Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Micro Four Thirds Forum' started by krugorg, Feb 29, 2012.
pekkapotka - Journal
Hmmm... still feeling good about the preorder. :smile:
Thanks for this Kyle - my preorder is safe too. :smile:
Perhaps a two stop advantage for OMD?
EM-5 12800 seem to have a comparable amount of noise to EP-3 3200, but details seem more washed out on the EM-5 (to my eyes at least). I'd prefer to see raw files.
With the tests we've seen so far I really can't see this sensor being anything but the Pana 16mp. There's not enough difference in IQ that could have justified Olympus getting a new sensor from another company. But we'll know soon enough.
I don't think that setting the Noise Reduction to off on the E-M5 completely disables the noise reduction. The solid areas in the grayscale wedges look like they've had NR applied. It also seems as though at least one of the cameras has a variance between actual and reported ISO since at the same settings the E-P3 is overexposing compared to the E-M5, which is contributing to the appearance of noise.
Reminded me of Amin's post over on mu-43 after the E-P3 release, that showed how there was still some bit of NR applied by Viewer, even if the noise reduction was set to off.
Olympus E-P3 Lightroom-Converted RAW and In-Camera JPEG Comparison at High ISO - Micro Four Thirds User Forum
From the samples around it certainly looks like a safe 2 stops improvement over the E-P3 - if it is a panny sensor, then Olympus are certainly better than they are at extracting performance out of it ...