image quality of original firmware vs v2?

[ampguy]

Has anyone done an analysis of the image quality (100 - 1000x pixel peeping, etc.) and/or reviewing "film modes" of the JPG and RAW output of the original firmware and the v2 firmware?

The 1GB SD limitation of V1 firmware, plus the lack of raw + jpg is getting me interested in the v2 firmware.

Also, didn't the extensions of the raw filenames change? any incompatibilities with v2 raw files that v1 doesn't have?

 

[LCT]

I only shoot raw, rarely above 800 iso, and i always disable the Epson profile so perhaps there are some IQ differences that others might have noticed but i have never seen them personally.
Also i have never met any incompability as a Mac user.

 

[jlw]

The v2 firmware lets you map out hot/dead pixels, if you consider that an image-quality issue. It also lets you apply the Adobe RGB color profile to images, rather than being limited to sRGB only. Adobe RGB is generally considered to be a better match to a printer's color gamut, so that's an image-quality improvement if you usually print your images rather than viewing them on a monitor (which is a better match for sRGB.)

Other than that, I haven't noticed anything that I'd call an image-quality difference, although I normally shoot in raw format rather than JPEG.

As to naming differences: raw files still have an extension of .ERF, same as with the v1.x firmware. The difference is that files saved with the sRGB profile are named in the format EPSNnnnn.ERF, same as before, but ones saved with the Adobe RGB profile are named in the format _EPSnnnn.ERF. This lets you distinguish the images' color profiles just by looking at the filenames.

When the firmware update first came out, there were some raw-file conversion utilities that were "broken" because apparently the data in the EXIF header changed slightly with v2.x. I think all those incompatibilities have been sorted out by now; I don't have any trouble with current versions of any of the conversion apps I use.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks LCT and jlw, great info.

Would anyone know more specifics about the battery life with V2 vs original? For example, is it known that the slight decrease with v2 is in JPG+RAW mode, or in all modes? Would shooting in JPG only mode still give shorter battery life than the original firmware?

 

[jlw]

Would anyone know more specifics about the battery life with V2 vs original? For example, is it known that the slight decrease with v2 is in JPG+RAW mode, or in all modes? Would shooting in JPG only mode still give shorter battery life than the original firmware?

It applies to all modes. I almost always shoot raw only, not JPEG+raw, and my shots-per-battery performance decreased with the v2 firmware.

However, there's been some discussion as to whether the new firmware really causes the camera to consume more power, or whether in fact Epson just raised the low-battery cutoff threshold to provide more of a safety margin.

I don't know about the power consumption, but I do know that when using the v1.x firmware, I'd sometimes lose shots when I'd reach the end of the battery's life. It was strange: The shutter would continue to click for five or six "shots" before the camera shut down, but no data would get written onto the card. I didn't realize I had been "shooting blanks" until I got home and looked at the files. This happened to me several times.

But it hasn't happened since going to the v2.x firmware -- the camera always goes into low-battery shutdown before the power gets too low to write out the buffer. I don't get as many shots per battery, but every shot I do take does get saved. I consider this a good tradeoff!

 

[iml]

I get about 200-250 shots on average out of a charge. That's shooting raw and not using the LCD at all.

Ian

 

[ampguy]

Thanks again jlw, and iml. Since I'd use the Raw + Jpg, the battery life would effect me quite a bit. I often end up taking 100+ photos on a casual outing with a single battery, and I "chimp" often with the LCD, I keep a spare with me, but with v2, I'd possibly need a handful for safety.

The pluses are definitely there for v2 and I will probably upgrade at some point, but not just yet.

For my requirements, here are the benefits of v2:

breaks the 1gb SD card limit (minor)
solves the double clicking intermittent behavior (minor to me, since I still have to remember to cock the thing...)
raw + jpg mode (medium)
hot pixel mapping (minor, don't even know that i have any)

and the negatives of v2:

reduced battery life (medium)
inability to revert to v1 (medium)
not sure v2 picture quality retains the known high quality of v1, which is why I went with this in the first place (high)

I appreciate that you folks understand the seriousness of upgrading without the ability to downgrade with this embedded platform of questionable long term support. Thanks very much.

 

[LCT]

Also the RAW buffer has increased from 2 to 3 frames, which was quite unexpected, at least by me.

 

[mwooten]

ampguy,
Although we RD1 users are few and far between, perhaps there is a fellow owner near you. If so, then it would be possible to make a true test of whether there is, or isn't, any change in picture quality. If I'm near you, let me know.

Take care,
Michael

 

[RML]

ampguy, I haven't been able to see any difference in IQ between v1 and v2. I've shot with both versions extensively. When I went to v2 I never knew the difference apart from the mechanical differences. A difference in IQ never entered my mind as I never experienced any.