Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] E-M5 II announced

Subject: Re: [OM] E-M5 II announced
From: Mike Gordon via olympus <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 15:56:21 -0500
Yes, seems very weird that a Bayer raw is recreated.  Just because it is weird, 
doesn't mean it isn't true.  Yet another dissection of the High Res Raw format 
confirms this.
There are no Bayer artifacts discernible however, so the strategy works well 
and the results described as "so far look stunning."  I wonder how the results 
will fare against the new
Canyon 5Ds for over 3X the cost?

Strange but true, Mike



On 2/7/2015 8:27 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
> Just a couple other things.  I think I mentioned that the Flash sync speed 
> with EFC is 1/20 sec and "not recommended."  Hmmm, what's with that?

Pretty useless; perhaps that's why not recommended? If the shutter doesn't 
shock, flash with mechanical shutter should 
be good. After all, the sync speed is just the highest at which the shutter is 
entirely open, not the exposure speed. 
For primarily flash exposures, the exposure is very short, and should  make 
shock irrelevant, even if there is some.

> The shutter seems quiet but AG is the list shutter acoustic expert.  Hard to 
> tell w/o known cam for comparison--very quiet has shown excellent correlation 
> with reduced shutter shock.
> Have not seen much mention of any formal testing though.  Shutter sound is in 
> one review:
>
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii-hands-on-review-26883

I never know what to make of those things. Seems quietish, but what does that 
mean? Shutter shock seems to have been 
tamed in E-M1 and E-P5, so shouldn't be an issue.

> Also one of the Russian converter writers has has looked at the high res raw 
> files--not really 8 lower res raw files but preprocessed and appears as a Raw 
> file for a 64MP Bayer image--perhaps to make it easier for other converters.

That makes no sense, if others are correct that a special plug-in will be 
required for ACR/LR. It also makes no sense to 
recreate a Bayer array when one has eliminated its drawbacks. The evidence of 
the JPEGs in IR's review is that all the 
Bayer problems are eliminated. Why would they recreate them for the HD Raw file?

> Not at all sure what is going on there but the raw data is on a "rectangular 
> grid" while the original was on a "diagonal grid".  Oh, and the hi res files 
> are not compressed at all.
>
> Perhaps Moose has been able to compare absolute IQ to GX-7--perhaps not much 
> different.

Not as yet. And I see no point in comparing a GX7 file to the M5 II HD mode.

> Wonder if Where's Mine Moose will preorder?

You have used the incorrect tense. :-)

Oops! Moose

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?

 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz