E-P1/E-P2 tips, hidden menu items

Started Jan 8, 2010 | Discussions
toon12 Contributing Member • Posts: 541
E-P1/E-P2 tips, hidden menu items

ok, only had it for a couple of days, and discovered one or two things unexpectantly. Now, I am sure that if I was like most of you, I would sit down and study the manual for an extended period of time before even turning it on! However, being impatient and semi-illiterate, and having had a 510 with a similar menu system, I wanted to play with it right away. Anyways, through a little slogging through the menus I discovered two things:

1. The default setting for jpegs is Large/Fine, not Large/Superfine. To find the Superfine setting, you have to enable the deeper menus, go to G, and set the pics to L/SF. Now I have the lesser compression on JPEG's which I wonder how many people have even found?

2. When I got the camera (a refurb) I saw it had firmware 1.1, and I thought ok, that is done already. Then I read that in fact the lens had updates as well. Low and behold, my 14-42mm was still at version 1.0, and so I have updated it.

Anyways, any other tips/hidden menu items people can highlight for others enjoyment?
Regards,
Richard

brianf Senior Member • Posts: 1,225
Re: E-P1/E-P2 tips, hidden menu items

Thanks for the tip on Large/Superfine I missed that one when going through the manual.

 brianf's gear list:brianf's gear list
Canon PowerShot N
marcusaxlund Contributing Member • Posts: 701
Re: E-P1/E-P2 tips, hidden menu items

Did the updates make any real difference to you?

Do you need the Oly bundled software installed on your computer to make the updates (like on the "ordinary 43 system)?

br

Marcus

-- hide signature --

Canon/Olympus Prosumer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/
http://www.marcusaxlund.smugmug.com

5D mk2
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
17-40 f/4L
100 macro f/2,8
Canon EF 2x II Extender

Olympus E-P1
Olympus m4/3 14-42, f/3,5-5,6
Panasonic m4/3 7-14, f/4
Panasonic m4/3 14-45, f/3,5-5,6
Panasonic m4/3 45-200, f/4-5,6
Olympus FL-14
Olympus FL-50 R

 marcusaxlund's gear list:marcusaxlund's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II
OP toon12 Contributing Member • Posts: 541
Re: E-P1/E-P2 tips, hidden menu items

marcusaxlund wrote:

Did the updates make any real difference to you?

Do you need the Oly bundled software installed on your computer to make the updates (like on the "ordinary 43 system)?

Honestly can't say about how significant the improvement is. Only have had it for a couple of days, the body was updated already, but not the lens. But I figured it can't hurt. And yes, I think you need the bundled software on your system to update, don't know if there is another way to do it. I already had it from my 510.

Andrew Westlake Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
Now you've found superfine...

Now you've found where Olympus hid superfine, I'd strongly suggest you spend a bit of time looking very closely at the size/quality tradeoff compared to fine. Then, when you've worked out why they hid it, you can change the setting back to fine and forget all about it.

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 Andrew Westlake's gear list:Andrew Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus Stylus Verve S Olympus XZ-2 iHS Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
Bryan Biggers Veteran Member • Posts: 3,567
Re: Now you've found superfine...

Absolutely agree with that, there is no advantage that I can see or measure to using super fine instead of "normal".

 Bryan Biggers's gear list:Bryan Biggers's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M5 III
Abbazz
Abbazz Senior Member • Posts: 1,056
Re: Now you've found superfine...

Andy Westlake wrote:

Now you've found where Olympus hid superfine, I'd strongly suggest you spend a bit of time looking very closely at the size/quality tradeoff compared to fine. Then, when you've worked out why they hid it, you can change the setting back to fine and forget all about it.

+1

A "superfine" JPEG picture usually weights more than 10MB for absolutely no visible improvement in image quality over the "fine" setting.

Cheers!

Abbazz
--
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource: http://artbig.com/

richardkaufmann Forum Member • Posts: 58
Re: Now you've found superfine...

Thanks, I found RAW and won't ever change that setting ever again

But to actually be helpful: there are a number of useful settings hidden in a screen that will only appear in the menu list when you enable it. (In the "wrench" screen, enable the "gears" screen.)

Among other things, inside the gears menu page you'll be able to set hi and lo values for auto-iso, and will be able to assign the Fn button to a useful function.

Bob Tullis
Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 39,793
Re: Now you've found superfine...

Abbazz wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Now you've found where Olympus hid superfine, I'd strongly suggest you spend a bit of time looking very closely at the size/quality tradeoff compared to fine. Then, when you've worked out why they hid it, you can change the setting back to fine and forget all about it.

+1

A "superfine" JPEG picture usually weights more than 10MB for absolutely no visible improvement in image quality over the "fine" setting.

The way I understand it, until I'm sure of the final state of the capture, for OOC JPGS L/SF should be retained to give the best amount of data for any manipulation that might be desired post-snap. Saved/finished JPGs would be saved in a more compressed state, though, for the reason stated.

Or do I not understand it?

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T4
marcusaxlund Contributing Member • Posts: 701
Re: Now you've found superfine...

Does anyone know if this is the case or not?
Is there more head room for PP with the superfine setting?

Rumor or fact?

br

Marcus

Bob Tullis wrote:

Abbazz wrote:

Andy Westlake wrote:

Now you've found where Olympus hid superfine, I'd strongly suggest you spend a bit of time looking very closely at the size/quality tradeoff compared to fine. Then, when you've worked out why they hid it, you can change the setting back to fine and forget all about it.

+1

A "superfine" JPEG picture usually weights more than 10MB for absolutely no visible improvement in image quality over the "fine" setting.

The way I understand it, until I'm sure of the final state of the capture, for OOC JPGS L/SF should be retained to give the best amount of data for any manipulation that might be desired post-snap. Saved/finished JPGs would be saved in a more compressed state, though, for the reason stated.

Or do I not understand it?

-- hide signature --

Canon/Olympus Prosumer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/
http://www.marcusaxlund.smugmug.com

5D mk2
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
17-40 f/4L
100 macro f/2,8
Canon EF 2x II Extender

Olympus E-P1
Olympus m4/3 14-42, f/3,5-5,6
Panasonic m4/3 7-14, f/4
Panasonic m4/3 14-45, f/3,5-5,6
Panasonic m4/3 45-200, f/4-5,6
Olympus FL-14
Olympus FL-50 R

 marcusaxlund's gear list:marcusaxlund's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II
Andrew Westlake Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
How to find out for yourself

Bob Tullis wrote:

The way I understand it, until I'm sure of the final state of the capture, for OOC JPGS L/SF should be retained to give the best amount of data for any manipulation that might be desired post-snap.

This is one of those things that may sound obviously true, but turns out to be practically irrelevant in practice.

But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. You'll need a few raw files and your camera. You'll make use of a really well-hidden Oly feature, in-camera raw conversion. Because this uses the current camera settings, you can process the same file to fine and superfine then compare the versions directly.

Once you've got LF and LSF versions of a few files typical of what you shoot, look at them side-by-side and see if you can spot a difference. Overlay them in Photoshop and set some adjustment layers as extreme as you're likely to use, see if you think SF holds up better or not. Then make your own, now properly informed, decision.

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 Andrew Westlake's gear list:Andrew Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus Stylus Verve S Olympus XZ-2 iHS Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
Bob Tullis
Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 39,793
Re: How to find out for yourself

Andy Westlake wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

The way I understand it, until I'm sure of the final state of the capture, for OOC JPGS L/SF should be retained to give the best amount of data for any manipulation that might be desired post-snap.

This is one of those things that may sound obviously true, but turns out to be practically irrelevant in practice.

But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. You'll need a few raw files and your camera. . .

OK. All I have is RAW and cameras. I haven't massaged JPGs since 2001, but simply wanted to know if the RAW data mentality applied. Certainly the color space matters when needing to push things (before finishing and converting to sRGB).
.

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T4
Bryan Biggers Veteran Member • Posts: 3,567
Re: How to find out for yourself

Andy Westlake wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

The way I understand it, until I'm sure of the final state of the capture, for OOC JPGS L/SF should be retained to give the best amount of data for any manipulation that might be desired post-snap.

This is one of those things that may sound obviously true, but turns out to be practically irrelevant in practice.

But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. You'll need a few raw files and your camera. You'll make use of a really well-hidden Oly feature, in-camera raw conversion. Because this uses the current camera settings, you can process the same file to fine and superfine then compare the versions directly.

Once you've got LF and LSF versions of a few files typical of what you shoot, look at them side-by-side and see if you can spot a difference. Overlay them in Photoshop and set some adjustment layers as extreme as you're likely to use, see if you think SF holds up better or not. Then make your own, now properly informed, decision.

This is exactly the right way to do it. Check it for yourself. For the Normal/Superfine decision, take some RAW shots and processes them in the camera both ways. Then compare them anyway you want, peep the pixels, subtract them as layers, go nuts.

For the decision about using RAW, what I did was take a day's shooting with both RAW and JPEG. Then I put the JPEGs away with out looking at them, then spent as much time as I wanted with the RAW, in some cases 1/2 hr per file, going totally nuts processing the RAW files and peeping the pixels and tweeking the noise and sharpening and tone curve for each shot. Then I got the JPEGs out and compared. In almost every case, I preferred the JPEG, especially when I came to the color. Kind of shocking really. In some cases I wanted to go back and re-process my RAWs to try to match the color but could not. In some cases there was one area that looked better on on the RAW processing, and another area that looked worse (usually having to do with the noise or sharpening, since your settings apply to the entire image). There was no reason to really say that once was better than the other overall.

Then consider, do you want to spend that much time all the time to get results that are not as good or are pretty much the same? If it is fun for you, then yes, maybe you do. Yeah, I'll still shoot the occasional RAW, but I just don't want to spend that much time processing because it is not fun for me. For me, it is about taking the picture, composing and exposing it properly, not trying to fix it later.

 Bryan Biggers's gear list:Bryan Biggers's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M5 III
stimmer Veteran Member • Posts: 5,219
Andy, that's interesting to me..

I found that with my E3 the superfine actually did make a good difference. Interesting that it's not the case with the Pen models.

Andrew Westlake Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
What did you see with the E-3?

I did a series of comparisons with the E-3 across a number of Raw files and saw scarcely any difference at all (indeed measurably even less than with the E-P1). At ISO 100 I got maximum pixel value differences of 4, with absolutely no correlation to the image content at all - in essence SF just described chroma noise a bit more accurately.

I must stress that to make any comparison valid you must use conversions of the same raw file; you can't just take two sequential shots in SF then F.

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 Andrew Westlake's gear list:Andrew Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus Stylus Verve S Olympus XZ-2 iHS Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
marcusaxlund Contributing Member • Posts: 701
Re: What did you see with the E-3?

If so much pixel peeping is needed, then I guess the real difference is not really there.....

br

Marcus

Andy Westlake wrote:

I did a series of comparisons with the E-3 across a number of Raw files and saw scarcely any difference at all (indeed measurably even less than with the E-P1). At ISO 100 I got maximum pixel value differences of 4, with absolutely no correlation to the image content at all - in essence SF just described chroma noise a bit more accurately.

I must stress that to make any comparison valid you must use conversions of the same raw file; you can't just take two sequential shots in SF then F.

-- hide signature --

Canon/Olympus Prosumer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/
http://www.marcusaxlund.smugmug.com

5D mk2
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
17-40 f/4L
100 macro f/2,8
Canon EF 2x II Extender

Olympus E-P1
Olympus m4/3 14-42, f/3,5-5,6
Panasonic m4/3 7-14, f/4
Panasonic m4/3 14-45, f/3,5-5,6
Panasonic m4/3 45-200, f/4-5,6
Olympus FL-14
Olympus FL-50 R

 marcusaxlund's gear list:marcusaxlund's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II
kman1photo Forum Member • Posts: 99
Re: How to find out for yourself

Then consider, do you want to spend that much time all the time to get results that are not as good or are pretty much the same? If it is fun for you, then yes, maybe you do. Yeah, I'll still shoot the occasional RAW, but I just don't want to spend that much time processing because it is not fun for me. For me, it is about taking the picture, composing and exposing it properly, not trying to fix it later.

I totally agree -- after shooting RAW for several years and spending way too many hours processing files, I now primarily shoot JPG and if the scene looks like something I want to spend extra computer time with I will shoot both RAW and JPG

kman

J R R S Senior Member • Posts: 1,337
Re: Now you've found superfine...

Super Fine is good if you do alot of chipshop work - makes the auto trace wand and colour edge detection sharper, more acurate and faster to use... in some circumstances. Visualy though it is negligble - if you don't do loads of hard masks and only colour adjust the whole image in 1 set of curves then there is no point in using Super Fine.

J

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads