1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Olympus E-M5 100% Crops - Lots of Pixel Peeping!

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Luckypenguin, May 6, 2012.

  1. Since a lot of us like a good pixel-peep, I decided to put together some 100% crops of some E-M5 images so that you can see the new camera's warts 'n' all output and make your own judgements. Images are displayed as a small version of the full image first and 100% crop second. I've included which lens was used for each image, but it would have been a bit of a marathon to add ISOs, exposure, aperture, etc. If you want to know any particulars, just ask and quote the image number. These images all started out as jpegs and have been poked and prodded to varying degrees in Photoshop and Nik Color Efex and Silver Efex. So, these are NOT straight OOC images. I always set a camera up to give me files that are a starting point, not a finished product, so I'm not really the right person to ask if you want to see SOOC output.

    One thing to note is that while the E-M5 is certainly not a noise-free camera, but I actually really like the noise patterns that it does display. I think that it adds a great texture to the images. The images do come up very clean if noise reduction is applied, but I don't think that doing so adds anything to the final image, certainly not at lower (<1600) ISOs anyway. Also, the cropped images are all hosted through Photobucket and I am not sure if the site applies any compression when the images are uploaded.

    No test charts, just real world samples.

    Enough talk, start peeping!

    1. 25mm f1.4

    E-M5    ---    25mm    f/1.8    1/160s    ISO 400

    2. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203803

    3. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203805

    4. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203807

    5. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203809

    6. 20mm f1.7
    View attachment 203810

    View attachment 203811

    7. 12-50mm f3.5-6.3
    View attachment 203812

    View attachment 203813

    8. 20mm f1.7
    View attachment 203814

    View attachment 203815

    9. 25mm f1.4

    E-M5    ---    25mm    f/2.0    1/1600s    ISO 200

    10. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203819

    11. 25mm f1.4

    E-M5    ---    25mm    f/7.1    1/800s    ISO 200

    12. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203823

    13. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203825

    14. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203827

    15. 25mm f1.4

    View attachment 203829

    16. 20mm f1.7

    View attachment 203831

    17. 12-50mm f3.5-6.3

    View attachment 203833
    • Like Like x 7
  2. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Nic, what is your in-camera noise filter set to?
  3. Jpeg settings are

    Picture Mode: i-Enhance
    Noise Filter: Off
    Gradation: Normal (night images), Auto (daytime images)
  4. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Thanks for posting, impressive.

    I for one have given up 'Pixel Peeping'....IMVHO it's just not worth the effort.

    All the heart ache I went through prior to purchase comparing 100% crops from E-M5 and my G3 and GH2 was just a waste of time.

    If I'm really honest, can I tell the difference between a JPG from my G3 or GH2 or that taken with my E-M5.

    NO, I can't.........and at 1024 x 768 it doesn't matter at all.

    Am I disappointed with my E-M5.

    Again the answer is a RESOUNDING NO....I'm over the moon with it :love:

    All three cameras JPG's, which is all I take, I have found are on a par with one another, and that satisfies me.

    The two lenses which are my favourites, and the ones I have been using recently are Pany's 7-14mm and the Leica 25mm Lux, two of the best out there IMVHO.
    These may have a bearing on my satisfaction with the IQ from all 3 cameras.

    It's all in the 'Glass', it's all in the 'Glass' you know......IMVHO

    Now lets all stop this IQ comparison nonsence and get out and take some pictures with what ever camera takes ones fancy.
    I've just returned, it was great :smile:

    All IMVHO that is.

    PLease read in the manner it was written....light-heartedly...that is.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. G1 User

    G1 User Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 20, 2010
    I agree, the Grain pattern is much nicer than the G3,
    Those just goes to show you that the E-M5 is very worthy of producing high quality images... The Sensor plus great Glass is a winning combo. The Sensor is also an integrated part if the final image quality. In the film days, it was just lens, film played a smaller roll in IQ with modern emulsions.
  6. AlanU

    AlanU Mu-43 Veteran

    May 2, 2012
    I much prefer the E_M5 files over some of the canon Dslr's I've owned. M43 has come a long way.
  7. G1 User

    G1 User Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 20, 2010
    You may also look at this article by Lisandra Sandiago, a professional photographer that also has a E-M5, and has done a ISO 1600 to 6400 test series. Lisandra is the contributor/author.

    A Look at E-M5 JPGs 1600-6400, by Lisandra Sandiago

    I don't think m4/3 has a long way to go, not in APS-C comparisons with similar sized DSLR senors (14mp-18mp) (A77 Excluded - because an 8mp jump does make a difference, where, 2mp or so difference really doesn't).
  8. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    I don't know. At least in black and white, film/developer combinations yielded quite different results -- plus-x in d-76 1:1 was a very different beast than tri-x in HC-110 dilution B. HP5 has more green sensitivity than Tri-X. The older thick emulsion films allowed levels of compensating development that later emulsions had difficulty matching. Various combinations of film, chemistry (both film and print), and paper could produce drastically different results from same camera and same lens.

    And in color film, Velvia had those over-saturated colors that give me the willies. VPS, which I shot a lot of outdoors on a Hasselblad, was less contrasty than other color negative films, and gave what I considered a more natural look. Part of the reason it was popular for portraiture. Portra replaced it, though not in my affections, but did exhibit some of the same characteristics

    So I have to disagree; the character of the film was an essential part of shooting in the old days. And there was no Lightroom to change the basic characteristics of the film, just darkrooms. You could print warm or cold, but after a point you got pink whites or blue greys, so you were limited to a range of "correct" color filtration, beyond which a noticeable color cast was present.

    Choosing the right film for the job and the look you wanted was an important part of the craft in days past.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. VisualFeast

    VisualFeast Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 14, 2012
    Can you please check your link? It's not working for me.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.