Olympus E-P1 image quality PERMALINK

My New York pro friend provided me with an Olympus RAW file (ORF) from the new E-P1 (see yesterday’s entry).

I processed the ORF into 16-bit TIF. Color rendition and overall image quality look to be excellent. It’s exciting to see high quality in a compact camera, though at 335 grams (without lens), it’s no lightweight (a Nikon D40 is 475g).

And at about $799, it’s more expensive than many of today’s starter DSLRs, so it has to prove itself in terms of image quality, usability, and unique features. Its form factor and Live View screen may just do the trick.

The main thing I’ll note as irritating with the E-P1: there is no built-in flash! I like at least a wimpy flash for fill-light in the 1-6 foot range; I’m not excited about spending another $199 for a flash and having to carry it. Makes no sense to me on a small form factor camera, where I’m using it because it’s small.

Olympus Studio software on Mac Pro PERMALINK

It’s rare see a dual-cpu Mac Pro Nehalem fully utilized, but version 2.3 of Olympus Studio uses all 16 virtual cores during preview.

That’s not to say it’s fast, in fact it’s godawful slow, given that all cores are being used (using them all does not mean using them efficiently). I’m seeing ~7 seconds to preview a raw file, and another ~6 seconds to render it at actual pixels— on a dual CPU 2.93GHz Mac Pro Nehalem (see my review). It doesn’t get any faster than that in July 2009. Maybe Olympus hired some Nikon software engineers?

For more on CPU utiliization, see CPU Cores Explained.

Strangely, using Save As a 16-bit TIF uses only a single core (single threaded), but is about the same speed. Weird.

CPU usage of Olympus Studio 2.3

Olympus E-P1 12.3MP Micro 4/3 camera PERMALINK

I just ordered an Olympus E-P1, a new compact interchangeable-lens micro 4/3 camera (specs), which seems to be all the rage. Olympus makes some outstanding lenses, and reports from a New York pro that I trust indicate that image quality even with the 14-42mm zoom is superb.

At about $800, it’s hardly a cheap camera, so it had better offer near-DSLR quality in a compact package.

It’s available at B&H Photo and amazon.com, though it’s likely to go in and out of stock as initial demand is high. As usual, your use of my links is greatly appreciated.

Olympus PEN E-P1 12.3MP camera

Will the E-P1 be the answer to DSLR quality in a compact package? We shall see here in this blog, and so shall DAP readers in detail when I post a review within a few weeks. At about $800, it had better be darn good.

For that matter, how would the E-P1 fare as an infrared camera? Hmmm......

Price drop on eSATA for MacBook Pro PERMALINK

Sonnet just dropped the price on the Tempo SATA Pro ExpressCard/34 for the MacBook Pro (see my review).

This only way to achieve high external disk performance on a MacBook Pro is with eSATA by means of an eSATA card inserted into the ExpressCard/34 slot. I just advised a consulting client on this very topic, saving him the huge expense of buying a Mac Pro, allowing him to move his external eSATA enclosure from his PowerMac G5 to his new MacBook Pro.

Sonnet Tempo SATA Pro for ExpressCard/34 for MacBook Pro

While less expensive eSATA cards easily outperform sluggish Firewire 800, only the Tempo SATA Pro with its Marvell chipset offers the highest performance for a dual-drive RAID stripe as used in Optimizing Photoshop.

Apple’s ill-advised elimination of the ExpressCard/34 slot in the latest 13" and 15" MacBook Pro means you can’t use eSATA in those models (and nudges those models towards consumer-grade status, unsuitable for a desktop replacement). See my June 9 comments. Stick with the previous generation models (refurbished) or the current 17" model, all of which have the ExpressCard/34 slot.

Canon EOS JPEG quality PERMALINK

Yesterday I commented that “Canon EOS JPEGs are crap”, which really miffed one reader, who interpreted my factual comment as a thoughtless insult:

Don't you think that rating anything non Nikon D3x as crap is a little bit thoughtless on your part? Very few could afford the price of a Mercedes with the latest technology, while a common GM product served the purpose at a more realistic price - and eventually GM ended up with head rests, four wheel disc brakes, fuel injection etc. It was not so long ago that guys were cussing at their D2x while I was shooting with my Mark 3 bodies, leaving the Nikons in the dust. Who knows, will you be insulting the D3x users after the Mark 4 comes out - you know that they are constantly leapfrogging each other. Aside from that, why insult the majority of your readers who don't even dare to dream about a Nikon D3x, or as far as that goes either of my two Mark 3 bodies?

Even though I've been in photography one way or another for over 40 years, and must say I actually learned a bit from the odd article of yours, this thoughtless ranting of yours turns me off - and I doubt it that I am the only one.

(Didn’t GM eventually end up with bankruptcy and handouts from the Feds?)

Dare to dream. Why the hell not? It’s free. I can’t afford a PhaseOne P65, but I can dream about one.

I’m not sure why people get worked up over facts and consider them insults. I take it to heart though, not everything written is always explained clearly.

Back in March, I tested both Nikon and Canon in-camera JPEGs at max quality and compared both to JPEGs from their respective RAW converters. The Canon EOS max-quality JPEGs (5DM2, 1DsM3) were mediocre— visibly smearing fine detail versus the JPEG from RAW. This was not the case with Nikon. Test it yourself and see, using a lens capable of delivering to 21MP.

The take-away point is this: the Canon 5D Mark II is a superb value, but shooting in-camera JPEGs does not deliver the quality the camera is capable of. Rejoice in a 21MP camera at a reasonable price, and shoot RAW.

And last time I checked, the Nikon D700 was about the same price as the Canon 5D Mark II, and the 1Ds Mark III differs trivially in price from the D3x at B&H Photo.

Update: here’s what reader James N has to say about his experience with Canon JPEG vs RAW:

I'm still shooting with my Canon 20D after 5 years and the pictures that I get today shooting everything in RAW and processing with DXO software with exactly the same equipment that I started with are an order of magnitude better than what I got several years ago when I still shot everything in JPEG as processed by the camera.

"Visibly smearing the detail" is a correct statement. I've gone back to several of these earlier jpegs and run them through the latest version of DXO and noticed a remarkable improvement in quality and properly rendered detail on the resulting photos, but nothing can restore the missing extra f stop of latitude that shooting in RAW gives as opposed to shooting as JPEGs, and nothing can add back the detail that might have been visible in the original capture but lost during in-camera processing. — James N