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!

Oly E-P2 Test

kevinparis

Member
dave

don't worry... i think nobody was harmed.... still dont quite understand where it all went wrong :)

terryc

For those of us with aversion to DNG or haven't kept up to date with Adobe, my little routine converts if slowly a copy of your original .orf to something Aperture 2 and 3 recognises.

Call me old fashioned... but something about DNG makes me feel uncomfortable

Just wish Apple would sort themselves out on the support and I could get on with using the best all in one app out there for photographers....


K

K
 

Terry

New member
I really didn't realise that I was entering the Pana G1 forum either.:rolleyes:
At the risk of derailing this thread I don't think anyone was making this G1 centric. I think the conversation went astray with Peter's comment about the E-P2 vs. the G1 even with a smile face.

All of the m4/3 cameras are excellent and different ones will appeal to different users. There is not a compelling killer feature on any of the cameras to say it stands head and shoulders above the others.

For instance some people think the G1 is ugly and the E-P1/2 are beautiful and for others it is exactly the opposite
I could make a whole list of thingsl like this.

We should all be thrilled that there is a new format that is thriving with the 6th body and 8 lenses in the stores and a bunch more on the way.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>Call me old fashioned... but something about DNG makes me feel uncomfortable

What about it? Better to have endless incompatible raw formats? That is where DNG comes from.
 

kevinparis

Member
actually don't think the conversation ever went astray until people tried to stop a fight that wasn't there

all m4/3 cameras take the same lenses and for 99% of the world the same photos. any differences between them come down to aesthetics and user interface.

As a qualified industrial designer I reserve my right to say that the G1 to me is ugly.... but then again i also think the leica m8 and 9 are flawed design wise....why else would you have to buy grips and Thumbsups before you feel comfortable using them

K
 

kevinparis

Member
Uwe

maybe I am behind the times... but from what i understand DNG is just a wrapper for a RAW file ... if an app such as Aperture didnt understand the underlying RAW then wrapping it in DNG wouldn't make any difference

K
 

kevinparis

Member
actually it seems like a DNG is not a RAW file at all.... though i understand you can keep a copy of the original RAW as part of the wrapper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format)

The process of DNG conversion involves extracting raw image data from the source file and assembling it according to the DNG specification into the required TIFF format. This optionally involves compressing it. Metadata as defined in the DNG specification is also put into that TIFF assembly. Some of this metadata is based on the characteristics of the camera, and especially of its sensor. Other metadata may be image-dependent or camera-setting dependent. So a DNG converter must have knowledge of the camera model concerned, and be able to process the source raw image file including key metadata. Optionally a JPEG preview is obtained and added. Finally, all of this is written as a DNG file.
 
N

nautilus

Guest
I've never been in a situation where I've experienced incompatibility issues with RAW formats.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Just for the record and not wishing to stir things, the on-line version of the EP-2 article can be found at http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=873395 I am not too sure if you have to be a subscribing member to enter this site but it could be worth a try.

For the mag bashers I would tend to agree about press reviews in consumer mags. I gave up taking the "Amateur Photographer" years ago because of their reviews which seemed to me to favour brands with the largest ad. spend!

BJP is aimed at Pro photographers, it is a weekly publication and attracts very little in the way of advertising. I like their reviews but most of all I like the "tests" by working pro photographers, worts and all usually!;)

To redress the balance and perhaps placate the Pana G series brigade, this test did mention that the Panasonics are way faster at AF than the E-P2.

Oh, should I also mention that I am not a 4/3 user so not biased in any direction but I still keep looking....one day I might leave my lump of a full frame DSLR behind....but not yet!:ROTFL:
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

Well, but the G1 does not come even close to the EP2 in so many areas :D
well as the owner of a G1 and seriously wanting to justify the swap to a E-P2 can you iterate a few, cos I can't think of many more than IBIS and perhaps AF with a wider range of Oly lenses.
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

Just for the record and not wishing to stir things
To redress the balance and perhaps placate the Pana G series brigade, this test did mention that the Panasonics are way faster at AF than the E-P2.
keeping that statement firmly in mind for this post:

Oh, should I also mention that I am not a 4/3 user so not biased in any direction but I still keep looking....one day I might leave my lump of a full frame DSLR behind....but not yet!:ROTFL:
certainly, after getting my 45-200 2 days ago I can say that its about twice as slow in racking from 2meters in front of me to infinity in bright sunny snowy days as my Canon EF100-300 USM was. I suspect that this area will be hard to conquer for a while as essentially the AF on a SLR is a parallel processing system not dependent on the same CPU or having any IO bottle necks sharing communications subsystems.

