1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

E-M10 II Noise Advantage over Other MFT Cameras?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Amin Sabet, Aug 25, 2015.

  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I compared it to the GH4 (since I own two of them), and at equivalent ISO's the E-M10 II's file definitely looks sharper. We know the Olympus cameras don't have an AA filter like the Panasonic cameras do, but my thought is that the GH4 would have much better processors than the E-M10 II, and thus lower noise, but that obviously is not the case.

    Very interesting...
     
  3. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    Yes, very interesting.

    The 5 axis IBIS is a nice upgrade as well. Although not 4K, the video is now usable.
     
  4. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    It's very noticeable compared to the Mk I. Check out RAW at 6400. As a matter of fact, it looks to be the best Olympus body on that list for high iso noise. JPEG starts to look a bit aggressive but you can probably lower the noise reduction. Given that you now have 5 axes IBIS, this body may be a winner, even at the intro price of $650 for the body.
     
  5. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Looking at RAW and comparing with the G7 in their default widget, it seems like something is a little odd with the noise patterns. At lower ISOs (e.g. 800) in the DPReview "low light" scene, the E-M10 II shows less noise, but also clearly less detail. It looks like there's some Fuji-style noise reduction baked into the RAW conversion, at least in Adobe Camera RAW.

    However, the noise pattern becomes even more bizarre at higher ISOs, because the E-M10 II starts to get aggressive chroma shot noise in the dark areas, looking quite dramatic compared to the G7. The noise in lighter areas is a tad less blotchy, which is nice, but overall still a bit softer.

    I'm not sure if there are any conclusions that one can really draw from this. I find that noise performance on all these cameras is so close - they all do a bit better in some areas, a bit worse in others. I feel like you really need to step up to the very, very best APS-C (the Nikon D7200) or FF like the A7 II before there's anything substantive to differentiate on this front.
     
  6. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    I really don't see the sharpness difference, but you're right about the shadow noise. When I pick a section with some dark blacks, you really see the chroma noise in the EM10 shots. Oddly, the GX8 shots look more like the EM10 than the GX7.
     
  7. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Most camera companies tend to add a little "extra baking" into the RAW and JPG files for the newbies. For the examples i see, the images look to have more NR performed and the colors looked punched up.

    Most people using an EM10 level camera just want images straight from the camera and they cater more toward that.

    I've heard the same discussion with Nikon/Canon entry level images, people were commenting how much better SOOC the images looked versus the pro level cameras. I think Olympus does the same and gives you a punchier/cleaner look at entry level, gives you a flatter look for the higher end cameras where people will be post processing their images with more regularity.
     
  8. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    This is pretty cool. (well it should be)

    Edit this pretty much underlines why I stopped reading DPR. Given real world examples I defy anyone to tell most of these sensors apart...
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I must be going blind. Compared to the E-M5 (original - my reference camera), I really don't see any significant difference in noise until ISO6400 and even then it's subtle. Sharpness of the new camera looks slightly lower compared to the E-M5 across all ISOs too. I don't get what DPReview are trying to say...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. WhidbeyLVR

    WhidbeyLVR Mu-43 Top Veteran

    612
    Feb 14, 2014
    Whidbey Island
    Lyle
    My first m43 camera is my E-PL5, so I thought I would use the DPReview Studio Test Scene to compare it the the new OM-D E-M10 II.

    Comparison of the E-M10 II to the E-PL5, RAW, ISO 6400, using a variety of positions around the test images:
    compare.

    It appears to me that the noise may be very slightly less on the E-M10 II, but that the retained detail from the E-PL5 is slightly better. Results were similar from ISO 800, up. Are we just looking at artifacts arising from differences in sharpening of the RAW files? I am not sure what my take-away should be, but all-in-all, it doesn't seem like much to get excited about.

    I also noticed that the focus on their E-PL5 images at ISO 200 and 400 was significantly soft compared to the other similar Olympus models, so sharpness comparisons were meaningless on the E-PL5 at those levels.
     
  11. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    The Mk 2 always looks better than the Mk 1. Comparing to the em5ii, it becomes more obvious in some places than others.
     
  12. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Ahahah, and here I thought that comparisons against the GX8 were the height of pixel peeping, and now we're looking at variations that are even more subtle.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Tapper

    Tapper Mu-43 Regular

    184
    Mar 12, 2013
    Meh, they all look basically the same. The differences are almost purely academic.

    If you want to get significantly less noise you need to go 35mm sensor size. Not even APS-C is that big a difference IMO. I think M43 is the sweet spot if you want a smaller lighter kit.

    I'm more interested in the 20mp sensor in the GX8, since apparently it's maybe 1/3 stop cleaner than previous GX sensor yet offers an extra 4mp, which I would appreciate for cropping. Looking forward to seeing what Olympus does with EM1 II.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  14. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Jason
    I'm not seeing a huge difference.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I think that the guys at DPReview have been smoking something. In reality there's nothing to see here of any significance. Move along now folks...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Look at what they said. They compared it to the EM-10 mk 1 and the EM5 II (I couldn't find the Canon in the list). It's not a massive change (same sensor after all) but I could definitely see it on my monitor at 3200 and 6400, and, sadly, I hadn't been smoking anything. :eek-31:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The brightness of chroma noise does appear a little lower. Not sure it's worth jumping up and down over though, I think heating the camera up in hot climates or after video could probably make up the difference.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    Switch to tungsten lighting... The E-M10II high ISO noise now looks visibly worse than the other cameras. I'm guessing that they changed the native WB of the sensor and it is giving a slight advantage in the 5000K sources most places test in at the expense of lower temperature sources that people actually end up shooting in the real world with.

    As others pointed out things begin to look odd with the E-M10II at high ISOs, possible there is RAW NR going on but it certainly isn't aggressive if it is there. But something is slightly funny.

    Anywho, I'd say the DPR comment is sort of sloppy. The performance is inconsistent, slightly better in some cases and slightly worse in others. Saying it is better than the rest seems a stretch.
     
  19. Egregius V

    Egregius V Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 14, 2015
    Massachusetts, USA
    Rev. Gregory Vozzo
    Maybe just a spectral difference? You can see similar differences when comparing standard shutter to e-shutter on an E-M5 II (and pushing the exposure significantly): http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3871571

    The sample below illustrates how the E-M10 II's noise is both better and worse. Note that the same can be said of the G7 and possibly other cameras:

    Clipboard01.
     
  20. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    532
    Aug 7, 2013
    Indonesia
    Reza Travilla
    Almost no different than the original EM5. Not a huge improvement? bye bye...next!!! EM1 mark II please! :biggrin:
     
    • Agree Agree x 3