OMG! Look at the EM-1 aka the now official E-M1 Thread

[ageha]

Not enough of a difference. There was a 1/3 stop loss in ISO.

Yup, at least DxO says E-M5's high ISO performance is slightly better.

That's my suspicion from the start.
With Sony as the sensor supplier and no big leaps/changes in sensor technology appearing on the Sony front, it was highly likely the RAW sensor performance would be similar to the EM5, with small generational increment improvements.
Bear in mind quantum efficiency of current state of the art sensors are already >50% meaning we have less than 1 stop to go for a 100% efficient Bayer sensor.

Was there any improvement the last few years at all? Since Sony's 16MP APS-C sensor appeared in cameras like the D7000 I haven't seen any improvement except in DxO scores.

 

[NazgulKing]

In the DPR review the E-M5 shows slightly less color artifacts.

I hope so. There were too many artifacts in the original E-M5, at the lowest ISO!

But this is more of a case of poor processing (gasp!) rather than sensor issues in my opinion.

 

[swifty]

Was there any improvement the last few years at all? Since Sony's 16MP APS-C sensor appeared in cameras like the D7000 I haven't seen any improvement except in DxO scores.

I don't think there's been very big improvements since the D7000 class of Sony sensors. But the bigger deal there was with the low read noise in the Sony sensors and the very big dynamic range.
I think all the 'low lying fruits' for sensor development have already been achieved with Bayer sensors hence we're seeing diminishing returns.
There's been maybe a 1/3 to half stop improvement since the D7000 where QE levels has approached that of the D3s/D4. A D800 represents the latest Sony sensor tech in a full frame and is only about 1/3 stops off the best.
I think the next step would be post-Bayer style sensors (like Fovean) where the lack of filtration would yield theoretically an extra stop, at the same QE.

 

[Windballad]

A little lost with all the geek talk here..

But regarding the artifacts thing, could it be possibly due to the lack of aa filter in the em1's case?

 

[NazgulKing]

A little lost with all the geek talk here..

But regarding the artifacts thing, could it be possibly due to the lack of aa filter in the em1's case?

No. The AA filter is a spatial filter which filters out some of the noise after the interpolation is done.

The artifacts thing is more a result of Olympus' somewhat weird image processing of noise which is evident even at low ISO in the E-M5 and E-P5.

 

[Windballad]

No. The AA filter is a spatial filter which filters out some of the noise after the interpolation is done.

The artifacts thing is more a result of Olympus' somewhat weird image processing of noise which is evident even at low ISO in the E-M5 and E-P5.

Ah.... I see... Thanks for the enlightenment!

 

[swifty]

A little lost with all the geek talk here..

But regarding the artifacts thing, could it be possibly due to the lack of aa filter in the em1's case?

Sorry, my bad. Just think of it as at the moment already slightly more than half the light collected is converted to data. So at best we can get double that (1 stop improvement), unless you change the underlying technology.

My understanding of AA filters is to prevent moire patterns:
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern
But the trade off is less detail. The stronger the AA filter, the more effective at preventing moire but more 'blurring'.
Take the D800 and D800E as an example. They differ only in the lack of an AA filter in the D800E. The only difference is slightly more detail in the D800E.

 

[Agrivar]

Sorry, my bad. Just think of it as at the moment already slightly more than half the light collected is converted to data. So at best we can get double that (1 stop improvement), unless you change the underlying technology.

My understanding of AA filters is to prevent moire patterns:
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern
But the trade off is less detail. The stronger the AA filter, the more effective at preventing moire but more 'blurring'.
Take the D800 and D800E as an example. They differ only in the lack of an AA filter in the D800E. The only difference is slightly more detail in the D800E.

Yep AA filter is mainly to control Moire. Very important for video. So in the case of EM1 (which is stills oriented) the lack of AA filter helps in resolution. However the video will have some moire. How much hasnt been repoted. About the artifacts that was mentioned by WindBallad it does seem to be caused by the image processor. I guess you see this shooting jpgs. You shouldnt see this shooting raw.

 

[Windballad]

So I guess in this case, on our little LCD screen we'll be expecting some artifacts even though we're shooting raw? (Images displayed on LCD are usually the jpegs after internal processing from my understanding)

And you guys just helped me find a use for my em5 now

 

[Agrivar]

So I guess in this case, on our little LCD screen we'll be expecting some artifacts even though we're shooting raw? (Images displayed on LCD are usually the jpegs after internal processing from my understanding) And you guys just helped me find a use for my em5 now

How does the raw file look on say LR or other PP software? Do the "artifacts" still show up?

