dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
First a ground rule for the thread. Please don't tell us if you only shoot RAW. Please don't explain that RAW is better, the only way, that people who shoot JPEGs might as well just use an iphone and instagram or that shooting JPEG is like developing your film with tacks and mountain dew. This thread is for evaluation of the E-M5's JPEG engine only.
That said, how are you finding the JPEG engine?
I've shot many Oly cameras since the E-1. I've been consistently very happy with the Oly JPEG engine. Matter of fact, I often hold it up as an exemplar in the industry. I've tried Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Ricoh and Fuji JPEGs and I didn't think any of them held a candle to the engine in, say, the E-5 or the E-P1 or E-PL2. One of my reasons for sticking with Olympus is that the JPEG engine has been so conistently good that it saves me a lot of post processing time, and post processing is not something I enjoy overmuch.
One thing I'm finding is that the E-M5 JPEGs, even at super-fine setting, seem to suffer a lot more....for lack of a more precise word, artifacts, especially at low ISO. At higher ISO they seem less, which doesn't make sense unless it's the noise reduction kicking in. But even with the noise reducation off, at 200 ISO, gradation set to normal, the JPEGs seem to have a lot of artifact structure. On my E-5 or E-PL2, the JPEGS had a clean, random noise structure that looked like film grain.
On other forums there has been speculation that the new Sony sensor has meant that the "off" noise reduction position isn't really off. Personally, I'd take more random noise than the artifacts that also look like they are robbing the image of the finest detail.
I recognize this is a pixel-peeping thing and probably won't show up in prints. But I am curious what others are finding. Has the change in sensor meant that Oly's engine will need some more time to catch up? They got pretty used to that 12 megapixel they used in the E-P1, E-5, etc.
Thoughts?
That said, how are you finding the JPEG engine?
I've shot many Oly cameras since the E-1. I've been consistently very happy with the Oly JPEG engine. Matter of fact, I often hold it up as an exemplar in the industry. I've tried Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Ricoh and Fuji JPEGs and I didn't think any of them held a candle to the engine in, say, the E-5 or the E-P1 or E-PL2. One of my reasons for sticking with Olympus is that the JPEG engine has been so conistently good that it saves me a lot of post processing time, and post processing is not something I enjoy overmuch.
One thing I'm finding is that the E-M5 JPEGs, even at super-fine setting, seem to suffer a lot more....for lack of a more precise word, artifacts, especially at low ISO. At higher ISO they seem less, which doesn't make sense unless it's the noise reduction kicking in. But even with the noise reducation off, at 200 ISO, gradation set to normal, the JPEGs seem to have a lot of artifact structure. On my E-5 or E-PL2, the JPEGS had a clean, random noise structure that looked like film grain.
On other forums there has been speculation that the new Sony sensor has meant that the "off" noise reduction position isn't really off. Personally, I'd take more random noise than the artifacts that also look like they are robbing the image of the finest detail.
I recognize this is a pixel-peeping thing and probably won't show up in prints. But I am curious what others are finding. Has the change in sensor meant that Oly's engine will need some more time to catch up? They got pretty used to that 12 megapixel they used in the E-P1, E-5, etc.
Thoughts?
jammcat
Lick My Lens Cap
While I DO primarily shoot RAW, I've been shooting a little bit of RAW+JPEG lately as my #2 "myset" on the OM-D. I haven't actually found any bad jpeg artifacts, although I've been shooting black and white with in-camera colour filters in the 1:1 aspect ratio. Coupled with a nice contax zeiss tessar lens and the waist level finder, I have myself a fun little Rolleiflex approximation which is a lot of fun to shoot. I don't feel like too much of a digital deviant this way. 
Seriously, though. I haven't had any problems with artifacts. I think that the sensor is fine, save for those mysterious banding issues that are alleged to occur with the 20mm f1.7.
Seriously, though. I haven't had any problems with artifacts. I think that the sensor is fine, save for those mysterious banding issues that are alleged to occur with the 20mm f1.7.
