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.17 #1New Olympus OM-D announced
Agreed. I'm very satisfied with the quality of output I get from my m4/3 cameras, and people who see my work are similarly pleased. I do a lot of architecture shooting for my company on projects we work on (I'm an engineer), and my own office has 11 framed prints on the walls, of which 10 are from Micro 4/3 cameras. The shots on the office walls are all huge and such, and I've got a 60 inch panorama from a multi-image stitch with my old E-P1.
Clients who come into the office often remark about the high quality of the office photos. Then my boss brings them into my office, and they look at my personal photos on the wall. Never once has someone remarked that there were technical flaws in the images, but I have had MANY people shocked and amazed when they've asked what I use, and I bring out my GX1 or GH2 and say, this is what I used for my office prints. They can't believe prints that good can come from such a small camera. Sure, if I had a 5D II print of the same scene next to my m4/3 shots, they might be able to tell the difference if they studied the shots, but that's not what photography is about. It's about making great images that create an emotional connection with the viewer.
And the final quality of an image has much more to do with quality of light, composition and artistic vision than the signal to noise ratio or how many stops of dynamic range your camera has...though all things being equal, the superior imager will provide a little richer final product.
Clients who come into the office often remark about the high quality of the office photos. Then my boss brings them into my office, and they look at my personal photos on the wall. Never once has someone remarked that there were technical flaws in the images, but I have had MANY people shocked and amazed when they've asked what I use, and I bring out my GX1 or GH2 and say, this is what I used for my office prints. They can't believe prints that good can come from such a small camera. Sure, if I had a 5D II print of the same scene next to my m4/3 shots, they might be able to tell the difference if they studied the shots, but that's not what photography is about. It's about making great images that create an emotional connection with the viewer.
And the final quality of an image has much more to do with quality of light, composition and artistic vision than the signal to noise ratio or how many stops of dynamic range your camera has...though all things being equal, the superior imager will provide a little richer final product.
Feb 17, 2012 at 02:13 PM
p.17 #2New Olympus OM-D announced
Off-topic posters start you own techno-babble thread where you can debate all you want.
Seeing this picture with the grip makes me think that it might be an excellent accessory for handling. Wish they were sold as a bundle with the body and grip together at one nice price, not interested in the kit zoom.
Seeing this picture with the grip makes me think that it might be an excellent accessory for handling. Wish they were sold as a bundle with the body and grip together at one nice price, not interested in the kit zoom.
Feb 17, 2012 at 02:24 PM
p.17 #3New Olympus OM-D announced
wjmeyer wrote:
If you are unsatisfied with your images, either your technique is off, your equipment is not on par with your expectations and/or the equipment can't produce what you are looking for ...
Heh. My dissatisfaction with my images usually stems from my inability to capture and/or express what I would like to express. It doesn't have much to do with technique or equipment.
But you didn't think that arguing on 'net forums about technical characteristics of CMOS sensors has anything to do with photography, did you? :-D
If you are unsatisfied with your images, either your technique is off, your equipment is not on par with your expectations and/or the equipment can't produce what you are looking for ...
Heh. My dissatisfaction with my images usually stems from my inability to capture and/or express what I would like to express. It doesn't have much to do with technique or equipment.
But you didn't think that arguing on 'net forums about technical characteristics of CMOS sensors has anything to do with photography, did you? :-D
Feb 17, 2012 at 02:24 PM
p.17 #4New Olympus OM-D announced
KaaX wrote:
Heh. My dissatisfaction with my images usually stems from my inability to capture and/or express what I would like to express. It doesn't have much to do with technique or equipment.
But you didn't think that arguing on 'net forums about technical characteristics of CMOS sensors has anything to do with photography, did you? :-D
Well KaaX, I certainly did not mean this personally towards you, the "you" and "your" in my post had to do with photographers in general. But I will say this, when I am dissatisfied with an image, it is almost always because of my technique or lack thereof. I have to ask myself:
All the above I would attribute to "technique", so I would define technique for photography as the variables used to capture an image. So if I am dissatisfied with the image then it is almost always one of the above. I would also add "knowing the limitations of your equipment" is also a variable in the technique. For instance if I know that the sensor in my camera has a usable ISO range (that I am happy with in print) up to say 3200, then I know I cannot go beyond that, if I have my fastest lens on and still my shutter is too slow, then I either need to add light, add stability (a tripod possibly, as long as my subject isn't moving) or not take the shot. If you find your are in these types of situations often and feel that your equipment is the weak link between getting the images you desire, then I'd say it is time to upgrade your equipment.
Since this thread is for the new Olympus OM-D we have been discussing its enhanced features and capabilities, of which, I am so far impressed, but I will reserve final judgement for when I actually get the unit in my hands and start testing it out. If you think the E-M5 will still limit you from getting images that you desire, then by all means do not buy it. Sure, we'd all like to see certain features or enhancements to the equipment we use, but reality is that nothing is "perfect" out there. I also realize that I sometimes find myself griping and complaining about certain features (or lack thereof) on new equipment, but at the end of the day, I am pretty darn happy with the amazing equipment we already have and some of the new stuff coming out is just plain exciting.
wjmeyer wrote
If you are unsatisfied with your images, either your technique is off, your equipment is not on par with your expectations and/or the equipment can't produce what you are looking for ...But you didn't think that arguing on 'net forums about technical characteristics of CMOS sensors has anything to do with photography, did you? :-D
Well KaaX, I certainly did not mean this personally towards you, the "you" and "your" in my post had to do with photographers in general. But I will say this, when I am dissatisfied with an image, it is almost always because of my technique or lack thereof. I have to ask myself:
- Did I use the right aperture?
- Did I use the right shutter?
- Did I use the right ISO?
- Was the subject focussed correctly?
- Did I use the right lens?
- Do I need to change my perspective/lens?
- Do I have the subject in the proper location?
- Do I need to change locations?
- Do I need to change the lighting?
All the above I would attribute to "technique", so I would define technique for photography as the variables used to capture an image. So if I am dissatisfied with the image then it is almost always one of the above. I would also add "knowing the limitations of your equipment" is also a variable in the technique. For instance if I know that the sensor in my camera has a usable ISO range (that I am happy with in print) up to say 3200, then I know I cannot go beyond that, if I have my fastest lens on and still my shutter is too slow, then I either need to add light, add stability (a tripod possibly, as long as my subject isn't moving) or not take the shot. If you find your are in these types of situations often and feel that your equipment is the weak link between getting the images you desire, then I'd say it is time to upgrade your equipment.
Since this thread is for the new Olympus OM-D we have been discussing its enhanced features and capabilities, of which, I am so far impressed, but I will reserve final judgement for when I actually get the unit in my hands and start testing it out. If you think the E-M5 will still limit you from getting images that you desire, then by all means do not buy it. Sure, we'd all like to see certain features or enhancements to the equipment we use, but reality is that nothing is "perfect" out there. I also realize that I sometimes find myself griping and complaining about certain features (or lack thereof) on new equipment, but at the end of the day, I am pretty darn happy with the amazing equipment we already have and some of the new stuff coming out is just plain exciting.
Feb 17, 2012 at 03:02 PM
p.17 #5New Olympus OM-D announced
I didn't take it personally :-)
My point is rather that I'm often dissatisfied with technically correct images, ones that have no issues of "technique" with them, but are also, crudely put, boring.
I do not think that creating interesting, exciting, deep, memorable photographs is a matter of technique.
My point is rather that I'm often dissatisfied with technically correct images, ones that have no issues of "technique" with them, but are also, crudely put, boring.
I do not think that creating interesting, exciting, deep, memorable photographs is a matter of technique.
Feb 17, 2012 at 03:13 PM
p.17 #6New Olympus OM-D announced
KaaX wrote:
I didn't take it personally :-)
My point is rather that I'm often dissatisfied with technically correct images, ones that have no issues of "technique" with them, but are also, crudely put, boring.
I do not think that creating interesting, exciting, deep, memorable photographs is a matter of technique.
I guess that's where we differ and that's okay. I think of it like a painter, he see's a scene or has an image in his mind that he wants to convey on canvas; however, in order to convey that he must use "technique" which for him would be the proper canvas, the proper paints, the proper brushes and then his technique with which he apply's the above to that canvas. Now granted, when the painter is done he may still be disatisfied with his work, but if he is sane, it is because his technique and how he applied that was unable to convey the image. It wasn't the canvas' fault, or the paint or the brush.
We might be saying the same thing here Kaax, because I certainly understand what you're saying with "boring" images, I have shot so many boring images over the years it's really pathetic; however, I have grown through those boring images to strive to do better at creating images that resonate with my soul and hopefully will do the same with others. Yes, the camera and lens can do nothing on their own, just like the paint and brush can do nothing without the artist controlling them, and likwise we (photographers) must control our equipment in order to paint our canvas (capture the image).
If you or others still don't comprehend what I'm trying to get across, then I challenge you to use the previous posts' bulleted points and tell me how you can make your "boring" images better without changing any of the variables I've listed. I don't think you can, which is why I'm implying that it is indeed your technique that can make an image boring, amazing or anything in between. You may think that it is your inability to express what you want to convey or had hoped to convey in the image, or maybe the image needs some enhancements and some PP work in order to convey what you'd like, but it comes down to your abilty to express your artistic abilty "through" your technique.
Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Monet, Michelangelo, Pollock and so many more... fantastic artists, but all different because they used different techniques to portray their art. How are we (photographers) any different? Maybe I'm completely missing something here, but this is how I see it. It is our technique that makes us unique, or maybe better put, how we convey an artistic impression/message through the use of our technique using the tools that we have available to us.
I didn't take it personally :-)
My point is rather that I'm often dissatisfied with technically correct images, ones that have no issues of "technique" with them, but are also, crudely put, boring.
I do not think that creating interesting, exciting, deep, memorable photographs is a matter of technique.
I guess that's where we differ and that's okay. I think of it like a painter, he see's a scene or has an image in his mind that he wants to convey on canvas; however, in order to convey that he must use "technique" which for him would be the proper canvas, the proper paints, the proper brushes and then his technique with which he apply's the above to that canvas. Now granted, when the painter is done he may still be disatisfied with his work, but if he is sane, it is because his technique and how he applied that was unable to convey the image. It wasn't the canvas' fault, or the paint or the brush.
We might be saying the same thing here Kaax, because I certainly understand what you're saying with "boring" images, I have shot so many boring images over the years it's really pathetic; however, I have grown through those boring images to strive to do better at creating images that resonate with my soul and hopefully will do the same with others. Yes, the camera and lens can do nothing on their own, just like the paint and brush can do nothing without the artist controlling them, and likwise we (photographers) must control our equipment in order to paint our canvas (capture the image).
If you or others still don't comprehend what I'm trying to get across, then I challenge you to use the previous posts' bulleted points and tell me how you can make your "boring" images better without changing any of the variables I've listed. I don't think you can, which is why I'm implying that it is indeed your technique that can make an image boring, amazing or anything in between. You may think that it is your inability to express what you want to convey or had hoped to convey in the image, or maybe the image needs some enhancements and some PP work in order to convey what you'd like, but it comes down to your abilty to express your artistic abilty "through" your technique.
Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Monet, Michelangelo, Pollock and so many more... fantastic artists, but all different because they used different techniques to portray their art. How are we (photographers) any different? Maybe I'm completely missing something here, but this is how I see it. It is our technique that makes us unique, or maybe better put, how we convey an artistic impression/message through the use of our technique using the tools that we have available to us.
Feb 17, 2012 at 03:42 PM
p.17 #7New Olympus OM-D announced
E-M5 ISO test vs. E-P1:
http://fourthirds-user.com/2012/02/high_iso_comparison_between_the_olympus_pen_ep3_and_omd_em5.php
The E-M5 is looking the business! Taking into account caveats of downsized images and JPG straight from camera, it looks at least 1 stop better than the E-P1. 3200 is emergency ISO on my E-P1, but 6400 on the E-M5 looks a bit cleaner than that.
I'm looking forward to the next E-Px camera with this new sensor in it. The E-M5 looks really nice but I don't think I want a DSLR form factor right now for personal stuff. The rangefinder/P&S form factor is just so much less intimidating and attention-grabbing--puts people more at ease. Then again the E-M5 is the first m4/3 camera to make me seriously consider ditching all my DSLR stuff, so there might be an E-M6 in my future. Those Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses would hasten a switch for me, and with Olympus's wireless flash system I think I might have everything I need once those lenses come out, minus a 17mm f/1.4 which somebody needs to make ASAP (no, don't point me to that manual focus Nokton, thanks
).
http://fourthirds-user.com/2012/02/high_iso_comparison_between_the_olympus_pen_ep3_and_omd_em5.php
The E-M5 is looking the business! Taking into account caveats of downsized images and JPG straight from camera, it looks at least 1 stop better than the E-P1. 3200 is emergency ISO on my E-P1, but 6400 on the E-M5 looks a bit cleaner than that.
I'm looking forward to the next E-Px camera with this new sensor in it. The E-M5 looks really nice but I don't think I want a DSLR form factor right now for personal stuff. The rangefinder/P&S form factor is just so much less intimidating and attention-grabbing--puts people more at ease. Then again the E-M5 is the first m4/3 camera to make me seriously consider ditching all my DSLR stuff, so there might be an E-M6 in my future. Those Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses would hasten a switch for me, and with Olympus's wireless flash system I think I might have everything I need once those lenses come out, minus a 17mm f/1.4 which somebody needs to make ASAP (no, don't point me to that manual focus Nokton, thanks
).Feb 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM
p.17 #8New Olympus OM-D announced
Bifurcator wrote:
I think I'm in the middle on that part of it. Like KaaX says sensors are and actually have been for a couple of years now, bumping up against physics. And Nex is no better really. It's the same for what it is as an APS-C. Of course Nex owners might wish it were different but...
Lenses topped out 30 years ago already and all that's happening today is mostly just wheel reinvention. I have 30 and 40 year old lenses that kick ass on the very best Nex and µ4/3 lenses - especially from about 20mm on up! And the...Show more →
wjmeyer wrote:
I understand what you are saying here and I would agree that there are some fantastic lenses from yesteryear; however, I think it's somewhat similar to the other ongoing discussion here about equivalence and comparable values between m43 and FF senors/lenses, etc. What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF. And that is the point I was trying to...Show more →
Yeah those are good counters. They show the other side of the coin pretty well. And prolly it's in the middle somewhere.
On the sensor thing for sure if I consider the past 2 or 3 years; there's always this big hype at first release about how much better it is. And then 2 months after release, nope! Not even a little bit. Still there's this sense from all the lingering hype no doubt, that it is anyway. So for me anyway I've just stopped listening to the BS. I shoot RAW too tho so I'm barely or not at all, affected by newer conversion engines - which actually do get better over time. Even so they're still not good enough IMO. When they embrace 16bit JPeg files (JPeg-2000) then I'll stop shooting RAW. Why they haven't done that yet is beyond me! Slackers!
Concerning lenses; AF is for wimps. Well, wimps and people trying to make a living by taking pictures. 
I thought AF was super dorky and downright gimmicky when they first started offering it. 6 or 8 years later I embraced it for a short time. Now I'm back to thinking that it just ruins photography for me. I think about AF like most people thing about power-zoom: It might have a place but it's place is nowhere around me. I'll probably always be the odd man out and I can understand the other side too. As a professional musician I rely on midi sequencing and all kinds of automation to arrange notes more perfectly and etc. yet my friends who started in the 50's and 60's who play for only the sake of fun and accomplishment, just shake their heads. When midi first came out and I showed it to those guys their first remarks were: Oh, no, that's going to breed a whole generation of incompetents. They were right - but I see the other side too... Jan Hammer, Herbie Hancock, etc.
