Author Topic: JPEG comparison (Read 838 times)

lisandra · « **on:** June 30, 2011, 02:04:17 AM »

first off, just to be abundantly clear, these are jpeg. Only one site has raw files (quesabesde). I recommend as always to switch the preview screen to either the old lady face or the adonis like face. Also, for comparisons sake, switch the Fuji for an e p1. My humble opinion will stay anonymous (won't make that mistake again) so I leave it to you to conclude if:
A. Is it better than the pen 1
B. Is it better than the g3
C. Is it better (or shallower at least) than the nex 5
http://dpreview.com/previews/olympusep3/page10.asp

asterinex · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2011, 02:20:44 AM »

Up to ISO 1600 E-P3 can hold on with the better results (altough loosing a bit sharpness)
After 1600 it becomes bad.

To answer Lisandras questions :
A) YES
B) Up to 1600 YES, after 1600 NO
C) No, the NEX wins

What do you think ?

popo · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2011, 09:02:55 AM »

A - not a lot in it. I wouldn't say they're the same, but there isn't a significant difference either.
B - see A
C - see A

The internet does have a habit of blowing even the most minute difference up to black/white contrast levels. I don't see enough real world difference to make me pick one over the other.

count_zero · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2011, 11:12:13 AM »

The high ISO samples are disappointing. Hopefully, it's because they are from beta models and they haven't fully refined high ISO processing yet. What is interesting is the "Advanced shadow adjustment technology" that supposedly greatly improves dynamic range. I haven't seen a review yet that compares dynamic range.

Another thing is I'm not fully convinced that the sample images on dpreview are from the E-P3, but rather the E-PL3. The E-P3 has "Fine Detail Processing" it inherited from the E-5, but the E-PL3 does not.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2011, 12:12:47 PM »

A) Yes
B) Yes (to 1600), G3 seems be at 800 what the E-P3 is at 1600

C) No

JPEG comparison