DP1 vs E-P1 quick shootout

[Rawfa]

I've got it! I've been racking my brain out to find out exactly wasn't pleasing me about the E-P1. I just took the DP1 and E-P1 and shot 3 shots under the exact same circumstances in different types of light and I've found some very interesting facts. It turns out that shooting JPEG the E-P1 DOES have more dynamic range than the DP1. Regarding sharpness that is a tough one but the DP1 may come out on the top here. What DOES bother me (and now is when real photographers are going to eat me alive) is JPG processing. I ALWAYS shoot JPEG. I hate the whole RAW process. I mean HATE it. If you zoom in on the DP1's jpegs you won't see any pixels any time soon, if you do the same with the E-P1's you'll see plenty REAL soon. I love to shoot plain and then work the image on post and the E-P1's jpegs just completely fall apart with the lightest of post, while the DP1 you can just apply anything you want to them and they'll stay strong. Anyway, I have 6 files that I can post but they're very big. If someone can find me a place to upload them all I can post them here.

 

[m3photo]

Re: Post Processing

I hate the whole RAW process ../.. I love to shoot plain and then work the image on post ...

Hmm, I quite understand ... but:
If you do work on the image afterwards you'll benefit immensely from one thing shooting RAW offers: 16-Bit files.
If you don't like the RAW process, just simplify it (I can only offer you the Photoshop ACR version of working here).
First make sure the processing options; the sentence in blue at the bottom that begins with "Adobe RGB" etc. are checked to show 16-Bit, then open the image from Bridge and when it's in ACR just hit the Auto button and Open Image.
That's all you need to do if you're then going on to do the rest of your work in Photoshop, you'll notice the increase in quality believe me.

If you want to automate this even further (in Photoshop) you can download for free the whole process from:
http://www.russellbrown.com/scripts.html
Scroll down to: Dr. Brown's Script Tutorials and see the video on his "1-2-3 Process" to get an idea of how to save a lot of time!

Buena suerte!

 

[m3photo]

Rafa - Try this too:

http://www.damuseful.com/movies/RapidFixerCS3.mov

 

[tedwill]

How do you compare a camera with a built in lens vs a camera with interchangable lenses? It seems that you could do better and do worse than the fixed lens P&S under any circumstance. Kind of like comparing and open end wrench against a socket wrench. Both are useful but not always an even comparison.

 

[barjohn]

You don't say what you post process in, but with Lightroom you can process either JPGs or RAW in exactly the same fashion and it is very easy. Since it usually has one next to the other you can readily see the difference between the RAW file and the JPG. I think the new version of C1 (Capture One) also now allows for both types. Of course, different RAW processors give different results. It has been my understanding that DP1 JPG images were not very good (based on posts I have read) and that one should shoot in RAW with the DP1. Since I don't own one I can't say I know this for a fact.

 

[Terry]

Just doesn't seem like you are using the right RAW processor for your workflow. I do nothing differently in RAW vs jpeg in Lightroom. The only problem is you can do a lot less with the jpegs than you can with the RAWs before it gets ugly.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

...If you zoom in on the DP1's jpegs you won't see any pixels any time soon, if you do the same with the E-P1's you'll see plenty REAL soon.

can you post a 100% pixel view of each please so we can see (not all of us have a DP1 to compare to...

Considering that the DP1 has 2640 x 1760 pixels (not to dissimilar to my vintage 2001 Coolpix 5000) and the EP-1 has 4000 pixels it would seem that 50% on the micro4/3 would be more or less the same screen / print size as the 100% on the DP1

meaning that for any given print size you'll have nearly double the density to start with ...

I wonder, did you factor that in on your calculations?

 

[nostatic]

What I've found in a few hours of messing around is that the EP-1 does get grain/noise pretty quickly...but if you shoot raw and convert to jpg with a good program (in my case RawDeveloper) I think it looks good. By contrast, the in-camera jpgs tend to smear the noise.

I'm getting pretty much what I expected. The raw files from the E-P1 don't look as good as from the K20d, but they are much better than the DLux4. Each camera/sensor has a different "look" to the images - which is great.

 

[Rawfa]

What I've found in a few hours of messing around is that the EP-1 does get grain/noise pretty quickly...but if you shoot raw and convert to jpg with a good program (in my case RawDeveloper) I think it looks good. By contrast, the in-camera jpgs tend to smear the noise.

