Getting Topaz AI instead of an OM-1 ?

Hi,

this is really a  serious question. I am mainly taking landscape and wildlife and am still using with joy different old models, mainly EM-1 II, EM 10 II and, occasionaly when I need a third body, even an E-PM2. Sometimes the images at high ISO really are not great, I admit, sometimes they are not bad at all (see image below).  I confess I am a JPEG shooter and deal only with Raw when its necessary. I read that the new OM-1 has a far superior JPEG output in high ISO that Em 1 - II or III, mainly because of the AI software on board. As 2.200 € is far too high for my taste and I really don't see the need to upgrade. I played around with the demo Version of the Topaz AI software package and its pretty amazing I think. So I ask myself: for the few images I take over 3200 ISO and who really could be better isn't it wiser to spend 199 Dollars on a software which is at least as good or even better than the software buit in the OM-1 ? Serious - thats a 2.000 Dollar difference. I know Om-1 has other advantages, but I am not sure they are worth the price difference.  Just to show why old is sometimes enough:

Buffalo at Zimanga night hide, Taken with an E-PM2 and Panasonic 35-100/2.8 at ISO 4000. JPEG, no post-processing but a bit of contrast enhancement....

Just tell me your opinion: to Topaz or not to Topaz ?

PhotoLab Elite 6 will likely be £99 discounted for Black Friday.  It has AI NR that beats the OM1 jpeg engine.

Why not test drive the trial.

I have an OM1 for its AF and computational photography.

Andrew

I own the EM1.m3 & OM-1. I also own DxO v6 and Topaz DeNoise AI v3.5

This is all detailed here with sample images:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66545126

Quick Summary:  DxO traditionally for me work better for Olympus/OMS files.  OM-1 does have improved JPG quality over EM1.m3, but is that amount worth the extra cost?  Only you can answer that question.  Please look at the images I provided in my forum link above to evaluate.

Stefandreas wrote:

Thank you. The big advantage of Topaz: it works on JPEG as well, and very well indeed. DxO does not if I understand right.

Kind regards

Stefan

Landscape is my prime use case, so I shoot RAW only.

Sounds like Topaz is for you.

Andrew

why not try all the free trials and see for yourself which suits you better with all the current software

Stefandreas wrote:

Yes, but my question only partially solved is the following:

Will a noisy image at Iso 6400 by the Em-1 II treated by whatever AI software be as good as an image created by the new JPEG engine of the OM-1 ? There are reasons to believe that Om-1 output will always be superior because the noise its sensor creates is somewhat finer/better managable that that of the Em-1 II or III (color patches etc).

no idea, but the better the image to begin with the better the result with any software

If you are going to the trouble to post process JPEG files for noise reduction, I recommend that you do an experiment:  Shoot a few very high-ISO scenes that have a lot of noise as RAW + JPEG and compare the RAW files processed in DXO Deep Prime with the JPEGs processed in Topaz DeNoise AI.  Trial versions are available.   See for yourself which you prefer.  Maybe you will be happy with the JPEGS, maybe you will find that processing RAW files is worthwhile.  As far as noise reduction is concerned, the amount of work you have to do in Deep Prime and Topaz is about the same.

Of course, depending on your JPEG "Picture Mode" settings, your camera might be adjusting sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc., so that the initial appearance of the JPEG might look snappier to you than the un-edited RAW files, but most processing programs have an "auto" mode or a preset that will punch up an image with a single click if you don't want to bother trying to tweak things yourself.

Stefandreas wrote:

Very true

ISO 25600 samples in native JPG with DxO and Topaz (older version) for comparison are included in my prior mentioned post: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66545126

Stefandreas wrote:

Yes, maybe you are right and the alternatives are rather: sticking with the old gear and get used to treat Raw especially for all low light shooting - or getting the OM-1 and stay a happy JPEG shooter also for high Iso. I never felt the need to treat Raw as I was always happy with the results of the Olympus JPEG engine in normal light situatiuon. Tried Raw processing but never found that the hassle was worth it. Only shoot in JPEG superfine natural.