EDIT:
BTW, I should clarify: I'm not saying sensors don't improve at all. I'm merely pointing out that they don't seem to actually ever exceed the sensor-size and pixel density thing. Give me those two specs and I'll know what I can actually expect from the sensor and then I can just ignore the BS hype that Sony and others pay so many plants to hype.
Edited on Feb 18, 2012 at 02:43 PM · View previous versions
I think I'm in the middle on that part of it. Like KaaX says sensors are and actually have been for a couple of years now, bumping up against physics. And Nex is no better really. It's the same for what it is as an APS-C. Of course Nex owners might wish it were different but...
Lenses topped out 30 years ago already and all that's happening today is mostly just wheel reinvention. I have 30 and 40 year old lenses that kick ass on the very best Nex and µ4/3 lenses - especially from about 20mm on up! And the...Show more →
wjmeyer wrote:
I understand what you are saying here and I would agree that there are some fantastic lenses from yesteryear; however, I think it's somewhat similar to the other ongoing discussion here about equivalence and comparable values between m43 and FF senors/lenses, etc. What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF. And that is the point I was trying to...Show more →
Yeah those are good counters. They show the other side of the coin pretty well. And prolly it's in the middle somewhere.
On the sensor thing for sure if I consider the past 2 or 3 years; there's always this big hype at first release about how much better it is. And then 2 months after release, nope! Not even a little bit. Still there's this sense from all the lingering hype no doubt, that it is anyway. So for me anyway I've just stopped listening to the BS. I shoot RAW too tho so I'm barely or not at all, affected by newer conversion engines - which actually do get better over time. Even so they're still not good enough IMO. When they embrace 16bit JPeg files (JPeg-2000) then I'll stop shooting RAW. Why they haven't done that yet is beyond me! Slackers!
Concerning lenses; AF is for wimps.
Well, wimps and people trying to make a living by taking pictures. I thought AF was super dorky and downright gimmicky when they first started offering it. 6 or 8 years later I embraced it for a short time. Now I'm back to thinking that it just ruins photography for me. I think about AF like most people thing about power-zoom: It might have a place but it's place is nowhere around me. I'll probably always be the odd man out and I can understand the other side too. As a professional musician I rely on midi sequencing and all kinds of automation to arrange notes more perfectly and etc. yet my friends who started in the 50's and 60's who play for only the sake of fun and accomplishment, just shake their heads. When midi first came out and I showed it to those guys their first remarks were: Oh, no, that's going to breed a whole generation of incompetents. They were right - but I see the other side too... Jan Hammer, Herbie Hancock, etc. EDIT:
BTW, I should clarify: I'm not saying sensors don't improve at all. I'm merely pointing out that they don't seem to actually ever exceed the sensor-size and pixel density thing. Give me those two specs and I'll know what I can actually expect from the sensor and then I can just ignore the BS hype that Sony and others pay so many plants to hype.
Edited on Feb 18, 2012 at 02:43 PM · View previous versions
Feb 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM
p.17 #9New Olympus OM-D announced
If you or others still don't comprehend what I'm trying to get across, then I challenge you to use the previous posts' bulleted points and tell me how you can make your "boring" images better without changing any of the variables I've listed.
How about changing the concept in your head.
Most boring photos are just boring conceptions in the first place.
How about changing the concept in your head.
Most boring photos are just boring conceptions in the first place.
Feb 18, 2012 at 01:13 PM
p.17 #10New Olympus OM-D announced
wjmeyer wrote:
If you or others still don't comprehend what I'm trying to get across, then I challenge you to use the previous posts' bulleted points and tell me how you can make your "boring" images better without changing any of the variables I've listed. I don't think you can, which is why I'm implying that it is indeed your technique
I think you got it mostly right. The only thing you seem to be missing which might be the difference, is that all your nine sentences infer the sovereign "I" as the main and controlling character. A lot of the "deep and memorable" photographs I see which were later explained by the photographer, include a sense of participation, spontaneity and submersion in the event - as opposed to the mechanical control of one who might be deliberately "setting up" a shot. One can get all 9 of those things spot on yet the photograph may still suck! Inversely one can get all 9 of those things wrong and come up with what's being described here as a "deep and memorable" photograph. Right?
If you or others still don't comprehend what I'm trying to get across, then I challenge you to use the previous posts' bulleted points and tell me how you can make your "boring" images better without changing any of the variables I've listed. I don't think you can, which is why I'm implying that it is indeed your technique
I think you got it mostly right. The only thing you seem to be missing which might be the difference, is that all your nine sentences infer the sovereign "I" as the main and controlling character. A lot of the "deep and memorable" photographs I see which were later explained by the photographer, include a sense of participation, spontaneity and submersion in the event - as opposed to the mechanical control of one who might be deliberately "setting up" a shot. One can get all 9 of those things spot on yet the photograph may still suck! Inversely one can get all 9 of those things wrong and come up with what's being described here as a "deep and memorable" photograph. Right?
Feb 18, 2012 at 02:32 PM
p.17 #11New Olympus OM-D announced
I don't know if this review from a Swedish site have been posted. You can translate it with Google
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/en-dag-med-olympus-om-d.htm
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/en-dag-med-olympus-om-d.htm
Feb 18, 2012 at 09:40 PM
p.17 #12New Olympus OM-D announced
Those high ISO samples vs the E-P3 look impressive. Can't wait to load some RAW images from the camera into ACR once it supports the OM-D.
Feb 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM
p.17 #13New Olympus OM-D announced
They complain in the review about the high ISO. And the smearing effect on those high ISO pics
Feb 18, 2012 at 10:03 PM
p.17 #14New Olympus OM-D announced
Lars Johnsson wrote:
They complain in the review about the high ISO. And the smearing effect on those high ISO pics
There is smearing when shooting JPG. They overcranked the noise reduction just like they did for the E-P3 in default JPG settings. JPGs might suggest 2 stops cleaner than E-P3, but I think when we are finally able to compare RAW files we'll probably see somewhere between 1-1.5 stops (just an educated guess based on JPGs I've seen and projected noise with lower noise reduction).
They complain in the review about the high ISO. And the smearing effect on those high ISO pics
There is smearing when shooting JPG. They overcranked the noise reduction just like they did for the E-P3 in default JPG settings. JPGs might suggest 2 stops cleaner than E-P3, but I think when we are finally able to compare RAW files we'll probably see somewhere between 1-1.5 stops (just an educated guess based on JPGs I've seen and projected noise with lower noise reduction).
Feb 19, 2012 at 12:06 AM
p.17 #15New Olympus OM-D announced
Lars Johnsson wrote:
They complain in the review about the high ISO. And the smearing effect on those high ISO pics
What they wrote translates to: "The jpeg files are heavily noise reduced at higher ISO with a noticeable smearing effect. You can often get more details and resolution out of raw-format and careful noise reduction." They also note that it is hard to pass judgment on the final image quality since a) they did not have a raw converter that could process the files and b) the camera is not "done" (i.e. not final firmware).
So I am not sure I would read "complain about high ISO" into that.
Also, dear god, they need an editor. Tons of spelling and grammar mistakes, and clearly they did not bother to read the manual for the camera either. "Life time" mode that shows you how the image progresses unlike in "bulb" mode? No. There is a "live bulb" as well as "live time" mode and both show you the exposure progression.
They complain in the review about the high ISO. And the smearing effect on those high ISO pics
What they wrote translates to: "The jpeg files are heavily noise reduced at higher ISO with a noticeable smearing effect. You can often get more details and resolution out of raw-format and careful noise reduction." They also note that it is hard to pass judgment on the final image quality since a) they did not have a raw converter that could process the files and b) the camera is not "done" (i.e. not final firmware).
So I am not sure I would read "complain about high ISO" into that.
