E5 sharper than E3? Not by much.

E5 4032 x 3024 .
E3 3648 x 2736 .
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/satyrium_w/
E 620,E 51o 2x kit, EX 25, 35mm, 5omm; EC2o,
7o-3oo, 50-200, panaTz7, E-pl1,VF-2 ,14-42mm m4/3,mf 35mm f 1.7 SLRM.
some old manuel focusing lenses.

rovingtim said:

...just a lot of hot air from some.

Click to expand...

Gee, that was burst writing, several contiguous posts - did someone not agreeing with you trigger a crusade ?

You want to prove a point - treat your files equal . It's not difficult. It's your thread, it's up to you to make it right (or to start it right in the first place).

As for arguing whether you are right or wrong - I'm not interested. I have both, and I don't need to read several pages of text to see which results I prefer.

Got my E-3 two weeks ago. Definitely worth the $70 I paid for it. Definitely wouldn't have put $700 though.

100% means that each pixel from the sensor is represented by on pixel on the screen. An image 100 pixels wide on one edge image will be 100 pixels wide at 100% and a 1500 pixel image.

A full sized E5 is approx 4032 pixels across while an E3 image is about 3648 pixels across. This is a reflection of the 10 mp and 12 mp sensors.

DonParrot said:

DonParrot said:

If he wants to post nonsense comparisons they can be countered with better ones. No problem, IMO.

Click to expand...

Okay, agreed.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?

Very good.

Here are your crops next to my attempts.

What do you think?

I posted these previously to make a point. The E-3 is a solid camera, has been from the release. The cries of a strong AA filter were just that.

The resolution difference between the E3 and the E5 is more than the sum of 2MP, even the test charts demonstrate that.

Here is a comparison between the sony a850 with 100mm macro, the E-3 with the 50mm macro and the new sigma.

The resolution changes are not as apparent as one would be led to believe. E-3 users should feel happy keeping their E-3's. E-5 users should enjoy their E-5.

Look at the way the E-3 shows hair detail when compared at 100% with a camera with 2.5 times the MP advantage (as you can see the framing of my wifes face s almost the same between the two shots). Now if the E-5 is showing a resolution advantage with only 2mp more, that is well done.













--
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

rovingtim said:

Do you have a link to this?

Click to expand...

Huh, you mean you are unaware of this post by a tester of dpreview?!!! Well somebody just recently pulled up Andy's post in this very forum. If you're really interested to verify your opinions before publishing, I suggest you research more.

rovingtim said:

Well, I think subjective in photography is important as well because objectivity isn't the full story wherever human beings are concerned (colour perception, for example).

Click to expand...

If its subjective, where's the basis to allege that those who disagree with you are "wielding a little knowledge to dangerous effect".

This kind of vacillation merely confirms my suspicions about your motives. End of discussion.

rovingtim said:

Also, I'm unconvinced that an weaker AA (a direction the whole industry is taking) is the way forward. It could just be a fad or worst, a cost cutting exercise backed by marketing rubbish.

Click to expand...

I've an M9 without an AA filter whose 18MP will easily take on the 20+MP from the competition. I did the comparisons myself and there's a pic I shot in Granada in my gallery here. Don't take my word for it though. Check out Lenstip and some others for sharpness comparison. From this, I've no basis to suspect that the likes of Leica and Oly are indulging in sharp marketing practices.

You, on the other hand, have no qualms about publicly expressing your suspicions although you admitted to having no real knowledge on this. So much for educating the misinformed or ignorant. And the sarcastic expressions you liberally dispense in this thread serve only to confirm that you never had the intention to "educate" that you claimed.

Anyway, what's so bad about falling for marketing fluff? Its only that bad if you take the view seriously that it reflects on one's intelligence or lack thereof. Now that'd be sad.

rovingtim said:

I agree with what Claus A said further down this thread.

Click to expand...

This confirms my opinion on your motives, particularly given the specific others who have weighed in in your favour in this thread.

Unlike you, I believe that both the E-3 was and the E-5 is competitive compared to similar offerings by the competition, including Canon and Nikon's mid level range of dslrs. You don't. So its pretty clear to me where you're heading with all this.

I found out what I wanted to know, so tata.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wokoti/

You do go on.

Why moire at huge magnifications is important:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38581467

And, by the way, did you see the purple cast in msusic's crops from the E5 where there is none from the E3?

rovingtim said:

You do go on.

Click to expand...

He has made a very valid point using external and accepted information.

rovingtim said:

Why moire at huge magnifications is important:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38581467

And, by the way, did you see the purple cast in msusic's crops from the E5 where there is none from the E3?

Click to expand...

Wasnt this thread about sharpness? Your point was the E-5 wasnt that much sharper than the E-3, unless you dont think Rileys linked tests are reliable (please explain why if not) then he has shown conclusively something which confirms what E-5 owners have been saying.

Now colour, that is a different deal, think about this, your tests showed less saturated reds on the image resource files for the E-5, and no magenta cast. Reds were less saturated on the E-5 all else was almost identical. I have also not hear complaints from E-5 owners about strange colour casts.

This test was interesting, I love the E-3, but your continued posts arguing with so many people is showing a slight bias. Like this reply. You completely ignored his linked files, as you believe there is no real advantage beyond 2 MP for the E-5 you should have been surprised at this result.

You just ignored it. This suggests a deeper agenda, it suggests that your post and attempt at a point was incorrect does it not? If not why not?

Ab

--
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

rovingtim said:

Now, for those who were 'blown away' by the improvement of the E5 I would suggest either do not know how to process E3 files or their cameras were mis-focusing.

Click to expand...

You are talking rubbish ! Please don't make comments on cameras you haven't tested yourself. I have and I can tell you the E-5 provide much, M U C H more fine details than the E-3, the difference is so big it's not even funny.

And you are comparing a E-3 RAW sample grossly oversharpened with a jpeg from the E-5 ? Are you sane ?

Personally I hate the jpeg engine on the E-5 and I love the one on the E-3, and I think they have the same RAW ISO performance (despite others saying that the E-5 is much better), but in detail rendering there is NO CONTEST.

P.S. I don't really think this really matters in real life shooting anyway for us amateurs.

Could not agree more. It is well-known that the newest version of Lightroom can get much more out of RAW files in terms of fine detail and smart denoising algorithms.

An equally smart comparison would use Olympus Viewer for both cameras or Lightroom for both of them.

As it is it is a wash that can by no means disprove the experience that I have got from plenty of thousand E-3 shots and a couple of thousands with the E-5.

It is ultimately the same nonsense as what we are used to be served by raist who honestly believes that fiddling with a few RAW files can prove more than the multitude of experience from users of both cameras.

Frankly, most constitutions guarantee the freedom to believe in whatever you want. This is ok to me as long as I am not meant to believe in the same nonsense.

djbrom said:

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.

Click to expand...

--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski

rovingtim said:

Here are your crops next to my attempts.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that you're missing the apples and oranges point. You can get better results from either camera with different post-processing. Why not apply a Gaussian blur to the E-5 result and claim that the E-3 has more detail? It would be just as valid.

It is still pretty obvious in your unequal processing samples that the E-5 has more actual detail. Compare the samples to the Pentax 645D sample (that has the highest resolution available of that scene) and you can see the fabric detail quite easily.

DonParrot said:

boggis the cat said:

The E-5 shot should be slightly larger:





(Edit: corrected this size comparison.)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. But I still don't understand the reason for this difference in size. We have got two sensors of the same format, so how can the number of pixels used on this area make an impact on the size of the picture? Rather weird from a logical point of view, I'd say. So, where is the mistake im my thought chain?

Click to expand...

My example above shows each sample resized to 16%: this means 100 pixels in either direction is represented by 16 pixels. The E-5 has more pixels, so it looks larger than the E-3 sample.

How this affects the 100% size crops (1 pixel in the sample represented by 1 pixel on the display) is an apparent magnification factor. The E-5 has 4032 horizontal pixels, and the E-3 3648. This yields a result from the E-5 that is 4032/3648 times as large. (The same holds true for the vertical direction as well, obviously.)

What this means for a print of the same size is that the E-5 has slightly more information available. If you print large enough the E-3 sample will start to look blurry (or fuzzy, or otherwise not right) at a smaller enlargement size than the E-5: in theory, the E-5 sample can be enlarged 4032/3648 times as much as the E-3 sample and retain the same sharpness. In practice, the E-5 yields more detail as well as more pixels, so it should be able to be enlarged further still.

Why not compare the resolution charts of both cameras?
E3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page34.asp

E5
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/page6.asp

--
Thanks,
brent

http://lossing.zenfolio.com/

I guess i was quite harsh when i look back at how i said what i did. My idea was image quality ind the new camera's ability to resolve that.

Totally agree about the assist light. It was strange (and a shame) when that was left out of the e3/5.

rovingtim said:

... you can take up my challenge I set in the 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...

I have made comparisons myself in a real life test when i owned both cameras (with the same 12-60 lens with same settings) and noticed the difference regardless of how the files were processed. Dont get me wrong, the e3 can pump out some detail if processed well and I have seen this in my own files. I dont need to take up your challange...i am happy with what I have seen with my eyes and testing.

Having said that I have seen the comparison that someone else has done of the files on equal terms and again there is nothing more to say. Tim, im not putting down the e3, i want to make that clear (nor am i having a go at you). Its a great camera. But thats not the discussion here, the ability to resolve detail is and it is clear that the e3 is not capable of producing the detail the e5 can and thats a known fact (due to aa filter). But the e3 also does not exibit moire to the same degree that the e5 does.

I have seen differences between all lenses I have (im obviously excluding lense i never used on the e3) which are the 12-60, 11-22, 50 & 50-200. There is a difference with these lenses and i could only imagine what the difference would be with the SHG's.

light_bulb said:

[]

Click to expand...

light_bulb said:

It is ultimately the same nonsense as what we are used to be served by raist who honestly believes that fiddling with a few RAW files can prove more than the multitude of experience from users of both cameras.

Click to expand...

The "nonsense" where I ask each individual to download the files for themselves and verify what I am saying? To not believe me blindly and see for themselves? That kind of nonsense? Is that the "nonsense" you mean?

light_bulb said:

Frankly, most constitutions guarantee the freedom to believe in whatever you want. This is ok to me as long as I am not meant to believe in the same nonsense.

Click to expand...

Oh you don't have to.

light_bulb said:

--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski

Click to expand...

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

odl said:

rovingtim said:

You do go on.

Click to expand...

He has made a very valid point using external and accepted information.

Click to expand...

He's been banging on about me using highly magnified crops to point out moire. That was what that was about. The clue is my next statement in the post to him:

odl said:

odl said:

Why moire at huge magnifications is important:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38581467

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So, odl, what is your 'deeper agenda' for not noticing this?

odl said:

Wasnt this thread about sharpness? Your point was the E-5 wasnt that much sharper than the E-3, unless you dont think Rileys linked tests are reliable (please explain why if not) then he has shown conclusively something which confirms what E-5 owners have been saying.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you bring this up because I was thinking about the mtf's just before I logged on. Are they taken before sharpening? Which demosiacing engine do they use?

When I was working with the crops to post with Mr Cat's crops, I couldn't get the E5's 200% crop of the print to be as clear as the Raw Therapee's rendition no matter what I did. On the other hand, I could bring out other detail that RAW Therapee was missing, especially in the E3 shot. In other words, from my experience it seems RAW Therapee is better suited to the E5 than the E3. So, person who sees 'deeper agenda's', what does a higher MTF score mean? What is it measuring?

odl said:

Now colour, that is a different deal, think about this, your tests showed less saturated reds on the image resource files for the E-5, and no magenta cast. Reds were less saturated on the E-5 all else was almost identical. I have also not hear complaints from E-5 owners about strange colour casts.

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. Msusic has been throwing around his crops for months (his answer to this post) and the E5 has purple casts where the the E3 has none and yet no one said anything. Indeed, we have heard no complaints or comments. What do you make of that?

odl said:

This test was interesting, I love the E-3, but your continued posts arguing with so many people is showing a slight bias. Like this reply. You completely ignored his linked files, as you believe there is no real advantage beyond 2 MP for the E-5 you should have been surprised at this result.

Click to expand...

Rriley doesn't fully read (my) posts. He gets to a part that fires him off and he responds. As such, speaking technical with him doesn't work if you are disagreeing with him. See my previous thread if you want to see him completely missing the point of a post.

My post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38565180

You have to read these few posts to get the context:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38560110

His response:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38565246

There are more examples in that one thread alone.

odl said:

You just ignored it. This suggests a deeper agenda,

Click to expand...

Really?

odl said:

it suggests that your post and attempt at a point was incorrect does it not?

Click to expand...

Does it?

odl said:

If not why not?

Click to expand...

See above.

djbrom said:

rovingtim said:

... you can take up my challenge I set in the 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...

I have made comparisons myself in a real life test when i owned both cameras (with the same 12-60 lens with same settings) and noticed the difference regardless of how the files were processed.

Click to expand...

Using the same RAW engine and calling it even may not be the whole story because from what I have seen of Mr Cat's renditions, I can do a better job with E3 files with Lightroom.

I think RAW Therapee really does work well for the E5 though.

djbrom said:

Dont get me wrong, the e3 can pump out some detail if processed well and I have seen this in my own files. I dont need to take up your challange...i am happy with what I have seen with my eyes and testing.

Click to expand...

No problem.

djbrom said:

Having said that I have seen the comparison that someone else has done of the files on equal terms and again there is nothing more to say.

Click to expand...

Equal terms ... are you sure?

(see my post to odl, the part about mtf scores: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38590874 )

djbrom said:

Tim, im not putting down the e3

Click to expand...

I don't love the E3. I love the E1. Put down the E1 and I will become irrational and illogical.

djbrom said:

But thats not the discussion here, the ability to resolve detail is and it is clear that the e3 is not capable of producing the detail the e5 can and thats a known fact (due to aa filter).

Click to expand...

I didn't say otherwise. What I'm objecting to is the sense the E5 kills the E3 in terms of detail. From the images I have seen posted here, that is not the case. I think the E5 is a bit better. At no time do I suggest the E3 matches the E5 in detail.

djbrom said:

But the e3 also does not exibit moire to the same degree that the e5 does.

Click to expand...

Some people define moire is only rainbow patterns of colour, so I would like to add 'colour casts' and 'false detail' to that as well.

djbrom said:

I have seen differences between all lenses I have (im obviously excluding lense i never used on the e3) which are the 12-60, 11-22, 50 & 50-200. There is a difference with these lenses and i could only imagine what the difference would be with the SHG's.

Click to expand...

See msusc's crops. They are in the answer immediately after my OP.

rovingtim said:

rovingtim said:

He has made a very valid point using external and accepted information.

Click to expand...

He's been banging on about me using highly magnified crops to point out moire. That was what that was about. The clue is my next statement in the post to him:

Click to expand...

You are still ignoring the resolution measured in his links, do you agree or disagree with their resolution measurements. If you disagree why? Dont answer questions with questions, if you dont know that there is a problem then you are speculating.

rovingtim said:

So, odl, what is your 'deeper agenda' for not noticing this?

Click to expand...

What are you banging on about? I am not going to follow your trail of breadcrums, this started out as an interesting thread (despite your false colour detail in the bottle text lines and slight over sharpening of the e3). But you claim there is no real resolution advantage to the E-5, and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

rovingtim said:

It's interesting that you bring this up because I was thinking about the mtf's just before I logged on. Are they taken before sharpening? Which demosiacing engine do they use?

Click to expand...

One would assume they use some sort of standardization (which is a good thing). Therefore the rest doesnt really matter at least when comparing their apples to their apples.

rovingtim said:

When I was working with the crops to post with Mr Cat's crops, I couldn't get the E5's 200% crop of the print to be as clear as the Raw Therapee's rendition no matter what I did. On the other hand, I could bring out other detail that RAW Therapee was missing, especially in the E3 shot. In other words, from my experience it seems RAW Therapee is better suited to the E5 than the E3. So, person who sees 'deeper agenda's', what does a higher MTF score mean? What is it measuring?

Click to expand...

We cant see that, so we have to take your word for it.

rovingtim said:

Funny you should say that. Msusic has been throwing around his crops for months (his answer to this post) and the E5 has purple casts where the the E3 has none and yet no one said anything. Indeed, we have heard no complaints or comments. What do you make of that?

Click to expand...

That people were staying in subject, and admiring the sharpness of the shots. WHo knows why the magenta was there, you yourself just talked about software having different effects on files, so that is okay for one paragraph but not good enough for the next?

rovingtim said:

Rriley doesn't fully read (my) posts. He gets to a part that fires him off and he responds. As such, speaking technical with him doesn't work if you are disagreeing with him. See my previous thread if you want to see him completely missing the point of a post.

Click to expand...

You basically said the E-5 has no resolution advantage beyond 2 MP. If to double resolution you have to quadruple MP, to get a 30% increase with a 20% MP upping is a great achievement.

I am not here to moderate. You have also ignored my questions, why the charts mean nothing to you.

rovingtim said:

rovingtim said:

You just ignored it. This suggests a deeper agenda,

Click to expand...

Really?

Click to expand...

Yup, and i am not th eonly one who has seen it.

rovingtim said:

rovingtim said:

it suggests that your post and attempt at a point was incorrect does it not?

Click to expand...

Does it?

Click to expand...

I believe it does.

rovingtim said:

rovingtim said:

If not why not?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

They dont answer my question, which was, do you dispute these numbers, which line up with the experience of the E-5 users, if you do, why?

--
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

boggis the cat said:

rovingtim said:

Here are your crops next to my attempts.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that you're missing the apples and oranges point.

Click to expand...

The E5 is different from the E3 but you claim the E5 has better detail. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You use the same RAW developer on an apple and an orange and then claim it is equal. How so?

My challenge is simple. Pick any demosiacing process and any pp process with you E5 and I pick whatever I want with the E3 and then we compare.

All different cameras are apples and oranges. That's like claiming the reason an airplane crashed is gravity: correct, but completely useless information.

The final product is the file is 'apples and oranges' make and then we compare. You are claiming my 'apples and oranges' are flaws but not yours.

By the way, I never said the E3 has as much or more detail as the E5; I said 'not by much'. It's in the title of this thread.

boggis the cat said:

You can get better results from either camera with different post-processing. Why not apply a Gaussian blur to the E-5 result and claim that the E-3 has more detail? It would be just as valid.

Click to expand...

Really? You are a strange Cat.

boggis the cat said:

It is still pretty obvious in your unequal processing samples that the E-5 has more actual detail. Compare the samples to the Pentax 645D sample (that has the highest resolution available of that scene) and you can see the fabric detail quite easily.

Click to expand...

I used the D3x, but you are right that the Pentax has more still. Since I had already posted the D3x crops to show the real cloth patterns as evidence of false detail in the E5 file, I didn't quite understand your condescending tone in your post in the other thread ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38584987

Really. A good point? Well, good thing I had already made it then ... in the original comparison.

No wonder you keep missing the point.