The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Olympus OMD

Jonas

Active member
gilpen, saying something is resized to 72dpi doesn't make much sense, at least not to me; I believe that is just changing a number in a table telling some DTP applications what the final size is supposed to be.
Maybe you can check your JPG settings (size and compression)?
 

gilpen123

Member
Jpeg settings set to Large 3:2 resized to 72 dpi cropped 100%.

As far as I understand, 300 dot (pixels) per inch is packed tightly per square inch as against a 72 dots per inch. The image size was likewise changed as the dpi was changed in Photoshop, Scale Style, Resample Image and Constrain Proportions are checked in the image size window. What do you mean "just changing a number in a table" ? Does it mean nothing happens when you change a number in photoshop?
 

Jonas

Active member
Jpeg settings set to Large 3:2 resized to 72 dpi cropped 100%.
Thank you.
Well, JPG set to Large and an aspect ratio of 3:2 means an image cropped from the original size of 4608*3456 pixels to 4608*3074 pixels (I estimate the number, I haven't tried this setting).

You don't mention the compression ration. The camera offers Super Fine (SF), Fine (F), Normal (N), and Basic (B). The compression is partly responsible for JPG artifacts as posterization, banding and such.

You also don't mention what your noise reduction setting was. It is in the cogwheel G menu, it is called Noise Filter and can be set to Off, Low, Standard or High. The noise reduction causes more or less of smearning and detail loss.

Then we have sharpening... all this make it very difficult to judge a camera image quality by looking at JPG images out of the camera. One can of course find satisfying settings making images look the way one want them to. That's fine but not working for anyone else not knowing what the camera can do. For that we need raw images processed in a known way.

As far as I understand, 300 dot (pixels) per inch is packed tightly per square inch as against a 72 dots per inch. The image size was likewise changed as the dpi was changed in Photoshop, Scale Style, Resample Image and Constrain Proportions are checked in the image size window. What do you mean "just changing a number in a table" ? Does it mean nothing happens when you change a number in photoshop?
The DPI value is a theoretic construction not having anything to do with the image quality. It is mainly used to tell a DTP application about the final size of the image, and maybe what raster should be used (like Photoshop telling Indesign "here you have an image, it is 720x350 pixels and you should make it print at 72DPI", Indesign then sends an image which will be properly printed and end up 10x5 inch (at a rather low quality).

You can assign any image a value of 72, or 90 or 150 or 240 or... DPI, the image file itself will stay the same. When looking at a screen the mentioned image will look slightly differently depending on the monitor being used. For a small old fashioned monitor the 720*350 pxl image will nearly cover the monitor from left to right. On a larger monitor the image will again cover 720 of the "pixels" but when compared it will probably also be a little smaller as most modern monitors have more than 72 dots per inch.

For all discussions here, and in practise whenever showing something touching, it's better discussing the actual size in XXX*YYY pixels. The DPI number means nothing.

I hope this helps somewhat, it's a lot of things to consider at the same time,

regards,

Jonas
 

gilpen123

Member
Thank you for the info. Actually, I was not touching technical issues as I've just posted in "Having Fun with the OMD" I just replied to the request of Ricardo to crop 100%. If this thread is technical in nature then I'm out of here. I don't have that much knowledge to share, btw, I still can't find the settings for super fine, fine, normal, etc. from this camera so I can't tell yet. I came from film, had a short stint with DSLR then back to film, then combo of film and DRF and now added M43.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thank you for the info. Actually, I was not touching technical issues as I've just posted in "Having Fun with the OMD" I just replied to the request of Ricardo to crop 100%. If this thread is technical in nature then I'm out of here. I don't have that much knowledge to share, btw, I still can't find the settings for super fine, fine, normal, etc. from this camera so I can't tell yet. I came from film, had a short stint with DSLR then back to film, then combo of film and DRF and now added M43.
Stay Stay! It's my thread and we need everyone!
Settings for fine / superfine etc. are 3rd option down in the shooting menu 1 i.e the one with a triangle pointing to the left with bits coming out to the right. Choose LF.

Ricardo

This is a raw file - processed in LR4 with no noise reduction or anything else
taken with the 45. f1.8 at f1.8

FWIW it was taken with touch shutter in terrible lighting in a pub after a couple of pints - in other words it's a real world bad situation (with focus light turned off)

I'm not sure about your feelings, but I think this is excellent

100% crop below (also at 72dpi :) )



 

JMaher

New member
For ISO 3200 and those conditions it would be hard to do better with any camera. I am particularly taking the pint into consideration.:)

Jim
 

Jonas

Active member
Thank you for the info. Actually, I was not touching technical issues as I've just posted in "Having Fun with the OMD" I just replied to the request of Ricardo to crop 100%. If this thread is technical in nature then I'm out of here.
gilpen, it's not a technical thread by nature and there is no reason for anyone to leave. The "Fun with..." -threads here are what they are called and an opportunity to share whatever we all have made, just a bit sorted.

The E-M5 is a new camera to all of us and technical discussions will be inevitably, but that's not the main purpose. At least I don't think it is that way, I consider them more social than anything else.

That said, I posted some images for technical reasons, trying to discuss technical aspects or capabilities of the camera. My own take on it is that it's better sort images by lens in the other "Fun with..." -threads. But that is a personal opinion and take on it. Without a part of chaos everything gets boring, in fact as boring as lens test targets and then were would we be?

OK, that was a lot of words.

regards,

/Jonas
 

jonoslack

Active member
A couple from yesterday on the Fen



with the 12-50


with the panasonic 100-300


with the panasonic 100-300

The above ones were shot in jpg

This next one was shot in RAW and processed (very lightly) in Lightroom 4.1


with the 12-50 Kit lens in macro mode (43mm)
 

Jonas

Active member
I've been speaking too much, so here goes, one from a walk today:


E-M5 once again helped me nail the exposure, now at the one and only capture. The UniWB and blinking highlights/shadows really have grown on me.
 

Peter Klein

New member
Wow, Jono. A New Era Has Dawned. That looks like Kodachrome 25 grain, and at ISO 3200, yet. You are not doing my sales resistance any good at all. ;)

My main camera is still an M8. My long lens camera is an E-30. My "good enough" generalist camera is the original G1. Up until now, the only reason to upgrade from the G1 was maybe the GH2. But the OMD looks like it is playing in the same field as the K-5 and D7000. Things Have Changed.

--Peter

This is a raw file - processed in LR4 with no noise reduction or anything else
taken with the 45. f1.8 at f1.8

FWIW it was taken with touch shutter in terrible lighting in a pub after a couple of pints - in other words it's a real world bad situation (with focus light turned off)

I'm not sure about your feelings, but I think this is excellent

100% crop below (also at 72dpi :) )

 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Wow, Jono. A New Era Has Dawned. That looks like Kodachrome 25 grain, and at ISO 3200, yet. You are not doing my sales resistance any good at all. ;)

My main camera is still an M8. My long lens camera is an E-30. My "good enough" generalist camera is the original G1. Up until now, the only reason to upgrade from the G1 was maybe the GH2. But the OMD looks like it is playing in the same field as the K-5 and D7000. Things Have Changed.

--Peter
Having owned a K5 and a D7000 myself, I only can assure you that the OMD plays in the same field!

WRT color I would say even better.

WRT overall system size the OMD is the clear winner!

Peter
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jono,

really like your shots! Especially the yellow flower is magnificent! The 12-50 is a clear winner on the OMD IMHO ....

Peter
 

raist3d

Well-known member
My main camera is still an M8. My long lens camera is an E-30. My "good enough" generalist camera is the original G1. Up until now, the only reason to upgrade from the G1 was maybe the GH2. But the OMD looks like it is playing in the same field as the K-5 and D7000. Things Have Changed.
The OMD does very well, but no, I wouldn't put it still on the same field/category of those last two. The high ISO of that Sony sensor is still better as its still its DR and tonality (14-bits raw vs 12-bit raw - and yes, the K-5/D7000 do use the bits). But I agree the OMD does very well.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Stay Stay! It's my thread and we need everyone!
Settings for fine / superfine etc. are 3rd option down in the shooting menu 1 i.e the one with a triangle pointing to the left with bits coming out to the right. Choose LF.

Ricardo

This is a raw file - processed in LR4 with no noise reduction or anything else
taken with the 45. f1.8 at f1.8

FWIW it was taken with touch shutter in terrible lighting in a pub after a couple of pints - in other words it's a real world bad situation (with focus light turned off)

I'm not sure about your feelings, but I think this is excellent
I think it does look pretty good. Thank you for posting that, that's the kind of shot/situation I want to see the OMD going through. It's no K-5 but it's pretty good, and it doesn't have to be as good as a K-5 to be of interest to me.

How was the AF in this situation (referring to speed, obviously the shot seems reasonably in focus).

Thank again.

- Ricardo
 
Top