Also, dear god, they need an editor. Tons of spelling and grammar mistakes, and clearly they did not bother to read the manual for the camera either. "Life time" mode that shows you how the image progresses unlike in "bulb" mode? No. There is a "live bulb" as well as "live time" mode and both show you the exposure progression.
Feb 19, 2012 at 02:59 AM
p.17 #16New Olympus OM-D announced
pingflood wrote:
What they wrote translates to: "The jpeg files are heavily noise reduced at higher ISO with a noticeable smearing effect. You can often get more details and resolution out of raw-format and careful noise reduction." They also note that it is hard to pass judgment on the final image quality since a) they did not have a raw converter that could process the files and b) the camera is not "done" (i.e. not final firmware).
So I am not sure I would read "complain about high ISO" into that.
Also, dear god, they need an editor. Tons of spelling and grammar mistakes,...Show more →
So when you reed it. Do you think they liked or didn't liked the high ISO jpgs
Do you belive it was a positive comment
It was a negative comment about the high iso pics, but they made a note that "maybe" it will be better with careful NR and raw.
You have to assume that the strong NR in the camera jpgs is there because the files are not that good without NR. I don't belive Olympus would have a strong NR if the files already where very good or perfect without it
Lars Johnsson wrote
They complain in the review about the high ISO. And the smearing effect on those high ISO picsSo I am not sure I would read "complain about high ISO" into that.
Also, dear god, they need an editor. Tons of spelling and grammar mistakes,...Show more →
So when you reed it. Do you think they liked or didn't liked the high ISO jpgs
Do you belive it was a positive commentIt was a negative comment about the high iso pics, but they made a note that "maybe" it will be better with careful NR and raw.
You have to assume that the strong NR in the camera jpgs is there because the files are not that good without NR. I don't belive Olympus would have a strong NR if the files already where very good or perfect without it
Feb 19, 2012 at 05:47 AM
p.17 #17New Olympus OM-D announced
Yeah but in the same breath if they can't even take the time to write a proper review I value their opinions at just about not! The Swedish folk I know are proud educated bastards and would never let slide something like that. Maybe the medal-heads living out in the forests but not anyone likely to be interested in new camera releases. So that aspect of the review spells "tards" to me. <shrug>
Feb 19, 2012 at 06:10 AM
p.17 #18New Olympus OM-D announced
To say that the review is useless or no good because he made grammar & spelling mistakes is just ridiculous.
Feb 19, 2012 at 06:22 AM
p.17 #19New Olympus OM-D announced
KaaX wrote:
I didn't take it personally :-)
My point is rather that I'm often dissatisfied with technically correct images, ones that have no issues of "technique" with them, but are also, crudely put, boring.
I do not think that creating interesting, exciting, deep, memorable photographs is a matter of technique.
you mean like, paint by numbers...
I didn't take it personally :-)
My point is rather that I'm often dissatisfied with technically correct images, ones that have no issues of "technique" with them, but are also, crudely put, boring.
I do not think that creating interesting, exciting, deep, memorable photographs is a matter of technique.
you mean like, paint by numbers...
Feb 19, 2012 at 06:36 AM
p.17 #20New Olympus OM-D announced
there were some RAWs out here:
http://www.focus-numerique.com/olympus-om-m5-premieres-images-news-3101.html
but they seem to have been removed
Certainly this sensor is a lot better than previous 4/3rds sensors, indeed a low light ISO6400 shot cleaned up very well, you could never say that about any other 4/3rds camera before.
Theorists have it that its about a stop or a little less, better than GH2 based on the RAWs presented.
http://www.focus-numerique.com/olympus-om-m5-premieres-images-news-3101.html
but they seem to have been removed
Certainly this sensor is a lot better than previous 4/3rds sensors, indeed a low light ISO6400 shot cleaned up very well, you could never say that about any other 4/3rds camera before.
Theorists have it that its about a stop or a little less, better than GH2 based on the RAWs presented.
Feb 19, 2012 at 06:45 AM