E5 sharper than E3? Not by much.

John Mason · Jun 3, 2011

It's very interesting how the two cameras differ depending on the color.

Looking at the green cloth portions, the E5 is way sharper than the E3.

But looking at the reds the situation is reversed.

I had an E3 for a bit and found it quite sharp except I could not self adjust the focus.

I compared my E30 to my E5 which is a similar sensor and the E5 is sharper and easy to notice when pixel peeping. In actual prints the difference is not so easy to discern.

In real terms, though, even my 16mp Sony sensor isn't much different than my E30 or E5. Now 21mp Canon with a prime, that's way sharper. (If I can hold it still enough that is)

My E5 required +8 focus adjustment for my 14-35. Couldn't do that with the E3 which is why I returned it and got the E30 till the E5 came out a year and 3 months later.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

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

djbrom · Jun 3, 2011

Mate, if you must compare do the comparison on equal terms. Anyone can tell you that processing in LR3 will yield sharper results than Oly Viewer. So why on earth do the e3 on LR and the e5 in Oly Viewer? Whats the point? Cause some people thing LR doesnt do e5 files justice?

I have done side by side comparisons between the two cameras with the same processing and the e5 walks over the e3 in terms of ability to resolve finer detail. If you must see one example of my testing check here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37385434

I really dont mean to sound that I am having a go at you (im not, having a go, just kinda frustrated at attempts like this) but please if you must compare, compare on equal terms.

Claus A · Jun 3, 2011

I think folks don't get that you don't want to show that the E5 is bad but rather how good the E3 really is.

Second that.

(Interlude)
Bought a C5Dii last autumn (instead of the E5: same price!) and don't regret it.

I sold the E30 (odd color and tone curve, noisy, IMO) and the Oly (U)WA zooms (better detail with the equivalent lenses on the 5Dii).

Kept the E3 w/ 50-200swd + EC14 (and the cute E450 w/ pancake and 35mm for the small bag). Rebought an 14-54mm to have tough & weather-sealed 14-280mm.

The E3 is great for rough weather, good colors, good keeper rate; the crop factor comes handy when shooting at longer FLs (or closeups).

The 5Dii is great for high detail WA, shallow DOF and higher ISO (and low ISO night shots).

I had to buy Capture One Pro to get the most out of the 5Dii (the supplied software is way inferior to Oly Studio, surprise!) and now also process my E3 raws with C1.
(Interlude ends)

Took a while to realize that a) you can always add a sharp look to a detailed photo but b) you can never add detail to a sharp looking photo.
The E3 is definitely type a).

I also played with the 'comparometer' files last week and, as Gareth noted in another thread, it just takes a bit of contrast enhancement and sharpening to get other camera's images to the perceptive level of the E5 photos.

BTW, it's funny that nobody has taken your challenge so far

Nuff rambling,

cheers,

Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

djbrom · Jun 3, 2011

I am in NO WAY saying the e3 is a bad camera. I think its a really good camera that in many ways also walked over the e1 (which also was a very good camera).

The real only big thing the e1 has over eth e3 & e5 is the amazing ability to bring up the shadows with little noise. That went out the window with the e3 and e5, but I guess you accept it and shoot accordingly.

It is interesting in the comparison you made how certain colours really favoured the e3 and other colours favoured the e5. Very interesting.

kievis · Jun 3, 2011

Too much pixel peeping going on here. Go out and take some pictures.

djbrom · Jun 3, 2011

I am hoping to go out very soon

EspE1 · Jun 3, 2011

djbrom said:
The real only big thing the e1 has over eth e3 & e5 is the amazing ability to bring up the shadows with little noise. That went out the window with the e3 and e5, but I guess you accept it and shoot accordingly.

I guess your reference is IQ, but for the sake of good order I will also point to the Focus assist light. You may of course say that E1 needs that light more than the newer cameras, but owning both E1 and E5 I know I sure miss that feature in the E-5 and cannot for my life understand why it was left out in E3/5.

esco · Jun 3, 2011

MilSooper said:
Convert the RAW files in the same processor or post out of camera jpegs with no processing at all.

Out of camera jpgs do not equal maximum quality and they're not using the same image processors so what's the point of doing that? I do agree with processing them in the same converter.

MilSooper said:
Post processing is only to fix boo boos of not getting it right the first time anyway.

You know that's a really ignorant statement that I come across more often than not, I hate to sound rude here but i'm being pretty honest.

There are numerous circumstances where a camera cannot capture a scene the way that your eyes see it. This is one of the reasons for the trend of hdr photography, some people take it really far and make it look very illustrated while others use it to retain the detail that they saw with thier own eyes but the camera could not capture in one unprocessed shot.

The other reason is that most dslr's tend to be tuned fairly neutral when it comes to things such as sharpening, contrast, blackpoint etc. . . and it's up to the user to adjust these to thier liking respectfully so because you can't rely on a machine to know what you want. Olympus does tend to be more aggressive with color than canon or nikon for example which are often more muted by comparisons but actually tend to be more faithful in terms of color reproduction at least for thier enthusiast and pro models. I'm not saying this is a bad thing as it's obviously a color signature a lot of people love here.

These cameras are all customizable to your liking though and well i'm not really interested in default settings anyway, i'd rather aim for the style that I want and extract as much quality out of a file then to leave what could be a large possible amount on the table.

Nikon's have also been usually heavy with aa filters but you don't see thier shooters switching to canon in droves(well many did for video but that's something else) because of this, those in the know just essentially sharpened thier files properly and it never became an issue in fact this wasn't really a big deal here until the e-5 came out and those same people who probably pointed out how the canon files looked too sharp or fake(even though the lenses are horrible apparently) are the same ones praising the e-5

This whole aa filter debate while new here has been something that digital photography has seen since it's inception, unless your shooting style requires some very specific gear then it's actually a good idea to have a smoother image that can be sharpened to perfection vs dealing with the issue that a thin aa filter could possibly show even if it is a small chance, moire is very difficult if impossible in certain situations to get rid of.

I'm not saying it's a deep issue here but it's just one of those chances that olympus wouldn't have taken when developing thier other cameras, it's my belief that they used a weak aa fitler in the e-5 in order to differentiate the camera enough and command the relatively high price tag on something that isn't really new. Lets be real here, if the camera did not posess such a sharp default output how do you think this new pro camera would look with that recycled tech and an honestly high price tag? Think about it.

MilSooper said:
NOW let the roasting begin.

--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

By the way, I'm meant 'wrest' not 'rest' in my previous post (for any non-English readers).

varanus said:
Maybe you'd want to stop and ponder how you come across in a photography forum.

If you check the history of this forum, you will see that 'back in the day' these kinds of discussions were very popular and lacked personal attacks. This is how real information about cameras are discovered and marketing rubbish revealed. I learned a lot while people were doing them.

varanus said:
I'll comment where I want. This is a public forum and you asked for it.

My comment was for you, not me. You can say anything you want. If you love your E5 and don't care about the technicals, I was suggesting you move on because there is nothing here.

varanus said:
So I just questioned the tone and motivation of your post.

varanus said:
Now who's been dissing the E-3 on this forum apart from those who insist that the E-3 is not competitive in more ways than one? So who is your target audience?

The forum consensus is that the E5 'lifts a veil from the 4/3rds lenses' and that the E5's weaker AA transforms the camera into something rivaling much higher mp cameras sporting equally good lenses. The implication is the E3 does not 'lift the veil' and the stronger AA destroys its competitive abilities.

See this attempt at a technical thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38534975

goblin · Jun 3, 2011

rovingtim said:
...a sharpened E3 file from Lightroom compared to an E5 file processed in Olympus's Viewer

Ladies and gentlemen, our magazine is the best !!! Don't believe me ??? Judge for yourselves: when you drop our magazine in cold water - nothing happens ! When you drop the competition's magazine in sulfuric acid - it dissolves !!!

In other words - wasn't there some sort of requirement of " All other things being equal " for a comparison to be relevant ?

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

Claus A said:
I think folks don't get that you don't want to show that the E5 is bad but rather how good the E3 really is.

Second that.

(Interlude)
Bought a C5Dii last autumn (instead of the E5: same price!) and don't regret it.

Two systems. Two possibilities. A better understanding of reality verses marketing.

Claus A said:
I sold the E30 (odd color and tone curve, noisy, IMO) and the Oly (U)WA zooms (better detail with the equivalent lenses on the 5Dii).

Never was really attracted to the E30. Never new why. Perhaps it was the colour.

Claus A said:
Kept the E3 w/ 50-200swd + EC14 (and the cute E450 w/ pancake and 35mm for the small bag). Rebought an 14-54mm to have

Indeed. Tough & weather-sealed 14-280mm and sits in a relatively small bag. It's a shame Oly never improved on this fantastic set up that they introduced in 2003.

Claus A said:
The E3 is great for rough weather, good colors, good keeper rate; the crop factor comes handy when shooting at longer FLs (or closeups).

Close ups without needing a macro (especially if you have the ec1.4). Good stuff from Oly and copied by Nikon (they even said as much ... they thanked Oly for tuning them into the lenses).

Claus A said:
The 5Dii is great for high detail WA, shallow DOF and higher ISO (and low ISO night shots).

I think Canon has always had the lead on long exposure. Their 1 series were doing hour + long shots in the first half of the 2000's.

Claus A said:
Took a while to realize that a) you can always add a sharp look to a detailed photo but b) you can never add detail to a sharp looking photo.

YES YES YES ... especially if the 'sharp' is coming from artifacts!

Claus A said:
The E3 is definitely type a).

If it focuses right. It's not bad in good light, but gets progressively trickier as the light drops. All Oly had to do was get their AF accurate. Perhaps improved it in the E5.

Claus A said:
I also played with the 'comparometer' files last week and, as Gareth noted in another thread, it just takes a bit of contrast enhancement and sharpening to get other camera's images to the perceptive level of the E5 photos.

Indeed it does.

Claus A said:
BTW, it's funny that nobody has taken your challenge so far

A lot of talk though.

Claus A said:
Nuff rambling,

Perhaps. This is a rambling forum ....

Claus A said:
cheers,

Tim

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

My God, you're clever. You spotted the fatal flaw that no one else saw. I almost managed to fool EVERYONE but now you are here to save the day.

WOE IS MEEEEEEE!

goblin said:
In other words - wasn't there some sort of requirement of " All other things being equal " for a comparison to be relevant ?

Or, it could be that when I did that here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38558994

I was told by the 'tribunal' that:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38562086

In the linked thread he says:

ACR / Lightroom output seems fairly close to the results using the "vng4" algorithm. It appears that Lightroom is not the best raw conversion option for Olympus.

(don't forget to read on how the tribunal concludes that by using ACR on Oly files I invalidate my arguments)

And, Gobin, as I said in my OP to this thread:

For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

In fact, the reply immediately above yours notices how no one is taking up my challenge. Just a lot of hot air ... well he didn't say that ... and I guess it only applies to some ...

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

Or, get two equal files from the E5 and E3 ... let the E5 user process their file anyway they like and we compare with an E3 file I process.

Oh, like I already said in my OP.

For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

As ClausA notes, no one is taking me up on it. Funny that. As I said to Goblin, just a lot of hot air from some.

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

No one wants to see this kind of thing anymore? This used to be a technical forum where we compared images and discussed.

DonParrot · Jun 3, 2011

esco said:
The other reason is that most dslr's tend to be tuned fairly neutral when it comes to things such as sharpening, contrast, blackpoint etc. . . and it's up to the user to adjust these to thier liking respectfully so because you can't rely on a machine to know what you want.

A old, boring but still completely wrong argument as - first of all - you can do these adjustments right on your camera.

And, point two: You mean that machines are good enough to adjust the braking system, suspension, ignition, airbags and whatsoever on your car, to control other machines travelling to space and the traffioc systems of whole countries - but producing a picture to your liking asks too much of them? Even if they are adjusted properly? That's one hell of an argument and a truly convincing thought.

esco said:
Olympus does tend to be more aggressive with color than canon or nikon for example which are often more muted by comparisons but actually tend to be more faithful in terms of color reproduction at least for thier enthusiast and pro models. Say no more...

esco said:
These cameras are all customizable to your liking though and well i'm not really interested in default settings anyway, i'd rather aim for the style that I want and extract as much quality out of a file then to leave what could be a large possible amount on the table.

Nobody ever said use the default settings when shooting JPEGs.

esco said:
Nikon's have also been usually heavy with aa filters but you don't see thier shooters switching to canon in droves(well many did for video but that's something else) because of this, those in the know just essentially sharpened thier files properly and it never became an issue in fact this wasn't really a big deal here until the e-5 came out and those same people who probably pointed out how the canon files looked too sharp or fake(even though the lenses are horrible apparently) are the same ones praising the e-5

I don't remember anybody hijacking Nikon threads to troll around about AA filters or Canon threads to troll about too much sharpness.

esco said:
This whole aa filter debate while new here has been something that digital photography has seen since it's inception...

There hasn't been a debate here until some people claimed that Olympus made a mistake opting for a thinner AA filter. And believe me - those people weren't Oly users.

No wait! You are right, there has been a debate. For years, Olympus was blamed for using a too thick AA filter, resulting in too soft pictures. If I'm not mistaken, one of the arguments was that details that haven't been recorded never can be regained.

esco said:
...unless your shooting style requires some very specific gear then it's actually a good idea to have a smoother image that can be sharpened to perfection vs dealing with the issue that a thin aa filter could possibly show even if it is a small chance, moire is very difficult if impossible in certain situations to get rid of.

Say no more. Now it's - all of a sudden - the other way round? Fascinating!

esco said:
I'm not saying it's a deep issue here but it's just one of those chances that olympus wouldn't have taken when developing thier other cameras, it's my belief that they used a weak aa fitler in the e-5 in order to differentiate the camera enough and command the relatively high price tag on something that isn't really new. Lets be real here, if the camera did not posess such a sharp default output how do you think this new pro camera would look with that recycled tech and an honestly high price tag? Think about it.

Yes indeed. Hadn't they produced a camera with a thinner AA filter and better processor (resulting together in incredibly detail-rich pictures) as well as improved AF, improved tilt and svivel LCD, improved controls and and and - it would still be the E-3 and nobody would think about buying it at €1700. Thank you for these truly amazing news. I'd never expected something like that.

Amazingly, however, the E-5 seems to be in extremely high demand. Must because we all are just too stupid to realise that we are sold just an old product in new disguise.

DonParrot · Jun 3, 2011

rovingtim said:
Oh, like I already said in my OP.

For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

What wouldn#t change anything if it was shot at another aperture and with another lens. Questions you haven answeredm by the way. Just like you ignored each of my other arguments.
Come on, you should be able to do better.

Otherwise I will have to turn around to go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

DonParrot said:
First of all:

Where did you take the pictures from? Imaging resource? I know that the E-5 pics were shot at aperture eight - while the E-3 samples are no longer available, there.

They are available. That's where I got them. Downloaded both of them last week.

DonParrot said:
So, have they been shot at the same aperture and with the same lens?

I assume so, otherwise why bother with test shots to compare?

DonParrot said:
Why does the image section differ slightly?

Because, as I keep saying, the E5 has 2 million more pixels to display. As it is 100%, the E5 is showing a larger picture.

DonParrot said:
So if yes, did you use the same approach for the E-3 pic or did you PP it to the max? Should the latter be the case, I'd call this a really weird approach, make comparison is absolutely useless.

See my answer to Goblin

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38584241

DonParrot said:
And, last but not least: If you want to compare an E-5 JPEG vs. an E-3 RAW, why don't you shoot a pic with both cameras in identical conditions, using optimised adjustments at the E-5 and shoot a RAW with the E-3 that you than PP until you are happy with the result.

Do you guys read at all?

What I said in my original post was:

For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

DonParrot said:
Again: I can see only one goal in this thread. To spoil our party.

Only if your party is to see things that aren't there.

DonParrot said:
But you won't spoil mine. I loved my E-30, which - by the way - also had a 12MP sensor and I was determined to keep it as backup for my E-5. But after a few months with my new mothership, I realised that producing the same IQ with the E-30 is just impossible and so, I sold it last week.

Oooh, I think I'm going to see if Imaging Resources tested the E30. If they have, I might have to reply to this.

DonParrot said:
So, do you want to tell me that you - who seems to not own an E-5 - know more about the differences between the cameras than I and all the others who shoot with the E-5 and are happy with its results?

Yes.

DonParrot said:
Don't be envious and start this kind of threads just to prove yourself that you don't need the new mothership.

DonParrot said:
Just get you an E-5 yourself, enjoy the major increase f IQ

Prove it.

DonParrot said:
That's the best advice I've got for you.

Well, I guess you have just set the worth of your postings here then.

rovingtim · Jun 3, 2011

John Mason said:
It's very interesting how the two cameras differ depending on the color.

Looking at the green cloth portions, the E5 is way sharper than the E3.

But looking at the reds the situation is reversed.

I noticed that too. Not sure what to make of that, though green is the main colour that gives the impression of sharpness, so perhaps Oly retuned their colour to give the impression of maximum sharpness.

Member said:
I had an E3 for a bit and found it quite sharp except I could not self adjust the focus.

I think a slightly missing focus was the main cause for the impression that E3 files were 'soft', though I do not dispute that the E5 per pixel sharpness is greater out of the camera.

Member said:
I compared my E30 to my E5 which is a similar sensor and the E5 is sharper and easy to notice when pixel peeping. In actual prints the difference is not so easy to discern.

I've got 16" detail (7mm shots) from the E1 and E3 that is hard to tell which is from which in terms of sharpness.

Member said:
In real terms, though, even my 16mp Sony sensor isn't much different than my E30 or E5. Now 21mp Canon with a prime, that's way sharper. (If I can hold it still enough that is)

Your last comment is probably the most important for all shots not properly taken on a tripod.

If the focus on the E3 was more accurate, I think it would have been perceived in a completely different light.

DonParrot · Jun 4, 2011

DonParrot said:
rovingtim said:

Oh, like I already said in my OP.

For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

Click to expand...

What wouldn#t change anything if it was shot at another aperture and with another lens. Questions you haven answeredm by the way. Just like you ignored each of my other arguments.
Come on, you should be able to do better.

Otherwise I will have to turn around to go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Answer to the wrong comment, sorry for that.
Got to leave, will reply to your other comment later today.

rovingtim · Jun 4, 2011

DonParrot said:
Questions you haven answeredm by the way. Just like you ignored each of my other arguments.

Right. Here you go. I thought if you researched it yourself you might believe your own conclusions. Still, I started it so perhaps it is my responsibility.

You were right about the lenses. The E5 is using the 50mm macro while the E3 is sporting the 12-60 at 48mm. Advantage E5 on both counts, I believe.

E5 sharper than E3? Not by much.

John Mason

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts