E-M1, E-M5, E-M5 Mark II Comparisons

[k-hawinkler]

Following up on the distracting artifacts discussed in post #115 of http://www.getdpi.com/forum/630121-post115.html with regards to a JPG and an ORF hi res shot, I would like to compare the OOC JPG images taken with E-M1, E-M5, and E-M5 Mark II, both lo and hi res and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 40-150/2.8 PRO lens at 150 mm, f/4, ISO 200 and 1/250 s.

E-M1, crop of 2498x2498
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03-09-OM-D-Comparison/i-qHgx9vv/0/O/E-M1_3090003_2498x2498.jpg

E-M5, crop of 2564x2565
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03-09-OM-D-Comparison/i-L5NNpGK/0/O/E-M5_3090003_2564x2565.jpg

E-M5 Mark II, lo res, crop of 2565x2565
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03-09-OM-D-Comparison/i-XzPwzHD/0/O/E-M5II_3090004_2565x2565.jpg

E-M5 Mark II, hi res, crop of 4058x4060
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03-09-OM-D-Comparison/i-6p6JVL4/0/O/E-M5II_Hi_3090001_4058x4060.jpg

In taking the images I also followed Robin Wong's
Robin Wong: Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II Review
practice and used the following camera settings:

• Noise Filter = OFF,
• Contrast/Saturation/Sharpness = 0,
• White Balance = Auto (with an option maintain warm color = OFF),
• Gradation = Normal

I only straightened the OOC JPG images and cropped them. No further processing in post.
The subject features should pretty much align, provided the cropped JPG images get mapped to the same size.

You be the judge to which degree artifacts are visible in these JPG crops.
I appreciate honest, unvarnished feedback and constructive criticism. Thank you.

 

[mazor]

nice crops, the high res em-5ii looks the best here, and will enlarge the best too. The other candidates seems to try to achieve more detail by using clever edge enhancement. The E-m5 seems a fraction more processed, while the e-M1 seems has less.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thank you.

Now the same images as above, but derived from the ORF files.

E-M1, crop of 2503x2503, developed with CS6 and Nik.
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03-09-OM-D-Comparison/i-mcs8JZX/0/O/E-M1_ORF_3090003_2503x2503.jpg

E-M5, crop of 2562x2562, developed with CS6 and Nik.
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03-09-OM-D-Comparison/i-8LdcPqS/0/O/E-M5_ORF_3090003_2562x2562.jpg

E-M5 Mark II, Lo res, crop of 2569x2570, developed with Iridient, CS6, and Nik.
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03...kDsPM/0/O/E-M5II_Lo_ORF_3090004_2569x2570.jpg

E-M5 Mark II, Hi res, crop of 5142x5141, developed with the Olympus High Res Shot Raw File Photoshop Plug-in, CS6, and Nik.
Software Download | Olympus High Res Shot Raw File Photoshop Plug-in | OLYMPUS IMAGING
http://winklers.smugmug.com/2015-03...LRPHp/0/O/E-M5II_Hi_ORF_3090001_5142x5141.jpg

Again, I welcome honest feedback and constructive criticism. Thank you.

 

[iiiNelson]

So... can you reduce the size of the pictures?

 

[k-hawinkler]

So... can you reduce the size of the pictures?

Thanks for the feedback.
That sort of defeats the point I am trying to get across.
Also, on my browser the images get automatically downsized.

PS: I edited my posts so that they only point to the images but do not actually display them here.
PS: That seems to work better as one can display an image and enlarge it to the proper size with another click.
PS: Thanks again for the feedback. Much appreciated.

 

[mazor]

With the ORF RAW conversions, the differences are much harder to depict. Now the old E-M5 is up there with the rest. The difference between the E-M1, E-M5 and E-M5ii is almost indistinguishable. The high res shot also, does not seem all that much different, but if one looks really hard, there is a slight improvement on micro detail and texture. Has the high res crop been downsized to match the other candidates? I would have thought a similar crop would result in a much larger close up of the pylons?

 

[Knorp]

Hi there K-H, not surprisingly it's the EM5-II low-res over the EM5 (just) over the EM1.
The EM5-II hi-res, twice the size and four times the pixels, is obviously impressive but hard to compare to the others.

Kind regards.

 

[MGrayson]

Am I the only one who thinks that the real conclusion is that changes in light are more important than changes in equipment?

I'm certainly not dismissing equipment testing - I indulge as much as the next person - but the truism about "Light > Composition > Everything else" exists for good reasons and is well demonstrated here.

--Matt

 

[k-hawinkler]

Am I the only one who thinks that the real conclusion is that changes in light are more important than changes in equipment?

I'm certainly not dismissing equipment testing - I indulge as much as the next person - but the truism about "Light > Composition > Everything else" exists for good reasons and is well demonstrated here.

--Matt

Excellent point! I agree! Thanks. Also getting closer helps.

Here is a shot of the same communication tower.

This time shot with the E-M1 + Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II Lens, handheld.

 

[k-hawinkler]

With the ORF RAW conversions, the differences are much harder to depict. Now the old E-M5 is up there with the rest. The difference between the E-M1, E-M5 and E-M5ii is almost indistinguishable. The high res shot also, does not seem all that much different, but if one looks really hard, there is a slight improvement on micro detail and texture. Has the high res crop been downsized to match the other candidates? I would have thought a similar crop would result in a much larger close up of the pylons?

Thanks. No, I didn't downsize the hi res image.
If you double click on that file now you should see the proper size.

 

[mazor]

k-hawinkler, I see you have changed the links. They work much better now, no down resolution of the images from the web browser The differences in the 40MP shots are very clear and extremely obvious now