Author Topic: OM-D with two stop (JPEG) improvement over the E-P3? (Read 1680 times)

asterinex · « **on:** January 27, 2012, 10:55:49 AM »

A new source (Thanks!) had the chance to test the new OM-D camera. He says “the 12800 ISO performance looks similar to the E-P3′s 3200 ISO”!
The same new source said: “The effect of the stabilization can be seen though the new viewfinder in the OM-D“. ....

http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-om-d-two-stop-improvement-over-the-e-p3/

Agent00soul · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2012, 11:09:42 AM »

And the E-P3 had a one stop improvement over the E-P1 (in jpeg). So another two is extremely remarkable (if true).
The bit about the VF must surely mean that there is no optical component. So it must be some new, improved kind of EVF. We have heard that the resolution is the same as the VF-2, so my guess is that the improvements are much higher refresh rate and much less noise at low light levels. Both of these are enabled by an improved sensor with much higher readout speed. The latter by reading out the full resolution and averaging groups of pixels.

adash · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2012, 11:56:23 AM »

This sounds great. All I hope is that it isn't just wishful thinking...

count_zero · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2012, 04:10:09 PM »

My guess it's the same Panasonic sensor found in the GX1 with fancy jpeg processing to achieve the 2 extra stops. It's equivalent to shooting raw and under exposing 2 steps, then using software correction to bring out the details lost in the dark spots, then selectively apply noise reduction in areas where noise is distracting. Basically, what a lot of us do when we are not lazy and feel like spending hours in front of our favorite RAW converter. I think it's a cool feature for the days where I'm out with friends and family and just taking snap shots around. Otherwise no benefit over my own RAW processing techniques.

lisandra · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2012, 06:13:59 PM »

I dunno count, im having a really hard time believing its a pany sensor. More dynamic range at ISO 200 than the GX1 or G3 at 160? sounds far fetched

Agent00soul · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2012, 02:54:09 AM »

I came to think of the statement "“The effect of the stabilization can be seen though the new viewfinder in the OM-D". during a walk today.
This must mean that the stailization is active during composing the shot, which is not the case with the current IBIS. And if it can do this, it's most likely active during recording video too.
So how can they have done this, without draining the battery? We allready know that the battery has roughly the same weight as the BLS-1, so no larger battery. Possibly a new one with higher energy density though. Maybe the new IS system is some combination of mechanical stabilization and digital manipulation?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2012, 12:05:53 PM »

That was an interesting comment. Because In Lens Stabilization has that effect in the VF. Which is very useful will long lenses.

adash · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2012, 12:17:45 PM »

Quote

I came to think of the statement "“The effect of the stabilization can be seen though the new viewfinder in the OM-D". during a walk today.
This must mean that the stailization is active during composing the shot, which is not the case with the current IBIS. And if it can do this, it's most likely active during recording video too.

Pentax K-r does that in LV. It does it in video too, giving the neat Steadicam feeling.

voyager · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2012, 02:17:40 PM »

Quote from: count_zero on January 27, 2012, 04:10:09 PM

My guess it's the same Panasonic sensor found in the GX1 with fancy jpeg processing to achieve the 2 extra stops. It's equivalent to shooting raw and under exposing 2 steps, then using software correction to bring out the details lost in the dark spots, then selectively apply noise reduction in areas where noise is distracting. Basically, what a lot of us do when we are not lazy and feel like spending hours in front of our favorite RAW converter. I think it's a cool feature for the days where I'm out with friends and family and just taking snap shots around. Otherwise no benefit over my own RAW processing techniques.

I'd honestly be amazingly happy if it was this sensor.

Agent00soul · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2012, 12:24:37 AM »

Quote from: voyager on January 29, 2012, 02:17:40 PM

Quote from: count_zero on January 27, 2012, 04:10:09 PM
My guess it's the same Panasonic sensor found in the GX1 with fancy jpeg processing to achieve the 2 extra stops. It's equivalent to shooting raw and under exposing 2 steps, then using software correction to bring out the details lost in the dark spots, then selectively apply noise reduction in areas where noise is distracting. Basically, what a lot of us do when we are not lazy and feel like spending hours in front of our favorite RAW converter. I think it's a cool feature for the days where I'm out with friends and family and just taking snap shots around. Otherwise no benefit over my own RAW processing techniques.

I'd honestly be amazingly happy if it was this sensor.

I don't think that sensor can deliver data fast enough for the improved EVF and the "better than GH2" video. They need a sensor that does digital output and possibly digital downsampling on-chip to feed the EVF and video. The GX1/G3 sensor has analog output and can't do that. Note how Nikon boast that the V1/J1 sensor has extremely high output bandwidth. That sensor is made by Aptina. They might be the one who make the OM-D sensor too. Toshiba, who make Fuji's sensors, is another good guess.

adash · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2012, 12:49:19 AM »

Quote

The GX1/G3 sensor has analog output and can't do that.

I am 99% sure that all CMOS sensors output digital data, and not analogue. The advantage over CCD was emphasized to be board space reduction, tighter integration of the photodetector array with supportive electronics, including, but not limited to the ADC itself.

peterb666 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2012, 03:03:35 AM »

Quote from: asterinex on January 27, 2012, 10:55:49 AM

A new source (Thanks!) had the chance to test the new OM-D camera. He says “the 12800 ISO performance looks similar to the E-P3′s 3200 ISO”!
The same new source said: “The effect of the stabilization can be seen though the new viewfinder in the OM-D“. ....

http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-om-d-two-stop-improvement-over-the-e-p3/

Well that's a pity as the E-P3's ISO 3200 performance is crap. ISO 2500 is the highest native ISO and acceptable if you get the exposure right. It is a huge downgrade in quality to ISO3200.

