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!

Olympus OMD EM1 vs OMD EM5 vs Panasonic Lumix GX7 Noise RAW

clark666

New member
Olympus OMD EM1 RAW noise | Cameralabs

"At 200 ISO the Olympus OMD EM5 joins-in, and guess what? Yep, it looks almost identical too. With the same processing settings, all three share similar levels of sharpness, contrast and ultimately detail. I'd like you to really pixel-peep these three crops for me. Look at the subtle veins in the petals, the fine lines in the leafs, the tiny stalks on the buds. Can you see any difference between the three cameras? There's a tiny difference in colour balance and maybe a faint sprinkling of noise to separate them, but in all honesty I'd say they're essentially delivering the same result here.

This is slightly disappointing as both the GX7 and EM1 are a year newer than the OMD EM5, and the EM1 of course also dispenses with its optical low pass filter. Like many I hoped to see crisper results from the EM1 compared to rivals and predecessors because of this, but I just can't see it here. Don't get me wrong, the quality isn't bad. On the contrary the quality is great, but it's just not really any different from what we've seen before, at least from these tests."
 
V

Vivek

Guest
My first thought- one has to wonder why they even have ISO1600 and above in these cameras.
 

greypilgrim

New member
Well, for me, so I can shoot in conditions like this:



or in the situation I was in the other day capturing birthday party shots in a trampoline (lots of jumping/action) in poor lighting. I needed the shots to capture my son's party and not nearly as worried about perfection in terms of noise. I shot between 1600 and 3200 at f2. And more than one thank you and kudos from parents who appreciated getting the shots and couldn't care about the noise or noise reduction artifacts as long as it wasn't noticeable to them.

:)

Doug
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Some discussions we have these days. The two stops from Kodachrome 25 to 64 to Velvia 100 was what? 40 years or more? Now we've gone the 5 stops from a useable ISO 200 to 6400 in around 15 years with cameras that shoots 10fps in pouring rain, making the images immediately and wirelessly available to pocket sized display devices and storing them by the thousands on memory cards that can be hidden on the back of a reasonably sized postage stamp before we make them available to friends, relatives and the NSA on the other side of the nation or the globe seconds later :eek:

Yup, we can't have this slow response anymore :cussing: I'll start a campaign. A clean million before 2020 :talk028: What do the camera industry think we are? A bunch of backward Norwegians? :loco:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Olympus OMD EM1 RAW noise | Cameralabs

"At 200 ISO the Olympus OMD EM5 joins-in, and guess what? Yep, it looks almost identical too. With the same processing settings, all three share similar levels of sharpness, contrast and ultimately detail. I'd like you to really pixel-peep these three crops for me. Look at the subtle veins in the petals, the fine lines in the leafs, the tiny stalks on the buds. Can you see any difference between the three cameras? There's a tiny difference in colour balance and maybe a faint sprinkling of noise to separate them, but in all honesty I'd say they're essentially delivering the same result here.

This is slightly disappointing as both the GX7 and EM1 are a year newer than the OMD EM5, and the EM1 of course also dispenses with its optical low pass filter. Like many I hoped to see crisper results from the EM1 compared to rivals and predecessors because of this, but I just can't see it here. Don't get me wrong, the quality isn't bad. On the contrary the quality is great, but it's just not really any different from what we've seen before, at least from these tests."
Quoting another spot:

Maybe a different RAW processor would reveal greater differences. Maybe a different subject would too. But from this test I'd say under the hood, the Panasonic Lumix GX7, Olympus OMD EM5 and EM1 all share pretty much the same degree of real-life detail and noise levels. The only visible difference in my tests concerns their out-of-camera JPEGs using the default settings.
I think the right raw processor will do more than just a subtlety. I've seen my Olympus E-1 go from "barely usable at ISO 400" to "completely satisfactory at ISO 1600" simply for the advances in what Adobe's raw processing software offers.

However, the E-M5, GX7, and E-M1 look so good already, it really doesn't matter to me. It's a small format camera. There are bound to be limits based on the technology they share with all the other sensors in the world. The only question for me is "is it good enough?" You can't break the laws of physics.

First response: yes, for my intended use. I have other cameras for other intended uses.

G
 

greypilgrim

New member
Doug, What a wonderful answer! :)
Thanks :D

I'm sure I've said it before, :deadhorse: but when I was making my choice on my latest purchase last fall, it was between the E-M5 and and the Nikon D600. Size versus image quality was my thinking. And now I have a lightweight kit I can shoot with impunity at iso 1600, and with the SpeedBooster, I am shooting in crazy low light at times.

As I've said since I started with m43 on the G1, the cameras invite experimenting more than any other format I've seen (Fuji probably does as well, but the ergonomics feel wrong for me).

Not sure what I'll make my second body in the future...

Doug
 
"I think the right raw processor will do more than just a subtlety. I've seen my Olympus E-1 go from "barely usable at ISO 400" to "completely satisfactory at ISO 1600" simply for the advances in what Adobe's raw processing software offers."

Here I agree. My biggest step forward was when I moved from LR to Qimage to process my RAWs. For me it cost nothing, other than learning time, as I was already using Q to do my printing. If I traded my GH2 for a GX7 it would cost me between four and five hundred UKP - and for what in terms of sensor output.

"There are bound to be limits based on the technology they share with all the other sensors in the world"

Here I feel the problem still lies in the fact that camera marketeers want more pixels they can advertise and photographers would prefer more speed. Yes, that can be challenged. The folk producing double page advertising pix would love better definition.

However millions more camera owners are thinking about "the shots to capture my son's party and not nearly as worried about perfection in terms of noise." But give them less noise and they'd be even happier - which in turn would encourage more people to buy a camera and stop relying on their cellphone.

Tony
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
But give them less noise and they'd be even happier - which in turn would encourage more people to buy a camera and stop relying on their cellphone.

Tony
Nope, not a chance. That battle is lost. Image quality of cell phones is improving, and images from mine (Nokia 808) are easily much better with regards to noise than those from most of the current p&s cameras that most people would buy. We seem to be entering an era where there are mostly two kinds of cameras: Enthusiast models an pro models. Hopefully, there are enough enthusiasts around to keep at least some of the camera industry alive.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Why do think that sensors like the one in your Nokia are not being introduced to cameras like the m43 range?
I do think they will, or something similar, providing it's possible to make larger lenses that resolve enough for the enormous pixel density... or would that be tiny? However, m4/3 is still a niche product compared to camera phones.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
However, m4/3 is still a niche product compared to camera phones.
What a difference a 10-15 years make! :ROTFL:

When I look for a phone (phone only), it is almost impossible to find one nowadays! :eek:

What is most puzzling is the "pro" designation of some of Olympus lenses...
 

jonoslack

Active member
haha, just ensure you keep prints to 6x4 or screen resolution and the noise at 6400 should be acceptable :)
It just depends on what you want doesn't it?

To be honest, I so rarely need 6400 ISO that it's a bit academic. But 3200 gets used occasionally. I have a 24" print in front of me of a dog's face at 3200 ISO in artificial light - with a shadowy background (from the Pen E-P5) no noise reduction, and to be honest, no significant noise either, certainly nothing offensive.

I almost never use noise reduction, because I'd rather have the noise and keep the detail. Actually, it's one of the reasons I prefer Aperture to LR - the image processing seems much less intense and 'hands on'.

I think the point really is that I take photographs for the content, rather than for the image quality, and the 6400 of the OMD and the E-P5 is perfectly useable as long as that's what you're doing.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
I almost never use noise reduction, because I'd rather have the noise and keep the detail. Actually, it's one of the reasons I prefer Aperture to LR - the image processing seems much less intense and 'hands on'.
Same here. LR's default noise reduction is a bit strong for E-5, M9 and likely E-M1 raw files, but that's no problem: just slide it to 0 and save that as the default for the raw type.

i think the point really is that I take photographs for the content, rather than for the image quality, and the 6400 of the OMD and the E-P5 is perfectly useable as long as that's what you're doing.
:) we are in agreement.

G
 

mazor

New member
Why do think that sensors like the one in your Nokia are not being introduced to cameras like the m43 range?

Maybe not the m43 range as that has a set size sensor, but we are seeing more ILc using smaller sensors, like the Nikon V1 which uses a 1" sensor. The Nokia cellphone uses 1/1.2" Not too far off now. Using Low ISO performance is ok.

Check out the small sensor camera forum and see the number of point and shoots and cell phones abilities.
 
Thanks Mazor,

Never looked there before. There is some interesting work to see - and realise that there is world outside m4/3.

Tony
 
Top