Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review–Part II

OM-D E-M5, f/9@ 45 mm, 1/250, ISO 12800, No Flash, AWB, In-Camera JPEG

When I wrote the first part of my review for the Olympus OM-D E-M5, apparently I was supposed to only show shots like the one above and giving it a glowing review. Apparently there’s a subset of readers who want me to be like their favorite print magazines and larger sites and tell them what they want to hear so they can feel validated in their decision to purchase a camera based on emotion and brand loyalty only.

For those who feel that way you can take the shot above as a representation of the perfection of the OM-D E-M5. I was an idiot for saying anything negative, and you’re right – the viewfinder is so hot that some might need to see a doctor for being aroused for greater than four hours after looking at it!

You can stop reading here, and rush out and buy one at B&H, Adorama, or Amazon!

For those who prefer the truth…

I like to think that one of the reasons why this blog has grown so rapidly and is followed by so many is because I’ve made a name for myself by doing something that all of the other sites seem afraid to do – I call things like I see and I may not always say nice things.

I’m not saying the OM-D E-M5 is a bad camera – clearly it’s not, but it’s not without warts (which is true of most products – yes, even Canon and Nikon). I don’t point out the issues to be a jerk or make people feel bad. I do it so that you don’t get surprised when you put your hard earned money down for one of these products. These things aren’t cheap, so you deserve to know what things I felt could use improvement and what advice I’d give a friend if they asked me “should I get this camera”.

A great example of the truth is the same photo above shown in all of its RAW glory in Olympus Viewer 2 (Version 1.4 was the latest at the time of this article):

and for the conspiracy theorists who think Adobe is better, here’s Lightroom 4.1:

and Adobe Camera Raw 7.1:

Three raw processors products – all with the same result. Now to be fair, 12,800 shown like this from most cameras is noisy so the point here isn’t to bash the OM-D E-M5. The real point is to show that I can show you a picture that is all pretty roses, or I can show you how the rose stinks. I did neither in my original article, but I did try to share the reality as I saw it which is why you come to blogs like mine. You want to hear what real people think of cameras when used in the real world taking shots like normal people take, and I do that.

Overall I was thrilled with the macro shots that I got, and I felt the focus system was a huge improvement over the Fujifilm X-Pro1, so I consider this a very good camera. I just think the Sony NEX-7 is where I’d put my money if I were buying one of these for a close friend or family member. Your requirements may be different and you may disagree, so I encourage you to buy the product that best suits your needs and simply use my data points when deciding which tradeoffs make the most sense for you.

Bookshelf Tests

E-M5,f/5.6 @ 15 mm, 3.2s, ISO 200, No Flash, AWB
Click for full In-Camera JPEG

Okay, with that bitching aside let’s get to another thing that people have told me they like to see – my bookshelf testing which is a simple image that helps to show dynamic color range, shadow detail, sharpness, texture, and more. More images be found at http://ronmart.zenfolio.com/olympus/omdem5, but I’ve included a few that I think are the most helpful.

These tests were done with camera default settings in manual mode with the 14-42mm lens at 14mm (but the EXIF reports 15mm). f/5.6 is the maximum aperture before diffraction kicks in, and is the sharpest according to SLRGear.com’s blur index. These were taken on a tripod with a timer to avoid camera shake.

ISO 200 is the minimum ISO for this camera, and it’s results were excellent. The warm color was very pleasing to my eye, the detail and sharpness were great and the dynamic range was impressive. Even the back wall hidden in the shadows shows detail and wood grain right out of the camera, so there’s lots that can be done with the RAW if that is needed.

I found Olympus Viewer 2.1.4 to  do a better job at processing the RAW files than the default camera settings in-camera, so like most cameras I’d say that if you wanted the maximum detail then start with the RAW. However, for many this image is a great starting point for post processing and would easily print nicely up to 24” wide by 36” tall without any problem (using Perfect Resize or in-printer resizing with the Canon iPF6300).

