This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012New Olympus OM-D announced
p.11 #1New Olympus OM-D announced
Tariq: No, that effect is out of the equation.
As Ken informed us, this is not a problem with the latest u43 sensors, and likely will not be in the camera that should be the topic for this thread.
As Ken informed us, this is not a problem with the latest u43 sensors, and likely will not be in the camera that should be the topic for this thread.
Feb 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM
p.11 #2New Olympus OM-D announced
alundeb wrote:
"The perceived advantage is BS because we can just raise the ISO on the larger sensor camera and get the same shutter speed with a slower lens, and the same noise in the image. Back to start."
I agree (of course). That's why it sometimes is puzzling reading folks finding a DOF advantage with µ4/3 over FF. There surely is a weight, size, and sometimes price, advantage to µ4/3 in certain situations but there is never a DOF advantage.
And yes, I have pre-ordered the new Olympus and I use an old G1 at the moment having my Nex stuff up for sell.
"The perceived advantage is BS because we can just raise the ISO on the larger sensor camera and get the same shutter speed with a slower lens, and the same noise in the image. Back to start."
I agree (of course). That's why it sometimes is puzzling reading folks finding a DOF advantage with µ4/3 over FF. There surely is a weight, size, and sometimes price, advantage to µ4/3 in certain situations but there is never a DOF advantage.
And yes, I have pre-ordered the new Olympus and I use an old G1 at the moment having my Nex stuff up for sell.
Feb 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM
p.11 #3New Olympus OM-D announced
alundeb wrote:
Tariq: No, that effect is out of the equation.
As Ken informed us, this is not a problem with the latest u43 sensors, and likely will not be in the camera that should be the topic for this thread.
Hmm...Ok. So, the smaller sensel size is less efficient which, of course, contributes to greater noise but the same loss of efficiency does not also reduce the light gathering ability of the sensel at really bright F-stops such as might be found on the new 17m F0.95 lens?
Edit: I see Ken says that lens has not been tested for this effect.
Tariq: No, that effect is out of the equation.
As Ken informed us, this is not a problem with the latest u43 sensors, and likely will not be in the camera that should be the topic for this thread.
Hmm...Ok. So, the smaller sensel size is less efficient which, of course, contributes to greater noise but the same loss of efficiency does not also reduce the light gathering ability of the sensel at really bright F-stops such as might be found on the new 17m F0.95 lens?
Edit: I see Ken says that lens has not been tested for this effect.
Feb 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM
p.11 #4New Olympus OM-D announced
Bifurcator wrote:
True. No question that large sensor have a noise advantage! That's a given.
But small sensor users still get a perceived focal length to shutter speed advantage.
Consider that it could also be said that if the FF sensor had the same pixel density as the small sensor and a crop mode that matched the size of the smaller sensor then they too could get the same kind of FL/SS advantage.
alundeb wrote:
I'm in again
The perceived advantage is BS because we can just raise the ISO on the larger sensor camera and get the same shutter speed with a slower lens, and the same noise in the image. Back to start.
Yeah, you're right - but it's only mostly BS. Because smaller sensors have a higher pixel density and because human beings can't really tell the difference between ISO 100 to 200 from a FF and a µ4/3. It's not till we hit 400 or more that the noise is humanly detectable. So, yeah it'S BS but there's still a little something to it. With a camera like the D800 however, I guess it could be argued that it's totally BS.
Same applies to DOF differences I guess.
True. No question that large sensor have a noise advantage! That's a given.
But small sensor users still get a perceived focal length to shutter speed advantage.
Consider that it could also be said that if the FF sensor had the same pixel density as the small sensor and a crop mode that matched the size of the smaller sensor then they too could get the same kind of FL/SS advantage.
alundeb wrote:
I'm in again
The perceived advantage is BS because we can just raise the ISO on the larger sensor camera and get the same shutter speed with a slower lens, and the same noise in the image. Back to start.
Yeah, you're right - but it's only mostly BS. Because smaller sensors have a higher pixel density and because human beings can't really tell the difference between ISO 100 to 200 from a FF and a µ4/3. It's not till we hit 400 or more that the noise is humanly detectable. So, yeah it'S BS but there's still a little something to it. With a camera like the D800 however, I guess it could be argued that it's totally BS.
Same applies to DOF differences I guess.Feb 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM
p.11 #5New Olympus OM-D announced
The horse being beaten here looks to me much less alive already than the parrot
But i guess it's fun to keep tearing it apart!
But i guess it's fun to keep tearing it apart!
Feb 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM
p.11 #6New Olympus OM-D announced
Since I am a bit technically inclined, I prefer to use quantities to describe differences, and later apply the judgment about what is perceivable or acceptable. Otherwise, we may get to the conclusion that Camera A has an advantage over Camera A because you cannot see the difference between Camera A at ISO 100 and Camera A at ISO 200. What is most absurd, pointing this out, or to claim that there is an advantage? Ok, We are still friends. And I use a P&S camera (Olympus XZ-1) with f/1.8 optics and find it very good 
Feb 15, 2012 at 10:50 AM
p.11 #7New Olympus OM-D announced
d_chiesa wrote:
The horse being beaten here looks to me much less alive already than the parrot
But i guess it's fun to keep tearing it apart!
The Norwegian Blue Parrot is not dead. It is just extinct
The horse being beaten here looks to me much less alive already than the parrot
But i guess it's fun to keep tearing it apart!
The Norwegian Blue Parrot is not dead. It is just extinct
Feb 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM
p.11 #8New Olympus OM-D announced
alundeb and Jman13, I have been reading through the last several pages getting a nice lesson in engineering and physics My Pop was an aeronautical engineer for Lockheed's Skunk Works and while I'd like to think I got some of his genetics when it comes to engineering I still get lost at times. Both of you have been very patient trying to explain the differences between the sensors and while at times I was confused as well, I think I understand now, so thank you for sticking with it and being polite about it. I also think you guys understand the differences between how an engineers brain functions vs. how an artists brain functions, they could be considered at opposite poles Being an engineer and an artist I think definitely helps, and I wish I could have had you guys as teachers for some of my classes when I was younger because most (teacher's/professors that is) do not have the patience to explain concepts in a way that some of their students can understand (part of my issues with public and university teaching institutions is that they tend to "teach" to a specific learning style, and if you don't fall into that learning style, well then you tend to "fall out" which is really sad because there are some brilliant minds out there who haven't been given the opportunity because they don't fit into the norm... wait, I think I just described an "artist", haha).
Anyway, given a mFT (is it mFT, uFT, MFT, etc.?) lens at a given f-stop and focal length, I think the confusion comes from the equivalency rating that is given to the lens in FF/35mm terminology, so one would say "my Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is the equivalent of a 150mm lens on a FF body"; we seem to equate everything to 35mm because that has been the standard for years and years, the funny thing is, I rarely hear a medium format shooter change their focal length to match that of 35mm I have known that the DOF was affected by the focal length, the aperture and the size of the sensor. Maybe I never understood fully "why" (but I have a lot better idea now ) but I've understood this for years, so when I say that I'm excited about the 75mm f/1.8 because one of my favorite portrait lenses was the Canon 135mm f/2 L, I know that it won't be the same, the DOF will be different, but something else that is as important and probably moreso than DOF is the OOF areas we like to call bokeh. The bokeh on the Canon was superb, the bokeh on the Oly 45mm f/1.8 I have also found to be very pleasing and I am hoping we'll see the same with the new 75mm coming out. So, I now understand better that the 75mm f/1.8 Olympus will "not" be equivalent to the Canon 135 f/2 L; however, I am hoping for a similar "type" of image that I used to experience, this is certainly the case with the 45mm f/1.8 compared to the 85mm f/1.8's in FF... are they the same, no, but I like the "look" that both give me and I have found the 45 to be very comparable in the shots I'm taking with it. Perspective, framing, DOF, angle of light, quality of light, all these things and so much more are used to make fantastic images, what I like is that we now have choices from the traditional 35mm/FF format that no longer have "much" compromise, and I realize this can all be argued 'til we're blue in the face, but having been a 35mm film and now FF digital shooter for years, I can honestly say I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of images from the MFT lineup and I am very excited to get my hands on the E-M5
My Pop was an aeronautical engineer for Lockheed's Skunk Works and while I'd like to think I got some of his genetics when it comes to engineering I still get lost at times. Both of you have been very patient trying to explain the differences between the sensors and while at times I was confused as well, I think I understand now, so thank you for sticking with it and being polite about it. I also think you guys understand the differences between how an engineers brain functions vs. how an artists brain functions, they could be considered at opposite poles Being an engineer and an artist I think definitely helps, and I wish I could have had you guys as teachers for some of my classes when I was younger because most (teacher's/professors that is) do not have the patience to explain concepts in a way that some of their students can understand (part of my issues with public and university teaching institutions is that they tend to "teach" to a specific learning style, and if you don't fall into that learning style, well then you tend to "fall out" which is really sad because there are some brilliant minds out there who haven't been given the opportunity because they don't fit into the norm... wait, I think I just described an "artist", haha).Anyway, given a mFT (is it mFT, uFT, MFT, etc.?) lens at a given f-stop and focal length, I think the confusion comes from the equivalency rating that is given to the lens in FF/35mm terminology, so one would say "my Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is the equivalent of a 150mm lens on a FF body"; we seem to equate everything to 35mm because that has been the standard for years and years, the funny thing is, I rarely hear a medium format shooter change their focal length to match that of 35mm
