Olympus E-M5: Dynamic Range - RAW

I posted in February a blog on E-M5 dynamic range. At that time it was about jpeg images. Now we have two popular and well known converters supporting E-M5, which enabled me to take another look with raw files. These converters are Lightroom 4.1 (Release Candidate 2) and CaptureOne 6.4.

This graph shows the same E-M5 and E-P3 dynamic ranges (orange and red) for jpeg images as shown in my previous blog. They are actually measured from raw files converted into jpegs in Olympus Viewer 2. This software emulates in camera jpeg process, which means I can tweak the jpegs to show optimal jpeg quality.

Blue and green lines  show what can be achived from E-M5 and E-P3 raw files. I opened raw files into Lightroom and CaptureOne and measured dynamic ranges at various ISOs. Both software showed almost the same numbers for E-M5. With E-P3 there was slight variation at some ISOs but there was no trend in favor of either software. What you can see here is the average performance of these software. The biggest and maybe most important difference was for E-M5 at ISO 200. With Lightroom I was able to read a 12.6 EV dynamic range and with CaptureOne it was 12.0EV.  At ISO 400 they both gave the same 12EV.

When you look at this graph, please do not take exact numbers too seriously. Look at trends E-M5 versus E-P3 and raw versus jpeg. While saying that I think it is no mistake to have E-P3 dynamic range at 10EV, which is the same as DxO Mark result for the same camera. Also two well respected software giving practically same numbers (sans ISO 200) for E-M5 should be no mistake either.

I have now shot a few thousand images with E-M5. Those images show the same trend in real life situations compared to E-P3 as this graph.

-p- 

Expose to the right, ETTR - with E-P3

This blog is really about my experience with the Olympus E-P3 camera (and to some extent E-P2 before it). This is also about the advantage, that is obtained when shooting in RAW format, and always exposing as much as possible. The expression "as much as possible" does not mean here overexposing. What, then, is overexposure?

Gamma

Because of this issue of exposure I´m not going directly to the E-P3, but we need to discuss a few things. First a look at the the crucial difference between the RAW file and the film. Ignoring this difference leads into blurred concept of overexposure or correct exposure. The difference is gamma curve.

In practice, in almost all digital cameras, AE follows the old film era definition. It is based on the average reflectivity of the object. The camera may be set to expose by either 12% or 18% reflectivity. Film has a gamma curve, which is kind of a ski hill-shaped curve. On the top it is bright and curve is gentle, the middle is steep, even slide and down hill evens out into shadows. Most pictures appear to be good, when its central tones have a good contrast. Dark colors must not suddenly change into black and light shades must not go into white all of a sudden. Such sharp edges do not seem natural. Therefore, tonal changes are slowed down at each end with gentle arc. For film photographers it is most important to use the contrasty middle tonal range as completely as possible. According to this need for visual naturality different types of film require somewhat different exposure. Slide films need less exposure to prevent highlights from becoming white (to be overexposed), and negative films must not be exposed too thin and prints appearing too dark in shadow areas (would be underexposure).

For the majority of subjects, all goes well, if it is exposed according to the camera's meter. Only experience tells when, in what direction and how much it is necessary to deviate from the camera´s value.

RAW

RAW file is different from the film in that it does not have the same gamma curve, it is linear. From white to black, there goes a straight line with no curving at either ends. The requirement of naturalness (to the human eye) in the image, is carried out in the RAW conversion when RAW file is converted into pixel file and saved for example as TIFF or JPG format. Then the final image gets a gamma curve, and this curve is adjustable by the user in every good converter. However, this curve is not always visible as itself in most converters, only the effect in the image is visible.

Now, one could ask where's the difference. The subject is just exposed at the middle (or somewhere there) of that straight line, gamma curve is included in converter and all is well. Actually that is just what most photographers are doing - and at the same time they are wasting a significant part of tones from their images.

Tonal values in a RAW-file

In the case of RAW file we need to discuss bits in images. Bits tell us into how many tiny levels our direct line is divided. And it must be divided, otherwise we would not have a digital file. The overall impression is still a straight line, because there are so many levels. Typically, a modern digital camera has a 12-bit (per channel) converter, which converts the sensor's analog (linear) signal into digital (small steps in straight line). The best cameras can have a 14- or 16-bit converter. This does not change the issue at all, the same scale from white to black is only divided into larger number of smaller steps.

A 12-bit image consists of 2 ^12 = 4096 possile steps or tonal values from white to black. At this point, we unfortunately must say goodbye to the linearity of tonal distribution: tone values are not evenly distributed into bits. Starting from white towards black, half of the ALL tonal values are inside the first bit. For simplicity, we can speak in photographic terms, ie steps in aperture or shutter speed scale: One full step in opening the aperture (eg, F5.6 -> F4) or an equivalent increase in exposure time (eg, 1/60s -> 1/30s) increases the amount of light to double. Then the first step starting from pure white includes half of all possible tones in a RAW file! In a 12-bit digital camera, the first step starting from white has thus 2048 possible tonal values (per channel), the next step has 1024 possible tonal values, again the next step has 512 possible tonal values, and so on.

Now you may (hopefully) no longer think that it is indifferent to where on this scale of tonal distribution your RAW file is exposed, if you want the best possible tonality in your image!!!

Above we have two RAW images as they are opened in Lightroom 3. The upper one is exposed according to what camera meter (AE) says and the second is exposed to the right. The change in exposure is +2 steps. Below images we have their histograms in Lightroom with default settings, left camera AE and right my ETTR version.

 Next pair of images has the same images normalized. Mainly I clicked Auto plus changed slighty sliders. Again above is camera´s version and below ETTR version. Histograms also in the same order as above. The most obvious differencies are 1,8 steps more exposure in camera´s version and  more blacks for ETTR version. There was no need for any change in exposure for ETTR image. A quick glance reveals not much difference in images, but they have. The real clou is seen in the next pair of images.

The clou is the amount of detail and noise. These 100% crops are in the same order as above, and neither has any luminance noise reduction. ETTR is one of the most efficient ways of minimizing noise in shadows and elsewhere. Note also how two stops more exposure did not diminish detail in light ares, it only gives more detail as s/n ratio gets better.  

Histogram and exposure

The histogram reflects the distribution of tones in the image. The histogram has white on the right side and black on the left. Therefore, we can say that in the histogram the first step from the RIGHT has half of the possible tonal values of the picture.

What does a histogram in a digital camera show? It does not show the tones of a RAW image, but tones of a JPG preview calculated from a RAW image. These tonal values are dependent on the camera's contrast and saturation settings. The histogram might show over- or underexposure (or both), even though the sensor itself would have plenty of exposure latitude left. In addition, the histogram is affected by the selected color space. In particular, the sRGB color space is narrower than the sensor color space. When it is selected, the RGB histogram displays too often saturated colors that do not actually exist in the RAW file.

Worse still, the histogram is not even a good ETTR-exposure meter, because it reflects the image globally and not its individual tone areas. It does not directly tell what is the exact area in the image, which is now going blocked. ETTR-exposure requires the use of each pixel in the image area as a separate light meter and display.

Finally, the worst of all: a traditional reflex camera´s exposure metering (prior to taking a photo) is even more problematic in terms of shooting in RAW. It does not understand anything about the behavior of the sensor. They are two completely different things.

Expose To The Right, ETTR

As much as three quarters of possible tonal values of a RAW file are in the first two steps from the right. This should be a sufficient reason for every RAW photographer, to expose as to the right as possible, without burning the light tones of the image, of course. This method deviates from the traditional concept of "correct" exposure. ETTR RAW file can appeear be too light when opened into a converter. The converter is used to extend the tonal range into dark direction until the tonal range is as desired. In most cases, successful exposure means that the brightest tones of the image do not need to be adjusted at all. The resulting  image has richer tones and is even significantly cleaner regarding noise.

ETTR has been also criticized or denigrated in online blogs. The problem is not the idea itself, but the cameras. Only few of the cameras provide photographers with a good tools for reliable control of ETTR. Without control, there is danger of overexposing the sensor, and the image is beyond repair. ETTR does not always mean more generous exposure than the camera's exposure meter indicates. Exposure may be also less when the subject has lots of contrast, but even then the exposure goes for the lightest tones.

ETTR means that you should set the ”weakest" settings that can be found in your camera: lowest contrast and saturation as well as a widest color space. With Live View cameras exposure control with sensor feedback is possible before exposure. With reflex cameras exposure can be seen only after the exposure. The quality of information received depends on how well or poorly the camera settings in imitate RAW files. In addition, all the automatic adjustments (Highlight, Shadow ...) which shape the gamma curve must be switched off.

The second ETTR example is again exposed for the lightest area in image and that is the lightest details of relief. We have now almost a one step increase over camera´s meter. Histogram and sliders are here at Lightroom´s default. Lightroom´s warning colors show ares where at least one RGB channel is blocked at Lightroom´s default gamma (2.2). 

This before/after pair shows details from the lightest are in the image. On the left are default settings and on the right you can see how two tiny moves in sliders fix the toe and shoulder of gamma curve so that nothing is blocked. ETTR does not lead into more work at post, vice versa

Shooting JPGs

As a clarification: ETTR is not applicable when shooting JPGs. It is not possible to ETTR a JPG file and darken afterwards unless subject contrast is so limited that it can be included in the straight part of gamma curve. Even then, most likely, light tones show banding

ETTR for me is always observing the lightest non-specular tones in image. Specular highlights and reflections may and should go white to give the image the right tonality and contrast. In this example ETTR has led into one step "over exposure" compared to camera AE. In reality this exposure is correct and the engineer who designed my camera´s AE has it wrong. It is a matter of taste where is the limit or start of specularity. It can be tweaked with a tiny change in Lightroom, if needed. Otherwise the image is OK.

Olympus E-P3 and ETTR

So, using ETTR might lead into struggle with inferior equipment. I learned ETTR however during my profession as advertising photographer in the late 90's. The tools then were Leaf three shot digital backs and Leaf software. With them and studio flash equipment it was possible to set the exposure at 1/20-stop precision exactly where it was supposed to. Later PhaseOne CaptureOne allowed the same in other cameras. But doing so demands shooting tethered.

Beyond these devices only the Olympus VF-2 viewfinder gave me a new hope toward guaranteed ETTR shooting anywhere, anytime. With E-P2 I learned to observe the viewfinder image and see when exposure at highlights was as wanted. It demanded these camera settings:

Shooting Menu 1 > Picture Mode > 4 Muted > Contrast -2, Saturation, -2, gradation: Normal

Custom G > Live View Boost: Off, Color Space: Adobe RGB

Setup Menu > VF-2 Brightness: Experimenting until I learned the appropriate setting. After that Custom D > Info Settings > Histogram: Off

This was just a start, because human eye is really not a good instrument, it is affected by the overall brightness of the scene. I had yet to check the captured image in the VF-2.

The Olympus E-P3 finally fixed these deficiencies, because it has an adjustable highlight and shadow warning by colors in viewfinder image, that is, before the exposure. This control is set at:

Custom D > Histogram Settings > Highlight: 245

Auto white balance must be set to neutral:

Custom G > Auto WB, Keep Warm Color: Off

Now, I adjust the exposure until the red warning color just disappears from the critical tone area. In principle, this allows a 1/6-stop accuracy at best, but in practice, the reference tone is very close to the value of 96% when the image opens in Lightroom. Same area will be at RGB value 245 in the final image with very little need to adjust as seen above. I do not need to use histogram, I do not need to check captured images, at least not because of the exposure.

I do not know of any other camera body, which gives me such a perfect exposure control with the same precision and certainty. E-P3 is my ETTR King!

-p-

Olympus E-P3 RAW Image Quality

 I shoot almost only RAW-files. As a converter I use mainly Lightroom 3. It can´t yet open E-P3 RAW-files. Olympus gave me the new version of their Viewer 2 software so that I can try how E-P3´s RAW files look like.  

Above there are three comparison images. They all are shot as RAW files at ISO 1600. The first image from up is shot with E-P3. It was converted into a TIF file in Olympus Viewer 2 software (new version updated for E-P3). Settings: Noise reduction off, sharpening -2, others default. The second (middle) image is shot with E-P2. Same exposure and same conversion in Olympus Viewer 2. Both images have the same sharpening and slight noise reduction to compensate in Lightroom 3.

My conclusions (from these and other images): Images from these cameras are close to each other with E-P3 having better resolution and sharpness. Noise is equal or slightly lower in E-P3. E-P3 images show better surface texture in objects. That would suggest that filters in front of sensor are of a better quality in E-P3. (Note: a really high quality low pass filter can be alone more expensive than E-P3). It looks like the basic sensor in E-P3 might similar to the one in E-P2 but all ”optical” parts and electronics in sensor unit are new.

In casual everyday shooting of RAW images, which are converted in Viewer 2 as above, you might not notice difference between images from these two cameras. There are too many variables. In a comparison the difference is there and the look of E-P3 images is sharper when you use high quality lenses. In my previous post I noticed that E-P3 can be a noticeably better camera for in camera processed and sharpened JPG´s, although E-P3´s JPG look doesn´t feel always right for me, who prefers graininess for too much smoothness.

The last image is the same E-P2 RAW file converted in Lightroom 3 to the same visual sharpness. As you can see converters are not equal even when striving equality, even without colors and large object dynamic range. Lightroom is both better and worse than Viewer 2. But as said there is a need for sharpening and slight nose reduction to compensate after Viewer 2 to get images that I like. Also colors depend totally of konverter settings. In RAW-shooting exposure of file, choice and use of converter and user himself is always the biggest factor. 

-p-

E-P3 RAW, ISO 200. RAW conversion in Viewer 2. No problem with dynamic range in backlight. Nice detail from highlights to shadows. Good color.

Olympus E-P1, hands on

In my previous blog I was wondering Olympus´ zeal of retroing with E-P1. Yes, I do like it´s styling, it´s pretty, but these things are quite trivial in the end, I really did not feel like using an old time Pen camera while shooting. This is a modern, small system camera and that´s fine with me.

I had for three days this Olympus two lens kit shown in picture above: E-P1 body, zoom 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6, "pancake" prime 17mm f/2.8 and optical viewfinder VF1 which is intended for 17mm lens. This body was a pre production camera which is apparently close to the final production camera. Its firmware version was exactly 1.0. Pre-production cameras may have differences, so all my writings and photos tell about a camera that is as good or, possibly, in some cases slightly worse than the final production camera. 

My experience is not a camera test telling about every operation or characteristics of the camera. I tell how well the camera suits to my own needs, using only part of Olympus E-P1's features. 

Configuration 

The first task with a new camera is to configurate it to suit my way of using a camera. Here E-P1 was excellent. It has really good and varied menu options and also faster shortcuts for main functions. It was easy and logical to learn, review and adjust camera´s functions. A PDF manual was available but, in reality, I needed only to check some of the things to be sure that I had got it right. 

While shooting, in addition to shutter button, the main buttons for me are focusing, exposure program shift and exposure correction. These are all managed by three right hand fingers. The picture below shows the most important functions for myself. 1) Camera's power button. 2) Thumb locks focusing with the AFL / AEL button. Focus point is shown on LCD as a green movable frame and focus lock with a green circle. 3) Program shift with vertical dial in upper right corner. LCD displays shutter speed and aperture, and Ps symbol as indication of program shift. 5) Exposure correction is done with two fingers, middle finger and thumb. Middle finger presses a button next to shutter button and thumb rotates vertical dial to the desired correction. Exposure correction is done in 0.3 aperture steps within + - 3 EV values. 4) Shutte button has exposure lock as like normal when pressed halfway down. This is exactly the same way I use my own DSLRs. 

I used both AUTO-ISO and fixed ISO 100 sensitivity. They are quick to change. AUTO-ISO is working well and sensibly, although it can not be configured further. Lowest sensitivity is sadly ISO 200. Why on earth it can´t be ISO 100? 

First impressions 

I used the camera mostly with separate viewfinder. Almost immediately, it was obvious that the viewfinder angle is narrower than the 17mm pancake lens. Equally quick was to check that it corresponds very closely to kit zoom`s marked 18mm focal length. So, I had to get used to crop a little tighter with 17mm lens. I was expecting that in this price range the optical viewfinder image should be slightly rounded, but still I would have liked to be surprised. But I can live with this. A good feature with finder and kit zoom is that 18mm position can be seen at the bottom of the viewfinder. It is therefore easy both to crop exactly or zoom a little wider or tighter as necessary. 

In a DSLR I use thumb focusing in servo mode. Press the button, and camera focuses where I want. Keep the button pressed, and camera focuses and keeps the moving subject focused. This can also be configured in E-P1. Unfortunately, in servo mode camera just keeps focusing, there is no locking in the same way that I am used to. Focusing follows a moving object, but it is quite slow at least with this firmware. Even user rmanual says that the camera is trying to focus on the moving object. That´s honest. So I rejected servo mode without further tries, and I can´t see this camera suitable for anyone who needs to shoot something like dogs running. Single shot thumb focusing keeps focusing distance locked unless I want to focus again. This keeps camera´s shutter lag very short. If you don´t need to focus, E-P1 shoots as fast as any comparable camera.

The camera seems to be very well made with it´s metal shell. Inside that there is a plastic composite structure typical in this price category. Also lenses seem to have well made plastic structures. Kit zoom has some play like there is with all brands. Sensor (or more accurately filters in front of it) is exposed when you change lenses, which is not the best situation. In any case, shutter curtain is open at this moment.

Camera´s recording medium is an SD or SDHC card, which is the most sensible choice of such a camera. 

There was a nice leather shoulder strap attached to the camera. I thought first to change it into a pocket camera style wrist strap but actually shoulder strap worked nicely wrist-wound like with DSLRs. E-P1 has just and just enough weight to be hang on shoulder.

Exposure 

I used the camera only in Program AE with ESP (multi pattern) metering, because vertical dial makes it possible to alter shutter speed/aperture pair. Camera exposed generally accurately and logically. Of course there were cases where I wanted to depart from what camera suggested, but actually even less than with eg. Nikon D3x´s multi pattern metering. I shot both at ISO 100 and AUTO-ISO and it had no effect on accuracy.

E-P1 has of course manual exposure, shutter and aperture priority modes and "intelligent" AE. I did not try those this time but in the future I would surely use this camera also with shutter and aperture priority modes.

White Balance 

Olympus E-P1's automatic white balance is one of most accurate that I have come across. I felt some need to correct afterwards, mainly open shadows and cloudy scenes needed some wamth and less magenta. Some of this is surely an issue of taste. So, I ended up this time using only AWB as there was no need for any other setting.

Lenses 

I was surprised by the quality of kit zoom at around 18mm focal length. It has nice sharpness and contrast, and keeps straight edges fairly well. There is some chromatic aberration, otherwise this performance would be kind of unnatural for a cheap kit lens. In fact, I prefer kit zoom to 17mm prime at this focal length. I did not compare them by shooting the same subject but somehow kit zoom images had a better mojo. At longer focal lengths it zoom shows some lack of contrast which is typical for this group of lenses. It´s therefore sometimes difficult to use lens wide open to make subject stand out, when subject does not pop out by sharpening. But here by sharp I´m speaking about A3 size prints. In smaller sizes images are sharp enough. Typically kit zoom´s negative feature is lack of speed, especially at long focal lenghts. The other side of same thing is small size, and especially nice is collapsible construction for easy carry around.

17mm prime left me with somewhat lukewarm impression optically. I don´t mean that it´s bad but E-P1 sensor is better than this lens. Again on the other side is camera´s extremely handy size with this lens and reasonable maximum aperture. Better still is that this lens gives plenty of depth of field for candid street photography. Already aperture 2.8 gives practically the same  depth of field as aperture 5.6 in a comparable 35mm lens for 35mm camera. This 17mm lens proved out to be extremely carefree lens, it´s easy to use for candid photography and difficult to really fail.

Stabilizer and dust removal 

I had IS on all the time at the general IS1 position. Other options are disabled, or following a moving object horizontally or vertically. I am so used to optical stabilizer that I actually forgot the existence of IS as I did not notice it working at all. Therefore I did not test any shooting situations with stabilization on or off. I just noticed that images were sharp all the time. Olympus says that IS has max. 4 steps efficiency which is plenty. Anyway IS working like this emphasized even more the positive carefree nature of E-P1.

Dust, I did not see any in my pictures, which a good point and illustrates the efficiency of Olympus dust removal. Namely, this sample camera had already seen a lot of usage judging from fingerprints and dirt on all lens surfaces when I got it. 

Shooting speed and focusing

I tried: In RAW-only mode E-P1 shoots 12 frames at 3 frames per second before buffer is full and I could not shoot any more. The last frames are not really any more at 3 frames per second but close enough that I counted them in. Obviously this number depends also on memory card speed and mine were Sandisk 30MB Extreme IIIs. Like I wrote before, I used E-P1 clearly in two steps: first focusing then exposure and they are not related to each other. In this method the camera shoots exactly when I want and makes also possible relatively fast continuos shooting.

When focusing is configurated into thumb button, E-P1 doesn´t halt to wait for autofocus and while there´s generally lots of depth of field, E-P1 is really suited for street  and candid photography. With a little practice this is doable already from almost maximum aperture with 17mm lens without any need for re-focusing.

Autofocusing was very reliable, I did not have any problems. Autofocus does every time a kind of iiuu-iiuu-bling operation which means it does not just snap on like with best system cameras. While E-P1 is definitely not an action focusing camera, I did not consider it as slow for my subjects and when needed I shot with pre-focus. With optical view finder I used only central focus point because optical VF doesn´t show any information. I pointed optical VF´s center to where I wanted to focus, pressed button, heard bling and re-framed. Actually this works clearly faster than the very same operation manually with a rangefinder camera like Leica M8. Other focusing points are of course usable when shooting via LCD.

Battery 

The camera's battery was a disappointment after experience with latest DSLRs. It is smallish and runs empty after some 200 shots when walking with camera on. Here I must notify that I do not know the history of this sample camera and it´s battery. Also the battery is not charged very quickly. On the other hand this battery is so small that it is easy to carry around a couple of spares. And again on the other hand, my opinion is that E-P1´s ergonomics would have been better with a larger grip. For instance a centimeter protruding grip wouldn´t have made E-P1 any bigger but there would have been some space for a litte larger battery. But now I guess I´m already stepping into region of Pen design ideology. I can do with a few small batteries. And especially those who intend to shoot video with E-P1 should prepare to acquire extra batteries.

The camera's power button is conveniently next to the shutter. After running out of power once I started to tap power off whenever there was nothing to shoot immediately in sight. The camera starts up again reasonably quickly. 

Pen only from the front, rear is digi 

E-P1´s Pen design ideology is seen only from the lens side, so a grip would not have been shame. Namely from the back side it is a very ordinary digital camera. Thats no reproach as all the button´s are located in proper places.

LCD screen is big and bright, exceptionally usable in the sun. Sadly LCD goes totally black for vertical images when I´m wearing my polaroid sunglasses. The screen resolution is modest by current standards. Maybe Olympus has aimed for brightness and less battery drainage instead of resolution? Anyway judging image sharpness was a bit challenging for me. LCD was handy in some cases and I used it when needed. Especially I used it in close focusing situations (eg. flowers) where I framed and sought focus by moving camera slightly back and forth. I other cases auto focus is precise and LCD is needed only for composition. LCD screen can be also used for setting exposure, especially with live histogram.

RAW and Olympus Studio 2 

I shot exclusively in RAW format. During shooting, there was nothing special to it, and the only time I hit buffer limit was during before mentioned test. Camera was ready for the next shot all the time. After shooting I copied sdhc-card into computer and opened images into Olympus Studio 2 software. During test it was the only MAC RAW converter for E-P1 I knew.

This was my first experience with said software. By features it looks good. There are plenty of adjustments, even overlapping, they are precise and adjustment ranges are mostly generous. In spite of all this, using software was painful, to be honest. First some overlapping adjustments and their distribution into two separate tabs made workflow unintuitive. Worse, no adjustment is saved into or with RAW image. Saving means rendering a TIFF or JPG image at those settings, and RAW image loses everything. Next time you have to start again from scratch. Adjustments, for every image if you want, can be saved as a separate recipe which then can be downloaded again or copied into new image. Even worse than this was enormous slowness. I tried software in a MAC Pro quad with lots of memory. After any adjustment you have to wait and wait and wait, especially in 1:1 view. This experience sends Olympus in my list to the same category with almost all other Japanese cameramakers. This category is semi-well made and thus useless RAW converters. My Gallery of E-P1 images shows somewhat incomplete images because my patience simply run out. There is some under or over corrected CA, some over or under sharpening and some imbalance in the relationship between sharpening and noise reduction. I simply couldn´t cope with screen update after every adjustment of every image to adjust them individually. Anyway, these images tell all the essential things about E-P1 image quality already now.

Image quality

Lately my cameras in use have been Canon 5D MkII and Nikon D3x with some of their best lenses. So, I had to adjust my rating scale for quality when I judged E-P1 images because now the level of quality is not the same. It can´t be, naturally. But when I compare with the best  P&S cameras like Panasonic LX-3 I must say that we are not there either. E-P1 is in between, clearly better that P&S, clearly worse than full size DSLR. This is what I frankly waited and hoped for.

At ISO 100 of the quality is particularly good. Sharp and pixel structure allows good degree of sharpening control. Good color. Some noise in the shadows but nothing to be worried about even in larger prints. However, there is a surprisingly big difference already between ISO 100 and ISO 200. Noise grain gets bigger and starts to creep up from the shadows. In DSLRs I use, I have become used to see not much difference here in normally lit images. This fact makes it especially sad that Auto-ISO´s lowest sensitivity is ISO 200.

With bigger ISO´s noise is more and more prominent but very gradually after that leap at ISO 200. For me ISO 1600 is the practical limit, I can tolerate noise up to there but not above. The nature of noise is what usually is called film like, monochromatic. To be honest I have seen a lot worse years ago when I had to use sensitive color films. What I like is that highlight areas stay sharp and clean, high ISO speed and noise crawling up from shadows to medium to three quarter tones are tied together. My Gallery images are sharpened in Olympus Studio 2, where it can be done only for entire image. Better result can be obtained in Phostoshop where sharpening can be contained into less noisy areas of image.

All in all, I´m very happy with image quality at ISO 100. Other sensitivities are usable as needed and in relation to E-P1´s purpose for me. One issue that I noticed is some smearing of red color, but I leave it to be investigated later with other RAW converters. Anyway, this level of quality is totally different from times with Olympus XA, dramatically better. At digital age this is so easily forgotten as standards are creeping up year by year.

Other Features 

I did not try any other features. I did not try the video. I do not try long exposures times . I do not try flash photography . No Art settings nor any other of camera´s many features and possibilities. Description of the camera's full range of features and more detailed technical information can be found on the Olympus website. This short test period left much for the next time because I just wanted to make sure of one thing. 

Sum summarum 

The very thing that I wanted to find out was: Is this finally my new Olympus XA? Is this a fast and precise acting, responsive, but smaller and lighter camera than DSLR, which can be carried around and be available almost everywhere and with which I can just go to shoot without fretting image quality compromises? The answer is: Yes. There are always some reservations, but now I know quite well E-P1´s limits for me and the limits are wide-ranging enough. 

I know very well that m4/3 system will soon see even better cameras, and mirrorless/EVF cameras will be seen in other systems with larger sensors. But still, my waiting ended here. 

-p-

Nikon D3x: ISO 400 -> 1600

Here are two observations on Nikon D3x in dimmer light conditions. One is about image quality at high ISOs and the other about camera´s stability at slow shutter speeds, which are kind of connected issues.