ISO 5000 is the maximum ISO in the normal range, so here’s what the closest full stop (ISO 3200) looks like:

E-M5,f/5.6 @ 15 mm, 1/5, ISO 3200, No Flash, AWB
Click for full In-Camera JPEG

When you zoom in here you start to see the weakness of the in-camera noise reduction as it destroys detail:

If I go to Olympus Viewer 2.1.4 and look at the unprocessed RAW, you can see there’s quite a bit of heavy noise reduction in-camera so I’d suggest users of this camera probably set the noise reduction to OFF and do noise reduction using something like Noiseware instead:

Here’s an example of noise reduction using Noiseware 5 (Landscape preset) where noise is removed but detail is preserved:

100% Crop at ISO 6400 from Olympus Viewer 2.1.4 RAW processed in Noiseware 5

By ISO 6400 the details start to get destroyed even in the RAW:

100% Crop at ISO 6400 from RAW in Olympus Viewer 2.1.4

E-M5,f/5.6 @ 15 mm, 1/10, ISO 6400, No Flash, AWB
Click for full In-Camera JPEG

So I feel like ISO 3200 (or at least no higher than ISO 5000) is the max usable ISO on this camera for anything but small prints (meaning 5x7 or less) and small web images.

Comparison to Sony NEX-7 at ISO 3200

Sony NEX-7, f/5.6 @ 50 mm, 1/5, ISO 3200, No Flash
Click for full In-Camera JPEG

The Sony NEX-7 had a nasty auto-white balance in tungsten light so I had to go to tungsten white balance which gave a more neutral image, but its in-camera noise reduction was much more tolerable. The brighter exposure is due to a better in-camera light meter (in my opinion) on the Sony.

The Olympus was very good, but I just prefer the Sony overall (with the nice warmth of the Olympus).

Comparison to the Fujifilm X-Pro1

Fujifilm X-Pro1, f/5.6 @35mm, 10/19sec, ISO 3200, No Flash, AWB
Click for full In-Camera JPEG

The Fujifilm was a bit on the too bright size with its in-camera exposures and its default auto white balance was too cold, but there was good dynamic range and lots of detail compared to the Olympus. Again, the Olympus wins on color and it blows away the focus system of the X-Pro1. 

Comparison to the Canon Rebel T4i 

T4i, f/8 @100 mm, 0.5s, ISO 3200, No Flash, AWB
Click for full In-Camera JPEG

In my T4i review I state that ISO 1600 is about as high as I’d go in real world use, but I’m primarily speaking from a DSLR perspective. Compared to the cameras discussed here the T4i stacks very similar to the Olympus at ISO 3200. It has nice color, decent dynamic range and pretty good detail both at raw and with the in-camera JPEG. Here’s a 100% crop from Lightroom 4.1 with no sharpening or noise reduction:

T4i/650D at ISO 3200 (Lightroom 4.1 Raw – 100% Crop)

Doing the same exact thing with the smaller sensor Olympus I get this 100% crop:

Olympus OM-D E-M5 at ISO 3200 (Lightroom 4.1 Raw – 100% Crop)

They are pretty darn close with probably a slight advantage going to the Olympus, so if you don’t let the in-camera noise reduction destroy the image the Olympus is pretty comparable to a full-size entry level DSLR.

Flash Testing Updated

E-M5, f/4@ 45 mm, 1/60, ISO 400, Flash (-2EV Fill Flash Mode)

In my previous article I didn’t have any Olympus FL-LM2 flash shots. While I felt like the flash for this camera wasn’t much better than your typical-on camera flash, at least there’s a hot shoe to do something better. However, with the included flash attached to the hot shoe used in fill flash mode at –2EV I was able to keep the ISO down and get this shot of the flowers. It’s not pretty, but it’s usable. Here’s a similar shot (lower flower focus instead) without the flash and a longer exposure (handheld):

E-M5, f/4@ 45 mm, 1/20, ISO 200, No Flash

In-camera stabilization is pretty decent so I’d leave the flash off. ;-)

More on the Electronic Viewfinder

My viewfinder comments in the original article seemed to piss off the Olympus fan boys, so I’ll clarify that WHEN COMPARED to the wonderful rear OLED display on the E-M5, the viewfinder looks very bad by comparison. I took a closer look to it and the one on the X-Pro1 again and felt that when viewed side by side they were pretty close, but overall I still like the hybrid viewfinder of the Fujifilm more.

Conclusion

See my original article entitled Review: Olympus OM-D E-M5 (Compared with Sony NEX-7, Fujifilm XPro1 and Canon Rebel T4i/650D) for my conclusion and more info. To see more sample photos, visit http://ronmart.zenfolio.com/olympus/omdem5.

NOTE: RAW links to originals not included simply for storage reasons. I don’t have a free or subsidized way of storing these raw files, but if you’d like the RAW’s I can upload them to you upon request (2 max).

Ordering

The Olympus OM-D E-M5 is IN STOCK at B&H, so if you enjoyed this article please support this blog by ordering using this link. It’s also available at Adorama, or Amazon.

Other reviews you might enjoy

• Canon G1X vs G12 vs Fujifilm X10
• Canon Powershot s100
• Canon Rebel T4i
• Fujifilm FinePix X100
• Fujifilm X10 (2011 P&S of the Year)
• Fujifilm XPro-1
• Sony NEX-7
• Nikon 1 V1 (includes 3 lenses)
• Nikon D7000 & 24-120mm Lens

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. I was also provided with a camera to use for this review but it was returned when all testing was completed.

Imagenomic Noiseware, Portraiture & RealGrain Updated (15% Off Coupon Code)

Ron’s take on the new updates

Imagenomic has done a web site refresh and updated their products recently, so I thought I’d weigh in on the changes.

Noiseware gets a much needed visual appearance boost to match the more modern look of Portraiture. Functionally it appears to be mostly the same as far as the UI is concerned, but Imagenomic claims better noise reduction performance and results. From what I see the results are still the best in class as they always have been, so it’s still a great product that is a must for all photographers.

Portraiture seems unchanged at this point.

I’m not a Real Grain user so I didn’t run any tests on it yet.

Here’s the official press release with all of the details of the updates:

PRESS RELEASE: Imagenomic Announces Release of Noiseware 5 and Updates to Portraiture and Realgrain plugins

New Version Provides Faster Processing Speeds, Improved Algorithm, Unlimited Presets and History Control, and 64-bit compatibility for Mac OS X
Free Upgrade / Updates for Noiseware 5, Portraiture and Realgrain plugins for All Licensed Owners of Software

New York – July 12, 2012 – Imagenomic, an independent software vendor specializing in digital imagery enhancement solutions, has announced the release of Noiseware 5 plugin, the latest generation of its award-winning noise correction technology. Noiseware 5 features several new and improved enhancements, including a faster core algorithm that retains more image detail, a newly-designed user interface and controls, the ability to create an unlimited number of presets, and a new history control for an unlimited number of history steps. In addition, Noiseware 5 plugin provides 64-bit native support for Mac OS X to complement the existing compatibility for Windows systems, as well as full compatibility with Adobe Photoshop CS6.

"We know our customers have been looking forward to Noiseware 5 plugin and we are gratified by the enthusiastic feedback we have been receiving from the industry and the end-users. The progressive evolution and the continued improvement of Noiseware's core algorithm embody Imagenomic's commitment to a leadership position when it comes to the quality of the processed image, the ease-of-use, and the processing speed", explains Art Ghazaryan, Co-CEO and COO. "We are also pleased with the additional improvements and features we included with this update. The new preset manager, user interface and history controls will enhance the user experience with a product that has been an industry favorite for quite some time. Current owners of Imagenomic's Noiseware Professional plugin will be able to upgrade to Noiseware 5 at no cost to them."

Improved Processing Speed: The Noiseware 5 plugin offers improved multi-core support that renders processing speeds that are up to four times faster than version 4.0, and with its 64-bit compatibility for Mac OS X provides additional productivity benefits.

Improved Algorithm: An advanced algorithm has been incorporated into Noiseware 5 that
allows photographers to retain greater image detail and is up to 25% more effective in
reducing image noise.

New Preset Manager: The Noiseware 5 plugin now provides users with an unlimited number
of preset capabilities, along with an unlimited number of categories for easy-to-find settings
for most every type of photography and shooting environment they may encounter. In
addition, photographers can now store notes and other details regarding specific presets and
have the ability to import and export data.

New History Control: Noiseware 5 now includes a history control, which allows
photographers to create an unlimited number of history steps to manage levels of noise
reduction and return to earlier renditions as well as the ability to save them as presets.

Pricing & Availability

Noiseware 5 plugin replaces the Noiseware Professional plugin and is available for MSRP of $79.95. Noiseware 5 is free for existing customers of Noiseware Professional plugin. New users can try Noiseware 5 on a free 15-day trial basis. The Noiseware Standard plugin has been discontinued. A discounted upgrade pricing will be available for existing users of the Noiseware Standard plugin edition who wish to upgrade to Noiseware 5. Imagenomic will continue to support the users of the Standard plugin edition. Imagenomic also released minor updates to Portraiture and Realgrain plugins to ensure full compatibility with leading industry applications. These updates are free for existing users of Portraiture and Realgrain plugins.

My Reviews & Special Discount Offer

You can enjoy my discount off Imagenomic products when you click one of the following links:

• Noiseware Professional Plug-In for Windows 
• Noiseware Professional Plug-In for Mac OS X 
• Noiseware Professional Stand-Alone for Windows (includes batch processing support)

• Portraiture for Mac OS X
• Portraiture for Windows

and enter the coupon code RONMART2012 like this:

You may also enjoy seeing these reviews of

• Imagenomic Noiseware Professional
• Imagenomic Portraiture
• What plug-ins should I buy for Photoshop & Lightroom?

Disclosure

If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. I’ve also been provided copies of the aforementioned products for the purpose of performing a review.

Canon 5D Mark II vs Mark III–Image Quality Comparison

I’ve been seeing other reviews making the claim that the image quality between the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III is the same, but my anecdotal results made this claim seem absurd. As a result, I thought I’d do a more controlled test to separate fact from fiction to see how much the quality differential between the Mark II and Mark III really is.

How I Tested

The only thing that changed between the test were the camera bodies

I set up my GT1541 tripod with my Really Right Stuff head and mounted the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM set to 200mm. Doing it this way would give me a super sharp lens, but also remove a lot of variables as I could change bodies without changing anything on the lens.

For my first test I turned off IS, manually focused using Live View on the Lord of the Rings book and then tested both cameras using a +0EV exposure in manual mode with manual ISO. I did not adjust the focus or any variables during the entire test.

When I saw the results, I re-shot the 5D Mark II again this time by refocusing using Live View to make sure the focus wasn’t off. It didn’t appear to be, so when I did the test again I got identical results. I even tried again using auto focus with the AF point on the same spot, the results were worse.

I had reset both cameras back to factory defaults and shot in manual, so the only variable was Auto White Balance (AWB) which I used for both. I also used a bubble level on both cameras hot shoe to make sure that they were set the same and I took care to make sure the ball head didn’t move during the testing.

When taking the shots I used mirror lockup and a 2 second timer exposure to avoid any issues with vibration.

The net result is that I think this is as controlled as is needed to draw valid conclusions about the results.

UPDATE: I shot with JPEG Fine + Full RAW, but this article only compares the in-camera JPEG results. To see RAW results, visit Canon 5D Mark II vs Mark III–Image Quality Comparison Part II–RAW Conversion.

The Results

You can find the full gallery of results at http://ronmart.zenfolio.com/5dm2vs5dm3, but very quickly I found the results I needed to prove my gut feeling. If you look below, you’ll see a comparison of ISO 100 and 6400 between the two cameras using the same identical lens and settings, and it is clear that the 5D Mark III is significantly sharper!

At ISO 100 I expected them to be close, but the results were staggering. I knew the 5D Mark III was better, but this blew me away:

5D Mark II - ISO 100

5D Mark III - ISO 100

At ISO 6400 I expected the Mark III to have an edge, but I felt the difference was huge in favor of the Mark III:

5D Mark II - ISO 6400

5D Mark III - ISO 6400

At ISO 25,600 the Mark III shows a bit more noise than the 5D Mark II at 6400, but the Mark III has the edge in detail and sharpness.  When you apply the Landscape preset of Noiseware then you end up with an image that is quite usable.

5D Mark II - ISO 6400

5D Mark III - ISO 25600 After Noiseware

5D Mark III - ISO 25600 Before Noiseware

I think this clearly demonstrates that the in-camera JPEG quality of the 5D Mark III is significantly sharper and has more detail. Everything else from the Auto White Balance (AWB) to exposure seems to be the same, but there’s slightly more dynamic range in the Mark III images.

Conclusion

Other reviewers may have focused heavily on the RAW comparisons which I’ve done here, but these are the images you’ll see when you look on the back of your camera and do a 100% zoom to see if you’ve got the shot. They are also what you’ll see on your videos unless you change  the picture style to faithful.

I think this proves that the in-camera results are significantly better. I observed this level of improvement without doing actual measurements with my 5D Mark II vs the new 5D Mark III, and now with another camera loaned to me for this article. Assuming there were no mechanical issues with either 5D Mark II tested, I think the only real complaint one could leverage against the 5D Mark III is that it’s too darn expensive. Beyond that it’s the best Canon camera I’ve ever used, and certainly worth the upgrade in my book.

Order yours today from Amazon, Adorama or B&H.

Related Articles

I’ve got more to come on the 5D Mark III including a big article just for parents. Check back to learn more!

• Parents Rejoice – No More Dark, Blurry and Out of Focus Pictures! (Canon 5D Mark III Real World Shots)
• Canon 5D Mark III First Thoughts–WOW, Canon is BACK!!!! (REAL WORLD SHOTS)
• Canon 5D Mark III in stock with $50 off Lightroom 4 and $15 off an Eye-Fi Pro X2 8GB
• Canon 5D Mark III Unboxing & First Report and the truth about the AF performance
• Canon 5D Mark III & Speedlite 600EX-RT Available for Pre-Order–IMAGE SAMPLES TOO
• First Look: Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT Flash
• Canon 600EX-RT Wireless Real World Test

Disclosure

I may make a commission if you make a purchase using links found in this article.

Canon 5D Mark III Real World Shots–In-Camera HDR, High ISO, Flowers, Nature, People & Cars

5D Mark III – Front with Battery Grip

All of the photos in this article are unprocessed photos that come directly from the in-camera JPEG file created by the 5D Mark III. All of these images are linked to a gallery of photos where you can view more info about the shot or download the original file that came from the camera (some files renamed for but otherwise untouched).

These photos are copyright Ron Martinsen - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You may not redistribute, link or otherwise consume without expressed written consent of Ron Martinsen.

Nice Dynamic Range and Color

I’ve been very pleased with the dynamic range and color I’ve been getting from the in-camera JPEG’s shown here:

1/200 sec at f/10 (handheld), ISO 3200, 100mm AWB

1/500sec at f/2.8, ISO 160, 70mm AWB

Garage Lighting – No Problem

Here I just snapped off a shot in the garage of a good looking car:

1/30 sec at f/4 (handheld), ISO 3200, 47mm AWB

Even at ISO 3200 the image looks clean (click for a link to the original). Garage conditions like this are tough, so I was impressed that without a flash I could get a shot like this.

High ISO with People

All of these are handheld shots with no flash.

ISO 12,800 AWB

ISO 20,000 AWB

The orange cast from auto white balance here is annoying but it can easily be fixed in DPP, Lightroom or Photoshop. I tested intentionally with the default settings and did not post-process this issue away.

