Worrying review at Biofos.com?

[DJMC]

Idly surfing for info on OM-D settings last night, I came across this: http://www.biofos.com/mft/omd_em5_tst.html

"I'm not entirely happy with the output. When I transfer the images to my PC some look a little dull and lifeless and lack the 'POP' Olympus is so famous for from its JPG engine."

"They also do not represent what I actually saw from behind the camera. It's almost as though the camera is strangling the output and it is not released until the iamges are put through post processing."

"As Olympus gradually improve their ISO performance I notice many of my shots on the E-M5 and other m4/3rds machines have taken on a "veiled" look. That is to say they are lacking in resonance, clarity and verve; the colours are not as brilliant and the contrast not as sharp as the earlier models (including 4/3rds machines)."

"The E-M5 is the first Olympus camera to have the new Sony sensor. It must be a challenge for the engineers to get the processing engine tuned to its new sensor so I'm hoping the next iteration of the OM-D will be better. Not that it's bad by any means - it's just that flatness and lack of verve I dislike. I think the new TruePic engine is not producing the richness and colour signature of the older engine/sensor combination. Perhaps that's the price we have to pay fro more resolution and dynamic range."

"It's a fabulous looking camera and it appeals to the collector in me but just fails to attract the photographer in me. If it were a little less expensive I might be tempted, but for now I'm waiting for the next model."

Now, being a JPEG shooter, not a RAW+PP one, does this mean I and all other OM-D owners have to sit in front of their PC every time they want to enjoy the output of their top-of-the-range Olympus? Have I gone too far up the Olympus ladder and crossed the JPEG/RAW threshold by accident? Or are OM-D JPEGs perfectly fine and in the same league as my XZ-1, E-PL2 & E-1?

What have your own experiences of OM-D JPEGs been? Does everyone here shoot RAW, and is that because JPEGs are so awful?

Thanks for any comments.

[Howi]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

Idly surfing for info on OM-D settings last night, I came across this: http://www.biofos.com/mft/omd_em5_tst.html

"I'm not entirely happy with the output. When I transfer the images to my PC some look a little dull and lifeless and lack the 'POP' Olympus is so famous for from its JPG engine."

"They also do not represent what I actually saw from behind the camera. It's almost as though the camera is strangling the output and it is not released until the iamges are put through post processing."

"As Olympus gradually improve their ISO performance I notice many of my shots on the E-M5 and other m4/3rds machines have taken on a "veiled" look. That is to say they are lacking in resonance, clarity and verve; the colours are not as brilliant and the contrast not as sharp as the earlier models (including 4/3rds machines)."

"The E-M5 is the first Olympus camera to have the new Sony sensor. It must be a challenge for the engineers to get the processing engine tuned to its new sensor so I'm hoping the next iteration of the OM-D will be better. Not that it's bad by any means - it's just that flatness and lack of verve I dislike. I think the new TruePic engine is not producing the richness and colour signature of the older engine/sensor combination. Perhaps that's the price we have to pay fro more resolution and dynamic range."

"It's a fabulous looking camera and it appeals to the collector in me but just fails to attract the photographer in me. If it were a little less expensive I might be tempted, but for now I'm waiting for the next model."

Now, being a JPEG shooter, not a RAW+PP one, does this mean I and all other OM-D owners have to sit in front of their PC every time they want to enjoy the output of their top-of-the-range Olympus? Have I gone too far up the Olympus ladder and crossed the JPEG/RAW threshold by accident? Or are OM-D JPEGs perfectly fine and in the same league as my XZ-1, E-PL2 & E-1?

What have your own experiences of OM-D JPEGs been? Does everyone here shoot RAW, and is that because JPEGs are so awful?

Thanks for any comments.

I don't have one myself, nor do I shoot JPG, but this is the first I have heard of any criticism of OOC JPG's from Oly cameras.
Have you looked at other review sites to get a more balanced view?
seems to be critical of other Oly m43 bodies as well as OM-D which IS surprising.
Are there examples to indicate what they are seeing?
A statement such as the above, is meaningless without adequate documentary evidence.
There are plenty of OM-D users here - what are your 'real world ' views

[Zuiko]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

Well, John Foster is certainly a respected authority on Olympus cameras but I haven't noticed the same issues with my E-M5. He talks of the camera adjusting exposure to protect the highlights and preserve the shadows, compressing the tones in the process. That makes me wonder if he had gradation set to "Auto," which is absolutely the most pointless and self-defeating feature ever built into a camera. Set it to "Normal" for goodness sake.

I always used to shoot JPEGs rather than raw, partly because the Olympus JPEGs are so good and partly to keep processing to a minimum. However, I found that I would often give them a gentle tweek in Elements anyway and there are things you can adjust more easily with a raw rather than a JPEG, white balance being a prime example. Also raw does provide greater headroom for the highlights, especially when exposing to the right (of the histogram).

But David, as you already have an E-M5, why are you asking? Isn't it what you produce from the camera which really counts? How do you feel about your images?

[DJMC]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

I don't have one myself, nor do I shoot JPG, but this is the first I have heard of any criticism of OOC JPG's from Oly cameras.
Have you looked at other review sites to get a more balanced view?
seems to be critical of other Oly m43 bodies as well as OM-D which IS surprising.
Are there examples to indicate what they are seeing?
A statement such as the above, is meaningless without adequate documentary evidence.
There are plenty of OM-D users here - what are your 'real world ' views

Yes, I started reading the reviews from the point the OM-D was released, being an 'Olympus only' fan. None have been scathing of JPEGs, but is that because all high-end reviewers use RAW+PP?

I've emailed John (the author) to see if he's kept the OM-D and whether his views have changed, and also to ask how OM-D JPEGs compare, in his opinion, with those out of my XZ-1, E-PL2, and E-1. Will let you know what he says.

[Seonnaidh]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

Sorry but I find the review to be a wee bit unbalanced if not totally innaccurate.
I think the JPEGS are wonderful and the RAWS aree exceptionally good.
Every other review I've read about the OMD consistently praises it's image quality.
So I for one will not be too concerned.
Anybody else share these sentiments?
Glad you brought it to our attention though.

[Ulfric M Douglas]

e-M5 Review at Biofos.com?

It's great news to me, I had thought Biofos wasn't updating at all for literally years ... now I see the site lives on!
Just excellent, I respect the way they did stuff and their lens reviews are useful.

For those having a bit of a moan at the reviewer's comments ;

I'm not entirely happy with the output. When I transfer the images to my PC some look a little dull and lifeless and lack the 'POP' Olympus is so famous for from its JPG engine.

Let me give my take on this (I don't have an e-M5 by the way)
It seems to me the only people who can have this attitude (of tiny disappointment with Jpeg Pop) are those brought up on Olympus DSLRs and 1st-generation Pens, which in my opinion give such nice Jpegs (with Pop of course) that I feel the new generation have a harder time achieving.
I also believe the Pens with the ISO200 sensors (e-pL2 & onward) have lost a smidgen of Jpeg Pop too, and think the e-M5 sensor probably follows the Jpeg processing developed in those models.

Reviewers who have not lived with Olympus cameras over the last few years will not see the e-M5 Jpegs as lacking anything at all.

You see what I'm getting at?

[DJMC]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

But David, as you already have an E-M5, why are you asking? Isn't it what you produce from the camera which really counts? How do you feel about your images?

John, since I picked it up on Saturday I've had no time. Decorating for SWMBO Sunday , then working since. I need a proper outing with the new toy to give it a go, not just a quick snapping session in the garden. My foray into the world of OM-D settings info is because I'd read how advanced the menus were and was trying to get ahead of the game.

[DJMC]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

Sorry but I find the review to be a wee bit unbalanced if not totally innaccurate.
I think the JPEGS are wonderful and the RAWS aree exceptionally good.
Every other review I've read about the OMD consistently praises it's image quality.
So I for one will not be too concerned.
Anybody else share these sentiments?
Glad you brought it to our attention though.

Thanks for the reassurance. I too think he's going against the tide compared to all the other reviews. But as a JPEG shooter (sorry! ) I had a sudden clammy moment, thinking I'd bought a lemon.

[Zuiko]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

John, since I picked it up on Saturday I've had no time. Decorating for SWMBO Sunday , then working since. I need a proper outing with the new toy to give it a go, not just a quick snapping session in the garden. My foray into the world of OM-D settings info is because I'd read how advanced the menus were and was trying to get ahead of the game.

Ah, sorry David, I didn't realize from your OP that you were such a recent owner. Don't forget you can tweek the JPEG output to your own preferences. For example, if your pictures seem lacking in contrast then increase the contrast setting in camera. If the colours seem a little muted and lifeless, try the "Vivid" setting. John Foster didn't mention trying these options so I would assume he had then all set to default.

[ayewing]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

As a relative newcomer to the Olympus fold, I thought that the JPEGs straight from the camera were fine though I do not know how they compare with previous Olympus cameras.

In any case the OM-D has such a wide range of adjustments one would really have to define the settings used. In "Picture Mode" I find the Natural setting fine but there is the choice of i-Enhance and Vivid if you want brighter colours and more impact. There is also the option of a Custom setting which can be set up to personal preference.

I do use RAW but must admit for correctly exposed images in normal lighting conditions it is not easy to improve on the JPEGs.

[Zuiko]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

David, here is a selection of JPEGS from my E-M5. They have been resized only, with no other processing. The camera settings were AWB, Contrast 0, Sharpening -2, Gradation normal, Colour natural. I use these settings with a view to tweaking the image to how I want it in pp and with sharpening set to -2 but none added in processing they may look slightly soft.

They were taken in a variety of conditions; bright and sunny, dull and overcast and indoors. Hope they help to put your mind at rest.

[DJMC]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?



They'll do for me John!!

Is the Daimler yours? Lovely!

[Zuiko]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

Is the Daimler yours?

No, but I wish it was! It was in the classic car display at our village fete.

[StephenL]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?

I found the Jpegs to be so good I almost started using them! But I'm a control freak, and so I prefer to use Raw. It's easier to recover from cock-ups!

[DJMC]

Re: Worrying review at Biofos.com?



I made a costly mistake years ago where I put form over function...

The cost of the OM-D pales by comparison, so no big worries this time.