Author Topic: E-PL1 Review: The BEST JPEG Camera Ever? (Read 3587 times)

Panther · « **on:** August 08, 2010, 02:14:56 PM »

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/04/07/the-olympus-e-pl1-review-the-best-jpeg-camera-ever/

voyager · « **Reply #1 on:** August 08, 2010, 02:37:50 PM »

I only shoot RAW, so I suppose this is a non-point for me.

lisandra · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2010, 05:09:34 AM »

Quote from: voyager on August 08, 2010, 02:37:50 PM

I only shoot RAW, so I suppose this is a non-point for me.

I dare you to get a ISO 6400 image in RAW as clean as the JPEG this camera dishes out. I've tried, it's not possible. And BTW, why always shoot RAW? jpeg is not a bad compression. A RAW file is just a jpeg waiting to be born...

Panther · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2010, 07:17:41 AM »

An interesting 2-part question now arises...

1) Is the Olympus JPEG supremely superb?

or...

2) Is the Olympus RAW mediocore?

That being said, it's my opinion that Olympus colors are second to none....Better IMHO than my Nikon DSLR....

voyager · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2010, 08:20:35 AM »

Because with RAW you can do a lot more to the photo than with JPEG. You can also always export JPEGs from RAW anyways, and because the computer based noise reduction software is a lot better than the in camera ones.

barondla · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2010, 06:02:42 PM »

In theory raw should be better at high iso than jpeg. The idea being as Voyager pointed out that computers have more processing power than cameras. Have seen cameras on jpeg out perform the same on raw. Its rare but it does happen sometimes. My guess is the noise reduction in the camera was newer, and more advanced than the computer software. When is the last time Olympus updated Master 2?

Saw a high iso trick recently. The guy shot on raw+jpeg. He then processed the two files and combined them. This achieved better performance than either file format by itself. Must try that some day.

thanks
barondla

voyager · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2010, 06:10:37 PM »

That sounds like a lot of extra work for a slightly better result.

barondla · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2010, 06:25:20 PM »

It was more work. Don't love computer work, understand where you are coming from. Seemed fairly simple. Camera automatically takes raw+jpeg. He merely used the noise reduction in camera on jpeg - so no extra work. The raw he ran thru his fave noise reduction in computer and had Photoshop merge the two. It was more than a little better! He went from not liking camera at ISO (think) 1600 to liking it. Think it was Ctein with an E-P1.
thanks
barondla

Have used the Pentax on multiple exposure, tripoded with auto EV ticked in menu. With 9 exposures ISO 1600 looks about like ISO200! 100 looks like ISO12! K-x will do it try it. Not good for movment (except running water - beautiful).

voyager · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2010, 06:46:02 PM »

Doesn't that defeat the purpose if you're using a tripod?

lisandra · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2010, 09:23:19 PM »

Quote from: voyager on August 09, 2010, 08:20:35 AM

Because with RAW you can do a lot more to the photo than with JPEG. You can also always export JPEGs from RAW anyways, and because the computer based noise reduction software is a lot better than the in camera ones.

there is nothing you can do to a RAW file that I can't do to a jpeg on cs4, white balance, color fine tuning, you name it I can do it, you just gotta know how. So, aside from a little (not noticeable unless you print large) more detail RAW files don't offer anything more. I only use RAW for stuff I know I'm being paid to print large, otherwise it's too much time wasted on a per picture basis.

lisandra · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2010, 09:30:56 PM »

Quote from: Panther on August 09, 2010, 07:17:41 AM

An interesting 2-part question now arises...

1) Is the Olympus JPEG supremely superb?

or...

2) Is the Olympus RAW mediocore?

That being said, it's my opinion that Olympus colors are second to none....Better IMHO than my Nikon DSLR....

1) I think the EPL1 jpeg engine can kick the devil himself in the nuts
2) The olympus RAW (to the naked eye) seems to be on par with the panny so I dont think so
And Oly colors should be reason enough to buy any Oly, I spent almost 20 minutes trying to replicate olympus earth tones and greens today on a panny file

cosinaphile · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2010, 09:41:44 PM »

i think that my pen has better jpeg color than my d 80

adash · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2010, 11:16:11 PM »

First of all, a RAW is the unprocesses data from the sensor with some settings, like sharpnes, WB, etc. written as metadata. It can not be mediocore, as it is RAW and there is nothing special with it. Results may come out mediocore if the software, which reads RAW files is less than optimal.
I do believe that shooting jpeg can be beneficial to your workflow only, as you can copy-paste photos out of the camera, with no PP at all. Some shoot RAW+JPEG for highlight recovery as RAW may have more detail in what is clipped and unrecogniseable in JPEGs.
barondla, I never knew that trick with RAW+JPEG for noise reduction.
Taking multiple exposures of the same object at a higher ISO may in some ocasions be pointless as you can adjust the camera to the lower ISO. I only see some meaning in that if you want to pull the results down, like you said, for ISO 12 for example.
I sould try that myself.
And the camera's processor may seem of lower performance than desktop PCs, but it is infact a highly optimized ASIC. It can do jpeg compression on pictures of up to 8Mbytes in size, apply sharpness, saturation, noise filter, etc. with the speed of the serial picture, three frames per second. How many desktop PCs can do that?

barondla · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2010, 05:07:58 AM »

Adash, you are correct, there isn't much point in shooting 9 images at high iso when you could just set the iso lower. Just using the high iso example to show how powerful the noise reduction of 9 identical images can be. The static subject is the same in all 9 shots but the random noise "moves around" between shots and is largely canceled out.