I'm getting pretty much what I expected. The raw files from the E-P1 don't look as good as from the K20d, but they are much better than the DLux4. Each camera/sensor has a different "look" to the images - which is great.

That is exactly what I've found you too. I used to use plugins like Alien Skin Exposure and Nik Color which are really good, but now this has forced me to go back to working with layers to give some more head room. Either that or I'm simply going to have to change my workflow and give in to RAW.

 

[Rawfa]

These files sizes and quality were reduced to that I could post them here, so there won't be much to conclude other than dynamic range. Anyway, here we go:

DP1 shutter 50, F4, iso200

E-P1 shutter 50, F4, iso200

DP1 shutter 20, F4, iso200

E-P1 shutter 20, F4, iso200

DP1 shutter 1000, F6.3, iso200

E-P1 shutter 1000, F6.3, iso200

 

[nautilus]

Hi Rafa, thanks for showing these pictures from both cameras im currently looking in!

My favorites are the dp-1 images. The interiour shots are exactly how I would like to get them. Their colors look smooth and natural and the lightning situation in picture one which is difficult is solved very well (natural looking). Very eye-pleasing pictures.

From looking at the Oly pictures I think to see that there is an automatic feature is switched on that makes the shadows look brighter (in camera processing, e.g. such a feature is called DRO-Dynamic range optimizer in Sony 's system, don't know it's name in the Oly system). It brings out shadow details and a little noise of course.

White balance seems to be different - more to red with the Oly.

All together, I would prefer the Sigma for it's natural well weighted output in respect to colors, white balance and smoothness.

 

[pellicle]

could it be just that a different curve is applied to the data (raw) to effect that in the JPG produced?

I think that you can only compare dynamic range if you have linear sensor data, then the top end bias to that will show you quite clearly.

try a decode with dcraw -4 -T and see what you get. I was quite surprised when I started comparing my 10D to my G1. There is substantial differences to the JPG outputs and the G1 did more cunning things with the RAW in camera which took some fiddling with tone mapping to approximate ... suffice to say that its not a dumb decode and has local area adaptation happening (making it difficult to look at complex subjects).

however if you like the look of the DP-1 more (and certainly its more compact) then go for it ... but I picked a G1 over it because of lens flexibility not JPG outputs ;-)

 

[bcaslis]

On the E-P1 do you have gradation set to auto? In my experience that will yield terrible grainy results. Make sure gradation is set to normal and you will be amazed at the difference.

 

[Rawfa]

On the E-P1 do you have gradation set to auto? In my experience that will yield terrible grainy results. Make sure gradation is set to normal and you will be amazed at the difference.

Wow, I had no idea. I have just changed it to normal.

 

[barjohn]

What do the images look like in RAW for each?

 

[Rawfa]

I have no idea. There's still no E-P1 raw support for photoshop.

 

[nostatic]

It looks like a lot of it is WB. Also what about crops of the bed sheets? It looks like the E-P1 is giving a bit more definition to all of the various folds.

 

[Rawfa]

I suspect that there's some hard digital sharpening going on there. I still have to play a bit more with the settings (contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc). This was by no means a "professional" shootout, but I think it was still quite interesting.

 

[jonoslack]

I have no idea. There's still no E-P1 raw support for photoshop.

HI There
If you don't want the hassle of RAW . . . but you do want the benefits, then you need to use either Lightroom or Aperture (or possibly Capture One). The old model of converting files really is out of date. And the E-P1 raw files really are very good

 

[nostatic]

Aperture doesn't support the ORF files yet. I've been using RawDeveloper, but find that using "normal" jpg in-camera with sharpening on +2 and contrast on +1 with no NR gives a jpg that I like pretty well. Of course you can't push it around as much in pp, but the main thing is that I have shot the same subject with DLux4, E-P1/17 and K20d/31. They all draw differently. None of them are inherently "better" than the others. They exhibit the relative resolution that you'd expect (K20d>E-P1<DLux4), but that is only part of the story. The E-P1 has a definite grain that the other don't (the K20d is silky smooth, the DLux4 can be blotchy at times). So far I like it. Just need someone to tell me what M lens I should buy