Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    http://translate.google.com/translat...5C4%2599p.html

    After DXo came forward with the Olympus E-5 measurements, many could not believe the results and some others blamed Dxo as unreliable/bad/whatever.
    Turns out yet another review (linked above) validates what DXo found checking RAWS and most importantly- comparing them with the E-30 and E-5.

    RAW shooters beware: you are getting pretty much the same E-30 DR/noise performance with a little more detail at high iso (and noticeably more detail at low iso). If you are a high ISO shooter and heard that the E-5 has like one more stop DR, that probably came from some JPEG to JPEG engine comparisons, which doesn't show the potential of the camera for you.

    For a jpeg shooter of course this is a nice advantage. the E-5 JPEG engine is really nice, but certainly there's only so much you can do with the original data. I think Olympus does superb with it though (JPEG).

    The review pretty much validates DXo's results.

    - Raist

  2. #2
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    i dont agree


  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    i dont agree

    The most interesting thing is that the year changes on the middle coin

    Just this guy you know

  4. #4
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    The most interesting thing is that the year changes on the middle coin
    dont forget the studio moved from London to Seattle

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    i dont agree
    Not sure how that proves your point. The link I gave is to the E-30/E-3 not the E-PL1. DXo does mark the E-PL1 a bit noisier and with less DR than e30 or e-5. It's like the e-620 is a tad worse than the e-30, but they are pretty much ball park overall (i.e. no "miracle 1 stop better").

    - Raist

  6. #6
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    lets get something straight here Raist

    You proposal depends upon DxO measurement that all the 12Mp sensors are alike in noise yes? That is indeed how they measure at DxO, and the EPL1 and E5 sensors are no different, indeed they track each other almost perfectly, certainly at 1600 ISO. Are you with it that far?

    Now explain to me why the EPL1 looks noisier than the E5

  7. #7
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    ok 1 more
    this is the K5 review being plundered and used for no good reason but to display EPL1 at ISO1600 and E5 at both ISO1600 & 3200. This time its the colour chart that is in the shade between two bottles


  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    lets get something straight here Raist

    You proposal depends upon DxO measurement that all the 12Mp sensors are alike in noise yes? That is indeed how they measure at DxO, and the EPL1 and E5 sensors are no different, indeed they track each other almost perfectly, certainly at 1600 ISO. Are you with it that far?

    Now explain to me why the EPL1 looks noisier than the E5
    Actually DXo put the EPL1 with more noise than the E-30 and E-5.

    As for noisier there can certainly be many reasons including the processing, the circuitry around it. But the E-30 according to DXo does do better and very close to the E-5. Just like when I mentioned the E-30 did a hair better than the 620 but nobody believed me.

    Moreover, if you are going to show this, then you can't deny the link I had put in about the other review where it shows the E-30 and E-5 and E-3 side to side right?

    Dpreview's shot for the E_PL1 also looks a bit under exposed.

    Or maybe Olympus changed the tone curve for one camera vs the other. Or both.

    - Raist

  9. #9
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    ISO1600 for E5 and EPL1 are just about the same in DxO

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    ISO1600 for E5 and EPL1 are just about the same in DxO
    But DXo did rate the E_PL1 lower in DR and in high ISO. There's more to it than just that graph stand alone.

    Anyway I already explained. Olympus on the lower end cameras doesn't provide the same level of the higher quality of the expensive models. The E-30 does better than the E_PL1, and I contended a while back, a tiny bit better than the e-620.

    DXo shows the E-5 does do better than all of the current Olympus 4/3rds by a hair (over E-30). E-3 doing a hair better in some other areas.

    - Raist

  11. #11
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    But DXo did rate the E_PL1 lower in DR and in high ISO. There's more to it than just that graph stand alone.

    Anyway I already explained. Olympus on the lower end cameras doesn't provide the same level of the higher quality of the expensive models. The E-30 does better than the E_PL1, and I contended a while back, a tiny bit better than the e-620.

