Pen-F : the best Olympus ever for image quality ?

I'm really surprise but face to face, in DPReview 'Image quality', the Pen-F has better sharpness and better contrast than the EM1 MKII.

At 100 or 3200 iso, in raw or jpeg, ...

So I decide to compare to other Olympus (EM10, EM5, EP5, ...), and everytime the Pen-F gives the best image quality.

Any explanation ?

I've noticed it, too. I originally bought my Pen F as a stopgap, intending to upgrade when the E-M1 II came out, but I don't see a compelling reason to do that. The Mark II does not seem to offer better IQ and may even be a bit worse. It's better than the original E-M1, but not better than the Pen F.

I'm not a sports or action shooter, so the only other remaining reason to upgrade would be the better algorithm of the hi-res mode on the Mark II. That's just not worth it, to me.

Yeah, there is an explanation. First, it was pointed out somewhere that dpreview used an inferior lens on the E-M1 II - and the camera might not have been ready for release. Second, it depends on what images you're comparing.

Other comparisons on sites like SLRclub and Imaging Resource show the E-M1 II having better detail and control of noise in JPEG than the PEN-F. I haven't seen enough RAW comparisons, but still, regardless of lens there are some worthwhile things to note from the dpreview comparison tool:

High ISO RAW - PEN-F vs. E-M1 II vs. GX8: overall, to my eyes, the PEN-F wins for noise, detail preservation, and color. Even if the lens is responsible for the latter two points, the PEN-F's shadow noise advantage (especially in the blue channel) stands out. The GX8 comes in second in this comparison.

Hopefully, there is nothing going on behind the scenes (like exposure differences) that would falsify this comparison. It's a lot harder to compare noise through a whole range of grays and colors on other sites.

JPEG is hard to compare, not only because of lenses, but because the testers only use the default settings. Still, we get a sense of noise control at high ISOs - and it depends on what you compare. Beyond ISO1600, I think Olympus JPEGs show less noise reduction mushiness than the GX8 and other new Panasonic cameras. (This matches my experience comparing my own GX85 and E-M5 II.) Even in dpr's comparison tool, the E-M1 II seems to pull ahead here. Still, in some places, I see better detail from the GX8 (ISO6400) - again, matching my experience with the GX85 and E-M5 II.

Personally, I like what I see from the PEN-F most. That's overall - the other 20MP cameras sometimes come out ahead. Between my own two 16MP cameras, the GX85 is a bit better overall, but not always - and that matters to me (e.g., the GX85 has a tendency to posterize JPEGs and turn skies to purple).

Surely you don't mean all R&D on IQ should stop at Olympus?  That no further improvement could/should ever be made.  

alexzz wrote:

I'm really surprise but face to face, in DPReview 'Image quality', the Pen-F has better sharpness and better contrast than the EM1 MKII.

At 100 or 3200 iso, in raw or jpeg, ...

So I decide to compare to other Olympus (EM10, EM5, EP5, ...), and everytime the Pen-F gives the best image quality.

Any explanation ?

Yes there is with respect to the E-M1MkII.  All DPR images are processed using a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw.

Denjw wrote:

alexzz wrote:

I'm really surprise but face to face, in DPReview 'Image quality', the Pen-F has better sharpness and better contrast than the EM1 MKII.

At 100 or 3200 iso, in raw or jpeg, ...

So I decide to compare to other Olympus (EM10, EM5, EP5, ...), and everytime the Pen-F gives the best image quality.

Any explanation ?

Yes there is with respect to the E-M1MkII. All DPR images are processed using a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw.

That is true and certainly not my experience.

I have bothe the E-M1 II and the Pen F and the E-M1 II wins, hands down. If Olympus offered me a chance to swap the sensor and firmware engine from the E-M1 II into my Pen F,  I would gladly pay the upgrade price.

That said, the Pen F has better IQ than the E-M1 version I and the E-M5 II, both of which I also owned,

Your observation is right. The EM1 II is all about sports and is designed therefore.

It is build robust so that you can shoot photos while you are doing sports. It is waterproof and shockproof and that is in line with other weatherproof cameras from Olympus like the Mju Tough.

This is were it has its strengths. Sports. And people who like to shoot some frames while doing sport. Heck, the EM1 II is freezeproof for shooting when skiing.

The PEN F is for the photo enthusiasts that are not interested in Sports. Many of them are from the film era and tend to be elder.

Look at it in this way: who could paint better pictures Mike Tyson or Picasso?

alexzz wrote:

I'm really surprise but face to face, in DPReview 'Image quality', the Pen-F has better sharpness and better contrast than the EM1 MKII.

At 100 or 3200 iso, in raw or jpeg, ...

So I decide to compare to other Olympus (EM10, EM5, EP5, ...), and everytime the Pen-F gives the best image quality.

Any explanation ?

I always find pictures from Pen-F a bit flat. However, still a bit better, than the 16mp Olympus era. Punchy, colorful, but has no depth. But if you look at just test charts, you'll never see this. I find this a bad trend that sharpness and noise is everything today, while the ability of drawing fine transitions is something that only a few speaks of. In this regard, the Pen-F is weak as well, even if it is better than the rest you mentioned. However, I find the GX8 very good. I don't know whether it is worse on 2D test charts than the Pen-F or not, but it has very deep images.

To me, the E-M1 II is a do-it-all camera, especially suited for pros and all manner of action shooters: stills and video, indoors and rough outdoor conditions, big lenses and small lenses... The PEN-F is more specialized, more niche, cheaper, and yet has stand-out excellence of its own. The lack of a grip, the focus on creative image processing, the unique form factor... Neither is the camera for me. Being more interested in future cameras, I'm so pleased that the IQ keeps getting better. Maybe that's something we can trust in. Too bad my trust in dpreview has been in such decline lately.

Loga, that's a very interesting claim you make; what do I need to look at in order to see what you're seeing with the GX8 vs. PEN-F/Olympus? Thanks!

So that is incomparable. Better (micro)contrsast and surely, surely better sharpness is not all to strange. We know how good that Nocticron is.

It is beyond me, really really beyond me why dpreview uses a 56 mm 1.2 on a Fuji but thinks a 45 mm f1.8 (nice lens, but not Nocticron or Fuji 56 mm nice) is okey for the Em1.2. And this lens will especially hurt HiRes mode shots....Which they  also no longer test in low light/RAW...It is always something with  dpreview. Always inconsistent lately.

Most reviews do not put these two together, but Em1.2 has been pitted against X-T2 and seems to be very very close to it. Dpreview, petapixel (GFX 50s review shows a table for DR compairing it ti XT2 too), mirrorless comparisons they all say or show EM1.2 being very close to X-T2. I never heard that from Em-M1.2. DxO says Em1.2 sets a new standard, but when you read the review the difference in general is not at all big. Only dynamic range compared to PenF is a serious gap. Easily a 1 eV all through the range of ISO's.

So no: when we look at all aspect we can measure from a sensor, which dpreview does not provide btw, the E-M1,2 is the better sensor and the best one of all. GH5 probably uses the same sensor so I bet it will be close too.

At least according to DxO GH4 scores very close to Penf. It is easy to sport, better allround under all circumstances. Would be great if we could swap sensors...

Egregius V wrote:

(...)

Loga, that's a very interesting claim you make; what do I need to look at in order to see what you're seeing with the GX8 vs. PEN-F/Olympus? Thanks!

Thanks for replying me. I became sensitive for pictures depth when I replaced my first m43 cam, a humble GF2 with an OM-D. I thought that I'm fine from now, hence the step up in IQ. However, after 1,5, I realized that I am disappointed with the pictures constantly, and I lost something I had with my earlier m43 cam. If you are interested, you can read it in details here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3657651

There is a word for that that many hate in this forum: microcontrast. But it is not necessary to use this word. I would say, the fine transitions is equal to this. This is the attribute that makes you feel your picture is realistic or cartoon-like. Of course, these are the two end points. So from this POV, the 16mp era, both Olympus and Panasonic is weaker IMHO, than the 12mp era. And then the GX8 comes into the picture. This is the cam where I see good depth again in the pictures, check these:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/srhmoto/24596852342/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/srhmoto/24558131410/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/srhmoto/25768952952/in/photostream/

in the middle the pics of the cars:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-14mm-f-2-5-dmw-gwc1-wide-converter-11mm-focal-length.66439/

Many states, that it is just a consequence of light and angle of view. That is right, that these matters. But I feel after watching a lot of samples (and having different m43 cams for years), that in similar circumstances these sensors (bodies) behave differently. So I can say that I prefer the old 12mp era (and mostly the Panasonics), and the new GX8 better, than the rest. I still prefer portrait from my GF1 (GF2) better than from anything else, including the Pen-F:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59473777

If you want to read more about this topic, I summarized some aricles in this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59473813

Of course, this is my approach, my taste, my preference, so YMMV. Everyone should use the cam that makes her/him happy!

Cheers,

Peter

That is a huge gap. The 45 mm for sharpness is nothing special in mFT country whereas there is no better lens for that than the 42,5 1,2....So again: dpreview has introduced a variable, unnecessary and giving the wrong impression when it comes to sharpness and while not tested on DxO also for microcontrast.

I find the DPR Studio Scene comparison tool to be too variable to be a definitive resource for selecting one camera over another. At best I use it to weed out really poor cameras I may have considered for reasons other than image quality.

When I do reference the DPR i images, I use the images from the lowly Olympus Pen PL7 as my baseline for comparison. I own the PL7 and, so far it is the only camera where the Studio Comparison images are a close match to my real life images (BTW, the PL7 has excellent IQ)

The DPR studio images for the E-M1 II are really a poor representation of the IQ I see from my copy of that camera.

Loga wrote:

I always find pictures from Pen-F a bit flat. However, still a bit better, than the 16mp Olympus era. Punchy, colorful, but has no depth. But if you look at just test charts, you'll never see this. I find this a bad trend that sharpness and noise is everything today, while the ability of drawing fine transitions is something that only a few speaks of. In this regard, the Pen-F is weak as well, even if it is better than the rest you mentioned. However, I find the GX8 very good. I don't know whether it is worse on 2D test charts than the Pen-F or not, but it has very deep images.

Olympus cameras have too much contrast at default settings. Try to set contrast to "-2".
A few examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4060965#forum-post-58432228
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4063943#forum-post-58467863 .

DeepSilence wrote:

Loga wrote:

I always find pictures from Pen-F a bit flat. However, still a bit better, than the 16mp Olympus era. Punchy, colorful, but has no depth. But if you look at just test charts, you'll never see this. I find this a bad trend that sharpness and noise is everything today, while the ability of drawing fine transitions is something that only a few speaks of. In this regard, the Pen-F is weak as well, even if it is better than the rest you mentioned. However, I find the GX8 very good. I don't know whether it is worse on 2D test charts than the Pen-F or not, but it has very deep images.

Olympus cameras have too much contrast at default settings. Try to set contrast to "-2".
A few examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4060965#forum-post-58432228
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4063943#forum-post-58467863 .

No question, these are very good, and deep pics. Thank you. Do you have some portrait (both in good and in not too good or low light) as well?

Many thanks,

Peter

Sometimes, we see what we want to see.

Unfortunately not.

DeepSilence wrote:

Loga wrote:

I always find pictures from Pen-F a bit flat. However, still a bit better, than the 16mp Olympus era. Punchy, colorful, but has no depth. But if you look at just test charts, you'll never see this. I find this a bad trend that sharpness and noise is everything today, while the ability of drawing fine transitions is something that only a few speaks of. In this regard, the Pen-F is weak as well, even if it is better than the rest you mentioned. However, I find the GX8 very good. I don't know whether it is worse on 2D test charts than the Pen-F or not, but it has very deep images.

Olympus cameras have too much contrast at default settings. Try to set contrast to "-2".
A few examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4060965#forum-post-58432228
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4063943#forum-post-58467863 .

I guess it's "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

To my eye the images from my Panasonic GX7 and my E-M1.1(Panasonic sensor) always needed a boost. Not so with my Sony sensored Olympus bodies. But, I like more contrast in my images than others may like.