David5833 wrote:

If you are going to the trouble to post process JPEG files for noise reduction, I recommend that you do an experiment: Shoot a few very high-ISO scenes that have a lot of noise as RAW + JPEG and compare the RAW files processed in DXO Deep Prime with the JPEGs processed in Topaz DeNoise AI. Trial versions are available. See for yourself which you prefer. Maybe you will be happy with the JPEGS, maybe you will find that processing RAW files is worthwhile. As far as noise reduction is concerned, the amount of work you have to do in Deep Prime and Topaz is about the same.

Of course, depending on your JPEG "Picture Mode" settings, your camera might be adjusting sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc., so that the initial appearance of the JPEG might look snappier to you than the un-edited RAW files, but most processing programs have an "auto" mode or a preset that will punch up an image with a single click if you don't want to bother trying to tweak things yourself.

Topaz v3.5 only works JPG files, I have no experience with the newer Topaz versions.  DxO works both JPG and RAW files.

A previous commenter suggested you obtain both software packages on a trial license and test them both.  This is best advice you will receive.

As far as native JPG images from cameras, my post has that for your comparison.

David5833 wrote:

If you are going to the trouble to post process JPEG files for noise reduction, I recommend that you do an experiment: Shoot a few very high-ISO scenes that have a lot of noise as RAW + JPEG and compare the RAW files processed in DXO Deep Prime with the JPEGs processed in Topaz DeNoise AI. Trial versions are available. See for yourself which you prefer. Maybe you will be happy with the JPEGS, maybe you will find that processing RAW files is worthwhile. As far as noise reduction is concerned, the amount of work you have to do in Deep Prime and Topaz is about the same.

Of course, depending on your JPEG "Picture Mode" settings, your camera might be adjusting sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc., so that the initial appearance of the JPEG might look snappier to you than the un-edited RAW files, but most processing programs have an "auto" mode or a preset that will punch up an image with a single click if you don't want to bother trying to tweak things yourself.

PhotoLab has the option to start with a neutral profile or DxO's best guess at settings.  I find the best guess a good start point.

Andrew

EM1 II and Topaz works well. I find the OM1 and Lightroom works better at getting better results from high noise images. OM1 and Topaz works better still. Top end monitor and speedy PC makes things even better/easier.

Get your credit card out

Stefandreas wrote:

Hi,

this is really a serious question. I am mainly taking landscape and wildlife and am still using with joy different old models, mainly EM-1 II, EM 10 II and, occasionaly when I need a third body, even an E-PM2. Sometimes the images at high ISO really are not great, I admit, sometimes they are not bad at all (see image below). I confess I am a JPEG shooter and deal only with Raw when its necessary. I read that the new OM-1 has a far superior JPEG output in high ISO that Em 1 - II or III, mainly because of the AI software on board. As 2.200 € is far too high for my taste and I really don't see the need to upgrade. I played around with the demo Version of the Topaz AI software package and its pretty amazing I think. So I ask myself: for the few images I take over 3200 ISO and who really could be better isn't it wiser to spend 199 Dollars on a software which is at least as good or even better than the software buit in the OM-1 ? Serious - thats a 2.000 Dollar difference. I know Om-1 has other advantages, but I am not sure they are worth the price difference. Just to show why old is sometimes enough:

Buffalo at Zimanga night hide, Taken with an E-PM2 and Panasonic 35-100/2.8 at ISO 4000. JPEG, no post-processing but a bit of contrast enhancement....

Just tell me your opinion: to Topaz or not to Topaz ?

The Topaz AI applications are terrific.   The latest combined version, Photo AI, gives you DeNoise, Sharpen, and GigiPixel in one application.  So you'll not only get amazing de-noise capability you'll also get sharpening and upscaling capabilities.

The newish AI de-noise plug-in to Olympus Workspace does a pretty good job and would likely be adequate for most users but it only works with RAW files.

I think the most compelling reason to get an OM-1 is the subject AI autofocus.  You can achieve the same low ISO performance by shooting RAW with an E-M1 and using the de-noise plug-in.

Stefandreas wrote:

Thanks to all. Very good advices. Before posting I thought the camera is the problem. Now its the computer as well. Oh my.

Was that the mk ii 35-100/2.8?
A