 

[ageha]

How does the raw file look on say LR or other PP software? Do the "artifacts" still show up?

They show up and RAW files from all cameras show them just to a different extend. Have you seen the DPR test shots? The E-M1 shows actually slightly more artifacts there.

 

[tomcat]

How does the raw file look on say LR or other PP software? Do the "artifacts" still show up?

With my FT and m43 cameras, I get loads of artifacts when I carry out RAW conversion using third party software like ACR and LR so often that I nowadays only use Olympus Viewer to do RAW conversions to save myself the frustration. I don't get any artifact problem using Olympus Viewer for RAW conversion.

I'm therefore not surprised that there are artifact problems in DPReview's samples. They just love using ACR to convert RAW files. Not every camera brand's RAW files response perfectly to being converted by ACR you know. I have had similar problems with some Sony RAW files too when converted in ACR... but they came out OK when converted by Sony's own raw converter.

 

[swifty]

So I guess in this case, on our little LCD screen we'll be expecting some artifacts even though we're shooting raw? (Images displayed on LCD are usually the jpegs after internal processing from my understanding)

May I ask what artifacts you're referring to? I'm having a look at the DPR studio comparison but just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Maybe you can post a crop?
But if its a proprietary RAW converter problem, it shouldn't show up (much) on your camera LCD since it should be using original first party RAW conversion. Third party PP software will be more prone to any conversion artifacts but as they update their software it often improves.

 

[NazgulKing]

With my FT and m43 cameras, I get loads of artifacts when I carry out RAW conversion using third party software like ACR and LR so often that I nowadays only use Olympus Viewer to do RAW conversions to save myself the frustration. I don't get any artifact problem using Olympus Viewer for RAW conversion. I'm therefore not surprised that there are artifact problems in DPReview's samples. They just love using ACR to convert RAW files. Not every camera brand's RAW files response perfectly to being converted by ACR you know. I have had similar problems with some Sony RAW files too when converted in ACR... but they came out OK when converted by Sony's own raw converter.

I get artifacts even in OOC jpegs. What difference does it then make if I use Olympus' raw or third party software at this point?

 

[swifty]

I get artifacts even in OOC jpegs. What difference does it then make if I use Olympus' raw or third party software at this point?

I think its best to identify the artifacts first, whether its a software problem or optical problem.
RAW formats are proprietary and needs an algorithm to decipher it to a viewable image. So third party software sometimes won't handle RAW files from new cameras well, or as well as the original manufacturer.
Can you post an example of the artifact'?

 

[ageha]

With my FT and m43 cameras, I get loads of artifacts when I carry out RAW conversion using third party software like ACR and LR so often that I nowadays only use Olympus Viewer to do RAW conversions to save myself the frustration. I don't get any artifact problem using Olympus Viewer for RAW conversion.

I'm therefore not surprised that there are artifact problems in DPReview's samples. They just love using ACR to convert RAW files. Not every camera brand's RAW files response perfectly to being converted by ACR you know. I have had similar problems with some Sony RAW files too when converted in ACR... but they came out OK when converted by Sony's own raw converter.

Yup, Sony's ARW raw files look horrible in ACR as well. DxO does a much better job with those and also with the raw files from the E-M5. Colors are closer to the manufacture's 8bit down sampling, they are sharper and have less noise.

 

[NazgulKing]

I think its best to identify the artifacts first, whether its a software problem or optical problem.
RAW formats are proprietary and needs an algorithm to decipher it to a viewable image. So third party software sometimes won't handle RAW files from new cameras well, or as well as the original manufacturer.
Can you post an example of the artifact'?

Here, go fish: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1318814&p=8624594#post8624594

There is no way this can be an optical problem. It is a software/hardware problem.

 

[ageha]

Here, go fish: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1318814&p=8624594#post8624594

There is no way this can be an optical problem. It is a software/hardware problem.

Did that happen only with LR? I haven't seen that from my E-M5 but I mostly use DxO and Aperture.

 

[swifty]

Here, go fish: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1318814&p=8624594#post8624594

There is no way this can be an optical problem. It is a software/hardware problem.

Thanks. I agree, can't be an optical phenomena. If I can think of anything that might help I'll post it. I'll also look through my EM5 files in LR. Cheers

 

[tomcat]

Thanks. I agree, can't be an optical phenomena. If I can think of anything that might help I'll post it. I'll also look through my EM5 files in LR. Cheers

Actually I don't even know what artifacts to look out for in that example which is just a dark and murky background with no details whatsoever. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.