Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · OM-D raw files / image quality
  
 
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · OM-D raw files / image quality


hey all,

i'm considering checking out an OM-D, but am wondering how the raw files compare to my current full frame body. i'm not expecting them to be equal, but i have no idea how big the difference really is. could anybody upload a few raw files for me? i'm also interested in how they look at ISO 1600-6400.

any thoughts are appreciated.



Jan 14, 2013 at 02:35 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · OM-D raw files / image quality


Depends on which full frame body you have.

The OM-D will have a little higher noise, even at base ISO (though noise isn't visible in a print or web reduction until around ISO 1600.) Dynamic range is quite good. A little lower than current Nikon bodies, and a little better than any Canon bodies. Exposure errors can be corrected quite well in RAW, however, as a result of the good DR. Color quality is good for me, though not quite as rich as what you'll get out of a full frame body. All in all, I have a very hard time telling any difference between my OM-D prints and my 1Ds II prints up to about 24 inches wide.

I don't have access to my RAWs right now, and I don't like to share RAW images anyway (especially of images I would deem 'good' and therefore more likely to want to share). Hopefully someone will be along shortly to post.



Jan 14, 2013 at 02:57 PM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · OM-D raw files / image quality


thanks for the information. interesting to hear the dynamic range is that good. sounds like noise will be my only real question, as i frequently shoot at 1600+. i currently have a 5d3, and i don't expect to shoot a m4/3 at 12,800, but if i can get very usable results at 3200 i think i'd be sold on giving it a shot.


Jan 14, 2013 at 03:02 PM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · OM-D raw files / image quality


as a point of comparison, i have an X100 that i shoot at 3200 very frequently and i have no issues with the image quality.


Jan 14, 2013 at 03:05 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · OM-D raw files / image quality


Noise is a personal thing. I have no issues with the OM-D up to ISO 3200, and I will even use higher ISOs without much thought if I need to, but I personally don't mind a bit of grain in my images (especially since it's rarely visible in print or on the web). If well exposed, ISO 3200 can make very good 11x14s in my opinion, and ISO 6400 can even make very good 8x10s. Higher ISOs definitely get noisy, but if you don't mind a little grain, even ISO 12,800 is fine for black and white shots at moderate print sizes. If you want baby smooth images, then you won't get those at ISO 3200, but I don't mind the noise at 3200 through Lightroom.

For instance, these are all at ISO 6400:



















And this is ISO 10,000:






ISO 1600 by candlelight (with Voigtlander 17.5 f/0.95) at 1/8 second (love that IBIS):






ISO 3200:






ISO 25,600 is generally a step too far, as there is color shifting and a flatness to the images...plus plenty of noise...but they can still help get a shot: (motion blur of the subjects is simply as a result of the extreme low light..max aperture with the 12-35 f/2.8 and max ISO...the children and the 'sub' were moving).









Jan 14, 2013 at 04:24 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · OM-D raw files / image quality


that's really good looking, imo. i don't mind some grainy noise - i even prefer it to a totally smooth image some of the time. as long as it's decent looking grain and not crappy and overly digital looking.

how's the auto focus in low light?

also, am i correct that the only weather sealed lenses for this system are the kit zoom and the 60 macro?



Jan 14, 2013 at 04:36 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · OM-D raw files / image quality


The only Oly weathersealed lenses are the 12-50 kit and the 60 macro. Panasonic's f/2.8 zooms (the 12-35 f/2.8 and the 35-100 f/2.8) are also weathersealed, so that gives you some other options. (They're very good zooms, but expensive..I love my 35-100, though.)

AF in low light is quite good for most lenses, IMO. At least as good and generally better than what I experienced with my canon 1Ds II, at least with faster primes. The 75/1.8 can hunt a little in really low light, and the slower zooms aren't great in ultra low light, but shooting at ISO 3200 and such, you'll be fine...pretty quick and accurate.



Jan 14, 2013 at 04:57 PM
you2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · OM-D raw files / image quality


One negative is that ISO 200 is as low as it goes; so outdoors in sunny conditions expect to stop down a bit (or use an nd filter). Also I really like the em-5 but looking at quite a few pictures sometimes i think the images are a touch flat compared to some of the FF sensor camera; on the other hand I have no desire to lug FF camera around.


Jan 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Lan11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · OM-D raw files / image quality


The E-M5 files are excellent (vs. 5D2/3 or 1D4) even at higher ISO, but you have to check and decide. NN or NW in PP reduce noise quite effectively, but I seldom find it necessary.

However, I have one issue including my personal disclosure:
Iím known to the Fuji funboys as hater. Can it be that Iím turning into the Oly hater too? : -)))
I was looking for the black lenses only to discover that some exist for extra $300. I paid less for painting my kitchen walls. By comparison, the Hasselblad Lunar looks like a great value with its genuine wood handle and diamond tipped shutter release button.

Jman13 - Love the smoke picture.
I would appreciate your comments re: the Pan 12-35 & 35-100 zooms on E-M5 in terms of CA and border/corner quality, especially at the 200 mm end.
The price is another matter. A 30 - 50% more than the camera - oh!
I just got the new 17/1.8 prime and it is a fine lens.



Jan 15, 2013 at 03:37 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · OM-D raw files / image quality


The easiest way to get my comprehensive view on both lenses is to read my reviews of them. That said, CA is much better controlled on the 35-100. That lens has become one of my very favorite lenses...I love it.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/panasonic-lumix-12-35mm-f2-8-x-review/

http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-panasonic-lumix-g-vario-35-100mm-f2-8-x-ois/



Jan 15, 2013 at 10:34 PM





FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password