I have known that the DOF was affected by the focal length, the aperture and the size of the sensor. Maybe I never understood fully "why" (but I have a lot better idea now ) but I've understood this for years, so when I say that I'm excited about the 75mm f/1.8 because one of my favorite portrait lenses was the Canon 135mm f/2 L, I know that it won't be the same, the DOF will be different, but something else that is as important and probably moreso than DOF is the OOF areas we like to call bokeh. The bokeh on the Canon was superb, the bokeh on the Oly 45mm f/1.8 I have also found to be very pleasing and I am hoping we'll see the same with the new 75mm coming out. So, I now understand better that the 75mm f/1.8 Olympus will "not" be equivalent to the Canon 135 f/2 L; however, I am hoping for a similar "type" of image that I used to experience, this is certainly the case with the 45mm f/1.8 compared to the 85mm f/1.8's in FF... are they the same, no, but I like the "look" that both give me and I have found the 45 to be very comparable in the shots I'm taking with it. Perspective, framing, DOF, angle of light, quality of light, all these things and so much more are used to make fantastic images, what I like is that we now have choices from the traditional 35mm/FF format that no longer have "much" compromise, and I realize this can all be argued 'til we're blue in the face, but having been a 35mm film and now FF digital shooter for years, I can honestly say I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of images from the MFT lineup and I am very excited to get my hands on the E-M5 Feb 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM
p.11 #9New Olympus OM-D announced
So, not to derail the discussion, but how about those sample images?
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html
Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM
p.11 #10New Olympus OM-D announced
pingflood wrote:
So, not to derail the discussion, but how about those sample images?
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html
Thanks!
The model shot at ISO 200 is remarkably close to the Canon 1D X sample at ISO 1600 (found via the Canon forum), both in detail, noise and seemingly amount of noise reduction applied.
Edited on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM · View previous versions
So, not to derail the discussion, but how about those sample images?
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html
Thanks!
The model shot at ISO 200 is remarkably close to the Canon 1D X sample at ISO 1600 (found via the Canon forum), both in detail, noise and seemingly amount of noise reduction applied.
Edited on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM · View previous versions
Feb 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM
p.11 #11New Olympus OM-D announced
pingflood wrote:
So, not to derail the discussion, but how about those sample images?
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html
I'm really liking a lot of what I'm seeing, are we sure these are straight from RAW or are these OOC jpeg's with links to the RAW files? Since I cannot load the RAW file in Lightroom I cannot check my settings, etc. The high ISO images look better than E-P3 but still have some funky NR going on, at least in my opinion.
So, not to derail the discussion, but how about those sample images?
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html
I'm really liking a lot of what I'm seeing, are we sure these are straight from RAW or are these OOC jpeg's with links to the RAW files? Since I cannot load the RAW file in Lightroom I cannot check my settings, etc. The high ISO images look better than E-P3 but still have some funky NR going on, at least in my opinion.
Feb 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM
p.11 #12New Olympus OM-D announced
I analyzed the read noise from a ISO640 and ISO200 RAW from the above samples. Based on that, and assuming the "RAW ISO" is "correct" (has been for recent Olympus cameras) then this sensor has about 1EV better shadow noise at ISO640 than the GH2 and about the same or very slightly better base ISO DR than the GH2.
Looking great so far!
Ken
EDIT:
I know we all don't like DPR, but I don't like cross posting either. Here are my two posts on DPR describing my analysis and all the possible flaws with it:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40625721
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40626290
Edited on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:56 AM · View previous versions
Looking great so far!
Ken
EDIT:
I know we all don't like DPR, but I don't like cross posting either. Here are my two posts on DPR describing my analysis and all the possible flaws with it:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40625721
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40626290
Edited on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:56 AM · View previous versions
Feb 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM
p.11 #13New Olympus OM-D announced
kwalsh, what RAW software are you using? I have Lightroom and while it does fine with my E-P3 ORF's it wouldn't recognize the E-M5 ORF 
Feb 15, 2012 at 11:44 AM
p.11 #15New Olympus OM-D announced
wjmeyer wrote:
kwalsh, what RAW software are you using? I have Lightroom and while it does fine with my E-P3 ORF's it wouldn't recognize the E-M5 ORF
I was just using DCRAW to extract unmolested RAW data to do statistical analysis with another program.
For actual RAW editing I think people are having luck with RawTherapee, RPP and UFRAW.
Ken
kwalsh, what RAW software are you using? I have Lightroom and while it does fine with my E-P3 ORF's it wouldn't recognize the E-M5 ORF
I was just using DCRAW to extract unmolested RAW data to do statistical analysis with another program.
For actual RAW editing I think people are having luck with RawTherapee, RPP and UFRAW.
Ken
Feb 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM
p.11 #17New Olympus OM-D announced
Bifurcator wrote:
That doesn't make any sense to me. You make it sound as if the photons have an awareness level and decide to spread themselves out when they see a larger sensor and/or lock arms when they see a small one.
I could be mistaken I guess but I'm pretty sure your thinking on this is incorrect. The results of two photographs compared seem to say so too. Got any (unedited!) examples of this phenomena?
Bif, he is just declaring that the image quality difference between MFT and FF is two stops, and then refusing to compare lenses between the two formats without equalizing the image quality according to his cooked-up formula. A truly bizarre way to think, but then he doesn't post photos, so nobody knows how that works out
I am, as I was the whole time, primarily concerned with exposure. My philosophy is that if I want image quality, I use my FF Nikon, but if I want portability, I use MFT. At base ISO, both have enough image quality for my purposes, so I don't pixel peep the differences.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You make it sound as if the photons have an awareness level and decide to spread themselves out when they see a larger sensor and/or lock arms when they see a small one.
I could be mistaken I guess but I'm pretty sure your thinking on this is incorrect. The results of two photographs compared seem to say so too. Got any (unedited!) examples of this phenomena?
Bif, he is just declaring that the image quality difference between MFT and FF is two stops, and then refusing to compare lenses between the two formats without equalizing the image quality according to his cooked-up formula. A truly bizarre way to think, but then he doesn't post photos, so nobody knows how that works out
I am, as I was the whole time, primarily concerned with exposure. My philosophy is that if I want image quality, I use my FF Nikon, but if I want portability, I use MFT. At base ISO, both have enough image quality for my purposes, so I don't pixel peep the differences.
Feb 15, 2012 at 01:57 PM
p.11 #18New Olympus OM-D announced
Tariq Gibran wrote:
On another note, Olympus has apparently gone out of their way to state that the E-M5 is not a professional Olympus camera, even calling into question it's reliability for that use.
Well, that's just like the old OM system. It was quite robust, but not tank-like as the Nikons of the time were. There was lots of plastic bits inside the body and lenses to help make it that light. Lots of pros used them for the size, of course, and the same presumably happens with the MFT system.
On another note, Olympus has apparently gone out of their way to state that the E-M5 is not a professional Olympus camera, even calling into question it's reliability for that use.
Well, that's just like the old OM system. It was quite robust, but not tank-like as the Nikons of the time were. There was lots of plastic bits inside the body and lenses to help make it that light. Lots of pros used them for the size, of course, and the same presumably happens with the MFT system.
Feb 15, 2012 at 02:30 PM
p.11 #19New Olympus OM-D announced
Let's not forget that many "pros" also used consumer grade (or what the manufacturer considered consumer grade) bodies for years. The Canon EOS A2 was used quite frequently among the wedding crowd for years, the Canon 20D was used by a lot of wedding photogs as well. I suppose it depends on the definition of "pro", in my understanding a pro grade body is one which can withstand a lot of use and possible battering, plasticky bodies which had good sensors inside ended up being used by a lot of pros who did not require a robustly built body because they rarely abused their equipment. THere are of course other factors such as how good the AF engine is, the fps and so forth and now with digital it is also about MP, DR, HISO and so forth...
Feb 15, 2012 at 02:42 PM
p.11 #20New Olympus OM-D announced
carstenw & bifurcator, do you guys still believe this statement is true?
"But small sensor users still get a perceived focal length to shutter speed advantage."
Then you need to re-read alundeb's excellent posts. Nothing more needs to be said.
"But small sensor users still get a perceived focal length to shutter speed advantage."
Then you need to re-read alundeb's excellent posts. Nothing more needs to be said.
Feb 15, 2012 at 02:45 PM