One use for the 9 shot, high iso is moving water. The two ways to shot moving water has been fast shutter speed to stop the waters action (more violent and dynamic looking) or slow shutter for cotton candy effect. Shooting 9 images of water can give you a different, inbetween look. In this method changing to higher iso allows more individual frame, water stopping power. 9 shots at 1/1000 (say iso 1600) will look different than 9 shots at iso 100. Since the iso 1600 averaged over 9 shots has very little noise there isn't much of a image penalty.

Another advantage of the iso 100-200 9 shot technique (named Bart's Technique for the Pentaxian who used it first) is you can get a cotton candy effect without using ND filters or shooting at the sharpness robbing (diffraction) F16-22. If the camera doesn't allow this feature you should be able to do it in post processing. Sure will take longer that way. Camera does it in about 10 seconds.

At "iso" 12 it is amazing how you can keep bringing up the shadow areas with no noise. I can use this technique on the K-7 and embarass any FF camera.

thanks
barondla (love iso 12)

adash · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2010, 05:22:25 AM »

Quote

Just using the high iso example to show how powerful the noise reduction of 9 identical images can be. The static subject is the same in all 9 shots but the random noise "moves around" between shots and is largely canceled out.

I can imagine that. Sounds plausible actually.

Quote

One use for the 9 shot, high iso is moving water. The two ways to shot moving water has been fast shutter speed to stop the waters action (more violent and dynamic looking) or slow shutter for cotton candy effect. Shooting 9 images of water can give you a different, inbetween look.

Sounds like an interesting technique. This will bring both sofness, and detail in the water jets, won't it?

Quote

At "iso" 12 it is amazing how you can keep bringing up the shadow areas with no noise. I can use this technique on the K-7 and embarass any FF camera.

I ought to try that too some day.

lisandra · « **Reply #15 on:** August 11, 2010, 10:13:48 PM »

Quote from: voyager on August 09, 2010, 08:20:35 AM

and because the computer based noise reduction software is a lot better than the in camera ones.

Ive yet to see a side by side high iso of jpeg and raw from a epl1 or pentax kx where the raw file looks cleaner. I tried with the epl1 and bible 5 (no slouch) and after all that work the jpeg was cleaner,sharper, and equally detailed ( noise ninja destryed the detail)

Centauri27 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2010, 03:12:13 PM »

I am in the camp that "RAW for everything" is overkill and just slows you down. The PEN's excellent JPEG coupled with the mediocre RAW processing in the Olympus apps further reinforces this notion. But one area where RAW will come in handy is better dynamic range: the PEN's JPEG DR is not that great and I've read that RAW can give you an extra stop or more of dynamic range.

Panther · « **Reply #17 on:** August 18, 2010, 03:18:30 PM »

Quote from: Centauri27 on August 18, 2010, 03:12:13 PM

the mediocre RAW processing in the Olympus apps

Agreed 100% here - I can't stand Olympus made RAW processors.....

adash · « **Reply #18 on:** August 18, 2010, 09:43:30 PM »

Bibble 5 does highlight recovery and I have seen it extracting detail in areas that are otherwise severely overexposed. It was hard to believe that! That's in RAW, of course!

barondla · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2010, 04:50:05 AM »

Why is Olympus so bad at raw developing? Seems they have to be capable of doing a good job, to end up with their fabulous jpegs. Do they just not spend the extra time and money on it? If they aren't interested in raw maybe they should offer DNG raw like Pentax does. Pentax actually offers their own raw (PEF) and DNG (Adobe). Does any other company do great jpegs and poor raw?
thanks
barondla

adash · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2010, 05:01:46 AM »

You can't say that RAW is poor, as it should be the same data that the interenal JPEG engine works with. It is the software RAW converter that does some processing which may be suboptimal. For example apply noise filtering and ditch fine detail, etc.

Centauri27 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2010, 08:41:01 AM »

I'm not sure if any camera manufacturer is renown for their RAW-processing app. Does anyone claim the software packaged with Canons extract the best details from their CRW files?

I suspect this is because these are hardware manufacturers who don't fully understand--or prioritize--software development. I seem to recall all the software that came with my Sony products were uniformly awful.

Panther · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2010, 10:23:09 AM »

I would rate Nikon's "Capture NX2" much higher than any Olympus RAW processor...In fact, it's not even a contest IMHO...

lisandra · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2010, 11:03:13 AM »

Quote from: adash on August 18, 2010, 09:43:30 PM

Bibble 5 does highlight recovery and I have seen it extracting detail in areas that are otherwise severely overexposed. It was hard to believe that! That's in RAW, of course!

I'm just referring to noise.

adash · « **Reply #24 on:** August 19, 2010, 09:46:07 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on August 19, 2010, 11:03:13 AM

Quote from: adash on August 18, 2010, 09:43:30 PM
Bibble 5 does highlight recovery and I have seen it extracting detail in areas that are otherwise severely overexposed. It was hard to believe that! That's in RAW, of course!
I'm just referring to noise.

Sorry, I can't recall whose post I was replying to. I don't pay much attention to fine detail myself.

Author Topic: E-PL1 Review: The BEST JPEG Camera Ever? (Read 3587 times)

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery