Adobe’s new Ligthroom 5.2 and DNG Converter 8.2 now support the new Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GX7 cameras. You can download the firmware by clicking those links:
Lightroom 5.2 for Windows
Lightroom 5.2 for Mac
DNG Converter 8.2 for Windows
DNG Converter 8.2 for Mac
48 Responses
I own Photoshop CC – I’m assuming then it can’t be far behind for supporting it there too?
Camera Raw 8.2 also dropped today and includes support for the same camera models as Lightroom 5.2.
Incidentally, the official compatibility list (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html) does NOT specifically mention the E-M 1 and GX7 as supported cameras.
However, a footnote at the bottom of the compatibility list says: “Note: Adobe is often able to provide preliminary support for raw files from new camera models not listed above. Camera Raw and Lightroom will open and edit these files, but profiling and testing is not complete.”
In other words, your files might open, but don’t expect optimum conversion results until they’re on the official list.
Photoshop CC has everthing..
You own nothing! You are just paying the usage fee!
correct please the title from Adobe 52 to Adobe Lightroom 5.2
🙂
Photoshop CC updated automatically this morning for me.
You are an idiot
Why would someone comment on a site that promotes equipment they apparently have no interest in? It’s like adults that feel the need to type FIRST in the comments sections. It’s like grade school.
Because it is interesting to learn there are alternatives and what they are. I did not know ACDSee is so good, for example, so I am going to give it a try. Do you work for Adobe? Or are you plain gormless?
I am still using LR4 and plan to get a GX7 – do they still support older versions with updates etc.?
Hi Dec. No they don’t. You could download Adobe’s Dng converter and then convert the files to .Dng. Then open those up in LR4. Depending what type of photography you do Lightroom 5.2 is well worth the upgrade cost.
Hi stu5, thanks for the clarification. I guess I’ll upgrade when getting the GX7 (or GX7s/GX8 if such a thing is actually coming).
At the very least the improved, non-circle-only correction feature looks tempting, anyway :).
For those that believe Lightroom is bloatware, and wish that Adobe Camera Raw was a stand-alone product, check out the Free option of Faststone Image Viewer http://www.faststone.org/
This is a small, powerful viewer and RAW editor that allows you to edit RAW as well as bitmaps, (it will even load PSDs) There is no complex library system [ aka Lr] It’s fast, takes up almost no room and has a super intuitive interface that requires about 10 minutes to get up to speed on. Who needs the cloud and huge expensive software. Freeware at it’s best.
Thanks for link. It might be worth looking into.
BTW I just DL’d and loaded an e-M1 ORF into Faststone, wasn’t expecting that to happen, but there you go …
Actually, the Win8 app ‘Foto’ also opens the E-M1 RAW file but it is totally raw without any lens distortion correction (for the 12-40 lens).
Thanks for the pointer.
Darktable ( http://www.darktable.org ) is also a good freeware alternative, but there’s no support for Windows, yet.
John is not exaggerating. You really are an idiot.
I expect Raw Photo Processor (RPP) by Andrey Tverdokhleb to support the E-M1 soon.
Just loaded the EM-1 files from DRPreview and compared them to the EM-5 files both lit with tungsten lighting. Does not help the EM-1 shots are using a 45mm f1.8 and the EM-5 are with a 50mm f2 when you compare detail. Basically you can’t. The good news though is the EM-1 is better on noise. If you look at 3200 and 6400 iso and compare the two cameras the blacks are far more clean on the EM-1. It makes 6400 very useable now and improves 3200.
The really interesting is comparing EM-1 6400 iso to 5D MKIII 12800 iso. Very similar. Canon shows a tiny bit more detail but the noise is a tiny bit higher as well. Really only going to notice it at 100% though which in real world use is not important.
Totaly – 1 stop approx is all there is between the big guns and m43 now (ok they have more res).
Did not notice they used the 45mm – I wondered about that it looked soft and I thought it would be razor sharp with no AA… silly why did they suddenly change to a lesser lens – especialy as now the 50mm performs as it does on its native system.
How much more detail was there??? would love them to go and redo it with the right lens!
Come on guys seriously, there is nowhere near a stop difference though all these cameras at 3200 or higher are simply atrocious so it doesn’t really matter anyway. This is a series of crops between the E-M5 & E-M1 both files converted to DNG at 3200 only thing done to them is to turn off the default NR in ACR to equalize the playing field. If there are any differences they can be measured in fractions of a stop at best.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101306385@N08/9797276035/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101306385@N08/9797273645/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101306385@N08/9797274455/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101306385@N08/9797355013/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101306385@N08/9797272885/
It is exaggerated claims like this that make us a laughing stock in other forums as well as giving the trolls that invade us ammunition. I doubt that there has ever been a 1 stop jump in high ISO from one generation of the same size sensor to the next.
You can attack me all you want but no one not looking at these through biased eyes would possibly claim a 1 stop advance
The E-M1 is a wonderful pro build quality bit of kit with a bucketful of wonderful features and comes with the promise of a new range of Pro mFT glass an area where Olympus truly excels. I have never looked forward to a camera so much and this is the first time I have ever pre-ordered
“”The E-M1 is a wonderful pro build quality bit of kit with a bucketful of wonderful features and comes with the promise of a new range of Pro mFT glass an area where Olympus truly excels. I have never looked forward to a camera so much and this is the first time I have ever pre-ordered””
I agree the point about the E-M1 over the E-M5 is not down to any significant change in image quality but just as between the D700 and D3 the difference is the super build quality and excellent range of features
I’m not sure what the links show? – that 3200iso is noisy? – well it is – but only as noisy as 6400 iso on D800 or 5D3…
Goto DPR pull up EM5 and D5III in RAW and trun iso 1 stop more on 5DIII … you will see they are very very similar!
No denying it FF sensors are not 2 stops better iso than m43 currently.
They are higher res, but thats somthing else.
mFT4rv putting up the photos onto Flickr is a waste of time because of the amount of compression it uses. You can hardly tell a thing on your samples.
Look at the blue chroma noise in the shadows and darker areas on the E-M5 Raw 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800 files and now compare that to the E-M1. Can you see the difference? It’s not small. With tungsten lighting in low light it is the difference at 6400 iso of being useable on the E-M1 to unusable on the E-M5. Try taking out that noise on the E-M5 files so that it matches the E-M1 files without any quality loss… it cannot be done. You will also notice because it is not present or greatly reduced depending which file you are looking at with the E-M1 there is an increase in DR in the shadows.
Now when you compare the files to the 5d MIII there is a one stop advantage to the Canon. The Canon file has a little more detail but when you resize both images so they are 16 inches high and view them in PS at 50% which you use for output sharpening you can only see a tiny difference in places when you eyes are less than 30cm away from the screen. Normal viewing distances for that print size and you cannot tell. Plus the Canon file now has issues elsewhere which are not on the Olympus file.
Compare the E-M1 12600 file to the Canon 5D MIII 25800 file and the noise is the same again apart from the blue chroma noise which is worse on the Canon file.
I’m seeing 1 stop of ISO advantage in RAW on DPR between EM5 and D800 (iso1600 on EM5 v 3200 on D800)…
Thats 1 stop – for 4 times the lens size… i think FF probably now falls outside the bell curve of efficiency and return. (when talking about noise and ISO – lets leave all other things for another time)
I score it the same way. 1 stop advantage in low light to the D800 and 5D3. (Maybe also D600 and 6D — don’t want to offend our thin-skinned friends)
Now, let’s add back the IBIS and you gain about two more stops of hand hold ability. Anybody that hasn’t seen Robin Wong’s 2 second hand held samples really needs to click this. http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/09/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-introduction.html
I’ve got the latest L-Series IS from Canon, and I promise you I am not able to get results like that.
Now, let’s add back the IBIS and you gain about two more stops of hand hold ability. Anybody that hasn’t seen Robin Wong’s 2 second hand held samples really needs to click this. http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/09/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-introduction.html
None of those shots are sharp,and as I am sure you are aware IS only helps with static situations. Then there is the small matter of there being IS lenses from 16mm to 1200mm [ 1800mm DX crop} all with image stabilization. So you end up with IS being useful for prime lenses in very low light shooting static subjects without a tripod wow that’s a winner lol
“I’m seeing 1 stop of ISO advantage in RAW on DPR between EM5 and D800 (iso1600 on EM5 v 3200 on D800)…”
Not at the same output size and certainly not at the same detail level. With the D800 you can either have a clear two stops advantage in detail or if you add a little NR to the D800 you can have a clear two stops noise advantage.
Here is the D800 @ 3200 ISO compared to the E-M5 at 200 ISO , no NR on either camera Only processing was to resize the E-M5 to match the output size of the D800.
I used the files below form Focus Numerique as they are taken in more controlled lighting and with the expected exposures .Until the new test chart the differences between DPreview “test” shots have too many variables, exposure, lighting , lens quality etc.
E-M5 200ISO:
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-bruit-electronique-12.html
D800 3200 ISO:
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1390/reflex-nikon-d800-bruit-electronique-12.html
I know that this will not go down well but I would ask you to please download these RAW files and do what I did .
D800 3200VS E-M5 at 200 same size output , no NR , no other processing
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2696654.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1379495958&Signature=Ou71R6N3qMXwVwWBlVOlNgHWqxs%3d
link does not work… well not for me?
Sorry about that Jim here is a link to the small size just click original.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5099157849/photos/2696654/e-m5-base-vs-d800-3200
You can easily see the Nikon image has more noise. Even the noise is sharper as well so that is not a fair comparison.
I think the point is that because of all the extra detail if you wanted you could add some NR to the D800 file end result , still has more detail but now has two stops better noise performance. Or you can leave it as is and have at least 2 stops better detail.I wish that Olympus had upped the mp for the E-M1
This sharp noise has to be investigated. Is it better to have sharp noise or just noise. But most of all how do we complain about it. Ignore it or issue a sharp response.
gotta admit the D800 is nice…
But it was more noisy – and this is a good light image where most cameras look good up to 1600, so it raly is not showing the iso diffrence its just showing iso is not a concideration on the D800 untill passed 3200.
Try the DPR low light tungston setup and see there in RAW EM1 v D5MIII (which is about as good as your D800)…
That’s right, it is low light you can start to really see what the cameras are like at high iso. D800 has now been added to the chart. It is interesting to compare the D800 to the 5D MKIII.
better link
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5099157849/photos/2696654/e-m5-base-vs-d800-3200
Just click original
Not compared the D800 but I have done resizing with EM-1 and 5D MKIII files at 16inches high 300 DPI and the difference is one stop. More detail on the 5D MIII file but not at the correct viewing distance, ie so you can see the whole of the image at the same time.
Support for EM1 will not get me back to Adobe products. On my side they are gone for ever. ACDSee pro 6 for raw conversion with Topaz (Clarity is magical). PSPx6 for more than tweeking. Bought PSPx5 direct on line from Corel for $29 about 4 months ago that’s a great price and went for the upgrade at $57 the other day, 64 bit and faster. PPx Raw converter is not the greatest but ACDsee pro6 is. And its light handling and image management I found better than Adobe for my way of doing things as well as results.
+1 … the idiocy of FF wankers … why do you need to come to a m43 forums to talk about the supremacy of your damn d800
I think what draws the FF trolls is the rank smell of BS claims that emit from this forum from the mFT faithful
or the smell of their corpses rotting… not long before FF becomes redundent.
Sorry all the lovers but it is too big, to heavy and in the modern world it does not do anything impressive (it just takes photos) so I don’t think the FF has a bright future (specialist apps aside). as smaller cameras are able to get the shots only FF could a few years ago. – you can argure AF tracking and the likes but its not like AF won’t be getting better and better… its just a matter of time!
tick tock boys tick tock…
.
“Sorry all the lovers but it is too big, to heavy and in the modern world it does not do anything impressive (it just takes photos) so I don’t think the FF has a bright future (specialist apps”
FF has always been a niche and it will remain so just like MF was a niche in film days. It is also only a matter of months till Sony brings out its mirrorless FF.
While fast FF zooms will always be pretty hefty. there are no shortage of prime lenses that are perfectly manageable for FF.I quite see the appeal of the old three lens set up a wide angle { 24mm or 28mm} a nice fast 50 and a short tele the 135mm was always my favorite. In fact a FF Sony with a 21mm distagon could make for a superb pairing
And now consider a gx7 with 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 and compare it to a 3 prime ‘full frame’ setup.
More and longer lenses only makes the difference bigger.
There are so many alternatives to Adobe, I see no reason why to support them with their rental model.
A great deal of photographer sweat and energy went into learning those products and then giving feedback to Adobe. We can do the same for other products and Adobe can be just footprint in history or they can keep raising the prices as the market shrinks and they only care about media shops.
If people simply bothered to look, there are plenty of viable alternatives to Adobe products
OK.I have updated LR and can now import the sample GX7 files that are out there. Which I have done. My verdict? Not overly impressed to be honest. Putting them side by side with my GX1 files in Photoshop there is very little difference in quality. The only benefit I could see was the GX7 files have the ability to open the shadow detail successfully, whereas the GX1 files fall apart when you try that. If you don’t need to do that then its not £800 worth of improvement to me – I have the EVF on the GX1, so I can’t see me getting one. Besides which I have just ordered a D800+grip
I’m sorry but I use m43 and FF and have just looked at the samples on dp and I really don’t know what you guys are smoking if you think that the image quality is similar. The D800 for me, and I want quality that clients could use, is so much better than the E-M5