XZ1 -- A real dissappointment

And your explanation for the water color smearing of trees in the area right over the rooftops on the right is....?

Camp Freddy said:

Wiz: as per Kevdugg:

the XZ1 shot shows a different focal range, being at f2.8: in fact I think the details on the church are sharper, while the hills show a highly technical issue ie out of focus.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=39549000 for the S95 comments and some samples. Noise at base ISO with the 95 for example.

--
================================
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.
=============================

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I knew from readings, because I always shoot with cameras that only have JPEG. Now I'd like to ask you the following question: how it's possible that the software put noise in the image, (since that is the only explanation why RAW is OK and JPEG noisy), as the noise level is given by the sensor and not by the other parameters?

Thank you for taking your time to answer me.

Augustin

Kevdog said:

Raw takes the "raw" output of the sensor and writes it to a file with only light processing. The camera settings do not have much effect on the raw image, once you get beyond aperture, shutter, ISO and focus. Then at the computer, you can apply the other settings like color mode, white balance, exposure compensation, even art filters and black and white at your computer. You can change them and see how the picture comes out.

JPeg takes the raw image and applies all the settings like WB and exposure compensation etc and applies them to the photo with the camera's processor, then saves it to the disk.

If you use Olympus Viewer 2 (the free program for Olympus cameras) to convert the raw file then you can get exactly the same jpeg as if it came out of the camera. So the image quality would be the same if you didn't change any settings.

But, to address the op's concern, you set the noise reduction from normal to low and the detail "smearing" goes away.

Also, it is so nice to be able to fix white balance issues after the fact rather than having to worry what kind of lighting you are under.

Raw XZ-1 files are about 10MB vs 4MB, so yes about 2.5 times bigger. That means less photos on the card and more HD space taken up. HD space is cheap these days (I have 4TB of space in the comp and a 2TB external backup drive).

If you get advanced, you can use other raw processors which have many more options for sharpening and color enhancements. You can "push" the files even harder for detail.

But I am quite happy just shooting raw and processing with OV2. I use Picasa for quick previews (it reads Oly Raw just fine). I only convert the pictures we really like for printing for the albums.

Click to expand...

Please pardon me to break into a conversation like this and contradicting you, but the church details are sharper in the Fuji sample: just look at the clock, tiles, statues (some sword is visible on the right one at Fuji, but totally invisible at Oly), cross...

Sorry...

Camp Freddy said:

Wiz: as per Kevdugg:

the XZ1 shot shows a different focal range, being at f2.8: in fact I think the details on the church are sharper, while the hills show a highly technical issue ie out of focus.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=39549000 for the S95 comments and some samples. Noise at base ISO with the 95 for example.

--
================================
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.
=============================

Click to expand...

If possible, I would suggest that you repeat the test on your XZ-1 after a factory reset.

How you arrived at the 1/13 sec, -0.3EV setting? Is the shutter speed picked by the camera or you are using M or S mode to override it? The more I look at your XZ-1 sample, the more I think your picture is under exposed.

The Raw image has no noise reduction applied (and you can see the noise when viewing the raw directly). The default XZ-1 JPeg engine (for some godforsaken reason) has high noise reduction, which does produce the smearing seen.

When processing the Raw to JPeg image in Oly Viewer 2, you can actually set the noise reduction manually. Setting it to Low eliminates the smearing, while still getting rid of the noise (see my 2 examples earlier in the thread). As mentioned before why they don't put the noise reduction as a setting in the menus as they do in the PENs is a mystery to all of us.

I have 2 suggestions:

1. You have a bad XZ-1. It happens... build quality not as good as the Japanese made cameras.

2. Shooting at f2.8 the depth of field is causing it to be a bit out of focus. Shooting it at f4 of f5.6 would've produced a sharper image. Most lenses are sharper when stopped down.

Thanks for providing samples, however it seems to me the two similar shots of the pens were not shot under the exact same lighting conditions.

The XZ-1 seems to have been shot with a light coming from the left in the picture, perhaps natural light through a window, while the S95 sample seems to have artificial light covering the room from above.

I base this on the fact that on the S95 sample there is a shadow directly below the piano bench, on the XZ-1 sample there is a faint shadow to the right of the bench. The white frame on the bookshelf looks much brighter on the S95 than on the XZ-1 sample.

Today I tried to get a similar result like yours and I almost achived this, but the lighting conditions where very dark in order for me to get this result, I am guessing that the S95 under similar conditions would look bad too.

So I don't think your samples here are telling much more than there were very different lighting conditions when you shot them.

I am posting both of your shots here for people to judge for themselves.

Seamus -

Thanks for the added comments. Howevcer I can assure you that the two pics... although not actually shot as "one after the other" - because I just did not realise that I would get this result .. but the XZ-1 was shot in late evening..just one center-of-room incandescent bulb and it was by no means a very good light - hence I'm sure why the camera HAD to resort to the exposure given, in order to get a pic at all.. ALL these pics by the way were in P mode with Auto ISO .. the main camera setting (and JPG of course)

After I'd seen the result..some days after in fact - when this post started raising some interesting comments - I shot the same pic (as best as I could get it reasonably the same ) with the S95..again SAME basic camera settings then the camera did the taking...and you will have seen that the S95 did it just a little different (because mostly I think the difference between f1.8 and f2 lenses..) but the shooting position AND the light was as near the same as makes no difference.

Although it's not that outstanding to see..you CAN discern the very OOF shadow area under the right-hand end of the piano keyboard..BOTH pics have it and in similar/same positions..that is due to the relative position to the single overhead bulb AND they WERE at similar late evening time...very poor light..but the S95 certainly did give the result a somewhat better look than the XZ-1 managed.

In one sense..yes..I suppose you could say that the pic IS under-exposed. It's certainly not the condition I would normally bother with..but bear in mind..the camera (neither) gave ANY indication whatever that the chosen exposure settings were way out - no flashing blinking light oir anything to warn of that - so it must surely have considered it within tolerance for shooting in some degree.

However.. after all this , I now have another one to show.. I did this today..just really in case this posting continued to raise comments. I had seen nothing until your post..but now I think it may be of interest. THIS is again as far as I could get what I thought a near same positioning etc.. but THIS one (below) is the XZ-1 again..same subect matter.. same sort of position.. but mid-day today , which happened to be a quite (unusually for us) bright day...some sun coming into the room (at the front where the sun IS during the day) so giving a decent light IN the room..but NONE acting direct on the subect in this position... just giving the better room brightness.
To say the least- I think it shows better ?? what say you...

This by the way is from a RAW..(I shot both together but processed the RAW as it gave me a chance to do that. I can honestly say though that I see no appreciable difference between the RAW and the JPG one.

Not the best editing I do confess... but it makes no real difference for the comparison really





--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

this comparison seems a mess to me. how hard would it be to reshoot under REALLY identical conditions, at same time and place, and then show the pictures. Seems your sensitivity to light may not be as precise as some others--the pictures were CLEARLY not shot in identical conditions, no matter how similar they seems to you.

reshoot and lets take another look?

And anyone else with the same cameras could shoot something similar, too, which would give us another comparison.

Good luck--

fbx said:

this comparison seems a mess to me. how hard would it be to reshoot under REALLY identical conditions, at same time and place, and then show the pictures. Seems your sensitivity to light may not be as precise as some others--the pictures were CLEARLY not shot in identical conditions, no matter how similar they seems to you.

reshoot and lets take another look?

And anyone else with the same cameras could shoot something similar, too, which would give us another comparison.

Good luck--

Click to expand...

I don't think you really read my post thoroughly. The latest examples were NOT shot under identical conditions - that was the whole point - my first posted pics were intended to display the VERY poor result I got when shot under artificial light - late evening and with a dreadful result. I've included other comparison pics in other posts to show the difference I got with the S95... that in identical conditions late evening.

But this last one directly above was SAID to be shot as 'same pic and location' as near as reasonable...but this time in DAYLIGHT.

It was not STATED to be in identical condition as the very first - quite the opposite...to SHOW the change of course.
Frankly I'm fed up of the whole business.

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

I love a good gear stoush!

