Interesting but I don't think I'll be trading my M1.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/10/2015 5:03 AM, Moose wrote:
Leaving aside the HD feature for the moment, I've done some comparing of
E-M5, E-M1 and E-M5 Mark II.
As ACR won't recognize the Mark II yet, I converted the studio test Raw
images from IR and DPR, ISO 200 and 1600 in Viewer 3. No adjustment of
the images, just straight Raw conversion.
As I said before, the E-M5 and E-M1 are very, very close to the same in
detail resolution. Maybe give it to the M1 by a fingernail clipping. No
practical difference.
At ISO 200, the M5 II is distinctly clearer than the M1 on most parts of
the test images. As the M5 and M1 are so close in spite of the new
processor, and the M5 II has that same new processor, credit appears to
belong to the sensor, AA filter and/or firmware.
At ISO 1600, the M5 II is still slightly better, but noise reduces the
difference. Noise is pretty similar between them. I've not yet gone so
far as to post process.
The difference in some parts of the images is great enough that I was
concerned that the DPR M1 samples might not be quite focused correctly.
Once I got to the IR files, though, I saw exactly the same thing, a
slightly smearier look from the M1.
I wonder if this may all be down to AA filtering. The M1 images have
less detail sharpness, but no moiré, while the M5 II shows some moiré on
the targets designed to catch it. It still does a slightly better job on
the fabrics than the M1. I seem to recall that the M5 II has no AA
filter, to accommodate the HD feature.
Further Along Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|