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!

Dazzed and confused :(

Rawfa

Active member
HI There Rafa
I completely understand your quandary. I've sold both an m4/3 and a NEX system TWICE :shocked:
Hahahaha...I think we might be twins separated at birth. I thought I was the only crazy person turning this system battle into an existentialist issue. It comforts me to know I´m not alone :loco:
 
J

JohnW

Guest
Rawfa,

I shoot with a GX1 (and GF1) and mostly with the 20 1.7, 45 1.8, and 14-45 zoom. I can't speak to dynamic range. Other system features are more important to me, so DR is what it is.

I do feel, though, that 3200 will be a stretch for any current m4/3 system, likely including the OM-D. I routinely shoot at 800, and 1600 in a pinch. If good 3200 noise performance is really a need, you should review online samples.

As we all know, every system has trade-offs, but I think m4/3 strikes about the best balance between size, lens options, and performance.

John
 

Rawfa

Active member
Rawfa,

I do feel, though, that 3200 will be a stretch for any current m4/3 system, likely including the OM-D. I routinely shoot at 800, and 1600 in a pinch. If good 3200 noise performance is really a need, you should review online samples.

John
Spanish website usually posts great incisive reviews. They did a hands on preview of the OMD and they said that even though they were not allowed to post samples they believed that even iso 6400 was usable. I won´t hold my breath about the iso 6400 but this does gives me hope regarding iso 3200.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Spanish website usually posts great incisive reviews. They did a hands on preview of the OMD and they said that even though they were not allowed to post samples they believed that even iso 6400 was usable. I won´t hold my breath about the iso 6400 but this does gives me hope regarding iso 3200.
I would imagine that ISO 3200 must be perfectly usable. Was already pretty nice from the E5 and this sensor is some generations more advanced, as well as the processing engine of the OM-D.

I really start getting interested again in m43 since the introduction of the OM-D but I am still not sure if this will be enough to get me back in ;)
 

httivals

New member
ISO 2500 is very useable with the GH2 when shooting RAW. Using the full increments and not the 1/3 stop increments is better and on the GH series gets you to 2500 vs. 3200. When using iso 1250 and above, I find it's more important to have more light. Usually I dial in -1/3 or -2/3 stop exposure compensation, and for landscapes at iso 160, it's not at all uncommon for me to expose at -1 stop or less to avoid blowing highlights. I then bring back shadow detail in post. But when shooting at iso 1250 and 2500, I find that I need to tolerate blown highlights more and hence usually use no exposure compensation and the images end up being very useable.
 

jonoslack

Active member
They look very promising but there is a lot of available light. I´d like to see some samples with some real low light.
I saw these as well - and I quite agree - sanity is required, but I did think that the OMD was probably 1.5 stops better than the EP3, which might not make it earth shattering, but very useable.
 
J

JohnW

Guest
Did you notice that on the sight where the blogger got these files there is an explanation that Olympus asked that they be shared only at 1600 x 1200? So not really valid samples. We all know what downsampling does to noise.

John
 

Rawfa

Active member
Did you notice that on the sight where the blogger got these files there is an explanation that Olympus asked that they be shared only at 1600 x 1200? So not really valid samples. We all know what downsampling does to noise.

John
Even so, if you see the side by side comparison with the EP3 file at the same resolution the improvement is crystal clear. But I do agree that it´s too soon to come to any conclusive observations.

BTW, does anyone know of any app that will open ODM ORF files on a PC?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Even so, if you see the side by side comparison with the EP3 file at the same resolution the improvement is crystal clear. But I do agree that it´s too soon to come to any conclusive observations.

BTW, does anyone know of any app that will open ODM ORF files on a PC?
No - why on earth can't they use DNG files like Leica and Pentax :mad:
 
J

JohnW

Guest
Even so, if you see the side by side comparison with the EP3 file at the same resolution the improvement is crystal clear.
Agree.

Steve Huff and other reviewers say the GX1 high ISO surpasses that of the EP3. So I'll look forward to comparisons with the OM-D, even though I don't shoot much beyond 800. I certainly prefer the GF/GX form factor. Just something about the mini-DSLR design that I don't like.

John
 

Rawfa

Active member
One thing that I don´t get is that the OMD sensor is basically the G3 and the GX1s´ sensor. So how come it can have better iso and dynamic range if you´re shooting RAW? This would only make sense if you were shooting JPEGS or if the sensor was some how different.
 

Rawfa

Active member
I´ve tried RawTherapee, XnView and the Olympus software and none will open the ORF files. This is becoming increasingly weird.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I´ve tried RawTherapee, XnView and the Olympus software and none will open the ORF files. This is becoming increasingly weird.
Hi Rafa
unfortunately, I think you'll be unlikely to find anything which will open these ORF files - presumably people are working on it at the moment, very often Adobe are first with support, but very rarely before the camera is actually released.
Aperture still doesn't support the NEX7 files.
There may be quite a wait
 

les

New member
I´ve tried RawTherapee, XnView and the Olympus software and none will open the ORF files. This is becoming increasingly weird.

Repeat......... the answer for the moment might be Picasa (the free downloadable application). It has opened some of the new orf samples for me - you can make minor adjustments or save them as jpegs for use in LR, PS or whatever. At least it's a starting point.........
 

photoSmart42

New member
One thing that I don´t get is that the OMD sensor is basically the G3 and the GX1s´ sensor. So how come it can have better iso and dynamic range if you´re shooting RAW? This would only make sense if you were shooting JPEGS or if the sensor was some how different.
Who said the OM-D sensor is basically the G3 and GX1's sensor? Olympus doesn't say that, and in fact they said it's a completely different sensor. The fact that it's a re-worked G3/GX1 sensor is pure speculation and conjecture at this point AFAIK.
 
Top