be a whole load of diagonal lines. Were they there on the original object. If not, where do you think they've come from?

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

• It has the sharpest lens system.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes i think so

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rriley said:

You're quite entitled to your opinion, but your evidence has always been wanting.

Click to expand...

i dont see any contrary evidence, and you havent presented any

Click to expand...

If you're making the assertion that it has the sharpest lens system, it is up to you to demonstrate that you are correct. You never do so, you habitually compare system MTF's taken with cameras of radically different pixel size. When you compare like with like, very often the other brand comes out best:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare-lenses/ (lens1) 190 (lens2) 241 (onglet) 0 (brand) Olympus (brand2) Canon (use E-620 and 7D)

Rriley said:

what i do see here is mush from nikon were there should be comparable detail

Click to expand...

Now you're wriggling around. I thought that your proposition above was that the extra detail was due to the JPEG engine, not the lens. In any case it's a bit unfair to blame Nikon for the optical quality of the D7000 shot, since IR used a Sigma (which as I remember, is a POS).

Still, I've let you get me mistracked with your usual gyrating around the topic and raising of new topics to avoid making good on what you say with the original topic. The statement we are debating is:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

It is the JPEG engine that makes up its sensor's flaws. ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37100098 )

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

we see from the IR images that not only does the JPEG engine not make up for the noise flaw, nor is it magically adding resolution. Neither is it removing the aliasing consequent on a mismatched AA filter, which is what that diagonal stuff around 40" to 50", in case you hadn't twigged.
--
Bob

Bobn2, you are the "Top poster in Olympus SLR Talk", 135 posts, quite impressive!

I just don't find it normal that, you are spending so much time, trying to defy people saying anything positive about Oly. To much effort for negativity just draws attention.

I don't own an E-5. It is possible that Oly fans get carried away and exagerate their emotions about E-5. Maybe E-5 is NOT a high quality camera as some Oly fans claim... So what?

This is an Oly forum and you are really ruining the fun!
--
ZAGOR TENAY

mujana said:

"You're quite entitled to your opinion, but your evidence has always been wanting"
....

I presume you have evidence stating otherwise (including pics as shown by Rriley)?
Can you show please?

Click to expand...

Just did.
--
Bob

Zagor Tenay said:

Bobn2, you are the "Top poster in Olympus SLR Talk", 135 posts, quite impressive!

I just don't find it normal that, you are spending so much time, trying to defy people saying anything positive about Oly.

Click to expand...

I don't at all. I'm very happy for people to say positive things about Olympus. I'm very selective in the posts I question, and those are the posts which say unsubstantiated or unsustainable things. There are several types of post.
'I love the Olympus' - nothing wrong with that.
'The E-5 is an excellent camera' - completely fine.
'The E-5 does has everything I want from a camera' - hunky dory.

'The Olympus lens system is the best there is' - now I want some evidence - if there is evidence and its good, then it stops there.

Zagor Tenay said:

To much effort for negativity just draws attention.

Click to expand...

Not negativity at all, I just would like people to provide evidence for statements they put forward as fact.

Zagor Tenay said:

I don't own an E-5. It is possible that Oly fans get carried away and exagerate their emotions about E-5. Maybe E-5 is NOT a high quality camera as some Oly fans claim... So what?

Click to expand...

So, they are entitled to their opinion. But when the suggest as fact that it is something it isn't, they mislead others.

Zagor Tenay said:

This is an Oly forum and you are really ruining the fun!

Click to expand...

I don't think everyone thinks that. maybe only the poeple whose unsubstantiated factoids I challenge.

--
Bob

Mr.NoFlash said:

mfbernstein said:

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:

Click to expand...

Proper E-5 Raw conversion has to simulate the AA-Filter.

Click to expand...

That is impossible. There is insufficient information in the raw file for an AA filter to be simulated.

Mr.NoFlash said:

In the E-30 the AA-Filter is hardware, in the E-5 the AA-filter is software.

Click to expand...

It has an AA filter, just a mismatced one (placed too high)

--
Bob

written "I believe the E-5 is the best camera ever made on earth".

...since it's all beliefs. The fanboys would thank you and the trolls would tell you they don't believe.

Honestly, who cares the E-5 has a bright viewfinder for its sensor size? If that criterium is important to you, there are many cameras with a better viewfinder. Ever looked through a D3?

--
--------------------
Thierry.
http://www.thicoz.smugmug.com