Getting Topaz AI instead of an OM-1 ?

Stefandreas wrote:

No, Topaz also works on Rwa. Just doing it in this minute.

But now I have the impression that the new choice is rather: buying a new PC as the old one cannot handle it in decent speed - or the OM- 1 and keep the old PC...

ikolbyi wrote:

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.

Regarding Topaz v3.5, I tried with the Olympus/OMS RAW file and it rejected it.  Not sure what I am doing wrong but it does not like those files.

Having both cameras, personally you may be happier with a modern/faster computer, current version of DxO (or Topaz) and keep your current camera gear.

What glass are you using with your camera?  A quality prime may be the best choice if not already using one as that will have the greatest impact on image quality.

Stefandreas wrote:

No. Mk I

There's a GAS opportunity than...

ikolbyi wrote:

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.

I think that is a very fair summation. From a purely image quality perspective after using your favorite NR software on the respective raw files the differences between the E-M1III / OM-1 are very small. The performance is a different question, and the OM-1 does move forward in areas such as C-AF. Fortunately, I am in the don't need high end features camp which is handy for my wallet 

ikolbyi wrote:

Stefandreas wrote:

No, Topaz also works on Rwa. Just doing it in this minute.

But now I have the impression that the new choice is rather: buying a new PC as the old one cannot handle it in decent speed - or the OM- 1 and keep the old PC...

ikolbyi wrote:

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.

Regarding Topaz v3.5, I tried with the Olympus/OMS RAW file and it rejected it. Not sure what I am doing wrong but it does not like those files.

Topaz updated to v3.7 recently which added OM-1 support here is it with an OM-1 sample raw from DPreview

Having both cameras, personally you may be happier with a modern/faster computer, current version of DxO (or Topaz) and keep your current camera gear.

What glass are you using with your camera? A quality prime may be the best choice if not already using one as that will have the greatest impact on image quality.

James Stirling wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

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.

I think that is a very fair summation. From a purely image quality perspective after using your favorite NR software on the respective raw files the differences between the E-M1III / OM-1 are very small. The performance is a different question, and the OM-1 does move forward in areas such as C-AF. Fortunately, I am in the don't need high end features camp which is handy for my wallet

In terms of IQ and basic functions, a used EM1.2 is pretty good.

Unless you need the added capabilities of the mk iii or OM1, it is the camera of choice.

If you want better IQ, then better lenses are step one, after which a different system and better lenses…

Andrew

ProDude wrote:

As is so often the case, the OM-1 as compared to any prior models, is a incremental improvement in several areas. The BSI/Stacked sensor coupled with the new processor provides a faster more accurate focus speed, if that's important to you. Indeed the OOC Jpegs are provided with some improvement as well. Noise, while debatable has been moved forward. Primarily in the nature of the noise produced by very high ISO usage (tighter grain with less splotchy color remnants). The improved EVF is also quite desirable if you care about what you're viewing prior to a shot being taken.

As for Topaz it is but one of several very competent programs available for noise reduction. True, it deals with Jpegs as well not just RAW. But more can be achieved working with the RAW to reduce noise then a Jpeg. Topaz can at times produce artifacts that can diminish its value. I consider Topaz, ON1 NoNoise and DXO Prime to be the finest out there at this time. But you have a tough decision ahead of you. You need to determine if the updates of the OM-1 are of interest to you or not. If not then Topaz may well be a good start (and a very affordable one as well).

For me, the first step would be to shoot RAW.  If you are going to process images, you might as well start with the easiest file format to work with.  That gives the biggest choice of software.

If you are going to shoot jpegs, just get an OM1 and add RAWs for any in camera added processing.  If you are going to use AI software, you need a decent computer, especially the graphics card.

I started jpeg only, shifted to Jpeg plus RAW, discovered that I processed nearly all the images and stopped shooting jpeg.

Now I have a simple and decluttered workflow across all my cameras, apart from those pesky Merrills.

Andrew

DxO usually have a big Black Friday discount.

Andrew

Stefandreas wrote:

David, I owe you something. The trial of DxO Photo Lab 6 with Raw really is an eye opener. Much better than Raw or Jpeg with Topaz. What a perfect software and there is no need for using anything else. And the Presets are fantastic. So, finished the lazy Jpeg times, here comes Raw and Photo Lab 6.

Thank you man

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.

Me personally, I was really never happy with Topaz, felt the images were over-processed.

Stefandreas wrote:

Andrew, I am going exactly your way. Played around all day with Photo Lab 6 and Raw. I am convinced that in the end JPEG plus Raw makes no sense and shooting Raw only is the way to go. It took some time and Photo Lab 6 trial to break my resistance bit this software seems to be the perfect solution for just everything under the sun.

Thanks again for everyone

Bye the way , here is my Zimanga safari album: https://www.flickr.com/gp/154191304@N08/8xucB23482

I’d start with the non-expert user default settings, which are pretty good.  The flatness of neutral settings in RAW processors comes as a shock to people used to starting from jpegs.

Now you have a whole new set of tools and options as part of your photography.

Given the lesser DR of MFT, you might like to set a Custom UniWB for those times when you need to squeeze the most DR out of ETTR on a landscape and get used to shooting to histogram.  Also, the EM1.2 is calibrated to excessively protect highlights, so you can push a bit without losing tonality in clouds and reflections.

It took me ages to stop worrying about “correct” jpeg exposure and start capturing the most information within the constraints of DoF, subject movement and camera movement (or not, if on a tripod).

Andrew

Original image - LOOK AT BOTH IMAGES AS original SIZE TO SEE THE DIFFERENECES

2 mins in Topaz- a very usable program

Les