That EM-5 shot has very aggressive noise reduction on it. It has more color noise than that at 1600, forget 6400. The rest appear to have it turned off as claimed. What's that about?
I have never been impressed with RAW files off the camera, even when I was shooting with a Canon 5D II. RAW files are typically flat and requires a lot of work/processing. With the OM-D files I feel that I can tweak it any which way I want it to go, and the amount of highlight and shadow detail recovery is quite impressive. The DR is just amazing. But what do I know?
LXShooter wrote:
Another factor for me is the difference between RAW vs JPEG on the OM-D is insignificant. When I first got my OM-D and shot JPG's, I was impressed by the SOOC images and couldn't wait for RAW files to be supported. But once RAW files were supported, I saw nominal improvements. Olympus cameras typically shoot JPGs very well, but I was not too impress with the RAW files.
One of the major reasons I dumped my NEX 5N for the OM-D was due to the colors, the Olympus was clearly superior to the 5N in this regard, at least to my eyes. The last reason I can imagine anyone dumping the OM-D is due to file colors.
The OM-D jpeg's colors are excellent, as are the RAW's....
Here's my now sold Canon 5D II with the Canon 40 2.8 vs the OM-D with the 20 1.7...(I've always loved Canon FF camera colors and they are still my favorite, but the OM-D can match it in many circumstances)....
michael49 wrote:
One of the major reasons I dumped my NEX 5N for the OM-D was due to the colors, the Olympus was clearly superior to the 5N in this regard, at least to my eyes. The last reason I can imagine anyone dumping the OM-D is due to file colors.
The OM-D jpeg's colors are excellent, as are the RAW's....
Makten wrote:
I went from NEX-5N to OM-D and the 5N gave nicer IQ in my opinion. Don't know about the NEX-6 though, but from my experience of the OM-D, I would probably choose the 6. The problem is that the MFT lenses are much more convenient for a small system and very good (at least the primes).
Edit: Let's see if I can link to an image from Steve Huffs site. Look at the OM-D image. It's almost monochrome. That's why the noise is so low and that's why I didn't like it.
I am not sure what you are seeing here. I don't think any of the first few crops have much real color - there is just a whole lot of color noise. E-M5 crop on the other hand has substantial noise reduction and who knows whats that doing to the file. I don't think it is possible to derive any conclusion at all from these crops.
Why do you OM-D owners need to prove anything ?. Hogan has picked OM-D as serious camera of the year comparing it against X-E1, Panasonic GH3, and Sony NEX-6.
^ Ah c'mon we're not trying to prove anything, just some friendly banter on OMD vs NEX-6 - I mean, that's the topic of the thread, eh?
Speaking of the OP, if you like the NEX-6 handling better than the OMD, I say why not? Plus, adapting lenses is much more "fun"(?) on NEX than OMD unless you love shooting everything as telephoto
michael49 wrote:
One of the major reasons I dumped my NEX 5N for the OM-D was due to the colors, the Olympus was clearly superior to the 5N in this regard, at least to my eyes. The last reason I can imagine anyone dumping the OM-D is due to file colors.
The OM-D jpeg's colors are excellent, as are the RAW's....
And I think most of those images don't look good when it comes to color. Each to his own, I guess and I'm glad people like the OM-D since it fills a gap. But it wasn't for me.
Makten wrote:
And I think most of those images don't look good when it comes to color. Each to his own, I guess and I'm glad people like the OM-D since it fills a gap. But it wasn't for me.
Makten, why don't you post up some real photos that show this blow away colour with the NEX that cannot be achieved with the Olympus. I just don't see it...maybe some examples rather than words would be better.
When I did some comparisons a few months ago between the NEX-7 with Zeiss 24 and the OMD with the kit zoom, most people either couldn't tell the difference or preferred the OMD image...but that was in one situation...in others, the NEX performed slightly better, and of course is capable of a shallower DOF look and higher resolution.
Zeiss color and micro-contrast may be marginally better than Zuiko glass, and Leica glass is definitely better than Zeiss glass (you get what you pay for, right?) ... but we are now talking about the glass and not about the sensor. You can stick any lens on the OM-D if you have a preference for a color palette from a particular brand ... be it Leica, Voigtlander (my personal choice/preference), Zeiss, Canon or Nikon. You don't have to stick with µ43 lenses. The most expensive µ43 Zuiko prime lens cost less than $1,000. How much is Leica and Voigtlander and Zeiss glass? I will take the µ43 AF Zuiko prime lens any day, thank you!
Makten wrote:
And I think most of those images don't look good when it comes to color. Each to his own, I guess and I'm glad people like the OM-D since it fills a gap. But it wasn't for me.
Well, I just we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The OM-D has the best colors that I've ever seen out of a "small sensor" camera.
.
Each to his own, I guess and I'm glad people like the OM-D since it fills a gap. But it wasn't for me.