PDA

View Full Version : Best way to compare IQ?


Philn67
31st January 2015, 06:05 PM
I want to take some test images to compare IQ and wondering what you guys would suggest to make it fair and comparable. I love my EM10 its just an awesome camera but feel the IQ could be better so to satisfy myself I want to do some tests. I know sensor size has a huge part to play and using the same iso is not equal on other sizes but Im not sure how much, i.e. iso 200 m4/3 would be equal to FF 400? More?
I know also comparing to FF is not at all equal, but I seem to see more noise, less sharpness and less detail than I expected at iso200, being the base. m4/3 is so different to what Im used to so Im trying to educate myself. I read somewhere that using Low isn't necessarily better because theres less DR. I digress. Im going to do some tests just on my back garden to compare:
EM10 Iso200 22-40 pro at 22mm
5Dii Iso??? 24-105L at 24mm
EOS400D iso??? 17-55 at 17mm
Eos M iso??? 17-55 at 17mm
The FOV should more or less be equal, but what would you guys, being far more experienced with m4/3 suggest I should use ISO wise and aperture to make it equal (ish). Im so used to being spoilt with FF and have not used the 400D for years, and the eos m was a huge mistake (no EVF, and its just stupid composing scenes at arms length), so really Im just after assuring myself the the oly blows the crop sensors away.
Also, silly question, how do I do 100% crops? Never really understood this? View at 100% and then just do a crop?

Pistnbroke
1st February 2015, 08:27 AM
Well if you look at my equipment list you will see I have loads to compare the 4/3 with..To get 100% use Nero picture viewer or Microsoft picture manager ...right click on the image in my pictures and select from open with...the 100% is in the menu list at the top. Personally I photograph the neibours wall through my bedroom window and look at the grains in the mortar between the bricks.
My m10 will always be the aprentice ..4/3 16 MP ..for me its just a small camera with a viewfinder that I can pocket on holiday while the big boys stay in the safe ...sorry folks its never going to join the lodge.

Philn67
1st February 2015, 11:05 AM
Well if you look at my equipment list you will see I have loads to compare the 4/3 with..To get 100% use Nero picture viewer or Microsoft picture manager ...right click on the image in my pictures and select from open with...the 100% is in the menu list at the top. Personally I photograph the neibours wall through my bedroom window and look at the grains in the mortar between the bricks.
My m10 will always be the aprentice ..4/3 16 MP ..for me its just a small camera with a viewfinder that I can pocket on holiday while the big boys stay in the safe ...sorry folks its never going to join the lodge.

Thanks for the reply. What I'm trying to do is see if I can make comparisons fair. My first outing with the Oly I was using similar apertures to what I'm used to, but seeing how soft the images were and reading up I realised I can use wider and get the same dof. But the noise is bugging me, so if I use ISO 200 at f8 on the Oly, to compare noise and sharpness what ISO should I use on the FF and crop sensor. I read somewhere that FF has 2 stop advantage so crop roughly 1 stop? So should I use ISO 400 on a crop and 800 on FF and leave aperture equal?

Pistnbroke
1st February 2015, 11:20 AM
Well I only shoot JPEG even for my pro work but with the OLY have you been into the menu and put the sharpness up to +2 ?? and the noise reduction at max . Thats essential ..it only affects the JPEGS.
Then for comparison I shoot the same field of view from the same location at the same F stop usually F5.6 or F8 .same ISO..same number of bricks on the wall .
You are going to get noise with the oly particularly if its not at its lowest ISO...4/3 is not a low light camera format IMHO more a daytime summer camera.
You may be able to play with the noise from the raw files but I anint got time for that as I come home with 1500 shots from a wedding to get out in 24 hrs.

Anyone who thinks this is a pro camera that can match even a D7100 is on the wrong planet

crimbo
1st February 2015, 12:01 PM
Well you would have to define IQ first. the deeper you pixel peep the more you will find with any image.

One test you could do with those cameras is an ISO test in jpeg
Fixed lighting on target or scene, average metering
Set the lens at f4, focus to manual and then just step up from lowest to highest ISO. graph exposure time against ISO for each camera

Pistnbroke
1st February 2015, 12:05 PM
No need to bother DXO have done it for you ...for the same noise an M10 at 884 iso is equal to a D7100 at 1300 iso and a D810 at 3000 iso .

so there you see your problem ..small sensor

Set it for best IQ ..test it then sell it or keep it ...easy

crimbo
1st February 2015, 12:09 PM
Not the test I am thinking of.
ISO appears a little nebulous with base ISOs for the chip
The idea of the test was to see if the exposure times were the same

Pistnbroke
1st February 2015, 12:21 PM
When you enrol on this site you can see there is a problem ..none of the options ..macro landscape etc is a pro passtime ..no wedding photography is mentioned. and indeed you would have great difficulty photographing a wedding with 4/3 kit .low light ability and lens selection would limit your options.
It is what it is ..test it and move on

StephenL
1st February 2015, 12:28 PM
When you enrol on this site you can see there is a problem ..none of the options ..macro landscape etc is a pro passtime ..no wedding photography is mentioned. and indeed you would have great difficulty photographing a wedding with 4/3 kit .low light ability and lens selection would limit your options.
It is what it is ..test it and move on
I don't think anyone could admit to having a hobby of wedding photography!

However, I understand that some pro wedding snappers have moved over to m4/3 kit, so maybe they have developed techniques to make it work. And perhaps there is an oversight in not having WP as a seperate item in the list of subject interests.

Philn67
1st February 2015, 04:08 PM
No need to bother DXO have done it for you ...for the same noise an M10 at 884 iso is equal to a D7100 at 1300 iso and a D810 at 3000 iso .

so there you see your problem ..small sensor

Set it for best IQ ..test it then sell it or keep it ...easy

I did look at this, the em10 seems to hold up very good for colour depth and DR. The issue with comparing ISO 884 is that I would rather see comparisons for lower ISO. Im not really a high iso user. 884 is equal to a 400D at 664, so its better, EOS M is almost equal at 827 and 5Dii is an expected 1815, so 2 stops different.

Philn67
1st February 2015, 05:08 PM
I think tomorrow I will go out and do a few tests to compare, what I want to do is satisfy myself that it holds its own against 1.6 crop sensors. Maybe I am expecting too much? As I said i have been used to FF only 5D and then mark 2 for the last 6-7 years! I went on the FF path after using a 400D for a while and cutting my teeth with a 17-55IS and 10-22, both respectable lenses. The 400 is only kept now for when I dabble with time lapse, not needing large files and not caring if i wear out the shutter. Last year I decided a little compact system would be great for holidays etc. But I soon found no VF for me made it almost useless. Along came the EM10 which I saw in a store just a month ago and it was a must have. So the reason I am wanting to compare is not to knock the EM10, but to satisfy myself that its worth building on (the oly 7-14 if its released? 40-150Pro) and has a really good place and i do realise it isn't going to give the same IQ as my FF. Only had it about a month and playing with it Im very happy with what it can do, but where Im on the fence is landscapes. A few shots of the kids, the cat, one late night with car lights using live composite, wow. Still life, detail images etc all look great. I seem to have it in my head that when I use it for landscapes there is more noise than I would like, especially in skies. Its easy to remove but I find it harsh on detail, so it has to be used selectively. Remove noise and then resharpen just brings noise back. Colour noise is ok, its noise. I was expecting better sharpness too. I didn't expect much from the kit 14-42EZ but thought it may be useful for being really compact. I see an improvement with the 12-40Pro but not as much as I thought (the build quality is stunning though, better than any L I think). So forgetting FF which isn't a fair comparison, I thought comparing it to an old crop sensor and a new one (the 400d and eos m is prob the same sensor?) I'm thinking if I use the 400d and eos m with decent glass at f8 on the same scene at iso 200, 400, 800, I should see equal performance with the EM10 at f8 at Iso Lo (to 200) 200 (to 400) etc? Should I see the same fine detail and sharpness? Maybe I have a duff lens.
Apologies being long whinded, just sharing thoughts on a situation prob many have already been in and many more to come. I think this body is awsome, I love the EVF and wish my 5d had it! Being able to actually see the histogram, live exp com! Zooming in and focus peaking and something I never see mentioned playback through the EVF is so useful. You could scrap all the filters for me but Live Bulb, Live Comp, time lapse and intervalometer are all so useful for me. In fact if Oly made a FF even if the same size as a 5D I would be there.

crimbo
1st February 2015, 06:01 PM
Well dont use f8 on the EM-10 if you are wanting critical IQ as diffraction effects will creep in.
if landscapes are important then it might be case of choose the tool for the job and take the FF out for them.
For me the 2x crop factor is the winner, for my Up Helly aa images I used the 40-150 mainly at f2.8...basically a 300mm lens... couldnt have carried the FF version around all day

RogerMac
1st February 2015, 08:37 PM
Thought I would but in on this discussion. I have an E5, an E-p1 and a Canon FF 6D, and I have just been making up some prints for a club competition. At low ISO and A3/A2 sized print it is extremely difficult. if not impossible, to tell the IQ advantage of the FF over the Olys but the FF comes right into its own at high ISO and at 25,600 it is unsurpassed, probably by any camera on the market. The ability to take handhold shots without flash in almost no light makes it superb for events such as weddings.

Incidentally I usually use f4 on the Olys but often have to use f8 on the canon and that gives two stops straight back to Oly.

I always use the E5 for tele work as I have the 140-600mm(equivalent) lens and I could not carry, let alone afford, the equivalent on the Canon, on other types of subject I mix and match - in other words its horses for courses.

RogerMac
1st February 2015, 09:08 PM
Just to illustrate the point above here are a couple of images taaken on the E5 that I woul not have been able to carry an equivalet Canon lens to

Puffins
http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/NewPhotos/Puffin6-800.jpg

Artic tern
http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/NewPhotos/ArticTern800.jpg

and just in case you think I am cheating a large blow up of the tern' eye
http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/NewPhotos/ArticTernCrop.jpg

Philn67
1st February 2015, 09:12 PM
Thought I would but in on this discussion. I have an E5, an E-p1 and a Canon FF 6D, and I have just been making up some prints for a club competition. At low ISO and A3/A2 sized print it is extremely difficult. if not impossible, to tell the IQ advantage of the FF over the Olys but the FF comes right into its own at high ISO and at 25,600 it is unsurpassed, probably by any camera on the market. The ability to take handhold shots without flash in almost no light makes it superb for events such as weddings.

Incidentally I usually use f4 on the Olys but often have to use f8 on the canon and that gives two stops straight back to Oly.

I always use the E5 for tele work as I have the 140-600mm(equivalent) lens and I could not carry, let alone afford, the equivalent on the Canon, on other types of subject I mix and match - in other words its horses for courses.

Thats good to know Roger, been thinking time to trade the 5d2 for a 5D3 or 6D. I have had 40" prints and been more than happy with them! On the e5 you stick to using it for tele, but have you used around 12mm and what aperture? Ive been using f10 but think I need to get out and see what I can do with wider with DOF

Philn67
1st February 2015, 09:13 PM
Just to illustrate the point above here are a couple of images taaken on the E5 that I woul not have been able to carry an equivalet Canon lens to

Puffins
http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/NewPhotos/Puffin6-800.jpg

Artic tern
http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/NewPhotos/ArticTern800.jpg

and just in case you think I am cheating a large blow up of the tern' eye
http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/NewPhotos/ArticTernCrop.jpg
Fantastic shots!
I have the 100-400L, used once in 3 years, its just too big!

RogerMac
1st February 2015, 09:25 PM
Thats good to know Roger, been thinking time to trade the 5d2 for a 5D3 or 6D. I have had 40" prints and been more than happy with them! On the e5 you stick to using it for tele, but have you used around 12mm and what aperture? Ive been using f10 but think I need to get out and see what I can do with wider with DOF

I have only got the ZD 12-60 so probably can not answer you question however it is superb lens and whilst I would normally use f4 I have no qualms at using it at 12mm and f2.8, some interesting distortions do creep in at that setting but these are correctable in Olympus viewer.

Zuiko
2nd February 2015, 02:06 AM
When you enrol on this site you can see there is a problem ..none of the options ..macro landscape etc is a pro passtime ..no wedding photography is mentioned. and indeed you would have great difficulty photographing a wedding with 4/3 kit .low light ability and lens selection would limit your options.
It is what it is ..test it and move on

Sorry we do not cater for your needs, but do I detect a bit of format snobbery? No one here is suggesting that M4/3 equals FF but users tend to have different priorities. As you say, it is what it is. If it fails to reach your exacting standards then maybe it's time to take your Master Masons, Chiropractor and brick wall test shots (I would never take test shots through glass btw) to join the elitist group of wedding togs on TP, rather than sniping from the shadows at M4/3.

To the OP, for goodness sake don't set +2 sharpness as suggested by Pistnbroke, more like -1 then sharpen as required in pp according to intended output. Luckily this has no effect on raw files anyway, but it could screw up your JPEGs. Test your lens at f6.3 or wider to avoid diffraction and turn IS off if using a tripod, which I would recommend for both cameras to avoid any camera shake variations. With your E-M10 expose to the right of the histogram, in other words adjust the exposure until the highlights are almost, but not quite clipped. There is actually quite a lot of headroom, particularly if shooting raw and this helps to minimize the amount of detail you need to lift from the shadows in pp. You should get excellent results from your E-M10 but ultimately (particularly at higher ISO) they won't quite match FF.

George Dorn
2nd February 2015, 08:05 AM
I'm an enthusiast. Using m4/3 allows me to take photos that are better than good enough (for me) in a way that is far more enjoyable than it had become with my DSLRs. Simple.

For some reason, I havent felt the need to take comparative test shots in a long while. Realising that I don't need that reassurance is very liberating and has in part led to my taking more photos and enjoying doing so more than ever.

There are plenty of reasons for and against buying any one camera format but the bull-doodoo of justifying my particular choice doesn't interest me any more. :)

Philn67
2nd February 2015, 09:40 AM
I'm an enthusiast. Using m4/3 allows me to take photos that are better than good enough (for me) in a way that is far more enjoyable than it had become with my DSLRs. Simple.

For some reason, I havent felt the need to take comparative test shots in a long while. Realising that I don't need that reassurance is very liberating and has in part led to my taking more photos and enjoying doing so more than ever.

There are plenty of reasons for and against buying any one camera format but the bull-doodoo of justifying my particular choice doesn't interest me any more. :)

Very well put george, I justify my choice with OMD simply because I like it and find it liberating too, but I am trying to figure out its limitations and when its the right tool for the job. Reviews etc are fantastic but its real world use that give the true test.

Philn67
2nd February 2015, 10:00 AM
Sorry we do not cater for your needs, but do I detect a bit of format snobbery? No one here is suggesting that M4/3 equals FF but users tend to have different priorities. As you say, it is what it is. If it fails to reach your exacting standards then maybe it's time to take your Master Masons, Chiropractor and brick wall test shots (I would never take test shots through glass btw) to join the elitist group of wedding togs on TP, rather than sniping from the shadows at M4/3.

To the OP, for goodness sake don't set +2 sharpness as suggested by Pistnbroke, more like -1 then sharpen as required in pp according to intended output. Luckily this has no effect on raw files anyway, but it could screw up your JPEGs. Test your lens at f6.3 or wider to avoid diffraction and turn IS off if using a tripod, which I would recommend for both cameras to avoid any camera shake variations. With your E-M10 expose to the right of the histogram, in other words adjust the exposure until the highlights are almost, but not quite clipped. There is actually quite a lot of headroom, particularly if shooting raw and this helps to minimize the amount of detail you need to lift from the shadows in pp. You should get excellent results from your E-M10 but ultimately (particularly at higher ISO) they won't quite match FF.

Good advice Zuiko thank you. I always use raw so sharpening/noise settings don't really matter. I switch to jpeg just for snaps and have sharpness 0 and noise settings at auto and low. I have the shutter delay (forget exact setting) at 0 justin case of shutter shock.
Last night I decided to revisit my faded memory of dof and hyper focal distances etc. On FF Im so used to using 17-40mm and being around f10/11/14. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that on the M10 at 12mm with a subject distance of 7' everything from 3' to infinity will be in focus...@f5.6! To my shock I also discovered that its not hugely different with my FF and 17mm. Obviously the closer an object is the more it changes, but from playing about (with an app) it seems 6-7' will give 3-4' in front to infinity at 5.6. So thats my sweet spot to keep in mind for landscapes and to get the best from the lens. So perhaps I am discovering my problem, stopping down way way to much, and perhaps more that I have needed to even on FF. Habits!

Harold Gough
2nd February 2015, 10:03 AM
There are plenty of reasons for and against buying any one camera format but the bull-doodoo of justifying my particular choice doesn't interest me any more. :)

One thing worth keeping in mind is that, the shorter the registration distance, the more choice of legacy lenses you can use e.g. for macro. I use quite lot of Leica 39mm thread, 49mm registration lenses, on my m4/3, where the m4/3 registration is 20mm. This makes m4/3 the most versatile, if that matter to you.

e.g. A Schneider 40mm Enlarger lens:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124927#124927

Harold

Philn67
2nd February 2015, 10:31 AM
I just spoke to a guy I follow on Facebook because I realised all his images are at f5.6 and his work is superb. Wondered if he is using FF, crop, turns out he uses EM5 and EM1! Have a look...
http://www.stephenelliottphotography.co.uk/gallery_530126.html
Shows what can be done. Off out to try again with a different mindset.

Jim Ford
2nd February 2015, 10:41 AM
You should get excellent results from your E-M10 but ultimately (particularly at higher ISO) they won't quite match FF.

Exactly!

And 35mm (aka FF) won't match 2 1/4 square - and 2 1/4 square won't match Full plate - and full plate won't match 20x16 and so on!

One of the finest detailed photographs I've ever seen was at the Kodak Museum in Wealdstone. It was a Victorian 20x16 contact print.

Jim

Harold Gough
2nd February 2015, 10:48 AM
I just spoke to a guy I follow on Facebook because I realised all his images are at f5.6 and his work is superb. Wondered if he is using FF, crop, turns out he uses EM5 and EM1! Have a look...
http://www.stephenelliottphotography.co.uk/gallery_530126.html
Shows what can be done. Off out to try again with a different mindset.

All I can say is that there is no way those landscapes were shot at f5.6.

Harold

George Dorn
2nd February 2015, 10:57 AM
... I justify my choice with OMD simply because I like it and find it liberating too, but I am trying to figure out its limitations and when its the right tool for the job. Reviews etc are fantastic but its real world use that give the true test.

Exactly; real world use. I don't print as much as I ought to, but the only comment I have ever had from a non-enthusiast about noise was approving of the film like feel of a photo! (From a 7D as it happens). That said more to me than all the web - induced insecurities about picture quality and noise *yes! When the cogniscenti talk about picture quality they usually mean noise and sharpness in the photograph, not quality of the picture.

Don't think that I wouldn't like to run a FF system for BIF or thin depth of field, but I expect that it would spend most of its time in the boot of the car while my Oly would be on my shoulder. Being used with lenses I trust wide open with better depth of field too. Better for me taking a landscape, that is.

Vive la difference! *chr

Harold Gough
2nd February 2015, 11:09 AM
Exactly; real world use. I don't print as much as I ought to, but the only comment I have ever had from a non-enthusiast about noise was approving of the film like feel of a photo! (From a 7D as it happens). That said more to me than all the web - induced insecurities about picture quality and noise *yes! When the cogniscenti talk about picture quality they usually mean noise and sharpness in the photograph, not quality of the picture.

Don't think that I wouldn't like to run a FF system for BIF or thin depth of field, but I expect that it would spend most of its time in the boot of the car while my Oly would be on my shoulder. Being used with lenses I trust wide open with better depth of field too. Better for me taking a landscape, that is.

Vive la difference! *chr

Noise? Depends on the file size and type. OK, I shoot mostly macro with typically, f11, more full flash than ambient. If I shoot RAW there is far less noise than if I shoot large file JPEG. And there is almost always noise, even at ISO 200.

Harold

George Dorn
2nd February 2015, 11:30 AM
Yes, there is always noise. But, happily, I'm usually only bothered about by it if I look for it.

Jim Ford
2nd February 2015, 12:32 PM
And there is almost always noise, even at ISO

There's always noise on any digital camera at any ISO. It's a matter of degree. It's down to physics.

Jim

byegad
2nd February 2015, 12:43 PM
Have we finished Pixel peeping yet?

My EPM1 (12Mp don't forget.) has produced photos that, lightly cropped and printed to A2, show none of the 'problems' that have been discussed up thread.

In the real world the print is the key to IQ. If it will print a sharp image without apparent noise then it's good enough.

Harold Gough
2nd February 2015, 12:47 PM
There's always noise on any digital camera at any ISO. It's a matter of degree. It's down to physics.

Jim

Unfortunately, reviewers say things like, and I quote, "I thought I saw some noise at ISO 2,000". Perhaps that was the braille model?

Harold

OlyPaul
2nd February 2015, 02:20 PM
Not sure what's expected from mft but this of the E-M5 and 75-300m yesterday in dull lighting at 300mm and wide open at f6.7 and at ISO 1600 is plenty good enough for me.

http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography/image/159014409/original.jpg

Zuiko
2nd February 2015, 02:25 PM
Not sure what's expected from mft but this of the E-M5 and 75-300m yesterday in dull lighting at 300mm and wide open at f6.7 and at ISO 1600 is plenty good enough for me.

http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography/image/159014409/original.jpg

I'd be happy with that. :D

Ulfric M Douglas
2nd February 2015, 07:49 PM
So perhaps I am discovering my problem, stopping down way way to much, ...
We see this again and again from photographers used to 35mm.
Try wide-open for a good while and see how that goes.

I was reading your original post for this thread and you still haven't specified what paramaters of image quality you would like to test,
narrowing those down would help you work out how to test them.

Harold Gough
3rd February 2015, 06:44 AM
Perhaps I have missed it but I don't think colour rendering/'warmth' of lenses has been mentioned. Perhaps there is less variation with digital lenses than there was with film lenses. (I have an OM 35mm shift and Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 24-48mm. The former gives a cold, slightly bluish image and the latter quite a warm one, both with appropriate filters). Maybe that is now all lost in PP?

Anyway I use a lot of old lenses (LF include) for macro. When I use my Leitz Elmarit 60mm macro, for example, I get complements about its colours.

Harold

Harold Gough
3rd February 2015, 07:48 AM
This is how I test/compare lenses for macro/close-up use, where open wide is not often a useful option. So apertures from, say, f5.6 down to f16 would be checked.

I do this is a conservatory where the floor is concrete with decking screwed straight onto it, such that some precautions may look excessive but have been found essential.

I pin a test chart (mine is an old Vivitar one) to a wall. For all shots I choose a target area with the finest black dots on white background and perhaps some colour.

I place the camera/lens combo on a very firm tripod, having first turned of IS and switched on 15 seconds anti-shock (8 seconds was found to be inadequate).

I then ensure the lens is focused, using digital zoom aids. I then press the shutter and smoothly exit the conservatory, returning only after the exposure. Yes, my weight or movement can affect the stability through the floor and up the tripod. This is for ambient light, slow exposures).

Having done this for the required apertures, I then repeat this for the next lens. It may be necessary to move the tripod toward or away from the chart to get a similar portion framed.

The above can then be repeated for a range of magnifications/FOVs.

Also, low ISO may show the best detail and least noise, but my legacy lenses were optimised for moderate apertures, typically f8 or f11, and I need them for DOF at high magnification, such that ISO 400 or 800 are often needed, even with full flash. So those ISOs need to be tested.

