DP1 vs E-P1 again

[Rawfa]

I'm getting seriously frustrated with the E-P1. No matter how hard I work on the EP1 one photos I can NEVER get the "it feels like I'm there in your face 3D" look I can with the DP1. Even when I work with RAW with the EP1 I see noise and burned highlights pretty fast. Yesterday I was taking pictures on dark alleys at 14:00 when the sun was very strong and with the DP1 I would expose for the highlights and then bring the shadows up in post, but with the E-P1 when I try to do this the shadows turn to pure grain (EVEN IN RAW). No to mention that it's a hit and miss with the kit lens...it feels like it's only really focused 40% of the time IF that.

These are the images after being treated. I'm going to look for the original files. These were not taken from the same angle of view but it's just to illustrate the point above:

DP1

EP1

 

[RichA]

What you are talking about is very interesting, but the images you posted do nothing to illustrate it. They can't even be compared directly because of the vast contrast differences between them. If you want to prove the point, post the images (at the size you saw what you saw) and go from there.
I can tell you the first thing that will happen. Someone will downsize the E-P1 image to match the size of the much smaller DP1 image. I'd be very interested in it since I own a G1 and was thinking about the DP1/2.

I'm getting seriously frustrated with the E-P1. No matter how hard I work on the EP1 one photos I can NEVER get the "it feels like I'm there in your face 3D" look I can with the DP1. Even when I work with RAW with the EP1 I see noise and burned highlights pretty fast. Yesterday I was taking pictures on dark alleys at 14:00 when the sun was very strong and with the DP1 I would expose for the highlights and then bring the shadows up in post, but with the E-P1 when I try to do this the shadows turn to pure grain (EVEN IN RAW). No to mention that it's a hit and miss with the kit lens...it feels like it's only really focused 40% of the time IF that.

These are the images after being treated. I'm going to look for the original files. These were not taken from the same angle of view but it's just to illustrate the point above:

 

[Rawfa]

This is one DP1 photo that I REALLY LOVE. I will try to go to the same place at the same time and make the same photo with the E-P1 and then I'll resize it to match the DP1 and compare both.

 

[Terry]

You need to make both photos at the exact same time with both cameras. You can't compare them from different days. So, the first shot looks like the classic foveon problem of the sensor into direct sun. The red blob is pretty awful.

 

[Rawfa]

You're right, but this goes beyond comparing the E-P1 with the DP1. The focus thing and the post processing are driving me insane! I really can't believe I'm the only one having these issues. When the E-P1 comes out here in Spain I will try to get someone to test theirs will me because I'm coming to a point where I think this has to be a faulty camera. I've tested a lot, I mean A LOT of cameras and I'm finding these issues to be way to strange for me to be the only one who is complaining. And you can believe that I have been waiting for a camera like this to come out since I first set my hands on a digital camera. I WANT to like the E-P1 and I thing control wise this baby rocks, but I just cannot shake all these IQ problems. I'm literally sad with the results this camera is giving me after such high hopes.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Rafa
Well, trouble is, that we can't see what the problems you're having are. The cathedral shot looks as though you've used the HDR or Gradation option to increase the dynamic range (I always think they look nasty). But you haven't actually shown examples which allow for any comparison.

I've been testing RAW files using both Capture One and Olympus Studio, and I can see that if you'd been coming from a camera where a lot of smoothing has been done, then they'll look noisy. But you can easily treat it (at the loss of some detail). My impression is that Olympus have listened to their users; they've applied a light AA filter, and the option to have very little processing in camera - the result of this is slightly grainy files, but they print beautifully, and they clean up easily if you want them to.

But hey - if you want us to agree (or help) then you're going to need to show some comparison examples and 100% crops to get our teeth into.

 

[Rawfa]

Jone, regarding the HDR thing I did apply a large process to try to get the same results I was getting with the DP1...the difference is that the same process looks awesome on the DP1 and it looks terrible on the E-P1.

It feels like every E-P1 shot I take misses detail, definition and dynamic range. I don't know they feel...too digital.

I've just uploaded 2 full sized photos to flickr but it downsized them to 1024 x 768. I don't understand...

 

[MisiekBunnik]

Rawfa, i think that if you do not have the pro account on flickr 1024 is max size for you to display....

I agree that the ep-1 files seem a bit flat and do not have that 3d/film look that is so much discussed everywhere on the dp1 (or2). (i judge ep-1 files on the net since I did not handle one).

 

[Rawfa]

I have checked it out and you are right. I don't have the pro account.

Anyway, I went over the manual like 100 times looking for something that could maybe causing this...I couldn't find anything. The settings are optimized to obtain maximum IQ. But I DID read a couple of reviews that agree with me regarding image detail.

I don't know. I don't know. I'm still going to give it a go for a little while longer...but it really doesn't look like this is going to be THE camera I was hoping for. I'm thinking it's going to be back to the good ol' DP1 for me.

 

[Terry]

Please describe what you are trying to do in post processing that isn't working (in addition to the request for samples of the problems. Who cares if flkr doesn't take full sized images. You can put full sized images in the galley here at getdpi and link to them.

Go to gllery
upload
chose the files
there is a field you need to fill in with your username
embed the link in your post

there are instructions at the top of the forum home page.

 

[Mike Hatam]

Rafa - the E-P1 image you posted above (church shot) looks like it was posted in AdobeRGB color space again. Be sure to convert to sRGB before posting to the web, or the colors will look completely screwed up in our web browsers.

 

[peterm1]

I agree with your main point - the DP1/2 files do, in general, look nicer at low ISO and have more "pop" than the E-P1, although my opinion is not based on your samples but my experience having all three cameras. However, I sold my DP1 and DP2 because I enjoy using the E-P1 more and like the ability to use different lenses with adapters. This makes it easier to leave my D700 at home a lot of the time, which I wouldn't do with the DP1/DP2. The LCD on the DP cameras stink, focusing is painfully slow, high ISO color shots looked bad, and the files are smaller, but the final results from low ISO shots from the DP cameras looked great. To me it's a usability issue and there the E-P1 wins for me. I can't wait until LR or Photoshop supports E-P1 files since I am mainly shooting JPEG for now.

I do love using the Pinhole Art filter on the E-P1 as well.

 

[tashley]

I have to say that Rafa may be right, for the particular reason that he has said elsewhere that he only looks at his images on screen. If I shot mainly in bright-ish light at low ISO, never made prints and only wanted to see my images on screen I might prefer the DP1 because at those sorts of sizes it does have a sort of silky 3D pop that I haven't seen in any other camera, even a 40mp back.

I do agree that he is probably posting in Adobe RGB (haven't checked) and I would like to ask him what AF settings he is using? Centre point only to focus and then recompose seems best with this camera as it is with so many others, but not as good as MF.

One more observation: I agree with Jono that the HDR 'look' is generally pretty nasty. I don't know why people like it, it looks so fake and so unlike the way the eye sees a scene. It really is the proverbial quart in a pint pot. So beyond a few private experiments I have never really used it and can't say how it works on DP1 files but it may be that it is a camera well suited to the technique?

Best

Tim

 

[andrewteee]

Different sensors and that DP1 lens is very sharp. The Foveon sensor is unique and the EP1 will not provide the same result. However, they are both very good cameras. I've been tweaking my EP1 to get more out of it (I shoot mostly JPG with the EP1). Turning off the noise processing helps a lot with sharpness.

My frustration right now is with my DP2! It has the noted cyan problem although in my case it runs across the entire image, not just the corners, and at any aperture. I've been trying to figure out how to undo it in PP. Also, the default automatic processing of the Foveon files is too HDR-like for my taste. If you like that style the EP1 won't provide the same result without PP.

BTW the DPx cameras on a tripod are phenomenal.

 

[Rawfa]

I'm thinking the digital image stabilization might have something to do with it. Noise processing might also.

 

[tashley]

Then put the camera on a tripod, shoot a daylight scene with IS off at 1/200th thru 1/1000th second at less than F9 at whatever ISO meters right, 100 thru 400 but preferably 200 in RAW, with MF and look at the results with all NR off. That's as good as it'll get!

 

[Rawfa]

I have turned off the noise reduction and the image stabilizer and will do some more tests to see if it has something to do with it.

 

[tashley]

BTW I really agree with your single-minded determination to get to the image quality you want... I have learned so much about cameras from doing similar things!

 

[RichA]

I have turned off the noise reduction and the image stabilizer and will do some more tests to see if it has something to do with it.

What it looks like you do with the DP-1 files is to expose for the highlights, then bring up the brightness in the other areas while jacking up the contrast. You can do the same with the E-P1. If you can't post 100% image sizes, try cropping the images and posting the crops (of selected areas) at 100%.

 

[smokysun]

like everybody, i love these equipment discussions! it looks like the ep1 a great street camera. the dp1, for me, is really medium format, slow to use but with incredible detail. (the dp1 has a larger sensor and one-third the pixel density of the ep1. this is bound to make a difference.)

usability vs. iq still the big issue. the richoh gx100 has the finest setup (and if i had the gx200 with a better lcd and very fast raw write times, i'd feel even better). yet the pictures will have a rougher quality, the sensor one-third the size of the dp1.

a great deal today, on the ep1 and lenses at fred miranda. i just have to remember how digital cameras fall in value unless they've the leica name on them. so, resisting the temptation, but i'd love to try the ep1.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. i just went to dpreview to make sure i had the pixel density info correct:

canon 5dII - 2.4

canon 1dsIII - 2.4

leica m8.2 - 2.1

nikon d3x - 2.8

olympus ep1 - 5.1

and the winner is the sigma dp1 - 1.6