Olympus E-M5 JPEG NR objectionable? Aggressive, even when shut off??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 14, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 14, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >This is an interesting thread and pretty much mirrors what I've
    >found. The images do show some pretty ugly NR, but how it effects
    >final (screen or print) images needs to be examined more closely.
    >
    >http://www.mu-43.com/f42/em-5-suffering-excessive-jpeg-dnr-27768/



    Too many Olympus m4/3 users rely on JPEGs out of the camera.

    They correctly claim that Olympus' JPEGs are slightly more pleasing
    than competitor Panasonic's, but they are missing the point. The m4/3
    format now competes reasonably well with APS-C on high ISO noise, but
    it lags way behind on dynamic range. Whether you like it or not, the
    m4/3 format offers 2-3 stops less dynamic range than APS-C.

    Given this conspicuous lack of dynamic range, wouldn't you think that
    Olympus m4/3 users would shoot RAW to extract every fraction of a stop
    of dynamic range that the sensor can offer? No, the silly people
    shoot JPEGs "because they look nice". In doing so, they throw away a
    further 1.0-1.5 stops of dynamic range, crippling their cameras even
    further.

    So please let us have no more crocodile tears from Olympus m4/3 users
    who should know better.

    [Usual response from Olympus customers when the results of limited
    dynamic range are pointed out to them: "Dynamic range? What's that?"]
    Bruce, Jun 14, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Olympus E-M5 JPEG NR objectionable? Aggressive, even when shut off??

    On Jun 14, 10:53 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >This is an interesting thread and pretty much mirrors what I've
    > >found.  The images do show some pretty ugly NR, but how it effects
    > >final (screen or print) images needs to be examined more closely.

    >
    > >http://www.mu-43.com/f42/em-5-suffering-excessive-jpeg-dnr-27768/

    >
    > Too many Olympus m4/3 users rely on JPEGs out of the camera.
    >
    > They correctly claim that Olympus' JPEGs are slightly more pleasing
    > than competitor Panasonic's, but they are missing the point.  The m4/3
    > format now competes reasonably well with APS-C on high ISO noise, but
    > it lags way behind on dynamic range.  Whether  you like it or not, the
    > m4/3 format offers 2-3 stops less dynamic range than APS-C.
    >
    > Given this conspicuous lack of dynamic range, wouldn't you think that
    > Olympus m4/3 users would shoot RAW to extract every fraction of a stop
    > of dynamic range that the sensor can offer?  No, the silly people
    > shoot JPEGs "because they look nice".  In doing so, they throw away a
    > further 1.0-1.5 stops of dynamic range, crippling their cameras even
    > further.
    >
    > So please let us have no more crocodile tears from Olympus m4/3 users
    > who should know better.
    >
    > [Usual response from Olympus customers when the results of limited
    > dynamic range are pointed out to them: "Dynamic range?  What's that?"]


    I wonder why when Nikon and Canon had the same dynamic range in their
    DSLRs, no one complained much about it?
    RichA, Jun 15, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Olympus E-M5 JPEG NR objectionable? Aggressive, even when shut off??

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jun 14, 10:53=A0am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >This is an interesting thread and pretty much mirrors what I've
    >> >found. =A0The images do show some pretty ugly NR, but how it effects
    >> >final (screen or print) images needs to be examined more closely.

    >>
    >> >http://www.mu-43.com/f42/em-5-suffering-excessive-jpeg-dnr-27768/

    >>
    >> Too many Olympus m4/3 users rely on JPEGs out of the camera.
    >>
    >> They correctly claim that Olympus' JPEGs are slightly more pleasing
    >> than competitor Panasonic's, but they are missing the point. =A0The m4/3
    >> format now competes reasonably well with APS-C on high ISO noise, but
    >> it lags way behind on dynamic range. =A0Whether =A0you like it or not, th=

    >e
    >> m4/3 format offers 2-3 stops less dynamic range than APS-C.
    >>
    >> Given this conspicuous lack of dynamic range, wouldn't you think that
    >> Olympus m4/3 users would shoot RAW to extract every fraction of a stop
    >> of dynamic range that the sensor can offer? =A0No, the silly people
    >> shoot JPEGs "because they look nice". =A0In doing so, they throw away a
    >> further 1.0-1.5 stops of dynamic range, crippling their cameras even
    >> further.
    >>
    >> So please let us have no more crocodile tears from Olympus m4/3 users
    >> who should know better.
    >>
    >> [Usual response from Olympus customers when the results of limited
    >> dynamic range are pointed out to them: "Dynamic range? =A0What's that?"]

    >
    >I wonder why when Nikon and Canon had the same dynamic range in their
    >DSLRs, no one complained much about it?



    Because that was the best you could get. People will only complain
    (or buy another brand) if they know there is something better
    available. Now that there is something much better available, I find
    it curious that there aren't more m4/3 users expressing strong
    dissatisfaction with the limited dynamic range of m4/3 sensors.

    I suppose those who traded up to m4/3 from p&s are reasonably happy.
    But there are many claims made of people trading down to m4/3 from
    APS-C DSLRs. Occasionally, you even hear of someone who changed to
    m4/3 from full frame because they didn't want to carry extra weight.

    I suppose that, if they are changing from older APS-C and full frame
    DSLRs, they will see little change in dynamic range. But the best
    current APS-C and full frame cameras deliver 2 to 3 stops more dynamic
    range than the best m4/3 cameras, and that's a very significant
    difference.
    Bruce, Jun 15, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Olympus E-M5 JPEG NR objectionable? Aggressive, even when shut off??

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>On Jun 14, 10:53=A0am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>> >This is an interesting thread and pretty much mirrors what I've
    >>>> >found. =A0The images do show some pretty ugly NR, but how it
    >>>> >effects final (screen or print) images needs to be examined more
    >>>> >closely.
    >>>>
    >>>> >http://www.mu-43.com/f42/em-5-suffering-excessive-jpeg-dnr-27768/
    >>>>
    >>>> Too many Olympus m4/3 users rely on JPEGs out of the camera.
    >>>>
    >>>> They correctly claim that Olympus' JPEGs are slightly more pleasing
    >>>> than competitor Panasonic's, but they are missing the point. =A0The
    >>>> m4/3 format now competes reasonably well with APS-C on high ISO
    >>>> noise, but it lags way behind on dynamic range. =A0Whether =A0you
    >>>> like it or not, th=
    >>>e
    >>>> m4/3 format offers 2-3 stops less dynamic range than APS-C.
    >>>>
    >>>> Given this conspicuous lack of dynamic range, wouldn't you think
    >>>> that Olympus m4/3 users would shoot RAW to extract every fraction of
    >>>> a stop of dynamic range that the sensor can offer? =A0No, the silly
    >>>> people shoot JPEGs "because they look nice". =A0In doing so, they
    >>>> throw away a further 1.0-1.5 stops of dynamic range, crippling their
    >>>> cameras even further.
    >>>>
    >>>> So please let us have no more crocodile tears from Olympus m4/3
    >>>> users who should know better.
    >>>>
    >>>> [Usual response from Olympus customers when the results of limited
    >>>> dynamic range are pointed out to them: "Dynamic range? =A0What's
    >>>> that?"]
    >>>
    >>>I wonder why when Nikon and Canon had the same dynamic range in their
    >>>DSLRs, no one complained much about it?

    >>
    >>
    >> Because that was the best you could get. People will only complain
    >> (or buy another brand) if they know there is something better
    >> available. Now that there is something much better available, I find
    >> it curious that there aren't more m4/3 users expressing strong
    >> dissatisfaction with the limited dynamic range of m4/3 sensors.
    >>
    >> I suppose those who traded up to m4/3 from p&s are reasonably happy.
    >> But there are many claims made of people trading down to m4/3 from
    >> APS-C DSLRs. Occasionally, you even hear of someone who changed to
    >> m4/3 from full frame because they didn't want to carry extra weight.
    >>
    >> I suppose that, if they are changing from older APS-C and full frame
    >> DSLRs, they will see little change in dynamic range. But the best
    >> current APS-C and full frame cameras deliver 2 to 3 stops more dynamic
    >> range than the best m4/3 cameras, and that's a very significant
    >> difference.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Well, for whatever reason, Olympus has always delivered range in the
    >shadows where (I my opinion) you wouldn't want it because of noise. Who
    >wants to expose 2-3 stops below Canon and Nikon if it is suffused in
    >noise? Thankfully, Panasonic has achieved reasonably good control of
    >noise in the raws now.



    Another m4/3 user who is in denial.

    I repeat: "But the best current APS-C and full frame cameras deliver
    2 to 3 stops more dynamic range than the best m4/3 cameras, and that's
    a very significant difference.
    Bruce, Jun 16, 2012
    #5
  6. Re: Olympus E-M5 JPEG NR objectionable? Aggressive, even when shut off??

    Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >>On Jun 14, 10:53=A0am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> RichA <> wrote:
    >>> >This is an interesting thread and pretty much mirrors what I've
    >>> >found. =A0The images do show some pretty ugly NR, but how it effects
    >>> >final (screen or print) images needs to be examined more closely.
    >>>
    >>> >http://www.mu-43.com/f42/em-5-suffering-excessive-jpeg-dnr-27768/
    >>>
    >>> Too many Olympus m4/3 users rely on JPEGs out of the camera.
    >>>
    >>> They correctly claim that Olympus' JPEGs are slightly more pleasing
    >>> than competitor Panasonic's, but they are missing the point. =A0The m4/3
    >>> format now competes reasonably well with APS-C on high ISO noise, but
    >>> it lags way behind on dynamic range. =A0Whether =A0you like it or not, th=

    >>e
    >>> m4/3 format offers 2-3 stops less dynamic range than APS-C.
    >>>
    >>> Given this conspicuous lack of dynamic range, wouldn't you think that
    >>> Olympus m4/3 users would shoot RAW to extract every fraction of a stop
    >>> of dynamic range that the sensor can offer? =A0No, the silly people
    >>> shoot JPEGs "because they look nice". =A0In doing so, they throw away a
    >>> further 1.0-1.5 stops of dynamic range, crippling their cameras even
    >>> further.
    >>>
    >>> So please let us have no more crocodile tears from Olympus m4/3 users
    >>> who should know better.
    >>>
    >>> [Usual response from Olympus customers when the results of limited
    >>> dynamic range are pointed out to them: "Dynamic range? =A0What's that?"]

    >>
    >>I wonder why when Nikon and Canon had the same dynamic range in their
    >>DSLRs, no one complained much about it?



    > Because that was the best you could get. People will only complain
    > (or buy another brand) if they know there is something better
    > available. Now that there is something much better available, I find
    > it curious that there aren't more m4/3 users expressing strong
    > dissatisfaction with the limited dynamic range of m4/3 sensors.


    > I suppose those who traded up to m4/3 from p&s are reasonably happy.
    > But there are many claims made of people trading down to m4/3 from
    > APS-C DSLRs. Occasionally, you even hear of someone who changed to
    > m4/3 from full frame because they didn't want to carry extra weight.


    > I suppose that, if they are changing from older APS-C and full frame
    > DSLRs, they will see little change in dynamic range. But the best
    > current APS-C and full frame cameras deliver 2 to 3 stops more dynamic
    > range than the best m4/3 cameras, and that's a very significant
    > difference.


    If you need it. The question is whether you need it for the kind of
    photography you do, and if so how much and how often, and whether it's
    worth always carrying around a heavier camera/system for that. I read
    of some who decided to get an m4/3 for general carry around, keeping
    the bigger DSLR for when its extra capabilities were really needed,
    and then discovering that in fact they hardly ever needed it. Not
    everyone needs to be at the sharp edge of the current latest
    technology.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 19, 2012
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy Jones

    Why *do* people find top-posting *so* objectionable?

    Andy Jones, Mar 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    82
    Views:
    1,440
    Saturday Soup Store
    May 2, 2004
  2. Lindsay Heinz

    Re: Why *do* people find top-posting *so* objectionable?

    Lindsay Heinz, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    389
    Lindsay Heinz
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. sprogle mchaddock

    Re: Why *do* people find top-posting *so* objectionable?

    sprogle mchaddock, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    358
    sprogle mchaddock
    Apr 1, 2004
  4. Daniel

    CD-ROM making aggressive buzzing noise

    Daniel, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    960
    Brian
    Jun 4, 2004
  5. Georgette Preddy

    Canon's overly aggressive Noise Reduction vs a desktop PC

    Georgette Preddy, May 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    580
    Charles Schuler
    May 29, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page