A usable ISO3200 would be nice so if they can get the ISO3200 performance to be equivalent to the ISO800 performance - that really would be good.

Agent00soul · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2012, 04:45:17 AM »

Quote from: adash on January 30, 2012, 12:49:19 AM

Quote
The GX1/G3 sensor has analog output and can't do that.
I am 99% sure that all CMOS sensors output digital data, and not analogue. The advantage over CCD was emphasized to be board space reduction, tighter integration of the photodetector array with supportive electronics, including, but not limited to the ADC itself.

Well, in an interview a Panasonic manager explained the difference between the GH2 sensor and the G3/GX1 sensor thus: The former has digital output and the latter analog. That's why the G3/GX1 can't have the same video performance as the GH2.

asterinex · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:10:42 AM »

With the panny 20mm I go rarely above ISO 800.
So , that means that with the new Oly I would rarley exceed ISO 200

cosinaphile · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:06:05 AM »

i like the option of high iso i rarely use flash and indoors , well you get the picture

i would like to have really clean iso 3200 useable 6400 ... and 1600 that knocks my socks off

which of course means that low isos astound and really let the sensor sing

voyager · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:15:40 PM »

I still can't figure out if this thing has a flash or not.

asterinex · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:18:32 PM »

Quote from: voyager on January 30, 2012, 01:15:40 PM

I still can't figure out if this thing has a flash or not.

For 1100 bucks, it should, not ?

voyager · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:21:07 PM »

That depends on how small they want to make it.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2012, 02:36:05 PM »

all camera need a small onboard flash for fill

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2012, 02:53:10 PM »

A small on-board flash is very useful at times. But, a GN of 20 would be better.

adash · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:08:58 PM »

Quote from: Agent00soul on January 30, 2012, 04:45:17 AM

Quote from: adash on January 30, 2012, 12:49:19 AM
Quote
The GX1/G3 sensor has analog output and can't do that.
I am 99% sure that all CMOS sensors output digital data, and not analogue. The advantage over CCD was emphasized to be board space reduction, tighter integration of the photodetector array with supportive electronics, including, but not limited to the ADC itself.

Well, in an interview a Panasonic manager explained the difference between the GH2 sensor and the G3/GX1 sensor thus: The former has digital output and the latter analog. That's why the G3/GX1 can't have the same video performance as the GH2.

Have you got a link? I'm curious.

Agent00soul · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:11:00 PM »

Quote from: voyager on January 30, 2012, 01:15:40 PM

I still can't figure out if this thing has a flash or not.

There is a groove on top of the hump which is typical for cameras with pop-up flash. Most likely the entire faux prism housing (except the back part with the hotshoe and eyepiece) pops up.

Agent00soul · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:17:50 PM »

Quote from: adash on January 30, 2012, 11:08:58 PM

Quote from: Agent00soul on January 30, 2012, 04:45:17 AM
Quote from: adash on January 30, 2012, 12:49:19 AM
Quote
The GX1/G3 sensor has analog output and can't do that.

I am 99% sure that all CMOS sensors output digital data, and not analogue. The advantage over CCD was emphasized to be board space reduction, tighter integration of the photodetector array with supportive electronics, including, but not limited to the ADC itself.

Well, in an interview a Panasonic manager explained the difference between the GH2 sensor and the G3/GX1 sensor thus: The former has digital output and the latter analog. That's why the G3/GX1 can't have the same video performance as the GH2.

Have you got a link? I'm curious.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/01/15/panasonic-learning-from-the-fringe-taking-small-steps

Here is the relevant part:

DP: Obviously, we’ve cast our lot with Micro Four Thirds. We still think you can obtain the same optimum image from a Micro Four Thirds that you will from an APS-C. Why do we say that? Well, in terms of everything above APS-C and full frame; the level of development, the R&D that goes into those sensors has been very limited, whereas in the point and shoot sector, the very tiny sensors, massive amount of R&D has gone into those to improve those because they have low light issues. So now, we as a company are focusing more and more and more on what can we do to Micro Four Thirds to take it to the next generational level. So I think you’ll see from us, in time, a greater emphasis on taking Micro Four Thirds and sort of leap frogging or even going further ahead with the technology. You see this in the difference between the GH2 and the G3, for example, or even the GX1. The GH2 has a full digital Micro Four Thirds 16 megapixel sensor, whereas the GX and the G3 have analog 16 megapixel Micro Four Thirds sensors. The numbers are the same, but the technology is vastly different. Now, what the digital version gets you is far better video--far better, faster readout rates--but it’s a lot more expensive. So between the two cameras you get a better video read on a GH2 than you will with a G3, for example. But at the same time, for still pictures, they’re pretty close because we have been able to take the image processors in the G3 and the GX and take them up a significant level, having learned what we did with the GH2 when we built it. We took them and even created a better image processor, technically, than is in the GH2. Now, we can apply this technology to the GH2 sensor in the future, and you can imagine what we can do. I think we will reach that level very soon.

Author Topic: OM-D with two stop (JPEG) improvement over the E-P3? (Read 1680 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery