CNET Olympus E-P3 review- worse IQ than the E-P2??

[jj74e]

E-P3 review: http://reviews.cnet.com/search-results/olympus-e-p3-with/4505-5_7-34843848.html?tag=latestReviews

Apparently, the E-P3's image quality got worse compared to the E-P2 due to worse JPEG processing, and somehow the design is worse too compared to the E-P2 (just looking at the category ratings)

E-P2 review: http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/olympus-pen-e-p2/4505-6501_7-34069604.html?tag=mncol ;lst;1

 

[Laszlo13]

Wow - I usually don't find the CNET reviews to be this direct and forthcoming. They summed up the observations many on this forum made. Wouldn't shoot JPEGS with standards noise canceling over ISO 200! And a suggestion to shoot RAW with an Olympus (assuming raw will indeed be better). What a change from the previous generation of Oly cameras. Maybe their JPEG guru went over to Panasonic and worked on the G3? (Not that G3 JPEGs are perfect).

 

[sderdiarian]

Maybe their JPEG guru went over to Panasonic and worked on the G3? (Not that G3 JPEGs are perfect).

+1

The JPEG comparison on DPR's preview shows the E-P3's default settings to be way over-cooked, lots of smearing and over saturated colors. Hardly the giant step forwards I'd been hoping for. And at a $450 premium with EVF over the G3, no deal Oly.
--
Sailin' Steve

 

[kermitG9]

I traditionally use the image comparometer at Imaging Resource to get my first opinion.

Look at the 1600 ISO .. I think it's not an unreasonable sensitivity nowadays.. and compare the E-P2 and E-P3.. What is immediately apparent to me:

The E-P3 clearly applies stronger NR and then adds stronger sharpening on top of it.

A few examples:

• You can see that the black mat top left lacks details on the E-P3 but that the circular wood thing (sorry.. don't know how it's called in english) is sharper on the E-P3.

• Look at the pencil box.. Looks sharper on the E-P3 but you'll see that the light and dark green areas are blotchy on the E-P3. The pencils themselves are showing clear artificats on the E-P3.

• The tea cup (bottom right) looks a priori cleaner on the E-P3 but the mat underneath has lost all its details vs. the E-P2.

I see many other details .. but I'll stop here.

So in a nutshell .. these pictures are just showing that they've modified the JPEG engine software to fool the average shooter i.e. that's the shooter who thinks that IQ is better because it just looks sharper .. and who forgets about texture detail.

I'm waiting to see the raw files.. but I remain very, very sceptical about that new(?) sensor. Anyway, I'd also be curious to know how Olympus defines "new" here.. Having worked in that area for another company, I do have my little idea here..

 

[CharlesB58]

Thus far most reviewers are using default settings. I don't know about m4/3, but nobody who understands how to maximize IQ uses the default settings on the Olympus E series dslrs.

There is talk that Olympus concentrated more on the FAST AF with the new engine at the expense of IQ. Firmware can fix this in all likelihood if that's the case.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

 

[Photog74]

Thus far most reviewers are using default settings. I don't know about m4/3, but nobody who understands how to maximize IQ uses the default settings on the Olympus E series dslrs.

Well the photographyblog samples I linked to in another post were taken with NF turned off - or at least that's what they are saying in a comment underneath the post.

 

[Mr.NoFlash]

I still assume that parts of the sensor do not have RGGB, it has RIGB where I is a pixel for autofocus only.

Now it appears to me that came with some cost on the affected areas.

But for me, AF is more important than pixelbeeping.

So the tradeoff is not perfect, but for me ( and I hav 4/3 DSLRs ), that E-P3 is the first m43 camera really useable, because very powerful AF.

cheers

Mr.NoFlash

 

[kiynook]

I agree totally.

E-P3 has lots of changes when compared with E-P2.

My humble comparison over 2 weeks of play is available here.. http://www.scribd.com/search?query=koonyik

my humble SOOC pictures of the 2 weeks play available for download at http://www.flickr.com/photos/9362016@N03/

 

[GrahamJohn]

Check the dpreview comparometer. If you look at the medallions on the bottle you should be able to clearly see a series of horizontal lines. With the epl-2, they are clearly defined. With the e-p3, they are blurred. I'm wondering if the new sensor has a stronger anti-alias filter than the old. Which would be a very bad thing.

 

[453C]

Wow - I usually don't find the CNET reviews to be this direct and forthcoming. They summed up the observations many on this forum made. Wouldn't shoot JPEGS with standards noise canceling over ISO 200! And a suggestion to shoot RAW with an Olympus (assuming raw will indeed be better). What a change from the previous generation of Oly cameras. Maybe their JPEG guru went over to Panasonic and worked on the G3? (Not that G3 JPEGs are perfect).

The observations many on this forum have made based on other people's incomplete reviews? I guess all of this may be important to the pre-order crowd, but I'd rather see a real, full review. Even better, several full reviews.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

 

[sderdiarian]

I agree totally.

E-P3 has lots of changes when compared with E-P2.

My humble comparison over 2 weeks of play is available here.. http://www.scribd.com/search?query=koonyik

my humble SOOC pictures of the 2 weeks play available for download at http://www.flickr.com/photos/9362016@N03/

Thanks, Chin. for a very fun exploration of the E-P3's features. Sounds very customizable with many programmable buttons and everything about focusing (speed, touch screen, 49 focus points) sound like a real improvement.

What many have been seeing in sample photos in terms of over-saturation of colors can hopefully be toned down by using a "natural" instead of "standard" setting.

Hopefully the noise reduction can be turned down or off to eliminate the smearing seen in DPR's JPEG ISO comparisons.

I'll wait for a true full test in forming an opinion, but your informal "tour" was fun and informative!
--
Sailin' Steve

 

[kiynook]

Thanks man and glad to contribute.

Unfortunately I am not technical but like others we find one of the biggest undisclosed gain is the the increased compatibility of the 4/3 lenses.

I played with my existing ZD 14-54 Mk II on it and there is already youtube on it with ZD 12-60mm.

Robin Wong's 2nd part of his review was on his existing ZD 50mm f2 - http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/07/olympus-e-p3-review-kuala-lumpur-night.html

Understandably so, since Olympus is replacing its E-xxx with the PEN so the push to make it more compatible with its existing HG and SHG lenses.

Such insights can be only shared with the community by existing users of 4/3 lenses.

 

[don_van_vliet]

Surely anyone with half a brain will choose their own JPEG settings?

I try to shoot at ISO200 wherever possible, and leave noise reduction off. I find that with the EPL-1 noise reduction smears details.

If I happen to shoot a high ISO image I can always add noise reduction in PP, on the other hand you can't undo the damage that heavy-handed NR does.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

. . . The OP ought to remember that it's not the jpeg engine in question here but rather the user settings.

Surely anyone with half a brain will choose their own JPEG settings?

I try to shoot at ISO200 wherever possible, and leave noise reduction off. I find that with the EPL-1 noise reduction smears details.

If I happen to shoot a high ISO image I can always add noise reduction in PP, on the other hand you can't undo the damage that heavy-handed NR does.

 

[453C]

I agree.

It was a brief look at the camera, nothing more. Olympus has had years to work with this basic sensor, and I seriously doubt they made overall IQ worse than earlier models. There are informative bits in these 1st day mini-reviews, but too much has been made over them. Let's see RAW performance, and more extensive testing with adjustments before getting excited about any of this.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

 

[jj74e]

. . . The OP ought to remember that it's not the jpeg engine in question here but rather the user settings.

Surely anyone with half a brain will choose their own JPEG settings?

I try to shoot at ISO200 wherever possible, and leave noise reduction off. I find that with the EPL-1 noise reduction smears details.

If I happen to shoot a high ISO image I can always add noise reduction in PP, on the other hand you can't undo the damage that heavy-handed NR does.

Well my original post was in reference with the CNET review, which referred to worse JPEG processing by default. My main point was that default IQ was worse. Obviously RAW output would be at least the same as predecessor models and JPEG settings could be customized, points also mentioned in the review.

 

[BushmanOrig]

Great review for a bunch of housewifes and nothing against housewifes....

Talk for 5 min on a cam that can take a good presenter hours to go through in depth and then as a afterthought mention the picture quality is not that great without any reason why......I did not even finished this poor video.....

Please guys think of your own credibility before showing this sort of poor editorial stuff behind your name....

Its clear that the pictures quality can at best not be that much better than the E-PL2 which already kicks out awesome image quality. What you will see with the E-P3 is a lot of refinement plus a few really outstanding new things like the new FAST AF.....

If you one of those pixel peeping a jpeg file to compaare then dont buy the E-P3...here you will have to really look at the sum of parts to discover it....

Siegfried

--
Community of Photographers
http://www.photographyisfun.ch

 

[Landscapephoto99]

The problem is that Oly dropped the ball on the sensor. From all reports at this point, there is no improvement and it may even be worse. Oly did a good job with the AF, and they still have that nice in-camera IS. But that alone is not going to be enough to attract customers from say the Panasonic G2 or GH2 & upcoming GH3 that also have fast enough AF and are better in almost every way than Olympus.

Outside of in-camera IS, the main competitive advantage of Oly seems to be the nice-looking design of their cameras. But that's it.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

The problem is that Oly dropped the ball on the sensor. From all reports at this point, there is no improvement and it may even be worse. Oly did a good job with the AF, and they still have that nice in-camera IS. But that alone is not going to be enough to attract customers from say the Panasonic G2 or GH2 & upcoming GH3 that also have fast enough AF and are better in almost every way than Olympus.

. . . We don't yet have support with any RAW editing program for the E-P3 and I haven't yet seen any jpegs from a capable photographer with the NR and sharpening settings reduced. Your statement about this sensor being no better and maybe worse is premature and very likely wrong.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

Well my original post was in reference with the CNET review, which referred to worse JPEG processing by default. My main point was that default IQ was worse. Obviously RAW output would be at least the same as predecessor models and JPEG settings could be customized, points also mentioned in the review.

. . . It's great that you and cnet know about NR and sharpening settings but why all the talk about default settings as well? To mention these positive things but then emphasize the default settings as being important makes no sense. This is not an entry level camera and is intended for serious enthusiasts who aren't afraid to go into the settings menu. I suspect that this camera is very likely capable of producing outstanding IQ in the right hands which is far more important than whether P&S users who only know how to use i-auto will get their money's worth from a camera that wasn't marketed toward them. Those people can always buy an E-PL1 with the kit zoom for $399 or the new E-PM1 for a little more money and probably be tickled pink with the results.