This may look obsessive but I have found anything less to be worthless for my purposes.

Harold

Zuiko
3rd February 2015, 08:44 AM
Well done Harold for doing the job properly. It may well seem obsessive, but it is only by eliminating all variables that you get a true comparison - and macro is more critical than most applications. :)

Philn67
3rd February 2015, 08:48 AM
All I can say is that there is no way those landscapes were shot at f5.6.

Harold

Harold I meant to say all between 5.6-6.3.
Take a look at Steves Facebook page where he includes FOV/aperture/iso/shutter.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephen-Elliott-Photography/162398933792463?fref=ts

Anyone interested should take a peek!

Harold Gough
3rd February 2015, 08:55 AM
Well done Harold for doing the job properly. It may well seem obsessive, but it is only by eliminating all variables that you get a true comparison - and macro is more critical than most applications. :)

Thanks, John

I know that lenses in my bag will do the job they are there for and, if one fails (it is always on an overseas trip) I know the back-up will be almost indistinguisable in results, more often will differ only by a less useful focal length.

Harold

Philn67
3rd February 2015, 09:08 AM
So the good news! After taking everyones advice I spent the afternoon out yesterday. Initially I was disappointed with the lack of detail, sharpness, noise as said, and I wondered if I just expected too much with a small sensor. I really want to get the best out of this because I can see it being the future, so I dumped the kit lens and got the 12-40Pro to give the sensor a chance. So rather than making comparisons I decided I'm better looking at my technique.
Its my technique....my bad.
I went up on Saddleworth Moor near my home and limited myself to f5.6, trying to keep in mind hyper focal distances, focus points etc, and there is a huge improvement. Better sharpness, great detail and less noise in the skies. Im actually blown away at just how good it is just using f5.6. There were a few where dof could have been better so 6.3 was needed. I also learned that switching ibis off is essential with a tripod (the ibis I think is far better than any IS I have in any of my Ls). I've looked at the jpegs and later today I will post some here, I got some crackers :D

Zuiko
3rd February 2015, 10:01 AM
So the good news! After taking everyones advice I spent the afternoon out yesterday. Initially I was disappointed with the lack of detail, sharpness, noise as said, and I wondered if I just expected too much with a small sensor. I really want to get the best out of this because I can see it being the future, so I dumped the kit lens and got the 12-40Pro to give the sensor a chance. So rather than making comparisons I decided I'm better looking at my technique.
Its my technique....my bad.
I went up on Saddleworth Moor near my home and limited myself to f5.6, trying to keep in mind hyper focal distances, focus points etc, and there is a huge improvement. Better sharpness, great detail and less noise in the skies. Im actually blown away at just how good it is just using f5.6. There were a few where dof could have been better so 6.3 was needed. I also learned that switching ibis off is essential with a tripod (the ibis I think is far better than any IS I have in any of my Ls). I've looked at the jpegs and later today I will post some here, I got some crackers :D

Glad to hear things are working out for you, Phil. Remember, f5.6 on M4/3 is the equivalent of f11 on Full Frame for DOF. Looking forward to seeing those pictures! :)

Ulfric M Douglas
3rd February 2015, 06:52 PM
Good going Phil, link to a saddleworth moor picture thread? ;)

Harold Gough
3rd February 2015, 07:27 PM
Re: DOF and sensor size, here is some bedtime reading:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17202

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=78376#78376

Harold

Philn67
3rd February 2015, 08:24 PM
Good going Phil, link to a saddleworth moor picture thread? ;)

Working on the pics I did yesterday in between pretending to do real work :D

You mean do a thread instead of posting them here?

Philn67
4th February 2015, 05:27 PM
A dumb question but whats the best way to post images here? Theres no jpeg option, how do I get a file size of just 19.5kb? :confused:

Harold Gough
4th February 2015, 05:37 PM
A dumb question but whats the best way to post images here? Theres no jpeg option, how do I get a file size of just 19.5kb? :confused:

"No JPEG option"? Unless I am missing something, it is all JPEGs. Do you have images posted elswehere? If so, a link may be sufficient.

Harold

Philn67
4th February 2015, 05:48 PM
"No JPEG option"? Unless I am missing something, it is all JPEGs. Do you have images posted elswehere? If so, a link may be sufficient.

Harold
Harold, its bmp, png, gif, psd, none of which I can get to 19.5kb. I don't have any of the pics online yet, I wanted to post a couple here and then start a thread to post images of Saddleworth

PeterBirder
4th February 2015, 09:42 PM
Harold, its bmp, png, gif, psd, none of which I can get to 19.5kb. I don't have any of the pics online yet, I wanted to post a couple here and then start a thread to post images of Saddleworth

Not sure where you've seen bmp, png or 19.5kb file size for the group. The requirement is basicaly JPG with a file size of not more than 512kb. You will need to re-size files to 800/1000 pixels wide (or max 800 pixels high for portrait orientation) to upload.

If you look on the homepage of the group you will see on the RHS links to a couple of video tutorials on how to upload photos to the gallery and then include them in a thread.

Regards.*chr

Zuiko
5th February 2015, 12:15 AM
Harold, its bmp, png, gif, psd, none of which I can get to 19.5kb. I don't have any of the pics online yet, I wanted to post a couple here and then start a thread to post images of Saddleworth

19.5kb sounds like the limit for uploading your avitar picture under personal profile, rather than the 512kb limit for uploading to the gallery.

On the Forum Home Page click on "Gallery" on the header bar. This opens a new bar immediately below, where you click on "Upload Photos" (on right hand side of bar). You can then browse up to five images at a time from your computer picture files.

Once you have the pictures in your gallery you will need to post them into a thread. Here is a tutorial on how to do this, by John Burns (theMusicMan). http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19329

Harold Gough
5th February 2015, 07:51 AM
Harold, its bmp, png, gif, psd, none of which I can get to 19.5kb. I don't have any of the pics online yet, I wanted to post a couple here and then start a thread to post images of Saddleworth

The trouble is that your query in not placed in context. Do you shoot RAW or JPEGs and what are you trying to upload here?

Harold

Philn67
5th February 2015, 10:26 AM
19.5kb sounds like the limit for uploading your avitar picture under personal profile, rather than the 512kb limit for uploading to the gallery.

On the Forum Home Page click on "Gallery" on the header bar. This opens a new bar immediately below, where you click on "Upload Photos" (on right hand side of bar). You can then browse up to five images at a time from your computer picture files.

Once you have the pictures in your gallery you will need to post them into a thread. Here is a tutorial on how to do this, by John Burns (theMusicMan). http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19329
Yep that sounds about right, thanks for clarifying!

Philn67
5th February 2015, 11:32 AM
Now I figured out how to post images, heres an example of what was concerning me. Its not a bad image, but there's little detail and the rock looks plastic. Thanks to you guys I now realise why. Firstly it was f13 and I forgot to add some ex comp for all the snow so it was underexposed. Pushing the exposure in PP gave me quite a bit of noise. Then because it was so soft sharpening gave me more noise. The biggest problem was using f13, (=f22?) it was so soft! Other shots where I got the exposure right were still soft so sharpening just gave more noise, and reducing noise in PP just destroyed all the detail.
http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/MarsdenSnow-1-3.jpg

Philn67
5th February 2015, 11:49 AM
http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/PennineWay-2-3.jpg
f5.6 ISO200 1/250s, .6 nd grad
Now armed with a different mindset, it was my bad technique. I stuck at f5.6 and kept hyper focal distances in mind just to see what dof I could get. Im actually blown away with the difference. Some of the images could have done with a tiny bit more dof, so maybe f6.3 or more attention to focus point, but at least now I know the problem.
PP in LR5, I needed to do very little. The raw was almost the same as the jpeg (never with 5d). So a little saturation, curves adjusted, process 2012 and adobe standard, exp +.25, no clarity and no noise/sharpening. I always finish in PS6 because I prefer more precise brush adjustments, so a tiny saturation to the rock and sky, and then sharpened and noise reduction (there was still noise/texture in the sky but it was easy to control) with Nik collection. Ive been using Nik for a while because the noise and sharpening is better than anything, its witchcraft how they do it.
Really happy with the detail, smooth tones, even texture of the snow, the sharpness, and even the small peak in the distance is almost sharp.

Philn67
5th February 2015, 11:55 AM
http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/PennineWay-1_800px.jpg
f5.6 ISO200, 1/800s with 1.3 ex comp, .6 nd grad.

This image shows the dof, using the grass as the focal point its all very sharp and extends way back to infinity. Same processing as before, I needed a tiny adjustment for the shadows under the snow at the focal point, but it was tiny. Very impressed with detail and tones.

Harold Gough
5th February 2015, 11:59 AM
You seem to be leaving noise reduction very late. Using no in-camera NR, that is the first thing I do.

Harold

Philn67
5th February 2015, 12:05 PM
http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/PennineWay-1-16.jpg
f5.6 ISO200 1/200s, exp comp +1.3 .6 nd grad

http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/PennineWay-1-4.jpg
f6.3 ISO200 1/640s, exp comp +1.3 .6 nd grad.

Again great detail and sharpness, very happy with how little I needed to PP the raw files.

Philn67
5th February 2015, 12:19 PM
http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/PennineWay-1-2.jpg

http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/PennineWay-2-6.jpg

Both of these were f5.6 ISO 200, x3 bracketed exposures blended together in PS. Light was getting very low, I didn't want to increase ISO so out came the tripod. I had to push exp in LR by about a stop, and saturated the sky as much as I could before posterisation. More noise obviously, but because my technique is better I'm not having to battle noise/sharpen/noise/sharpen and destroy detail.

So I've learned something, apply a different technique and this little beauty is more than capable of doing the job and I will be quite happy to leave the FF when I can't be bothered to lug it about. Next is do do some big prints to see how they turn out and get myself a wider lens, Im quite happy to invest in it more now. Which lens though. And a careful eye on reviews of the 5ii :)

Philn67
5th February 2015, 12:35 PM
You seem to be leaving noise reduction very late. Using no in-camera NR, that is the first thing I do.

Harold
I don't use any in camera noise either Harold. I leave noise and sharpening till almost last because LR is fantastic for global processing but really don't like the brushes for local adjustments. PS is far better. It depends on the image, for street, portraits, still life I may just use LR for everything but I have a thing for landscapes with really smooth skies, but I don't want to affect other detail, same with sharpening. So I can get on with adjustments, pop over to PS and finish off. I use Nik now for sharpening and noise, so I apply noise red to the sky, mask out the ground and combine them. Same with sharpening. Its another step but worth it. The Nik collection tools really are incredible, better than LR and PS.

Harold Gough
5th February 2015, 12:42 PM
I don't use any in camera noise either Harold. I leave noise and sharpening till almost last because LR is fantastic for global processing but really don't like the brushes for local adjustments. PS is far better. It depends on the image, for street, portraits, still life I may just use LR for everything but I have a thing for landscapes with really smooth skies, but I don't want to affect other detail, same with sharpening. So I can get on with adjustments, pop over to PS and finish off. I use Nik now for sharpening and noise, so I apply noise red to the sky, mask out the ground and combine them. Same with sharpening. Its another step but worth it. The Nik collection tools really are incredible, better than LR and PS.

I use Topaz, currently independently of PS, and Topaz recommend NR before using their plugins, also at the end. They obviously want users to get the best out of their product. I find that removing too little (less aggressive) early on sometimes makes a later cleanup challenging. That said, for macro I am using small, sometimes very small effective, apertures and usually have to use ISO 400.

It may work differently with other software.

Harold

Philn67
5th February 2015, 01:06 PM
I use Topaz, currently independently of PS, and Topaz recommend NR before using their plugins, also at the end. They obviously want users to get the best out of their product. I find that removing too little (less aggressive) early on sometimes makes a later cleanup challenging. That said, for macro I am using small, sometimes very small effective, apertures and usually have to use ISO 400.

It may work differently with other software.

Harold

Yep agreed...If my adjustments don't affect noise too much I leave it to last, if it does then dealing with it early is better. With sharpening I after find I want the foreground a little sharper, or maybe a detail such as eyes, so it may be a little at the start and then some at the end. Depends, I have a workflow I like but I usually know when I open a file if I need to alter it. The beauty of digital and knowing how to use different apps is being able to adjust to suit the image. Not like the old days when I was processing film and printing in my bedroom. I have found for some reason there is a lot of headroom with olympus raws, but noise reduction is very different compared to CR2 files. With a CR2 I can use noise reduction way up to the right but with the oly raw just a slight amount (in LR) has a much bigger effect. Not sure why and Im not saying its a bad thing, its probably good, its just a difference I see.

snaarman
5th February 2015, 01:37 PM
Well those landscapes look amazing to me. I would be well pleased to have taken them myself.

As to apertures, I take most of my shots between wide open and f5.6, sometimes at f8. I would suggest a look at the slrgear website. They have lens reviews with animated sharpness graphs where you can tweak zoom and aperture and see what happens to the blur index. That will show you where the sweet spot on your lens is.

For big big landscape prints, I stitch 2 or three shots together following the usual rules, AF and AE lock, plenty of overlap. Using this method I have made loads of 20x35 inch pano shots that withstand examination from less than a foot away.

For processing - I use raw files always and depend on light NR in Adobe raw. To be honest, given the choice of clean but soft or noisy and sharp, I would always chose sharp :-)

Yes, a "FF" 35mm sensor camera would do a better job, and a medium format DSLR would be better still..

Pete

Philn67
5th February 2015, 01:52 PM
Well those landscapes look amazing to me. I would be well pleased to have taken them myself.

As to apertures, I take most of my shots between wide open and f5.6, sometimes at f8. I would suggest a look at the slrgear website. They have lens reviews with animated sharpness graphs where you can tweak zoom and aperture and see what happens to the blur index. That will show you where the sweet spot on your lens is.

For big big landscape prints, I stitch 2 or three shots together following the usual rules, AF and AE lock, plenty of overlap. Using this method I have made loads of 20x35 inch pano shots that withstand examination from less than a foot away.

For processing - I use raw files always and depend on light NR in Adobe raw. To be honest, given the choice of clean but soft or noisy and sharp, I would always chose sharp :-)

Yes, a "FF" 35mm sensor camera would do a better job, and a medium format DSLR would be better still..

Pete

Thanks Pete. I will look slr gear, sounds interesting. Ive always used canon for no other reason than I like the bodies, just seems intuitive to me, more than others. But the Oly is really good too. I hope others will get something from this thread, that Im really trying to get the best from it and with a different mindset it really can deliver. Very happy. Now instead of a huge rucksack which has resulted in putting a movie on instead I now have a small bag about 12x8x8" with my 5d+17-40, 24-105, EM10 with 12-40, 14-42, 40-150, all my fitters and 2 adapters + tons of other accessories. The 24-105 will go in my other bag to make room for new oly glass soon.

Zuiko
5th February 2015, 04:43 PM
You got some fantastic pictures, Phil, with a huge improvement over the first shot. However, the last shot looks over-processed to me, with far too much saturation and it is also over-sharpened - just look at the edges of the foreground rocks. You are obviously experienced in both photography and processing, which leads me to wonder if images from full frame sensors are more robust to heavy processing than crop sensors? It might just be a case of getting used to using a lighter touch, like you have obviously done with the other superb pictures. :)

Philn67
5th February 2015, 05:29 PM
You got some fantastic pictures, Phil, with a huge improvement over the first shot. However, the last shot looks over-processed to me, with far too much saturation and it is also over-sharpened - just look at the edges of the foreground rocks. You are obviously experienced in both photography and processing, which leads me to wonder if images from full frame sensors are more robust to heavy processing than crop sensors? It might just be a case of getting used to using a lighter touch, like you have obviously done with the other superb pictures. :)

Nail and head right on John. It was 3 exposures combine, so I playec to see what I could do. It's prob over saturated, and sometimes edges over sharpened are more noticeable when down sampled for web, halo like similar to CA. I got a bit heavy handed seeing where I could take the raw files. Not sure yet if there's a difference in latitude but two things I've noticed:
1. I used raw+JPEG set to natural just so I had something to compare. The raws straight out with Adobe standard are remarkably close, a little over saturated compared if set to Natural. That means I know the in camera preview is pretty close to what I actually get. Not the case with a cr2 at least with my 5d.. I basically ignore jpegs and just set raw, relying on the histogram. The preview is composition/sharpness only. And the in camera corrections are amazing. No more battling ca wonky horizons and vignetting.
2. There's a huge difference with noise/sharpening in LR in comparison. Very minor adjustments have a bigger impact, compared to a cr2. I'm not sure why it would be so different with noise but I'm suspecting sharpening is because the 12-40 is much sharper than my Ls.

Zuiko
5th February 2015, 09:38 PM
Nail and head right on John. It was 3 exposures combine, so I playec to see what I could do. It's prob over saturated, and sometimes edges over sharpened are more noticeable when down sampled for web, halo like similar to CA. I got a bit heavy handed seeing where I could take the raw files. Not sure yet if there's a difference in latitude but two things I've noticed:
1. I used raw+JPEG set to natural just so I had something to compare. The raws straight out with Adobe standard are remarkably close, a little over saturated compared if set to Natural. That means I know the in camera preview is pretty close to what I actually get. Not the case with a cr2 at least with my 5d.. I basically ignore jpegs and just set raw, relying on the histogram. The preview is composition/sharpness only. And the in camera corrections are amazing. No more battling ca wonky horizons and vignetting.
2. There's a huge difference with noise/sharpening in LR in comparison. Very minor adjustments have a bigger impact, compared to a cr2. I'm not sure why it would be so different with noise but I'm suspecting sharpening is because the 12-40 is much sharper than my Ls.

It could also make a difference if the E-M10 has a weaker AA filter than the 5D. No wonder it takes a while to get used to a new camera, when there are so many variables.

Harold Gough
6th February 2015, 06:28 AM
You got some fantastic pictures, Phil, with a huge improvement over the first shot. However, the last shot looks over-processed to me, with far too much saturation and it is also over-sharpened - just look at the edges of the foreground rocks. You are obviously experienced in both photography and processing, which leads me to wonder if images from full frame sensors are more robust to heavy processing than crop sensors? It might just be a case of getting used to using a lighter touch, like you have obviously done with the other superb pictures. :)

I though that too, especially with foreground grass. As I am used to sharpness issues in macro, and not really in landscape, I thought I would hold back until others hand commented. It reminds me of my experience with Unsharp Marsk, which I now avoid likethe plague.

Harold

Philn67
7th February 2015, 11:07 AM
Just out of interest I did another test yesterday printing a few images. Obviously you can't tell from this image.
I printed a couple of images at A3 (16.5x8.5") which is the largest I can print. They came out stunning and I would be hard pressed to tell a difference with a FF print. I run a small portrait studio and have at times had to supply 46" prints which FF copes with pretty well, although Im not expecting to get this sort of size.
To get an impression of what a larger A2 print would look like I just sampled the file up to double the size in PS, and printed it 100% on A3.
Im pretty surprised at how well it came out, theres plenty of very fine detail and the sky tones are totally smooth. I noticed the grass at the front is getting tiny bit jaggy and a minute halo around the top edge of the rock. I suspect I have probably over sharpened, and up sample it properly, but just doing this it would pass as a fine quality wall print from a few feet away. It's not exhibition quality but possibly my bad sharpening/resampling.
I would be happy to have that as 32x16 print, and I reckon it could go larger with fine art paper or canvas. Interesting :)
Liked the composition of the enlarged print so I need to get back there again.http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/OL060515.JPG

Ulfric M Douglas
7th February 2015, 04:59 PM
Yeah, great A3 prints!

Zuiko
7th February 2015, 06:11 PM
To get an impression of what a larger A2 print would look like I just sampled the file up to double the size in PS, and printed it 100% on A3.



In a way this is a more severe test than actually making an A2 print, because the A3 print you get is more comfortably viewed at a closer distance than an A2. :)

Philn67
7th February 2015, 08:50 PM
In a way this is a more severe test than actually making an A2 print, because the A3 print you get is more comfortably viewed at a closer distance than an A2. :)

Very good point John *chr

Next time I order large prints I will order one of these just out of interest. Must admit I am loving this camera. I have a 9-18 winging its way to me and spending my saturday night looking at a small filter kit. Missus isn't here...obviously :D

Pistnbroke
15th February 2015, 08:47 AM
This set me thinking ..first a 16MP 4/3 converted to 3:2 format is 14 MP so thats not a good start.
I took the same picture with M10 14mm D7100 18mm and D800 28mm

In the centre was a car with a number plate ...impossible to read on the M10
Quite clear on the 24mp D7100 and a little better on the D800 ( cheap sigma lens and only 18% better resolution)

So there you have it ...more mp better resolution or IQ if you like,greater ability to crop etc...

Phill D
15th February 2015, 10:14 AM
Phil just caught up with your shots on here and they look fantastic to me too. Your pping info is definitely beyond me at the moment so I'll file the thread away for future reference. Only thing I wanted to add was that my daughter took some shots last year with her old E520 for the company she works for temporarily and they blew them up to around 2m high for an outdoor display. On looking at them I was really surprised at the detail that remained and how well they survived whatever process was used to enlarge them. Whilst I don't know what processing was used it certainly proved to me that even modest Oly cameras were very capable of producing acceptably detailed images.

Philn67
15th February 2015, 10:48 AM
Phil just caught up with your shots on here and they look fantastic to me too. Your pping info is definitely beyond me at the moment so I'll file the thread away for future reference. Only thing I wanted to add was that my daughter took some shots last year with her old E520 for the company she works for temporarily and they blew them up to around 2m high for an outdoor display. On looking at them I was really surprised at the detail that remained and how well they survived whatever process was used to enlarge them. Whilst I don't know what processing was used it certainly proved to me that even modest Oly cameras were very capable of producing acceptably detailed images.

Thanks phill, I guess as someone else said it's a common concern for someone used to FF but I've used the Oly quite a bit now and getting some really nice shots I'm happy with..I'm learning PP is different, it needs more care with noise and sharpening, the 12-40 is like a razor compared to my Ls, so I keep over sharpening! Ther might be a little less fine detail but last time I looked no one had eyes with built in zooms anyway. I'm really enjoying this camera and I ill post some more images I'm my gallery here. I've posted quite a few on my FB page so if anyone wants to have a look just search for phil norton photography *chr

drmarkf
15th February 2015, 11:00 AM
By chance I just came across this video on diffraction effects, which starts at a fairly simple level and then actually shows some nice example images:

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/12/everything-need-know-lens-diffraction-photography/

To translate from FF to m4/3 there's roughly a 2 stop factor to be applied.

I must say, since I learned more about post processing over the past year, I have tended to use wider apertures than I used to, unless the image really does need great depth of field. Selective sharpening and NR are very useful, but not panaceas.

Philn67
18th February 2015, 05:14 PM
The next time I make any comments re concerns over image quality/detail or lack of it please just tell me to shut up.
Just got the 9-18mm and I am blown away with how sharp it is, in fact it seems as sharp as my 12-40. Reviews all say its a little soft at the edges, which it is but thats easy to correct if its even needed, if viewers notice soft edges something is wrong with composition. More important look at all that amazing fine detail....happy boy here.http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/508/DownryHill-1-800px.jpg

Harold Gough
18th February 2015, 05:43 PM
Stop jumping up and down with excitment. It is not good for picture quality! :D

Harold

Phill D
18th February 2015, 08:36 PM
That was a nice video link on diffraction Mark. Thanks for posting.