D3x, AF-S Nikkor 200mm 1:2G @ f/2, ISO 400

ISO 400 - ISO 1600

I have been lately shooting using Nikon´s great Auto-ISO feature. Previously I was very disappointed with Canon´s  Auto-ISO version in 5D MkII. For me it´s totally useless. Nikon betters by giving user two sets of parameters: a setting for highest allowed ISO value and a setting for lowest allowed shutter speed. These two settings make Auto-ISO a really useful feature. For instance with a 85mm lens I set 1/125s as the slowest allowed shutter speed. That ensures sharp hand held images, and thus gives me the real benefit from D3x high resolution sensor. Auto-ISO works as should with every exposure mode setting, and ISO sensitivity is shown in the viewfinder all the time so that I can override automation when ever wanted.

Originally I considered D3x only as a studio and landscape camera. I was not expecting anything special from higher ISO values at all. Actually in Lappland while shooting landscapes I was afraid of going over ISO 200 to maximize quality.  Now Auto-ISO led me suddenly into using higher values than before. When I evaluated images I was positively surprised with the clean tight noise granularity in them. Actually I did not notice any visual difference with Canon 5D MkII look which I liked so much. 

Now I had to test also this issue to really see how these two cameras compare.

Test image pairs at ISO 400, 800 and 1600 can be found here. Those images should be downloaded into your own computer if you want to see them at 100% size. Test images contain Canon files scaled (107,7%) into Nikon size to show comparable same size prints.

These images are converted from RAW files. Both cameras had always equal ISO settings and all camera corrections set off. Lenses were Nikon 85mm/1.4 and Canon 85mm/1.2 LII respectively. Aperture was set at f/8. My chosen converter was Adobe Lightroom because that´s the one I always use. Noise Reduction settings were Luminance 0, Color 25. To bring out any possible differencies I had  Shapening settings at 50 / 0,5 / 50. I´m fully aware that there are tests like DxO Labs (dxomark.com) which say these cameras should not have similar sensitivities. My findings do not support that claim. Same Lightroom tonality settings gave almost same highlight values only Canon being slightly more ”sensitive”, but these highlight corrected pairs show Nikon as slightly lighter at 1/4 tone. So these cameras seem to have a little different tonal responses but in reality sensitivity differencies are buried into differencies in lens aperture calibration.

I find comparison pairs very similar. Nikon has a slightly smaller and tighter noise grain and shows also a slightly better detail. This difference is shown on screen but it is almost disappears in a print. Still, this is a very impressive result from Nikon when you consider how much better camera D3x was at ISO 100.

Disclaimer:

I also test converted Canon files with DPP and Nikon files with NX2. DPP gave a cleaner and tighter grain structure for 5D MkII which I knew from my previous experience. Nothing new there. For D3x it was more interesting with NX2 but I did not see any practical difference between it´s two converters. So, because for me DPP is a subpar converter in every other respect than slightly better grain and sharpness I did not go into a useless trouble of trying to get DPP images into same tonality and sharpness as Lightroom images. Outside of test images I´m not going to sacrifice the beauty that I like in my real world Canon shots for a little tighter grain by using DPP. If anyone wants to see the difference between Lightroom look and DPP look, it can be seen in my comparison between 5D and 5D MkII.

D3x, PC-E Micro Nikkor 85mm 1:2.8D @ 1/50s, f/2.8, ISO1600. Crop 100%.

Stability of shooting at slower shutter speeds

Another IMO thing that had to be solved by doing a little test was the stability of hand held shooting. Namely, when I started  testing D3x it felt as a very stable platform and shooting with it felt positively non shaking. Now I have done some shooting with 5D MkII again, and when I raised it to shoot it also felt very stable but in a totally different way than D3x. The moment of exposure with the whole feel of it is so different. Actually, now I don´t know which I prefer more. But my little test showed that my first hinch was in the right direction. During a longer series of images that are scaled in to same print size I think I can manage more sharp images in the average with D3x. The slower the shutter speed the better for Nikon comparatively. Each of my test shots is a sum of ten consecutive shots. (Ten shot aligned as Photoshop layers to give as tight pattern as possible, mode screen). Shutter speeds are 1/15s and 1/2s, lenses 85mm like above.

This almost equal result shows again the difficulty of ”testing”. If someone says that one top camera is better in hand and has better ergonomics than the other, I say hardly, you just think so. These are very personal preferences that are dependent on your physiology and previous experience.

-p-