My 1989 EOS 630 with a 100-300 USM that I bought in 1991 eats it for brekky.

the IOS on the 45-200 is very nice however (and seems to increase the cameras battery appetite too ;-)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Just to change the subject back to things E-P2, etc.

If you are an Aperture 3.0 user with a PEN digital you can convert the .ORF files to .DNG and work with them in Aperture 3.0. There are a few significant assumptions;

1. You have the very latest ACR plug-in on your Mac and the most recent version of Adobe Digital Negative Converter. In my case I have PhotoShop CS4 up to date on my Mac. Although PhotoShop is never invoked here - the Converter needs access to the lastest and greatest ACR plug-in.

2. Open Adobe DNG Convert app and go to Menu item 4 and click Change Preferences, top item is Compatibility and this MUST be set Custom which ensures linear (demosaiced) is turned-off. This step is critical.

The Adobe app will merrily convert all the .orf files to .DNG which can be imported directly into Aperture. I always ensure that I embed the original raw file for the future when Apple raw support the camera images I am converting to DNG. Of course this assumes you are willing to work with .DNG files. You can also automate or script this process for convenience purposes.

Cheers, Terry.
Hi Terry
My experience of this is that it simply doesn't work with lenses which have lens correction information (i.e. all the m4/3 lenses). The situation changes sometimes. . . and then seems to go back again.
Kevin's simple action is probably an easier way of going about it at the moment (it works with all lenses).

all the best
 
T

terryc

Guest
Hi Jono,

I bought Kevin's script - I am not sure I agree telling Aperture that a PEN generated RAW image is an E30 RAW image. That said to each their own. I assume you have tried the DNG conversion with the most recent Adobe Digital Negative Converter and Aperture 3.0?

I did not post my comments to cause a competition between Kevin's (for sale script) and DNG conversion to Aperture 3.0, etc. but unfortunately it quickly turned into that. Consider my post an option until such time as the PEN is supported.

I understand there can be lens correction issues with the conversion to DNG - for example GF1 images will not convert to DNG files that will work in Aperture 3 and I believe this is related to the linear DNG option (demosaiced) being turned off as required by Aperture.

As for Kevin's script suffice to say we all are aware how to fudge the header data using a text editor - that trick has been around for awhile (survival for Aperture users). Kevin by his own comments has produced a rudimentary script to automate same - and I applaud that effort.

I am back to the shadows :)

Best regards, Terry.
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono,

I bought Kevin's script - I am not sure I agree telling Aperture that a PEN generated RAW image is an E30 RAW image. That said to each their own. I assume you have tried the DNG conversion with the most recent Adobe Digital Negative Converter and Aperture 3.0?
Hi There
I haven't tried it again - because last time I tried it, it did work for a while, and then it broke again with the next version of DNG converter - Having to keep swapping back and forth is a pain, and as the EP-1 apparently has the same sensor as the E30 I thought it a more convenient and safer way to go.

all the best
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Hi Jono

I wondered where you have been lurking lately! I have noted your posts over on the Leica M forums. We miss you back at the Sony ranch though.:D
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono

I wondered where you have been lurking lately! I have noted your posts over on the Leica M forums. We miss you back at the Sony ranch though.:D
HI Dave
Thanks for missing me.:)
Silly too, I am using the Sony quite a lot these days - still love the files and the camera, no question of any kind of treachery here!

I'll have to drop in again and stop participating in pointless arguments on LUF (frustrating in the extreme).

all the best
 
Top