XZ1 -- A real dissappointment

I recently took my XZ1 on a trip to Europe. The pictures looked good on camera LCD. But when I got home and loaded them on the computer, I was stunned by the amount of noise/detail smearing even at low ISO. I had not noticed the problem when I tried the camera out before the trip. The pictures are well exposed and have beautiful colors. But when you crop a picture, it is amazing how much noise appears on the faces of people and the smearing of leaves and building details.

I'm not talking about noise appearing at pixel peeping levels; I'm talking in ordinary picture on a 24 inch screen. Needless to say, I decided to sell the camera and go back to my old Canon S90. Olympus designed a well thought out camera in other respects. The ergonomics and features are great. I love the F1.8 lens. But the smearing of details makes this camera totally unacceptable. I can't believe the high rating it got on Dpreview. I went back and looked at the Digital Resources review and it pointed out the XZ1 smearing problem.

I

This has been hashed out here many times. To get the full potential of the XZ-1, you need to shoot raw. Some people are OK with this; some people aren't. Vive la différence.

Surely there is some way to minimize the smearing without shooting raw? I would prefer to shoot jpg but I don't want the NR etc to destroy the details of the pictures.

Options?

fbx said:

Surely there is some way to minimize the smearing without shooting raw? I would prefer to shoot jpg but I don't want the NR etc to destroy the details of the pictures.

Options?

Click to expand...

Setting sharpening to +1 helps a bit. Also, you won't really notice it when you're not pixel peeping. When you print small to medium, or look at 50% reduced size from an appropiate distance it is hardly noticable. I show most pics straight out of the camera on my 37" HDTV via the HDMI cable and at 3m(10ft) away on the couch you really don't see any smearing.

Users have different perception about smearing, which might be the result of their units performing... well – differently. This might be an explanation why I could sign under Photo-Wiz's statement: “I can't believe the high rating it got on Dpreview.”

Copy-paste from http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=39399959

Yep, it seems like XZ-1 units do not have a constant quality across the production line.

It is not just video, pics quality as well! For example, I can not reach the quality of XZ-1 JPEGs provided under dpreview review. Not even close - NR in my unit simply smears all details, hair, clothes patterns - terrible.

I am speaking about out-of-camera JPEGs - mine XZ-1 acts like a very distant cousin to the unit dpreview used.”

I think that I have to agree in general with the OP here. I've only had my XZ-1 a fairly short time and actually not done a vast amount of pics with it so far..certainly not a great variety either , to maybe show any differences when conditions vary.

But a few little things have bothered me quite soon. I expected to be able to get even better low-light pics than my S95 or one or two others I've used have done.. but one I did use as a trial in such way , quite surprised me. It WAS really low indoor light..but even so the open lens only took the ISO to 400.. a breeze I've found with several others...but on this XZ-1 shot I was a bit appalled..the blotching was pretty bad in the low-light areas.. really so...yet with my S95 I've taken pics (even though by mistake) at ISO 2500 and got quite excellent results..so much so that I've had to really convince myself that I DID shoot at that high ISO, albeit in error.

I just don't think the XZ-1 is that capable... and myself also will certainly not be parting in a hurry with my S95..a lovely camera..AND Of course a truly shirt-pocket one when needed.

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

Sorry to sound stupid but what is smearing? Is smearing that watercolour kind of effect that noise reduction produces?

I have seen many very sharp images here (before DP's aweful compression the last couple of weeks: anyone else notice?) and although the DR and higher ISO is not DSRL quality I don't see this as a big issue versus the other high end single lens-ers.

I am concerned about the QA in china, but this is an issue oly will down on like a tonne of ISO standard brickettes.

All in all I just await it in the local chains in Norway so I can handle it before trying it as second camera to DSLR.
--
================================
Enjoying Photography like never before with the E-450!
Images, photo and gimp tips:
http://olympe450rants.blogspot.com/

NORWEGIAN WOOD GALLERY
http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/888

Olympus' Own E450 Gallery http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e450/sample/

"to be is to do" Descartes;
"to do is to be" Satre ;

............................"DoBeDoBeDo" Sinatra.
=============================

I always find it very difficult to discuss image quality without seeing a single sample.

Thomas

cadet stimpy said:

Sorry to sound stupid but what is smearing? Is smearing that watercolour kind of effect that noise reduction produces?

Click to expand...

Well, I think it is useless to get into technical explanations here..it is just not required really in order to give you any answer.

I don't go for pure technical things..I go on what I SEE..I may know generally what it is but that means nothing.. it is what you SEE that matters...

And what I think is generally called smearing might well be said in common language to be above all ... a very noticeable softness of big parts of an image..a sort of much less than good sharpness over various areas is maybe one way of describing it..just a general lack of the clarity that you would look for.

But also I've seen in the main bad example I had from a modest high ISO pic..in the more shadow or shaded areas..which did not get the full exposure as that was given WHERE it was meant to be...but those shaded less exposed parts of the pic had awful chroma noise..that is a VERY obvious amount of colored small intermixed patches..difficult to describe in words (for me) but pretty awful to look at when you expect such a lot more from a camera of this kind...

I've just never had it at all like the same from my S95.. and frankly I certainly would NOT regard the XZ as a fully comparable or secondary camera as any sort of back-up to a dSLR...

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

Seamus said:

I always find it very difficult to discuss image quality without seeing a single sample.

Thomas

Click to expand...

Well, look at this...then check the EXIF... Gosh..my S95 would eat that and spit it out.. I've had stupendously better pics...in the same location and condition.. and wonderful results...





--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

I've never seen a pic this bad from an XZ-1 unless this is an extreme crop. Is it?

Download the free Noiseware Community Edition and process the pic with this app. It is amazing a getting rid of noise without smearing.

ericN2 said:

But a few little things have bothered me quite soon. I expected to be able to get even better low-light pics than my S95 or one or two others I've used have done.. but one I did use as a trial in such way , quite surprised me. It WAS really low indoor light..but even so the open lens only took the ISO to 400.. a breeze I've found with several others...but on this XZ-1 shot I was a bit appalled..the blotching was pretty bad in the low-light areas.. really so...yet with my S95 I've taken pics (even though by mistake) at ISO 2500 and got quite excellent results..so much so that I've had to really convince myself that I DID shoot at that high ISO, albeit in error.

Click to expand...

FWIW, my experience with regards to the S95 and the XZ-1 was the opposite of yours.

For my non-expert eyes (and my wife's as well btw) the photos we took indoors with the XZ-1 looked a lot better than the ones we had with the S95 (which I returned). We reviewed pictures from both cameras scaled in a 23" monitor (thus not at 100%). We didn't compare near-identical photos, but dozens of pictures taken in our house with the same cameras during (roughly) the same period.

Ken Sills said:

I've never seen a pic this bad from an XZ-1 unless this is an extreme crop. Is it?

Download the free Noiseware Community Edition and process the pic with this app. It is amazing a getting rid of noise without smearing.

Click to expand...

I had to downsize it just for HERE really...from original to I think it's 1200 pix UPRIGHT... but otherwise I did NOTHING , as it was meant to show as ex-cam.

For normal editing I've had Noiseware Pro as my main one of the type for years..plus a couple of others..Noise Control is quite good for a simple one (PhotoWiz I think that is)...

But altogether , while I've not really shot enough with the XZ-1 to give it a proper test I suppose..personal issues prevented doing as much...nevertheless just a few general shots I know I can compare with any others similar from other cameras.. about the house etc...just do not enthuse me in quite the same way I usually get from any of my varied enthusiastic camera choices...RARELY been let down from Day 1 before quite like this.. especially as it was to take the place of the S95...but the latter has been SO good ...AND of course SO easy to carry with no protruding bits at the front worth talking of, and a slightly smaller size anyway

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

and never shoot raw...my sooc jpegs are extremely crisp, sharp and detailed. last week i bought s95 and now it's for sale... not even close sharp and crisp photos that i can easily have with xz-1....

Boy that pen pic was bad! I've never gotten results that bad at iso200 with the XZ-1. Somethings wrong with your cam. Even my cell phone would probably do better at iso200.

I have the XZ-1. I have shown picture on a 62" 1080p TV and the image is simply stunning. I never had issue with smearing for photos taken with ISO 400 or below, displayed under the same condition on TV.

You wrote that you viewed your photos on a 24" screen. Are you seeing the entire picture down scaled to the monitor? Or only part of the picture pixel to pixel across the screen? If it is latter, you are pixel peeping.

A picture is worth a thousand words. It is best that you post a sample for us.

Well, MY sample and cause for complaint is in my post above - THIRD one in my name down the thread... and frankly it's a stinker !!

I've tried this same shot twice since...about same time of evening - exact same lighting and everything as the first.

For the sake of dpR I felt I had to downsize the original (JPG) at least..but no edits so it could be seen as it is.

And I've just now d/loaded a RAW shot at ISO 400 from the Samples on PhotographyBlog site...the one I chose does seem a bit better..AND it's a daylight one anyway - but I see it still has quite a bit of noise and at the sort of view YOU get, I'm sure THAT would be pretty poor too.

Because the result is what it is..I'm sure that I cannot see or believe what camera fault it could be, and as may be imagined , I'm rather disappointed to say the least.

I've tried an exact same pic as in this thread, shot at same time, same place, with my S95, and the improved difference is unbelievable.

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

Photo-Wiz said:

I recently took my XZ1 on a trip to Europe. The pictures looked good on camera LCD. But when I got home and loaded them on the computer, I was stunned by the amount of noise/detail smearing even at low ISO.

Click to expand...

Too late I know, but as others have said, for full control over the noise / detail tradeoff you have to shoot raw, there's no other way.

Also, it's a good idea to fix the ISO at 100 rather than letting the camera decide by default. With a fast lens and a small sensor the vast majority of outdoor shots (and some indoor ones) should be fine at this setting.
--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

Model Mike said:

Too late I know, but as others have said, for full control over the noise / detail tradeoff you have to shoot raw, there's no other way.

Click to expand...

Unless there is a reasonable firmware update which defaults the gradation, sharpness and micro contrast up a little or alters the actual programme.

XZ2 is probably just a year away!

One issue that comes from this is that there are XZ1s and there are XZ1s . Like the 40-150mm and some bodies on the E series, there is variance in quality and that is not acceptable.

I have seen many really good ISO 100-400 shots around here and Flickr and am not concerned about this for a 450 USD camera. Like mike says below!: IBIS / f.18 wins.

Model Mike said:

Also, it's a good idea to fix the ISO at 100 rather than letting the camera decide by default. With a fast lens and a small sensor the vast majority of outdoor shots (and some indoor ones) should be fine at this setting.

Click to expand...

--
================================
Enjoying Photography like never before with the E-450!
Images, photo and gimp tips:
http://olympe450rants.blogspot.com/

NORWEGIAN WOOD GALLERY
http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/888

Olympus' Own E450 Gallery http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e450/sample/

"to be is to do" Descartes;
"to do is to be" Satre ;

............................"DoBeDoBeDo" Sinatra.
=============================