E5 sharper than E3? Not by much.

[rovingtim]

Right, keep in mind there is some detail in the E5 file that simply can't be captured by the E3 because it's missing 2 million pixels.

However, does the lighter AA make a huge difference? I would suggest not.

Okay folks, here is a sharpened E3 file from Lightroom compared to an E5 file processed in Olympus's Viewer at its sharpest setting possible. In other words, this is the magical out of camera Olympus jpg that everyone keeps saying blows their minds verses the poor lowly E3 file.

Ready?













For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

Now, for those who were 'blown away' by the improvement of the E5 I would suggest either do not know how to process E3 files or their cameras were mis-focusing. Mine does that a lot and I get soft files. However, when the E3 nails the focus, I get really sharp files ... not unlike the ones I posted.

That's all I'll say for now. Let the roasting begin.

 

[Rriley]

if this were the case, where would a 30% increase in MTF50 using the same lenses come from, or is 30% in your eyes 'not by much'

also
i would like to hear the rigour of your method
that seems to be missing

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[rovingtim]

if this were the case, where would a 30% increase in MTF50 using the same lenses come from, or is 30% in your eyes 'not by much'

What do your eyes tell you, Rriley?

i would like to hear the rigour of your method
that seems to be missing

The E3 orf was processed in Lightroom and exported as a jpg. The E5 orf was processed in Olympus Viewer (because people say Lightroom doesn't do Oly justice) with all settings set to normal except noise filter (set to 0) and sharpness (set to +2).

Want to know anything else?

 

[msusic]

Your comparison is faulty.

Olympus viewer does not make as good JPEGs as OOC from E-5 which in turn isn't as sharp as ACR or some other good RAW converter.

While OOC JPEG is indeed excellent color and DR wise, it's not as sharp.

You compared ACR processed raw vs oversharpened JPEG which you used worst software possible at extracting detail and you applied most sharpening which doesn't yield more detail, but coarser detail.

I actually compared the two and E-5 is indeed significantly better.



--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[varanus]

I don't know about "blowing minds" but there is a visible difference to me and the E-5 captured the texture of the coloured napkins.

In fact, there is a lot less visible difference in resolution (if any) between the E-5 output and the output from 7D and D7000. But that difference has been loudly proclaimed here ad nauseum to be significant against the E-5/Oly.

Posting these samples is useful to show differences in output between these cameras.

So is there a lot of difference between the E-3 and E-5 output? Well, what does "a lot of difference" mean and to whom? What's the utility in the determination of such an indefinite threshold which means different things to different people?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wokoti/

 

[rovingtim]

You send me your orf from the E3, you process your E5 image any way you like, and then we get to compare. Yeah?

Here's your shot with the E3 sharpened clumsily in jpg (I didn't have the RAW).

 

[rovingtim]

You're not talking about the pink napkin are you?

 

[Sam610]

Weak or no AA filter just increase the eye perception of texture and contrast even if that is false details. They don't resolve more details that is the amount of pixel function. I have observed the effect of no AA long before when I had Kodak SLR. I have mentioned about this a few years ago that Kodak requires very little sharpening, heavy sharpening increase false detail artifacts that is undesirable. E5 has weaker AA filter but still at the safe point to not introduce moire in many circumstances and still benefit from further PP. A good PP sharpening of a strong AA filter file can stack well against a weak AA filter file that no surprise at all.

Sam H.

 

[Gregm61]

Funny comment about the JPEG's and Viewer!

I much prefer ACR/CS5 in doing my E5 files. I've seen nothing that would make me think I would not like the E3. Never got around to buying one, but I've been extremely pleased with the E5's ability to resolve detail. This shot was off a tripod and using the cable release with anti-shock set to 1/2 second, 1/40 second shutter speed at 79mm using the 50-200 SWD.

Just above center is the signature formation in the canyon called The Lighthouse. This was shot just after sunrise from the scenic viewpoint, the Lighthouse is 3 miles away and I just love the detail the camera is capable of capturing in looking at images like this at 100%...

 

[rovingtim]

... that the E5 turned the beach purple on the bottom crop. Interesting, eh?

 

[varanus]

Oh sorry if you didn't look at the green, pink and orange ones.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wokoti/

 

[rovingtim]

Indeed. A nice detailed shot. I'm not saying the E5 is bad. If nothing else, it's got 2 million more pixels and one thing I haven't addressed is at higher ISO's, the sharpening required to bring out the detail in the E3 also brings out noise.

For high ISO shots I'd much rather have an E5.

 

[rovingtim]

I see a bit more detail but not much. Perhaps my screen is faulty. Looks to me to be the effect of 2 million more pixels more than anything else.

The lines in the Pink napkin are false detail in the E5.

 

[rovingtim]

A good PP sharpening of a strong AA filter file can stack well against a weak AA filter file that no surprise at all.

Just bringing forward the evidence of that 'no surprise', that's all.