Augustin Man said:

That's exactly what I knew from readings, because I always shoot with cameras that only have JPEG. Now I'd like to ask you the following question: how it's possible that the software put noise in the image, (since that is the only explanation why RAW is OK and JPEG noisy), as the noise level is given by the sensor and not by the other parameters?

Thank you for taking your time to answer me.

Augustin

Click to expand...

So just to amplify Kevdog's answer a bit:

The software doesn't put noise in the image. It puts smearing in the image. It's not that the RAW is OK and JPEG is noisy, it's that the RAW is OK and the JPEG is smeared. The software is supposed to reduce noise in the RAW, but it goes overboard, and ends up smearing out valid detail because the software "thinks" the detail is noise.

Dwip said:

Dwip wrote:

So just to amplify Kevdog's answer a bit:

The software doesn't put noise in the image. It puts smearing in the image. It's not that the RAW is OK and JPEG is noisy, it's that the RAW is OK and the JPEG is smeared. The software is supposed to reduce noise in the RAW, but it goes overboard, and ends up smearing out valid detail because the software "thinks" the detail is noise.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much both of you: I've just learned another important thing about RAW and JPEG.

Take a RAW picture, open it in Oly Viewer 2 and play with all the settings. It's enlightening. You can even do gradiation of high-key, low-key, etc, change to B&W, use exposure compensation, all sorts. Try it and play with it. You'll learn a lot about what the camera does and how it does it. You also might get hooked on Raw shooting

When my wife and I take pictures, we basically just have to make sure it is in focus and exposed correctly (or nearly so). We can change most everything else after the fact!

--
Aloha,
jan/aja
FCAS Member #128, Oly Division
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=14354990
http://aja2.deviantart.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmitchell_photography/
O L Y T O Y S : C 2 1 0 0, C 8 0 8 0, C 7 0 0 0, E 5 1 0 x 2

You can have mine with pleasure - if you are prepared to pay the post - which will be 250 UKP..
Only 25 clicks...

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire

What I notice in the EXIF of the files is that the picture which has the bad quality, is that is had a manual exposure. The picture made by the Canon and this new picture had auto-exposure. Could you have had it accidentally at manual and that way got an underexposed picture?
--

1. ##Olympus XZ-1, Olympus SP550UZ; Olympus 2003 Ferrari Edition###

Photo-Wiz said:

RAW takes much more room on the hard disk, and requires you to fiddle and fine tune every picture. I don't mind doing that for a few of the better photos. But I don't want to do that on every photo

Click to expand...

You don't have to do that at all, that's a misconception. It really doesn't need to be any longer or more difficult process than using JPEGs. In fact, a lot of times I find it shorter, and the results are usually better.

meanwhile said:

meanwhile said:

RAW takes much more room on the hard disk, and requires you to fiddle and fine tune every picture.

Click to expand...

You don't have to do that at all, that's a misconception. It really doesn't need to be any longer or more difficult process than using JPEGs. In fact, a lot of times I find it shorter, and the results are usually better.

Click to expand...

To be fair it depends on the Raw converter. Some of the manufacturer-supplied raw converters are awful to use, while Lightroom is a total pleasure.

--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

Sho-Bud said:

What I notice in the EXIF of the files is that the picture which has the bad quality, is that is had a manual exposure. The picture made by the Canon and this new picture had auto-exposure. Could you have had it accidentally at manual and that way got an underexposed picture?

Click to expand...

I often wonder if some people who make posts do actually read all the previous posts that are obviously relative to a particular matter.

In quite an early post of mine here I made it quite clear that ALL pics are generally taken in P mode.. and that is the case here.

I've found that it can give different EXIF data often according to what you use to show that... and I've myself found in some EXIF progs that I find "Manual Exposure" for no clear reason.. these were ALL in P mode with the actual lighting making the camera set what exposures were given... and there was NO indication of any sort of 'error' or under-exposure on the camera .. certainly the expected 'beware' of a low shutter setting (as the first ones were in VERY low and difficult evening conditions with just one central incandescent bulb.. but the first pics in that condition were BOTH exactly the same..one by the XZ-1 and one by the Canon S95..

--
eric-UK
Staffordshire