ISO 2000 shot shows good dynamic range compared to predecessors

ISO 2500

ISO 8000

ISO 10,000

ISO 100

ISO 640

ISO 1000

ISO 4000

In-Camera HDR is pretty good

Here’s a single exposure as it came out of the camera “perfectly exposed”. The detail is good and the dynamic range of colors and exposure are decent, but even the X10 can out do this:

1/125 sec at f/11, ISO 200, 115mm AWB

Here is a handheld in-camera HDR shot using the Natural effect:

Auto Adjust Dynamic Range Setting with Natural Effect

This wasn’t my favorite example, but it’s one where you can see even with moving water and a slight breeze that the handheld HDR image alignment is pretty decent. This is in stark contrast to the G1X which is useless unless its on a tripod. It’s hard to believe these products come from the same company!

HDR Effects Samples

All of the following shots were shot hand-held and have not been modified from the in-camera result. No in-camera editing was done either. I suspect if I would have used a tripod and it wasn’t so windy then these results would have been much better, but I wanted a real-life experience for this article.

1/100 sec at f/8, ISO 800, 100mm
No HDR Effect – Single Exposure

HDR Effect – Natural

HDR Effect – Art Standard

HDR Effect – Art Vivid

HDR Effect – Art Bold

HDR Effect – Embossed

After my testing today I’ve got confidence in the “Auto” Adjust dyn range setting and the Natural effect. I figure I can always go for the extreme look later, but in-camera I want it to look natural.

Beware Moving Subjects

This is true of ALL HDR and is logical when you think about it, but for those who are new to HDR I thought I’d show you what can go wrong if you don’t think about what’s really happening in HDR mode. Here’s a setting that with a single exposure is okay but the sky is blown out:

To fix that we can do HDR but if we forget about having a shutter speed that can deal with moving people AND the Auto ISO to cover the range of exposure needed to get the shot at that shutter speed, then ghosts will appear:

Ghosts during HDR can sometimes be corrected (see below)

Ideally you want a clean shot, but sometimes that’s never possible. The best bet is to wait for the foreground subjects to leave, crank up your shutter speed, try again as I did here:

1/500 sec shutter speed used as the base for this HDR

This taught me that it’s best to be mindful of your situation and pay close attention to the shutter speed to get the best results.

Single Shot

HDR Natural – Handheld

Conclusion

I’m very pleased with the high ISO performance and features of the camera that allow me to get the shots that in the past would have been lost while I went searching for my flash. I’m feeling very comfortable shooting in manual and letting the ISO dictate the exposure, but I do find it tends to shoot one stop darker than I like with no exposure compensation. As a result I find myself dialing in the necessary ISO as needed.

I feel totally comfortable with using shots up to ISO 25,600 with anything at or below 6400 being as solid as ISO 1600 and below on my 5D Mark II.

I’m also impressed with the HDR mode which seems to work well even hand held. This is handy enough that I think I’ll do more HDR as there’s no post-process headache yet you can save the exposure to leave that option open if you like. I’ve come to love the EXR mode of my X10, so I’m pleased to have an option to get results that good from my DSLR and the benefit of it not being JPEG only (for the individual exposures – not the HDR image) is a big plus.

To see more real world shots not posted here, start here: http://ronmart.zenfolio.com/5dm3firstshots/hdd6bb28#hdd6bb28 

More to Come

I’ve got more to come on the 5D Mark III including a big article just for parents. Check back to learn more!

• Parents Rejoice – No More Dark, Blurry and Out of Focus Pictures! (Canon 5D Mark III Real World Shots)
• Canon 5D Mark III First Thoughts–WOW, Canon is BACK!!!! (REAL WORLD SHOTS)
• Canon 5D Mark III in stock with $50 off Lightroom 4 and $15 off an Eye-Fi Pro X2 8GB
• Canon 5D Mark III Unboxing & First Report and the truth about the AF performance(Updated: 3/22/12)
• Canon 5D Mark III & Speedlite 600EX-RT Available for Pre-Order–IMAGE SAMPLES TOO

Order Yours Now - Special Offer

Adorama has a good deal on Lightroom 4 ($50 off) and Eye-Fi ($15 off) if you buy them together

Disclaimer

I paid full-price for this camera (zero discount) and was not paid a penny for this article from anyone.

If you use links in this article to make a purchase I may make a small commission.