Crop sensor Pro Body - Dp review tv

[martinhb]

Ok, thanks for the info.

Question about the noise reduction setting my E-M1 mkII? If set to 'On' does the RAW data remain the same but an extra parameter is set in the RAW data to identify a value the noise reduction is set to? Or is the data preprocessed in the camera thus modifying the RAW data? If its preprocessed doesn't that that mean any user setting it just altering the manufactures default setting?

 

[JakeJY]

Ok, thanks for the info.

Question about the noise reduction setting my E-M1 mkII? If set to 'On' does the RAW data remain the same but an extra parameter is set in the RAW data to identify a value the noise reduction is set to? Or is the data preprocessed in the camera thus modifying the RAW data? If its preprocessed doesn't that that mean any user setting it just altering the manufactures default setting?

I don't shoot an Olympus, but I as far as I know the noise reduction (I believe it's called Noise Filter in Olympus camera) does not affect RAW, only the JPGs (I know for Panasonic it's this way).

Note there is another long exposure Noise Reduction setting and that does dark frame subtraction and does affect the RAW, but this feature is used the same in most cameras and generally is not what people are talking about when they say RAW noise reduction.

 

[martinhb]

Thank you for replying & resolving that matter.

 

[jwilliams]

Most ASP-C vendors do not invest as much in the system or have the product lines of their FF offer.

Not much to gain by going ASP-C. If you need a bigger sensor, go FF.

It might turn out to be more like a two system world. FF and M43. - Full frame and half frame (diagonally).

FF and APSC for a 2 system world? I have to laugh here at the attitudes that m43 is great and APSC is crap or is the one more likely to die out. All might exist in the long run, but if one is going out it is not going to be APSC.

Like Fuji, Canon and Sony are just going to fold up their APSC camera lines. Much more likely is Panny abandoning m43 and Olympus getting tired of the money loosing camera division and closing it down. The latter isn't a predication, but a whole heck of a lot more likely than Fuji, Canon and Sony folding up their APSC camps.

 

[Mark Ransom]

m43 RAW files are amongst the most "tampered" with on the market if that concerns you

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232284

I have no idea about Olympus RAW files, but with Panasonic's cameras the corrections are only applied in JPEG, and the RAW files have no noise reduction, either.

Unless you use specific RAW software the lens corrections are contained in the header of the RAW file and applied automatically with no option to turn them off { Photoshop , LR etc}.

Blame Adobe. Some text in the headers is nothing like the noise reduction applied on Fuji's RAW files, with no option to turn it off, because the actual image data has noise reduction already applied.

It is not just adobe I just mentioned them as they are the best known

AiryDiscus is talking about pre-processing of RAW files over which we have no control .

What don't you have any control of? PhotoLab doesn't have any forced vignetting or geometric distortion correction with RW2.

Those are lens corrections there are all sorts of things that can be fiddled with in the RAW files that no raw software can undo. Hence the pre in pre-processed

When it comes to RAW file " tampering" and software "fixing " of lenses m43 applies this at a much higher level than other systems. It is what it is and it has its pros and cons

The RW2 files' image data is not "tempered with" at all, and some text in the headers which can be used or not used by your software (unless it's made by a horrible company like Adobe, of course) is unrelated.

Oh please. I will take the statement of a highly credible optical scientist over an uninformed opinion. No point discussing it, as I recommend with anyone with interest in technical issues there is a forum where multiple very well informed posters can enlighten you

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061

I'm having a very hard time following the thread at the first link you gave. Can you clear a few things up for me?

Which is the highly credible optical scientist of which you speak?

Are they claiming that the actual RAW pixel values are being manipulated before being written to the file, e.g. for vignetting correction?

Thanks.

 

[Kharan]

Oh please. I will take the statement of a highly credible optical scientist over an uninformed opinion. No point discussing it, as I recommend with anyone with interest in technical issues there is a forum where multiple very well informed posters can enlighten you

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061

I'm having a very hard time following the thread at the first link you gave. Can you clear a few things up for me?

Which is the highly credible optical scientist of which you speak?

Brandon Dubbe, alias AiryDisqus. He's Roger Cicala's (of LensRentals fame) resident computer and optics geek at OLAF.

Are they claiming that the actual RAW pixel values are being manipulated before being written to the file, e.g. for vignetting correction?

Thanks.

It's a very gray area. Technically, these correction profiles can be disabled, but most software doesn't give users the choice. So there's no tampering of raw data per se, but since users need to jump through hoops to get rid of these profiles, they can't be put in the same category as Canon's DLO, for example.

 

[JakeJY]

Oh please. I will take the statement of a highly credible optical scientist over an uninformed opinion. No point discussing it, as I recommend with anyone with interest in technical issues there is a forum where multiple very well informed posters can enlighten you

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061

I'm having a very hard time following the thread at the first link you gave. Can you clear a few things up for me?

Which is the highly credible optical scientist of which you speak?

Brandon Dubbe, alias AiryDisqus. He's Roger Cicala's (of LensRentals fame) resident computer and optics geek at OLAF.

Are they claiming that the actual RAW pixel values are being manipulated before being written to the file, e.g. for vignetting correction?

Thanks.

It's a very gray area. Technically, these correction profiles can be disabled, but most software doesn't give users the choice. So there's no tampering of raw data per se, but since users need to jump through hoops to get rid of these profiles, they can't be put in the same category as Canon's DLO, for example.

I wouldn't say most. Adobe's the main one that doesn't give choice (Silkypix is another). But DXO, CaptureOne, RawTherapee, Darktable, Olympus Viewer all allow turning off corrections and customizing.

 

[amblepath]

Personally I view lens corrections in raw as digital hardware. If the corrections are physically built into the lens you can't turn them off. It seems like an excellent way to simplify lens design and keep costs down. (Or profits up- Hah)

I always find it funny because as soon as you put on a wide angle lens or a telephoto you are distorting reality in most shots. The camera doesn't lie has been an absurd notion from the beginning.

 

[TN Args]

Direct quote again below noise was only part of what he was declaring

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876146

"Oh, well of course Fuji's gonna win, even despite their crappy x-trans (3 or maybe it's 4 by now) and tempered RAW which includes noise reduction."

It does not matter what other people wrote. The thing is that you wrote that "m43 RAW files are amongst the most "tampered" with on the market if that concerns you". You fueled the flames claiming that this is the case although you were clearly wrong. Your original post is linked below:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876156

If someone does not like X-Trans, then let it be. Opinions are one thing, but wrong facts are something that needs to be corrected, whether it's you or me who wrote them.

FWIW there were actually some fixed noise pattern tests in this forum to check for things like NR of raws. IIRC, B Claff was doing them, and the E-M1 II was definitely covered. I'm also fairly certain Jim is aware of those tests, and they just "slipped his mind".

(Whereby, "slipped his mind" I mean he intentionally neglected them, because that's nowhere near as 'big a story'). Always remember. Jim isn't actually interested in truth. Jim is interested in drama.

The post linked by Mr Stirling, above, is by a lens tester who uses an all-optical testing machine (OLAF machine at Lensrentals), so when a lens has half its corrections in the glass and half in the software, he has to 'guess/estimate' the corrections of the software and effectively his lens tests are invalid. He says it quintuples the time it takes to optically test them (with his machine). He hates that, so he won't have anything to do with m43.

Basically, he has a hammer (his OLAF machine), and he sees m43 lenses as really bad nails (not suited to his machine), so he criticizes the nail, instead of facing reality that the machine is effectively obsolete for the camera/lens systems of today.

The full extent of his rant can be seen here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232509 . Note the balanced comment by Iliah Borg, also no fool, just above it. Even Mr Stirling made a balanced comment there.

cheers

 

[Kharan]

It's a very gray area. Technically, these correction profiles can be disabled, but most software doesn't give users the choice. So there's no tampering of raw data per se, but since users need to jump through hoops to get rid of these profiles, they can't be put in the same category as Canon's DLO, for example.

I wouldn't say most. Adobe's the main one that doesn't give choice (Silkypix is another). But DXO, CaptureOne, RawTherapee, Darktable, Olympus Viewer all allow turning off corrections and customizing.

I had no idea that so many software packages offered the option now, it wasn't like this a few years ago. I stand corrected, thanks.

 

[Kharan]

FWIW there were actually some fixed noise pattern tests in this forum to check for things like NR of raws. IIRC, B Claff was doing them, and the E-M1 II was definitely covered. I'm also fairly certain Jim is aware of those tests, and they just "slipped his mind".

(Whereby, "slipped his mind" I mean he intentionally neglected them, because that's nowhere near as 'big a story'). Always remember. Jim isn't actually interested in truth. Jim is interested in drama.

The post linked by Mr Stirling, above, is by a lens tester who uses an all-optical testing machine (OLAF machine at Lensrentals), so when a lens has half its corrections in the glass and half in the software, he has to 'guess/estimate' the corrections of the software and effectively his lens tests are invalid. He says it quintuples the time it takes to optically test them (with his machine). He hates that, so he won't have anything to do with m43.

Basically, he has a hammer (his OLAF machine), and he sees m43 lenses as really bad nails (not suited to his machine), so he criticizes the nail, instead of facing reality that the machine is effectively obsolete for the camera/lens systems of today.

The full extent of his rant can be seen here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232509 . Note the balanced comment by Iliah Borg, also no fool, just above it. Even Mr Stirling made a balanced comment there.

cheers

I think your judgment is a bit unfair. The optical bench is a really powerful tool that allows us to know more about lenses in ways that can't be achieved with sensor-based tests alone. I personally find OLAF's data very valuable.

But Brandon does have an axe to grind against MFT (Sony too, to a lesser extent, and he won't even touch Fujifilm gear). This needs to be taken into account by anyone reading his posts.

 

[TN Args]

FWIW there were actually some fixed noise pattern tests in this forum to check for things like NR of raws. IIRC, B Claff was doing them, and the E-M1 II was definitely covered. I'm also fairly certain Jim is aware of those tests, and they just "slipped his mind".

(Whereby, "slipped his mind" I mean he intentionally neglected them, because that's nowhere near as 'big a story'). Always remember. Jim isn't actually interested in truth. Jim is interested in drama.

The post linked by Mr Stirling, above, is by a lens tester who uses an all-optical testing machine (OLAF machine at Lensrentals), so when a lens has half its corrections in the glass and half in the software, he has to 'guess/estimate' the corrections of the software and effectively his lens tests are invalid. He says it quintuples the time it takes to optically test them (with his machine). He hates that, so he won't have anything to do with m43.

Basically, he has a hammer (his OLAF machine), and he sees m43 lenses as really bad nails (not suited to his machine), so he criticizes the nail, instead of facing reality that the machine is effectively obsolete for the camera/lens systems of today.

The full extent of his rant can be seen here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232509 . Note the balanced comment by Iliah Borg, also no fool, just above it. Even Mr Stirling made a balanced comment there.

cheers

I think your judgment is a bit unfair. The optical bench is a really powerful tool that allows us to know more about lenses in ways that can't be achieved with sensor-based tests alone. I personally find OLAF's data very valuable.

But Brandon does have an axe to grind against MFT (Sony too, to a lesser extent, and he won't even touch Fujifilm gear). This needs to be taken into account by anyone reading his posts.

I too am an admirer of OLAF, but I'm not so attached to the notion that it's a disaster to share the burden of image correction between glass and electronics.

 

[Martin.au]

Direct quote again below noise was only part of what he was declaring

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876146

"Oh, well of course Fuji's gonna win, even despite their crappy x-trans (3 or maybe it's 4 by now) and tempered RAW which includes noise reduction."

It does not matter what other people wrote. The thing is that you wrote that "m43 RAW files are amongst the most "tampered" with on the market if that concerns you". You fueled the flames claiming that this is the case although you were clearly wrong. Your original post is linked below:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876156

If someone does not like X-Trans, then let it be. Opinions are one thing, but wrong facts are something that needs to be corrected, whether it's you or me who wrote them.

FWIW there were actually some fixed noise pattern tests in this forum to check for things like NR of raws. IIRC, B Claff was doing them, and the E-M1 II was definitely covered. I'm also fairly certain Jim is aware of those tests, and they just "slipped his mind".

(Whereby, "slipped his mind" I mean he intentionally neglected them, because that's nowhere near as 'big a story'). Always remember. Jim isn't actually interested in truth. Jim is interested in drama.

The post linked by Mr Stirling, above, is by a lens tester who uses an all-optical testing machine (OLAF machine at Lensrentals), so when a lens has half its corrections in the glass and half in the software, he has to 'guess/estimate' the corrections of the software and effectively his lens tests are invalid. He says it quintuples the time it takes to optically test them (with his machine). He hates that, so he won't have anything to do with m43.

Basically, he has a hammer (his OLAF machine), and he sees m43 lenses as really bad nails (not suited to his machine), so he criticizes the nail, instead of facing reality that the machine is effectively obsolete for the camera/lens systems of today.

The full extent of his rant can be seen here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232509 . Note the balanced comment by Iliah Borg, also no fool, just above it. Even Mr Stirling made a balanced comment there.

cheers

I know airydiscus's work, and don't have much of a problem with it, or his dislike of software based correction. He's a fairly straightforward character.

My issue was, as usual, with Jim's disingenuous commentary. In this example he's used the existence of M4/3s lens corrections, and Airy's post as an authority, to imply that M4/3s raws were tampered in lots of other ways, including noise reduction.

My post was just to highlight that Jims "careless wording" probably wasn't carelessness. Jim's very happy to "forget" something so long as it stirs the pot a bit more.

 

[Kharan]

Direct quote again below noise was only part of what he was declaring

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876146

"Oh, well of course Fuji's gonna win, even despite their crappy x-trans (3 or maybe it's 4 by now) and tempered RAW which includes noise reduction."

It does not matter what other people wrote. The thing is that you wrote that "m43 RAW files are amongst the most "tampered" with on the market if that concerns you". You fueled the flames claiming that this is the case although you were clearly wrong. Your original post is linked below:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876156

If someone does not like X-Trans, then let it be. Opinions are one thing, but wrong facts are something that needs to be corrected, whether it's you or me who wrote them.

FWIW there were actually some fixed noise pattern tests in this forum to check for things like NR of raws. IIRC, B Claff was doing them, and the E-M1 II was definitely covered. I'm also fairly certain Jim is aware of those tests, and they just "slipped his mind".

(Whereby, "slipped his mind" I mean he intentionally neglected them, because that's nowhere near as 'big a story'). Always remember. Jim isn't actually interested in truth. Jim is interested in drama.

The post linked by Mr Stirling, above, is by a lens tester who uses an all-optical testing machine (OLAF machine at Lensrentals), so when a lens has half its corrections in the glass and half in the software, he has to 'guess/estimate' the corrections of the software and effectively his lens tests are invalid. He says it quintuples the time it takes to optically test them (with his machine). He hates that, so he won't have anything to do with m43.

Basically, he has a hammer (his OLAF machine), and he sees m43 lenses as really bad nails (not suited to his machine), so he criticizes the nail, instead of facing reality that the machine is effectively obsolete for the camera/lens systems of today.

The full extent of his rant can be seen here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232509 . Note the balanced comment by Iliah Borg, also no fool, just above it. Even Mr Stirling made a balanced comment there.

cheers

I know airydiscus's work, and don't have much of a problem with it, or his dislike of software based correction. He's a fairly straightforward character.

My issue was, as usual, with Jim's disingenuous commentary. In this example he's used the existence of M4/3s lens corrections, and Airy's post as an authority, to imply that M4/3s raws were tampered in lots of other ways, including noise reduction.

My post was just to highlight that Jims "careless wording" probably wasn't carelessness. Jim's very happy to "forget" something so long as it stirs the pot a bit more.

That’s exactly what I said, too, but that branch of the thread was “pruned”. It was very frustrating, since I went through a lot of work to put data behind my rebuttals.

 

[JohnGl1]

Regarding Fuji X-trans "tampering" you may have a look here : https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/

One day perhaps they will come back to Bayer (like the GFX50) and then we'll have probably really great Fuji cameras to use. See also : Watercolour Effect and Worms Fuji XT20 X Trans III RAW Processing with Adobe Lightroom

John

 

[Martin.au]

Direct quote again below noise was only part of what he was declaring

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876146

"Oh, well of course Fuji's gonna win, even despite their crappy x-trans (3 or maybe it's 4 by now) and tempered RAW which includes noise reduction."

It does not matter what other people wrote. The thing is that you wrote that "m43 RAW files are amongst the most "tampered" with on the market if that concerns you". You fueled the flames claiming that this is the case although you were clearly wrong. Your original post is linked below:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61876156

If someone does not like X-Trans, then let it be. Opinions are one thing, but wrong facts are something that needs to be corrected, whether it's you or me who wrote them.

FWIW there were actually some fixed noise pattern tests in this forum to check for things like NR of raws. IIRC, B Claff was doing them, and the E-M1 II was definitely covered. I'm also fairly certain Jim is aware of those tests, and they just "slipped his mind".

(Whereby, "slipped his mind" I mean he intentionally neglected them, because that's nowhere near as 'big a story'). Always remember. Jim isn't actually interested in truth. Jim is interested in drama.

The post linked by Mr Stirling, above, is by a lens tester who uses an all-optical testing machine (OLAF machine at Lensrentals), so when a lens has half its corrections in the glass and half in the software, he has to 'guess/estimate' the corrections of the software and effectively his lens tests are invalid. He says it quintuples the time it takes to optically test them (with his machine). He hates that, so he won't have anything to do with m43.

Basically, he has a hammer (his OLAF machine), and he sees m43 lenses as really bad nails (not suited to his machine), so he criticizes the nail, instead of facing reality that the machine is effectively obsolete for the camera/lens systems of today.

The full extent of his rant can be seen here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61232509 . Note the balanced comment by Iliah Borg, also no fool, just above it. Even Mr Stirling made a balanced comment there.

cheers

I know airydiscus's work, and don't have much of a problem with it, or his dislike of software based correction. He's a fairly straightforward character.

My issue was, as usual, with Jim's disingenuous commentary. In this example he's used the existence of M4/3s lens corrections, and Airy's post as an authority, to imply that M4/3s raws were tampered in lots of other ways, including noise reduction.

My post was just to highlight that Jims "careless wording" probably wasn't carelessness. Jim's very happy to "forget" something so long as it stirs the pot a bit more.

That’s exactly what I said, too, but that branch of the thread was “pruned”. It was very frustrating, since I went through a lot of work to put data behind my rebuttals.

That’s why I like him having me on ignore. It makes my posts less likely to be deleted, as he can’t engage.

 

[MShot]

What do I have to do to get him to do that to me?

 

[wolfie]

Hey guys wake up - it's the 21st century!

Not everything in photography has to be denigrated for not being a 36x24 sensor size!

APS is a format, M43 is a format, 1" is a format.

Do any of those names relate to 35mm?

No, so what's with this continuing labelling things for "not being 35mm".

I can use a lens designed for a larger format on my M43, so that must make it crop format. So if I use a medium format lens on a 35mm, that would make that a crop sensor by the same logic.

Maybe I'll just drive my "half-V8" car is about the same level as this ridiculous idea of 35mm centrality.

 

[TN Args]

1. Astrotripper wrote:

Sony is going to produce a high end APSC camera. That is going to hurt m43 even more.

We've been hearing that since 2014. I really am wondering what will it take for people to stop believing this pipe dream.

But hey, with Sony releasing a single APS-C lens since 2014, that surely means they are really taking it seriously and a MFT/Fuji killer flagship is coming any minute now.

Yeah, right.

Well, Sony did say this year that they are developing many APS-C products, so, the odds are not as low as your sarcasm suggests. Given that Sony describe the A7 III as a basic model, it would be interesting to see what they would call an advanced APS-C model.

 

[VideoPic]

I read the reactions, I also saw the movie which I felt started of interesting and then went into a clear XT3 winner direction. In fact I thought Fuji must be very happy with the movie having had their toy pitched against older bodies. Often I ask myself, why were the EM1 not part of a test and when its part, well.....

Posters on this forum strongly reacted and I fully understand why, question what really did the OP contribute......suggest sell your Olympus small noisy low light intake sensor camera and run run now to go get the XT3?

I guess all the forum scientists daily reminds M43 owners on this forum just how insignificant their equipment is will rejoice the day that all competition is history and one or maybe two brands made it to the finals......

We are spoiled with choice today, those who really understand cherish that and see the advantages and disadvantages of all formats and know how to select the best tools for the job. Those trolling for manufacturers and others reacting on videos and peer pressure.....well, have fun!

Best

Siegfried