Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: DP1 vs E-P1 again

  1. #1
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I'm getting seriously frustrated with the E-P1. No matter how hard I work on the EP1 one photos I can NEVER get the "it feels like I'm there in your face 3D" look I can with the DP1. Even when I work with RAW with the EP1 I see noise and burned highlights pretty fast. Yesterday I was taking pictures on dark alleys at 14:00 when the sun was very strong and with the DP1 I would expose for the highlights and then bring the shadows up in post, but with the E-P1 when I try to do this the shadows turn to pure grain (EVEN IN RAW). No to mention that it's a hit and miss with the kit lens...it feels like it's only really focused 40% of the time IF that.

    These are the images after being treated. I'm going to look for the original files. These were not taken from the same angle of view but it's just to illustrate the point above:

    DP1


    EP1

  2. #2
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    What you are talking about is very interesting, but the images you posted do nothing to illustrate it. They can't even be compared directly because of the vast contrast differences between them. If you want to prove the point, post the images (at the size you saw what you saw) and go from there.
    I can tell you the first thing that will happen. Someone will downsize the E-P1 image to match the size of the much smaller DP1 image. I'd be very interested in it since I own a G1 and was thinking about the DP1/2.

    [QUOTE=Rawfa;120037]I'm getting seriously frustrated with the E-P1. No matter how hard I work on the EP1 one photos I can NEVER get the "it feels like I'm there in your face 3D" look I can with the DP1. Even when I work with RAW with the EP1 I see noise and burned highlights pretty fast. Yesterday I was taking pictures on dark alleys at 14:00 when the sun was very strong and with the DP1 I would expose for the highlights and then bring the shadows up in post, but with the E-P1 when I try to do this the shadows turn to pure grain (EVEN IN RAW). No to mention that it's a hit and miss with the kit lens...it feels like it's only really focused 40% of the time IF that.

    These are the images after being treated. I'm going to look for the original files. These were not taken from the same angle of view but it's just to illustrate the point above:

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    This is one DP1 photo that I REALLY LOVE. I will try to go to the same place at the same time and make the same photo with the E-P1 and then I'll resize it to match the DP1 and compare both.


  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    You need to make both photos at the exact same time with both cameras. You can't compare them from different days. So, the first shot looks like the classic foveon problem of the sensor into direct sun. The red blob is pretty awful.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    You're right, but this goes beyond comparing the E-P1 with the DP1. The focus thing and the post processing are driving me insane! I really can't believe I'm the only one having these issues. When the E-P1 comes out here in Spain I will try to get someone to test theirs will me because I'm coming to a point where I think this has to be a faulty camera. I've tested a lot, I mean A LOT of cameras and I'm finding these issues to be way to strange for me to be the only one who is complaining. And you can believe that I have been waiting for a camera like this to come out since I first set my hands on a digital camera. I WANT to like the E-P1 and I thing control wise this baby rocks, but I just cannot shake all these IQ problems. I'm literally sad with the results this camera is giving me after such high hopes.

  6. #6
    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: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Hi Rafa
    Well, trouble is, that we can't see what the problems you're having are. The cathedral shot looks as though you've used the HDR or Gradation option to increase the dynamic range (I always think they look nasty). But you haven't actually shown examples which allow for any comparison.

    I've been testing RAW files using both Capture One and Olympus Studio, and I can see that if you'd been coming from a camera where a lot of smoothing has been done, then they'll look noisy. But you can easily treat it (at the loss of some detail). My impression is that Olympus have listened to their users; they've applied a light AA filter, and the option to have very little processing in camera - the result of this is slightly grainy files, but they print beautifully, and they clean up easily if you want them to.

    But hey - if you want us to agree (or help) then you're going to need to show some comparison examples and 100% crops to get our teeth into.

    Just this guy you know

  7. #7
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Jone, regarding the HDR thing I did apply a large process to try to get the same results I was getting with the DP1...the difference is that the same process looks awesome on the DP1 and it looks terrible on the E-P1.

    It feels like every E-P1 shot I take misses detail, definition and dynamic range. I don't know they feel...too digital.

    I've just uploaded 2 full sized photos to flickr but it downsized them to 1024 x 768. I don't understand...

  8. #8
    Member MisiekBunnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eindhoven
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Rawfa, i think that if you do not have the pro account on flickr 1024 is max size for you to display....

    I agree that the ep-1 files seem a bit flat and do not have that 3d/film look that is so much discussed everywhere on the dp1 (or2). (i judge ep-1 files on the net since I did not handle one).

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I have checked it out and you are right. I don't have the pro account.

    Anyway, I went over the manual like 100 times looking for something that could maybe causing this...I couldn't find anything. The settings are optimized to obtain maximum IQ. But I DID read a couple of reviews that agree with me regarding image detail.

    I don't know. I don't know. I'm still going to give it a go for a little while longer...but it really doesn't look like this is going to be THE camera I was hoping for. I'm thinking it's going to be back to the good ol' DP1 for me.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Please describe what you are trying to do in post processing that isn't working (in addition to the request for samples of the problems. Who cares if flkr doesn't take full sized images. You can put full sized images in the galley here at getdpi and link to them.

    Go to gllery
    upload
    chose the files
    there is a field you need to fill in with your username
    embed the link in your post

    there are instructions at the top of the forum home page.

  11. #11
    Senior Subscriber Member Mike Hatam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    236

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Rafa - the E-P1 image you posted above (church shot) looks like it was posted in AdobeRGB color space again. Be sure to convert to sRGB before posting to the web, or the colors will look completely screwed up in our web browsers.
    Mike Hatam
    Sony A99, RX1, RX100

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I agree with your main point - the DP1/2 files do, in general, look nicer at low ISO and have more "pop" than the E-P1, although my opinion is not based on your samples but my experience having all three cameras. However, I sold my DP1 and DP2 because I enjoy using the E-P1 more and like the ability to use different lenses with adapters. This makes it easier to leave my D700 at home a lot of the time, which I wouldn't do with the DP1/DP2. The LCD on the DP cameras stink, focusing is painfully slow, high ISO color shots looked bad, and the files are smaller, but the final results from low ISO shots from the DP cameras looked great. To me it's a usability issue and there the E-P1 wins for me. I can't wait until LR or Photoshop supports E-P1 files since I am mainly shooting JPEG for now.

    I do love using the Pinhole Art filter on the E-P1 as well.

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I have to say that Rafa may be right, for the particular reason that he has said elsewhere that he only looks at his images on screen. If I shot mainly in bright-ish light at low ISO, never made prints and only wanted to see my images on screen I might prefer the DP1 because at those sorts of sizes it does have a sort of silky 3D pop that I haven't seen in any other camera, even a 40mp back.

    I do agree that he is probably posting in Adobe RGB (haven't checked) and I would like to ask him what AF settings he is using? Centre point only to focus and then recompose seems best with this camera as it is with so many others, but not as good as MF.

    One more observation: I agree with Jono that the HDR 'look' is generally pretty nasty. I don't know why people like it, it looks so fake and so unlike the way the eye sees a scene. It really is the proverbial quart in a pint pot. So beyond a few private experiments I have never really used it and can't say how it works on DP1 files but it may be that it is a camera well suited to the technique?

    Best

    Tim

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Different sensors and that DP1 lens is very sharp. The Foveon sensor is unique and the EP1 will not provide the same result. However, they are both very good cameras. I've been tweaking my EP1 to get more out of it (I shoot mostly JPG with the EP1). Turning off the noise processing helps a lot with sharpness.

    My frustration right now is with my DP2! It has the noted cyan problem although in my case it runs across the entire image, not just the corners, and at any aperture. I've been trying to figure out how to undo it in PP. Also, the default automatic processing of the Foveon files is too HDR-like for my taste. If you like that style the EP1 won't provide the same result without PP.

    BTW the DPx cameras on a tripod are phenomenal.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I'm thinking the digital image stabilization might have something to do with it. Noise processing might also.

  16. #16
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Then put the camera on a tripod, shoot a daylight scene with IS off at 1/200th thru 1/1000th second at less than F9 at whatever ISO meters right, 100 thru 400 but preferably 200 in RAW, with MF and look at the results with all NR off. That's as good as it'll get!

  17. #17
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I have turned off the noise reduction and the image stabilizer and will do some more tests to see if it has something to do with it.

  18. #18
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    BTW I really agree with your single-minded determination to get to the image quality you want... I have learned so much about cameras from doing similar things!

  19. #19
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawfa View Post
    I have turned off the noise reduction and the image stabilizer and will do some more tests to see if it has something to do with it.
    What it looks like you do with the DP-1 files is to expose for the highlights, then bring up the brightness in the other areas while jacking up the contrast. You can do the same with the E-P1. If you can't post 100% image sizes, try cropping the images and posting the crops (of selected areas) at 100%.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    like everybody, i love these equipment discussions! it looks like the ep1 a great street camera. the dp1, for me, is really medium format, slow to use but with incredible detail. (the dp1 has a larger sensor and one-third the pixel density of the ep1. this is bound to make a difference.)

    usability vs. iq still the big issue. the richoh gx100 has the finest setup (and if i had the gx200 with a better lcd and very fast raw write times, i'd feel even better). yet the pictures will have a rougher quality, the sensor one-third the size of the dp1.

    a great deal today, on the ep1 and lenses at fred miranda. i just have to remember how digital cameras fall in value unless they've the leica name on them. so, resisting the temptation, but i'd love to try the ep1.

    wayne
    www.pbase.com/wwp

    ps. i just went to dpreview to make sure i had the pixel density info correct:

    canon 5dII - 2.4

    canon 1dsIII - 2.4

    leica m8.2 - 2.1

    nikon d3x - 2.8

    olympus ep1 - 5.1

    and the winner is the sigma dp1 - 1.6
    Last edited by smokysun; 26th July 2009 at 20:08.

  21. #21
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Typically, the pixel density helps most with low light imaging where more photons can be collected for a given site. Yet, I don't think anyone thinks of the DP1 as a low light high ISO camera as above 800 it is terrible (at least from the images I have seen). As the D3x has shown, it is a trade off between resolution (high number of pixels) and high ISO sensitivity (doesn't match D3).
    V/r John

  22. #22
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawfa View Post
    I have turned off the noise reduction and the image stabilizer and will do some more tests to see if it has something to do with it.
    Check out this thread on Dpreview. The guy is using an E-620 which has the same sensor as the E-P1. His shots look a bit like what you are looking for. Maybe you could ask him what he's doing?

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32502351

  23. #23
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    What it looks like you do with the DP-1 files is to expose for the highlights, then bring up the brightness in the other areas while jacking up the contrast. You can do the same with the E-P1. If you can't post 100% image sizes, try cropping the images and posting the crops (of selected areas) at 100%.
    That is exactly what I do (note: I always shot jpegs with the DP1). The problem is that when I try to do this with the E-P1 (in RAW, mind you) the files fall apart lacking detail, definition and displaying ugly noise. I don't know, maybe it has to do with what Smokysun said and it's pixel density related...after all when you are bringing out light where there was none if the pixel density is better you shouldn't see it damaged as easily. To be honest, other than the DP1 I've only manage to give this kind of treatment to DSLR files.
    Last edited by Rawfa; 26th July 2009 at 22:52.

  24. #24
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    I've been thinking about this, not that I have a solution for you, but I have been wondering about that shot of the Sagrada from the EP-1 and why the treatment seems so wrong to me. I think it's this: there's so much false light on it that there's effectively no light on it, because you have tried so hard to banish the shadow by bringing up the HDR shadow details.

    I spent a while making a Barcelona portfolio so I can appreciate your challenges. The light is hard and contrasty and the shadows deep and that combination is beyond any display medium's dynamic range so either something has to give, or you have to manipulate the files to effectively compress the dynamic range.

    But Gaudi knew what he was doing when he designed that facade. If he wanted people to see deep into the shadows he wouldn't have made such a deeply carved surface. He knew how bright and hard the light would be and yet he made a series of surfaces that the light can't penetrate and which will always represent a series of very bright and very dark areas, which may or may not have metaphorical intention.

    IMHO the best architectural photographers rarely use any artificial light because (assuming that their subject matter is of high quality) they try to respect the interplay of light and shadow that the architect intended.

    Choosing to do the opposite will not only make the the shot look subliminally and disturbingly wrong (as so many HDR shots look) but will also test your equipment beyond its design parameters.

    So there's you solution ;-)

    Best

    Tim

  25. #25
    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: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Hi Rafa - Tim - Rich.
    Having been sniffy about HDR, and also having worked with 4/3 files ever since the E1, I have evolved 2 strategies for filling the shadows without actually creating that nasty false light feeling.

    The best way is really simple - process the RAW file twice, once with the correct exposure for the sky, and once for the foreground . . . assuming that the exposure will allow it. Then you'll have one file with a completely blown sky - select that, invert the selection and paste it onto the other file as a new layer - obviously it'll need tidying. However, this doesn't give that nasty 'false light' feeling. I've yet to find a program or action that does this well - every shot is different and needs different treatment.

    If the exposure varies too much for that, simply take two shots (or use bracketing), one exposed for the sky, the other for the foreground, and layer them again.

    These days, I do most of that kind of stuff in Viveza, which works really well.

    I think that if you want to get the E-P1 to work for you, then you're going to need to use different strategies to get it to work. Maybe it isn't worth the candle? but I think it probably is.

    I've gone through too many cameras, and they always need different tricks to get the best from them

    Just this guy you know

  26. #26
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Jono

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I've yet to find a program or action that does this well - every shot is different and needs different treatment.
    as you say, each is different, but I've been quite pleased with photomatix for doing this ... you just need to get the hang of it for a little bit, but then after that its always only a few quick clicks. I can keep the file as a .EXR file and the XMP to redo it.

    samples:







    are they 'over the top' to your eye?

  27. #27
    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: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Quote Originally Posted by smokysun View Post
    ps. i just went to dpreview to make sure i had the pixel density info correct:

    canon 5dII - 2.4

    canon 1dsIII - 2.4

    leica m8.2 - 2.1

    nikon d3x - 2.8

    olympus ep1 - 5.1

    and the winner is the sigma dp1 - 1.6
    HI There - interesting stuff, BUT I think it gives an impression which is definitely incomplete (and rather lopsided). How about:

    Canon G10 - 34/cm2 mp

    Panasonic Lx3 24 mp/cm2 (with all the razamatazz about larger sensor)

    Nikon Coolpix 90 - 43 mp/cm2

    Ricoh Cx1 - 33 mp/cm2

    Fujifilm S100fs - 19 mp/cm2 , with "one of the largest sensors we've seen in a non DSLR", "Excellent High ISO performance" (quotes from dpreview review).

    So, although the E-P1 is twice the pixel density of the D3x, there are cameras which perform well which have 4 times the density of the E-P1.

    Just this guy you know

  28. #28
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Not over the top at all to me... they subtly bring out shadow detail in a way that you'd not know had been done unless you were told. That, to me, is a well extended dynamic range (or in fact a well compressed one to be strictly accurate!) that tricks the eye rather than blasts it!

    Tim

  29. #29
    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: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    Jono



    as you say, each is different, but I've been quite pleased with photomatix for doing this ... you just need to get the hang of it for a little bit, but then after that its always only a few quick clicks. I can keep the file as a .EXR file and the XMP to redo it.

    samples:


    are they 'over the top' to your eye?
    As Tim says, they look fine . . . but none of them look like shots which would need much treatment - unlike Rafa's picture of the Sagrada.

    Just this guy you know

  30. #30
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    The HDR alike picture of the Sagrada Familia taken with the DP1 looks great in my opinion (it's EXACTLY the look I want), the one with the E-P1 doesn't. I have followed the same process and I've tried all the ones I could think of (inclusing different layers with different exposures)...I know, I'm pigheaded aren't I. :-)

  31. #31
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    ok ... wasn't sure if these would post here ...


    certainly this could use help


    and a quick flick into this....


    hmmm ... you know, comparing the work computer screen to my home laptops screen (despite it being profiled) that's way too punchy in the reds ....
    Last edited by pellicle; 27th July 2009 at 03:02.

  32. #32
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,098
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DP1 vs E-P1 again

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    ... I have evolved 2 strategies for filling the shadows without actually creating that nasty false light feeling.

    The best way is really simple - process the RAW file twice, once with the correct exposure for the sky, and once for the foreground . . . assuming that the exposure will allow it. Then you'll have one file with a completely blown sky - select that, invert the selection and paste it onto the other file as a new layer - obviously it'll need tidying. However, this doesn't give that nasty 'false light' feeling. I've yet to find a program or action that does this well - every shot is different and needs different treatment.

    If the exposure varies too much for that, simply take two shots (or use bracketing), one exposed for the sky, the other for the foreground, and layer them again.

    ...
    Take a look at PhotoAcute for this sort of thing.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

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
  •