 

[varanus]

I see a bit more detail but not much. Perhaps my screen is faulty. Looks to me to be the effect of 2 million more pixels more than anything else.

The lines in the Pink napkin are false detail in the E5.

instead of trying a sarcastic reference to the red napkin.

I don't really care if its the 2 million extra or "anything else", as long as they are visibly more detail. As to whether its "not much" or otherwise, have fun arguing it. Its a worthwhile improvement for me in my birding efforts.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wokoti/

 

[rovingtim]

I'm not trying to tell you not to enjoy your E5.

What I'm doing is redressing the forum consensus that the E5 'lifts a veil' on the 4/3rds lenses and that the strong AA of the E3 was some sort of devil to be exorcised. This is only step one as the next step is to show what a weak AA does to images. I tried once already, but some select people were wielding a little knowledge to dangerous effect.

If you don't care, I would suggest you stop commenting and please enjoy your E5. This is not an attempt to rest anyone's heart from their love. It is an attempt to rest brains from incorrect understandings.

It is also the result of me being really tired of hearing how 'soft' the E3 is. It's got crap focus, but when the focus works, the files are quite good at low ISO.

 

[MilSooper]

Convert the RAW files in the same processor or post out of camera jpegs with no processing at all.

Post processing is only to fix boo boos of not getting it right the first time anyway.

NOW let the roasting begin.

 

[varanus]

I tried once already, but some select people were wielding a little knowledge to dangerous effect.

Nice perspective and/or choice of words. Maybe you'd want to stop and ponder how you come across in a photography forum.

If you don't care, I would suggest you stop commenting and please enjoy your E5. This is not an attempt to rest anyone's heart from their love. It is an attempt to rest brains from incorrect understandings.

I'll comment where I want. This is a public forum and you asked for it. So I just questioned the tone and motivation of your post.

It is also the result of me being really tired of hearing how 'soft' the E3 is. It's got crap focus, but when the focus works, the files are quite good at low ISO.

Now who's been dissing the E-3 on this forum apart from those who insist that the E-3 is not competitive in more ways than one? So who is your target audience?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wokoti/

 

[CollBaxter]

--
Collin

http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)

 

[DonParrot]

Right, keep in mind there is some detail in the E5 file that simply can't be captured by the E3 because it's missing 2 million pixels.

However, does the lighter AA make a huge difference? I would suggest not.

Okay folks, here is a sharpened E3 file from Lightroom compared to an E5 file processed in Olympus's Viewer at its sharpest setting possible. In other words, this is the magical out of camera Olympus jpg that everyone keeps saying blows their minds verses the poor lowly E3 file.

Ready?

For those who will now insist that I did this test wrong somehow and stacked the deck against the E5, feel free to process the E5 raw anyway you like and I will happily set it against the E3 file.

Now, for those who were 'blown away' by the improvement of the E5 I would suggest either do not know how to process E3 files or their cameras were mis-focusing. Mine does that a lot and I get soft files. However, when the E3 nails the focus, I get really sharp files ... not unlike the ones I posted.

That's all I'll say for now. Let the roasting begin.

First of all:

Where did you take the pictures from? Imaging resource? I know that the E-5 pics were shot at aperture eight - while the E-3 samples are no longer available, there.
So, have they been shot at the same aperture and with the same lens?
Why does the image section differ slightly?

Then: Later in this thread you say that you developed the E-5 JPEG with the Oly viewer, leaving anything apart from sharpness on default. Did I get this right?

So if yes, did you use the same approach for the E-3 pic or did you PP it to the max? Should the latter be the case, I'd call this a really weird approach, make comparison is absolutely useless.

Or, let's put it this way: Why didn't you use the same converter to PP both pictures and try to squeeze the maximum out of them? Your approach seems to be extremely biased which makes me come to the conclusion that this is just another thread aimed to upset the community.

Then: You won't see anything of the 2 extra MP as long as you don't blow a pic up to 400 percent or something like that. That's just nonsense. The clearly better, more detail-rich pictures delivered by the E-5 are the result of the thinner AA filter and the new fine-detail processing or what ever you want to call what Oly's TruePic V+ processor does.

And, last but not least: If you want to compare an E-5 JPEG vs. an E-3 RAW, why don't you shoot a pic with both cameras in identical conditions, using optimised adjustments at the E-5 and shoot a RAW with the E-3 that you than PP until you are happy with the result.

Again: I can see only one goal in this thread. To spoil our party.

But you won't spoil mine. I loved my E-30, which - by the way - also had a 12MP sensor and I was determined to keep it as backup for my E-5. But after a few months with my new mothership, I realised that producing the same IQ with the E-30 is just impossible and so, I sold it last week.

So, do you want to tell me that you - who seems to not own an E-5 - know more about the differences between the cameras than I and all the others who shoot with the E-5 and are happy with its results?

Don't be envious and start this kind of threads just to prove yourself that you don't need the new mothership. Just get you an E-5 yourself, enjoy the major increase f IQ - and be happy.
That's the best advice I've got for you.