Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    475
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    83
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts

    Arrow DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

    DxOMark ratings for the Olympus Pen E-P1 raise question marks concerning the perception that the E-P1 is any better than other recent Olympus cameras.

    More...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,779
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    163
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    796
    Thanked in
    495 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Four Thirds User editorial team View Post
    DxOMark ratings for the Olympus Pen E-P1 raise question marks concerning the perception that the E-P1 is any better than other recent Olympus cameras.

    More...
    This is what prompted me to post the thread earlier in the week about whether or not high ISO E-P1 improvements were RAW or JPEG-only.

    DxOMark also pours cold water over the suggestion that ISO 200 is better than ISO 100.

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    parallel universe
    Posts
    619
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    This is what prompted me to post the thread earlier in the week about whether or not high ISO E-P1 improvements were RAW or JPEG-only.

    DxOMark also pours cold water over the suggestion that ISO 200 is better than ISO 100.

    Ian
    Ian,

    As far as I can see, there is no place in their assessment (DxO) where optics comes in. They seem to be measuring the sensor response to coarse structures only, things like:
    • how much light is needed to make the A/D converter clip (their ISO definition)
    • if we illuminate it at this level, how much noise is in the raw file

    etc.

    The sensors in the E-P1 and the E-30/620 are about the same apart from the optics in front (e.g. AA filter). We know from the "horses mouth" (Olympus) that the E-P1 has a weaker optical AA filter than the SLRs and the TruePic V is needed to deal with the problems that causes (Moiree, aliasing etc.).

    So what do we have here? Once the light reaches the actual photo-sites of the sensor, there has been less optical blurring and the image is crisper. The sensor now converts that into an electric signal, which after a few amplifiers etc. gets converted into digital (A/D converter). At least some of the increased crispness (due to the weaker AA) carries through until behind the converter. Now comes the image processing. Since the image is less blurry to begin with, we need less sharpening to get to a similar level of fine detail. Less sharpening also means less noise. Isn't it all magic

    If they indeed (I am not 100% certain) do not take the required sharpening levels into account the results are in no way surprising. The electrical properties of sensor in the E-30/620 and the E-P1 are the same. That's what they are seeing with their measurement.

    People using the cameras to take photos, apply less sharpening (either they themselves or the person who tuned the processing engine (either in camera or external RAW converter)) to the E-P1 images than to the E-30/620 images and get less noise. Intop of this, Olympus might have used a better/different NR algorithm in the E-P1 than the earlier E-30/620.

    Hope this makes some sense.
    Joachim
    enjoy

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,779
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    163
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    796
    Thanked in
    495 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by joachim View Post
    Ian,

    As far as I can see, there is no place in their assessment (DxO) where optics comes in. They seem to be measuring the sensor response to coarse structures only, things like:
    • how much light is needed to make the A/D converter clip (their ISO definition)
    • if we illuminate it at this level, how much noise is in the raw file

    etc.

    The sensors in the E-P1 and the E-30/620 are about the same apart from the optics in front (e.g. AA filter). We know from the "horses mouth" (Olympus) that the E-P1 has a weaker optical AA filter than the SLRs and the TruePic V is needed to deal with the problems that causes (Moiree, aliasing etc.).

    So what do we have here? Once the light reaches the actual photo-sites of the sensor, there has been less optical blurring and the image is crisper. The sensor now converts that into an electric signal, which after a few amplifiers etc. gets converted into digital (A/D converter). At least some of the increased crispness (due to the weaker AA) carries through until behind the converter. Now comes the image processing. Since the image is less blurry to begin with, we need less sharpening to get to a similar level of fine detail. Less sharpening also means less noise. Isn't it all magic

    If they indeed (I am not 100% certain) do not take the required sharpening levels into account the results are in no way surprising. The electrical properties of sensor in the E-30/620 and the E-P1 are the same. That's what they are seeing with their measurement.

    People using the cameras to take photos, apply less sharpening (either they themselves or the person who tuned the processing engine (either in camera or external RAW converter)) to the E-P1 images than to the E-30/620 images and get less noise. Intop of this, Olympus might have used a better/different NR algorithm in the E-P1 than the earlier E-30/620.

    Hope this makes some sense.
    Joachim
    Joachim - that makes a lot of sense.

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ely, UK
    Posts
    2,125
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    37
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    58
    Thanked in
    33 Posts
    Likes: 6
    Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Re: DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    This is what prompted me to post the thread earlier in the week about whether or not high ISO E-P1 improvements were RAW or JPEG-only.

    DxOMark also pours cold water over the suggestion that ISO 200 is better than ISO 100.

    Ian
    Another weird one. I cannot fathom how DxO manage to get their numbers. I'm wondering if the sensor size is somehow being factored in. Based on the inspection of the RAW files, there didn't seem much doubt the E-P1's RAW performance at 3200 visibly bested the E-30 or E-3 - I don't think we were all kidding ourselves. When you start looking at the DR vs the competition, DxO are claiming cameras like the 40D have at least an extra stop of DR than the E-30 or E-3 - which, again, just doesn't seem to be correct. I've said it before, but I will stick to DPReview's tests...

    Andy
    Olympus E-M1 ZD 7-14 f4, 300 f2.8, PL 25 f1.4D
    mZuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro, 60 f2.8, 40-150 f2.8 Pro
    EC-14, EC-20, HLD-7
    Metz 58 AF-1&2 , Manfrotto 441, Gimbal Head, Velbon Neopod 74


    Gallery: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/elliott.aje.andy

    Website: 361photography.com 361wild.com

    "Oly_OM" @ e_group

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ely, UK
    Posts
    2,125
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    37
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    58
    Thanked in
    33 Posts
    Likes: 6
    Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Re: DxOMark rates the Olympus Pen E-P1 RAW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Joachim - that makes a lot of sense.

    Ian
    +1 - this does make a lot of sense. I wonder if somehow there are comparing based on a linear tone curve translation of the RAW data rather than the in-camera/ACR/Oly Studio one. This would explain the lower apparent dynamic range as the numbers are effectively compressed in the final stop of DR until clipping occurs. I don't wish to be critical of DxO - but their lack of explanation and lack of translation to real-world performance is frustrating.

    Another obvious point is that a less blurry image is also going to look less blurry after noise reduction - so the result is going to look a lot better and more detailed.

    Andy
    Olympus E-M1 ZD 7-14 f4, 300 f2.8, PL 25 f1.4D
    mZuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro, 60 f2.8, 40-150 f2.8 Pro
    EC-14, EC-20, HLD-7
    Metz 58 AF-1&2 , Manfrotto 441, Gimbal Head, Velbon Neopod 74


    Gallery: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/elliott.aje.andy

    Website: 361photography.com 361wild.com

    "Oly_OM" @ e_group

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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