    DXo shows the E-5 does do better than all of the current Olympus 4/3rds by a hair (over E-30). E-3 doing a hair better in some other areas.

    - Raist
    I think my point is, that the difference is in the visible noise in images (why else would we be interested?), that difference is greater than the differences recorded in DxO, and that therefore describing the noise characteristics as close to the same, in reality just doesnt stack up.

    Last edited by Riley; 18th December 2010 at 21:26. Reason: additions

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    But you are making the assumption that nothing went wrong on dpreview or methodology. The E_PL1 shot is clearly under exposed.

    Given DXo makes software for RAW conversion, given their ratings have consistently matched my experience with the cameras I have, I certainly give DXo the benefit.

    But, Dxo did point out that the E_PL1 performs worse than the E-30 or E-5. This is important to note, because it goes in line with what Dpreview is showing also.

    (i..e I don't think they are really contradicting each other per se, and it's possible with dpreview's methodology the problem will show more in the way you are linking that it shows).

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Moreover I want to add, DXo does point that the E-5 does a hair better than the E-3. That's what I would expect about "tweaking" the same sensor. Many at the other forum are claiming they are seeing "at least 1 stop" or as ridiculous as 2 stops better DR or noise, and most of the data they have been saying this from in many cases has come from comparing JPEGS.

    It is this kind of faulty reasoning that I put on critique- not the camera itself (but most think I am just putting the E-5 down). For a sensor tweak to give a full one stop of DR more or noise is quite simply, science fiction-delusional. It's the same sensor, there aren't going to be any super miracles on that end.

    The resolution gain with AA is far more real because as we know AA filters eat resolution and the E-620/E-30 had a relatively strong one.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 Noise = E-30/ball park E-3

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Moreover I want to add, DXo does point that the E-5 does a hair better than the E-3. That's what I would expect about "tweaking" the same sensor. Many at the other forum are claiming they are seeing "at least 1 stop" or as ridiculous as 2 stops better DR or noise, and most of the data they have been saying this from in many cases has come from comparing JPEGS.
    theres easily something like a stop on some occasions at sub 640 ISO, that difference becomes less apparent at high ISO where the image seems to look like its falling apart. Look at skies etc (its also much nicer to shoot skies)

    It is this kind of faulty reasoning that I put on critique- not the camera itself (but most think I am just putting the E-5 down). For a sensor tweak to give a full one stop of DR more or noise is quite simply, science fiction-delusional. It's the same sensor, there aren't going to be any super miracles on that end.

    if you are operating from the basis that the sensor is identical, i can see why you might think that, you are bound to see 'faulty reasoning'. I have an E5 and Im thinking a number of things are different, including the colour gamut, and perhaps the transparency of the bayer layer. No reviews seem to look at this

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36969959

    This is known to give better high ISO performance, and is one of the reasons that other marques suck at jpegs. Yet Im thinking the electrical timings on the sensor are going to convince DxO principles that the sensors are the same, in as far as that is concerned they very well might be.

    I have no idea how DxO gather data, and im quite sceptical of how others interpret it (with good reason), so Im not entirely convinced by their charts or the worth of them and in part my questioning of your view was about that dependence on DxO data. Theres so much FUD involving DxO I start to switch off right away, just as the moire aliasing scare went around.

    Images to me are another matter, as we can see that for ourselves, and what I see is less noise. Ive tried to relay that as best I can with both lit and shadow crops, yet you seem unconvinced. Im not too disturbed if you remain so, but Im likely to cast my own view. The 'hair better' you see in DxO Im afraid I dont, and it is not adding up to the differences I see in images of the same scenes.

    The resolution gain with AA is far more real because as we know AA filters eat resolution and the E-620/E-30 had a relatively strong one.
    you do realise that the additional resolution will give you more tolerance for NR. On that basis it has better noise performance

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •