Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: jpegs vs jpegs  (Read 2071 times)
bluekorn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« on: April 05, 2014, 12:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I love taking pictures, being out and about with my camera and becoming lost in my own process of photographing. And I love it when a jpeg pops out of my G5 in Aperture III and pleases my eye just as it is. I only dabble with the controls of Aperture III, understanding too little of its potential and have become mostly resigned to my lack of skills in post processing when I do shoot raw.

So along come the em5 and the em1. There are many on this forum who rave about the out of camera jpegs from these cameras. I read and I'm seduced. Why, I ask myself, is no one raving about the sensor and processor in my G5? In fact, no one seems all that excited specifically about the color rendition of any Panasonic camera.

So I'll dump the G5 and continue using my 14-45, 45-200, 25 1.4 Panny lenses with my new Olympus. I'll work with it and struggle to set it up in all it's complications so that it pleases my eye, just as I did with the G5. I hesitate to ask this question but please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have adequate technique and some skill in getting a proper exposure. Am I going to perceive a qualitative difference in the jpegs of these cameras?
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921



« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2014, 03:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I own a GX7 in addition to the E-M1 & E-M5. Each renders JPEGs a bit differently by default, but via in-camera tweaking you can get 'em all pretty close. I don't see anything inferior in the GX7's JPEG output. I will say the E-M5 has the most pronounced default tonal separation of the three. This does make a good visual impact and is likely what Olympus JPEG fans have been refering to.

-Dave-
Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2014, 08:26:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I love taking pictures, being out and about with my camera and becoming lost in my own process of photographing. And I love it when a jpeg pops out of my G5 in Aperture III and pleases my eye just as it is. I only dabble with the controls of Aperture III, understanding too little of its potential and have become mostly resigned to my lack of skills in post processing when I do shoot raw.

So along come the em5 and the em1. There are many on this forum who rave about the out of camera jpegs from these cameras. I read and I'm seduced. Why, I ask myself, is no one raving about the sensor and processor in my G5? In fact, no one seems all that excited specifically about the color rendition of any Panasonic camera.

So I'll dump the G5 and continue using my 14-45, 45-200, 25 1.4 Panny lenses with my new Olympus. I'll work with it and struggle to set it up in all it's complications so that it pleases my eye, just as I did with the G5. I hesitate to ask this question but please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have adequate technique and some skill in getting a proper exposure. Am I going to perceive a qualitative difference in the jpegs of these cameras?


People rave about the jpegs and that is dependent on how the camera processes the image - Olympus have gone for a warmer feel to them, Panasonic go for a more 'neutral' feel. You could set up a profile in either camera to mimic the other if you wanted: on my Canon camera you can create a profile in their software and put it in the camera as a jpeg preset - maybe you can do that with the G5? One professional I spoke to (pre-E-M5) said he preferred the out of camera jpegs from the Olympus but preferred the Panasonic raw files for post processing.
I have the GX1 (same sensor as the G3) and the E-M5.
For the GX-1: Panasonic's interface is spot on (for me), I like the menu structure and the fact that I can access custom functions with a twist of a dial and not through a menu. I prefer the way Panaonic handle the highlights. Slightly better AF I low light.
For the E-M5: built in viewfinder (I have the detachable EVF for the GX1), great its tactile feel (the GX1 has no grip etc). Slightly better high ISO performance though some say Oly have artificially inflated their ISO by half a stop or so. Better shadow recovery.

I cannot for sure say the same would be true of G5 vs E-M5 but the internals of the GX1 and the G3 were identical. The E-M5 is a great camera but I would say not to expect miracles and if you do not like the 'feel' of the EM5 you may end up not enjoying your photography - can you buy the E-M5 without selling the G5 immediately?
My 'upgrade' for MFT at the moment would be the E-M1 because of the hybrid AF being better with moving subjects. 
Logged
viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2014, 09:14:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting topic.......

My wife recently bought a G5 which, here in the UK, is currently being sold off at bargain basement price,....in fact about ONE THIRD of the EM-5 price for the same amount of pixels and complexity in a slightly smaller bubble!

DXO shows very little to mark out the EM-5 as a 'better' camera whereas APS-C cameras are noticeably higher scoring.

With all the current hype about the OMD models I almost got taken in and became interested that Olympus had actually beaten the laws of physics in some way and arrived at a camera system that made anything else or bigger completely superflous.    All over the web people were apparently relaying their decisions of taking out their EM-1 and leaving FF canons and nikons on the shelf and their unremitting delight in how much better the experience was........    On this site particualrly, 'bcooter' became a voluble commenter, but although I became tempted, my researches into the OMD models has not caused me to aquire one.

The fact almost certainly point to G5, G6 and the OMD's beign virtually similar in results (and sadly complexity).    In practice most decent APS-C systems give a useful extra margin of capability especially if, like me, your default print size is 20x16 inches.

Much of the popularity surrounding the OMD's does seem to be hype flavoured with fad.    The world and his brother including George Clooney are keen to be seen with one around their necks so it simply looks like the old SLR/'male jewllery'/status/virility badge coming back to haunt photography...is all!
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1198



« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2014, 02:36:38 PM »
ReplyReply

In practice most decent APS-C systems give a useful extra margin of capability especially if, like me, your default print size is 20x16 inches.

However, when I shot head to head comparisons between the E-M5 and the Fuji X-E2 aiming for optimal detail (on tripod, comparable lenses stopped down to sweet spots, remote release, PP to best available result and sized for output to 17x22 at 360 dpi (my standard workflow, which of course results in the sides of the APS-C image being cropped)), the two were indistinguishable resolution-wise.  However, I would give the edge to the Fuji when it comes to noise in the shadows.  I don't shoot at ISOs higher than 800, so high ISO output is not of interest to me.  

So for me the "extra margin of capability" of APS-C over m4/3 does not exist in my typical use.  My D800E definitely has an extra margin of capability . . . but at a price (both monetary and physical)  Grin
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 04:12:27 PM by AFairley » Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921



« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2014, 02:41:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Much of the popularity surrounding the OMD's does seem to be hype flavoured with fad. The world and his brother including George Clooney are keen to be seen with one around their necks so it simply looks like the old SLR/'male jewllery'/status/virility badge coming back to haunt photography...is all!

Had to laugh at this, given that I live in the US and—apart from my friend Bruce and a photojournalist I'm mildly acquainted with—know nobody "in the flesh" who uses an m43 camera. During my recent holiday in Grand Canyon National Park I did see many people using mirrorless cameras, but most were clearly Asian & European tourists. The big-SLR-as-status-symbol mode of behavior is still very much alive & well here. (Though not at the Grand Canyon...most "natives" were taking their pics with smartphones.)

I use different cameras/formats for different things. Never have found a one-size-fits-all approach that actually works.

-Dave-
Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2014, 05:06:05 PM »
ReplyReply


The fact almost certainly point to G5, G6 and the OMD's beign virtually similar in results (and sadly complexity).    In practice most decent APS-C systems give a useful extra margin of capability especially if, like me, your default print size is 20x16 inches.

No, the E-M5 does not break the laws of physics, unfortunately, but it does give excellent images all the same: I have seen a couple of websites where the performance regards ISO and shadow detail equals the Canon 5DII so it is obviously doing a lot right. But I think your comment regards print size is  the key one in that you start to really notice the difference in larger prints - but even then several professionals have moved over to the Olympus range from their 35mm-DSLRs so make of that what you will.


Much of the popularity surrounding the OMD's does seem to be hype flavoured with fad.    The world and his brother including George Clooney are keen to be seen with one around their necks so it simply looks like the old SLR/'male jewllery'/status/virility badge coming back to haunt photography...is all!
Probably. But also the MFTs probably do a good enough job for how they view their images (on screen, rarely printing let alone printing large) so why bother lunking around a full DSLR kit. My E-M5, 4 lenses (2 primes and two zooms taking me from 28mm to 600mm FF equivalent) fit in a bag barely bigger than my 7D with grip attached (body only!). But I still use my 7D for wildlife.
Logged
DanLehman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2014, 12:58:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I own a GX7 in addition to the E-M1 & E-M5. Each renders JPEGs a bit differently by default, but via in-camera tweaking you can get 'em all pretty close. I don't see anything inferior in the GX7's JPEG output. I will say the E-M5 has the most pronounced default tonal separation of the three. This does make a good visual impact and is likely what Olympus JPEG fans have been refering to.

-Dave-
Dave, I too got a chuckle (after initial "huh"?!) about
the assertion that m4/3 cameras have become fashion
statements !!!   Now, titanium cameras with a Red Dot,
maybe.   Grin

To the question about JPEGS should be added some
remark about 5-axis stabilization : a non-blurred
JPEG will look better (usually, not always  Wink ) than
a blurred one.  And to those "margin"ally better APS-C
bodies, not all come with such a nice set of lenses
--at least, to my awareness, it seemed as though
Nikon, e.g., was really interested in selling bigger
glass and not putting out the lenses that Oly & Pany
have been doing.

Quote
DXO shows very little to mark out the EM-5 as a 'better' camera whereas APS-C cameras are noticeably higher scoring.
Interestingly, I countered a friend's remarks
that he found his OM-D E-M5 well superior to
his Pentax K3 for low-light shooting; I pointed
out that DXO scores suggested the contrary
--YMMV ?!
(He now uses the K3 only for telephoto shots.)

Quote
With all the current hype about the OMD models I almost got taken in and became interested that Olympus had actually beaten the laws of physics in some way and arrived at a camera system that made anything else or bigger completely superflous.
But, you know, it was a long time ago that Michael on
this very site led with a "You've Got to be Kidding" article
that claimed the tiny "P&S"/compact Canon G10 could hold
its own and fool experienced viewers on images seen up
close & personal, in full size (13x19") compared with a
Hasselblad 39mpx camera --that's REALLY-"full frame"
vs. compact, a far cry from the differences in sensor
turf of APS-C & M4/3--: oddly, I didn't see anyone
questioning this (or what had been smoked before viewing)!?
Yet now we want to discriminate between so many much
closer-in-size (& generation) cameras ... .


Quote
All over the web people were apparently relaying their decisions of taking out their EM-1 and leaving FF canons and nikons on the shelf and their unremitting delight in how much better the experience was........    On this site particualrly, 'bcooter' became a voluble commenter, but although I became tempted, my researches into the OMD models has not caused me to aquire one.
I don't know about how broad this sentiment is;
but hype and echoes of hype do grow well on the Net.
(But wasn't it DigiLloyd who had some articles about
the maybe imminent Death of M4/3?  Is it still dead?)

BCooter, aka James Russell of Russell-Rutherford
and Ming Thein have claimed to happily use Olys
(both E-M1s) in their professional lives.  BCooter
goes on to admit to the complexity but that in the
end one can do much via the options AND THEN,
once set up well, the subsequent use is pretty smooth.
And among the set-up, he claims are good ways to get
good color/etc. out of the camera.  (Ming seems to stick
with the "bigger must be better" view re sensors --and
leaves the question "but how much better matters?")

I see no reason to "dump the G5" : if they're selling
new for so little, what will dumping a decent camera
get you?  --better to keep it, maybe married to a
special lense for quick use, resting the Oly (should
you go for one of those).

Finally, Dave, how do you feel about the stabilization
of the GX7 vs. Oly's ?  My reading led me to believe
that Oly's was head if not head & shoulders better,
a class act; but recently I came across someone with
the same belief who tested and found otherwise
--to wit:
[re GX7 >>bettering<< the E-M5 in >>stabilization<< !! ]
http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/the-gx7-vs-the-om-d-e-m5-battle-for-my-affection-round-1-ibis-evfs-lcds/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=2831&relatedposts_position=1

(Reviewer Tyson Robichaud claims to be neutral, and presuming
the superiority of Oly's 5-axis vs Pany's 2-axis, but his tests showed
the latter to be better in many instances!?)
Quote
I’m really amazed by, and confident in my findings and the only other thing that I would really like to do is to test multiple copies of the E-M5 and the GX7 to see if the IBIS findings at these shutter speeds are consistent between bodies.  The OME EM5 does really well, and in some cases better down to 1/25sec or even 1/15sec comparatively, but I feel that “testers” will take one shot at 1/25sec with the 75mm lens for instance and proclaim that “X is better than Y” which, at that time, in those conditions and with that lens at that shutter speed is correct.
But what about overall, at differing shutter speeds, differing apertures?
(Which puts Pany in the awkward position of maybe
having great in-body stabilization but yet already
some stabilized lenses --what to do?  Tongue )

--dl*
====
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2014, 02:02:47 AM »
ReplyReply

But, you know, it was a long time ago that Michael on
this very site led with a "You've Got to be Kidding" article
that claimed the tiny "P&S"/compact Canon G10 could hold
its own and fool experienced viewers on images seen up
close & personal, in full size (13x19") compared with a
Hasselblad 39mpx camera --that's REALLY-"full frame"
vs. compact, a far cry from the differences in sensor
turf of APS-C & M4/3--: oddly, I didn't see anyone
questioning this (or what had been smoked before viewing)!?
Yet now we want to discriminate between so many much
closer-in-size (& generation) cameras ... .

That H39 discussion recently resurfaced in this thread where, allegedly, there is a question of defocus / soft capture:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87650.msg715057#msg715057


Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921



« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2014, 05:10:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Finally, Dave, how do you feel about the stabilization of the GX7 vs. Oly's? My reading led me to believe that Oly's was head if not head & shoulders better, a class act; but recently I came across someone with the same belief who tested and found otherwise

In my experience the E-M5/1's stabilization is superior to the GX7's. But this is based on real-world use rather than any methodical testing. Both IBIS systems, Oly's and Panasonic's, clearly work. I get more blurred pics, though, from the GX7 when pushing things hard. I've taken low-ISO pics in dim light by mistake with both OMD cameras, the sort of thing where you think "Whoops!" but then review the pic on the rear LCD and are shocked to see a crisp image instead of the shaky one you expected. Such "mistakes" are now part of my bag of tricks.   Smiley

-Dave-
Logged
bluekorn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2014, 08:01:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, why "dump the G5"? (Thanks Dan) The question, along with all of the other thoughtful responses, brings me, upon reflection, to realize that the only time I consider researching a "better" camera (always a lengthy process) is at those times when a little of the inevitable periodic disappointment in my own work surfaces and I turn to the market hype to feel better. So, instead of spending money on an Olympus (or a psychotherapist) I've decided to dig a little deeper into the photo styles menu to better understand the potentials of the G5 jpegs. Thanks one and all.


 
Logged
DanLehman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2014, 08:11:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...  So, instead of spending money on an Olympus (or a psychotherapist) I've decided to dig a little deeper into the photo styles menu to better understand the potentials of the G5 jpegs. Thanks one and all.
Which is all well & good.  That said, you should
be able to find some good deal on an E-M5, and
having that ADDED to your G5 --note the family
resemblance : "5" (the Great & the Magnificent)--
could be a boon, depending how deep you get
in shooting.  Having a good pair of lenses ready
to go via the two bodies (or some other M4/3 body,
like the microscopic Pany GM1, which almost needs
an attached lens to become visible  Cheesy l ) is a good
thing (as well as ready back-up should a problem
arise w/one).

--dl*
====
Logged
viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2014, 08:53:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Dan,

This touches succinctly on my post further up,.....why buy a EM-5 if you already have the G5?  Apart from the anti-shake (whatever they call it) which is not really the all encomposing panacea that many authorities on the web make it out to be, there is not much that you gain for the large extra expence.    Actually the G5 is smaller too and arguably better designed without the spurious 'prism' hump.    The 'designers' of the OMD's seem to set a store by 'funkiness'...the 'Ford Mondeo school of design',no less, and compared to the real Olympus OM's of yesteryear OMD's are bloody ugly!
Logged
DanLehman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2014, 09:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

That H39 discussion recently resurfaced in this thread where, allegedly, there is a question of defocus / soft capture:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87650.msg715057#msg715057
Among claims made are:
Quote
Yeah, that review has been debated many times here in LuLa in the past - maybe do a search.
Thanks.  I've been wondering about this, but still
find the discussion on these various assertions
limited (if at all).  (Oddly, I find Search giving
some peculiar results --to wit : Search ("got to
be kidding") brings up just 1 find on a page in
which the string occurs thrice; if finds it in the
quoted first-instance but not that first-instance msg.!?)
Otherwise, Search shows almost nothing, in 2pp.

Quote
that "review" - the comparison respectively - is based on a very soft capture of the Hassy/P45+ kit (it's misfocussed).
//
Quite true but those industry insiders didn't notice the defocus either, it may depend on dowsizing for print masks the differences.
//
Quote
[This is from "You've Got to be Kidding" article]
That evening I looked at the files on my laptop screen, along with several other people, and we were amazed to see that the differences between the 39 Megapixel medium format system and the 15 Megapixel pocket digicam didn't seem that dramatic
//
obviously those "experts" didn't see the defocusing even when viewed on a screen: I wonder why nobody noticed that the Hassy/P45+ shot is nowhere near what this kit is capable of under normal circumstances.
And I wonder where such questioning is (here or
anywhere Google might go --I don't see it; but I
do see typical Net echoes of the asserted equality!)?


So, I find no discussion of the G10-&-P45+ article,
and re-reading that now, I am unclear on what the
exact test method was?   It seems like just the sort
of testing one wants --of usable output (prints, here),
not mere pixel-peeping.

It mentions taking ONE view with both cameras
(the G10 set atop the Hassy/P45+ in shooting),
and examining those two images (similar view);
then there is some kind of "test" in which experienced
viewers examine "a series of prints" ("about a dozen")
"side by side" on a print-viewing stand.  Is this a dozen
pairs (2 of each view), or six such pairs, or some random
set of prints, maybe more from one than other camera;
and wouldn't the number be well known, as there
are the reported percentages of tested grouping?!
("no one got better than 60% right")
How is this 60% or other result figured?!

If one were to want to repeat the test, to verify it
or to apply it to other candidate cameras (say, the
A7 vs. E-M1) ... , how to do that:  I don't see that
information.

--dl*
====
Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2014, 06:35:59 AM »
ReplyReply

It's incomprehensible to me that someone would change cameras to get better jpeg output. In fact, for M4/3 cameras at the level of performance discussed here I struggle to imagine why anyone wouldn't shoot RAW. Or at least raw+jpeg and then tweak selected raw files as required.

If lack of understanding of the raw processing software is the obstacle, then take some time to learn how it functions: it isn't that difficult and it's a lot cheaper than shelling out over a grand on a new camera - assuming you're not acutely time-poor. Personally I've only used ACR CNX2 and LR4, but not Aperture so I don't know what its learning curve is like.
Roy
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad