Image courtesy: m43.eu.
Our polish friends at M43.eu (Translation here) are the first to compare the image quality of the new E-PL5 with the current high end Olympus E-M5 camera. Both use the same sensor but according to m43.eu test the E-PL5 is slightly less noisier than the E-M5. I guess the image processing workflow has been improved over the E-M5. And it doesn’t end here because here comes the “WOW” surprise: They even tested the E-PL5 dynamic range (Click here) and the said that the E-Pl5 is: “shockingly better” (at Low ISO) than the DR measured for the E-M5 (here it is). The E-M5 still has the edge on High ISO but there is 1 EV difference in favour of the E-PL5 at ISO 200 and ISO 400.
If these tests will get confirmation by other websites too than we have really a major surprise. I really can’t figure out how the E-PL5 dynamic range can be that much better!
—
New PEN camera preorders:
E-PL5 at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto. In EU at Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France,
E-PM2 at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto. In EU at Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France.
—
Refurbished E-M5 is also back via Cameta:
Silver Olympus E-M5 for $849 at Cameta (Click here).
Black Olympus E-M5 with 12-42mm lens for $949 at [shoplink 34210 ebay]Cametaacutions (Click here)[/shoplink] and Cameta (Click here).
Silver Olympus E-M5 with 12-50mm lens for $1149 at [shoplink 34211 ebay]Cametaacutions (Click here)[/shoplink] and Cameta (Click here).
Black Olympus E-M5 with 12-50mm lens for $1149 at [shoplink 34211 ebay]Cametaacutions (Click here)[/shoplink] and Cameta (Click here).
79 Responses
Refreshing and great to know!
Firmware? 1 EV stop difference makes some people choose to buy E-PL5 instead of the much more expansive E-M5. The ones that greatly value control dials will choose the latter I guess…
No, all those people harping on about needing built in evf will finally realise there is already a camera with a built in evf and buy the em5.
Oh wait, those people wanted a built in evf but didn’t want to pay for it. my bad, they won’t buy it, they’ll just continue harping.
people want cheaper camera with build in EVF, without weather sealing, magnesium body etc. Olympus need something like that to compete with sony nex-6,
They also want 5-axis IS without paying more for it. Ridiculous.
Why is this a problem for you ? let people have what they want, it doesn’t make your EM5 less of a camera. I personally don’t give a sh*t about 5 axis IBIS I’m fine with the older 2 axis.
STOP SHOVING SLRs DOWN OUR THROATS !!!
I actually prefer a PEN E-P style body where the viewfinder is optional. I don’t want a DSLR-style hump on a compact camera.
*expensive
I don’t think these tests are solid. Let’s see what DXO finds out about this.
..does anyone know, whether the firmwar 8em5 = 1.0!!!) has any influence on that?
One EV is a lot in case DR is inadequate. Not so much when it is close to real world tonal range.
1 ev DR when the total was only 12.3 (up to 13.3) is a 8% inprovement. It’s not drastic like 20% but it’s also not insignificant. When we get cameras with a 25 EV DR then you can say it’s almost irrelevent. We are not there yet.
As another example, 1 EV over the OMD means 13.3, which puts it just above the nikon D4 (13.1). So it’s not something to brush off just yet.
1 EV is a 100% increase.
Sit down and learn a bit more.
History repeating: remember how much better E-PL1 was compared to E-P1/2 ?
yes history is repeating itself, people are getting their facts wrong.
The e-p1 is almost identical to the e-pl1. The only real difference was the removal of the anti-alias filter which improved sharpness at the price of moire.
The anti-alias filter was NOT removed, it was only tinner. Also, the E-PL1 had an updated image processor, so it was – apart from the sensor itself – not “almost identical”.
It was only matter of time when Oly “understand” new Sony sensor and get more of it with their knowledge and experiences. From Pekka Potka’s interview with Mr. Terrada follows that Olympus had to release the E-M5 sooner than they would like to do. What do you think?
@Kornflejk
Olympus probably had to release the E-M 5 earlier than they wanted to because they wanted to steal a march on the GH3, to allow more breathing space between the E-5 replacement’s release as well as stealing the thunder from Canon’s mirrorless release…. and they need the money :-]
The EM5 came out something like 6 months before the GH3. This is not “releasing before they wanted to” — did you think they “wanted” to wait another year?
rubbish.
@wt21
where did I say or suggest Olympus wanted to wait a year????
even if they had waited about 4 months that would still be too close for comfort a release date to the GH3.
Is it dynamic range or noise??? That’s a difference.
The result of the noise Test is no suprise – the development goes further.
The OM-D ist does it still pretty well.
Oh stupid – I didn’t see the second link.
As a OM-D user my only interest is, that M43 is competitive to other systems. I bought many lenses.
One day, when the IQ of a new Cam is so much better than the IQ of my EM-5, I will go for this future Cam.
So: Be happy, if these results are correct!
Threfore is necessary to make firmware update for OM-D, becasue it is not good solution to have cheaper body with better IQ than IQ in much more expensive body.
Owner of OM-D can be disappointed…
As a buyer of a new “hi-end” product you have to bear in mind that your camera will become obsolete within 1 year in the best case because of rapid development in CSC. Look at Fuji X-Pro 1 vs. X-E1 or NEX-7 vs. NEX-6. Hi-end predecessors are overshadowed by newer and lesser stuffs. And dont forget that early-adopters pay this development.
“early-adopters pay this development”
+100
I don’t think a firmware can change anything.
Oh. I just bought E-M5, and I’m only happy if E-PL5 has even better IQ. My camera still works as great as yesterday.
I’d also would say, that in real life things like number of control points and IBIS would make much greater difference than few percents of more DR.
I think their mesurements for the E-M5 are wrong. Others have reported a dynamic range of 12 stops for the E-M5.
Yep, E-M5’s RAW results look seriously f’ed up.
Agree, looks like conversion or analyse error for E-M5
There is a not a single graphic that shows a full stop difference between the two cameras at the link. Where is your source for this admin?
You don’t need a single graph.
There’s 2 graphs for jpeg, and there’s a scale on the left. One goes to about 9.8 for the OMD and the other goes to about 10.1 for the e-pl5.
There’s 2 graphs for raw, the omd is about 9.8 and the e-pl5 is about 11.9.
So take what you will from it, one is about 1 difference the other is 2 difference – assuming their testing is correct. Well honestly it doesn’t even need to be “correct” it just needs to be consistent. If it’s consistent, that means everyone elses tests will waiver by the same percentage regardless of what their actual numbers are.
Well, first of all, I said graphic, not graph.
The admin explicitly states that at ISO 200 and 400 there is a 1 stop difference.
And if he is referring to the image above, at 200 there is not 1 stop difference – take what you will from that.
Well, first of all, I said graphic, not graph.
The admin explicitly states that at ISO 200 and 400 there is a 1 stop difference.
And if he is referring to the image above, at 200 there is not 1 stop difference – take what you will from that.
> …it doesn’t even need to be “correct” it just needs to be consistent.
Their E-M5 RAW results fail consistency.
Wow I think I found a deal breaker. According to olympus’ own site the minimum shutter speed for the e-pl5 is 2 seconds! I don’t do night photos often, but when I do, it sometimes takes more than 2 seconds. I don’t want to have to carry a cable release and bulb everything.
@squeegee I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Further down, the online specs have this listed under “shutter”:
1/4000 – 60 sec. (1/3, 1/2, or 1EV steps selectable)
Bulb/Time: default setting 8min. (1/2/4/8/15/20/25/30 min. selectable)
If this is a deal breaker for you, you’d be well advised to download the camera manual (once it’s available) and see how the thing *really* works. The online specs seem to be a bit… inconsistent on this point.
There’s another big loss (as you step down from the E-M5 to the E-PL5) that nobody’s mentioned yet — live bulb mode. If you’ve never used it, you’re missing out — it’s a *huge* help for night photography.
Here’s good example how live bulb works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyNIhlibtlI
That’s in P/A/S modes. If you shoot starry skies, you’ll shoot in Manual mode, so no deal breaker here. 🙂
Pretty sure it is a misprint on Oly America site, as europian site shows standard 60 seconds
“I really can’t figure out how the E-PL5 dynamic range can be that much better!”
I can: random sample-to-sample variation. As one of my university professors said: “Never trust a graph without error bars.”
Cameras are not as precise and identical as we all would like to think!
+100. I’ve always been worried by these pseudo-scientific tests which invest an enormous machinery for measurements, yet test a single sample only. I once suggested the very same explanation like you on the symmetric issue in the Panasonic camp, when DXOmark found differences between their samples of the G3 and the GX1. Folks, however, wanted to believe that the cameras do perform differently in general.
An even more serious problem with that single-sample attitude could be that camera manufacturer might even supply specially selected items to the testers, just like car manufacturers do for the car magazines. This would mean that the test results have hardly anything to do with the item you buy in the shop…
I’d be more inclined to write it off as single-sample variation, then as a case of Oly intentionally sending the reviewer a better-than-average camera to review. Thinking somewhat cynically, why would Oly *want* a cheaper (presumably less profitable) model to rate higher than their micro-4/3 flagship camera?
No need for any sample variance when that site’s RAW results for E-M5 (direct link in news) are clearly incorrect.
JPEGs processed randomly with unknown algorithms and settings are meaningless for measuring capabilities of the sensor itself.
But there’s definitely slight variation between different samples of identical design sensor, like in GX1 and G3 results.
Or the ones when going through DxO’s results for every Olympus camera starting from E-30 and up to E-P3. With surely big differences between manufacturing times of sensors changes in manufacturing process should cause such small differences. (+ there’s measuring accuracy)
Even sensors made during production of one manufacturing batch and from same silicon wafer could have slight performance variation. Depending on even from such factors as if sensor is from center, or outer area of same silicon wafer.
PC CPU’s have such differences. CPU whose die is from the center of wafer can overclock well even when undervolted while other individual from outer edge of that same wafer might not overclock at all even when overvolted.
You may be onto something here. For example, my E-PL1 can take clean pictures with non-TTL flash up to 1/320s, while my friend’s can go only up to 1/180.
Surprising but not impossible, let’s wait for Dxo which probably has the most rigorous measurement protocol…(yes I know Dxo is evil blablabla…)
it would be great if it means that the raw headroom increased one stop too for those iso settings.
RAW headroom is bad, it means poor incamera JPG conversion.
Seems to be the dynamic range of jpg files !
So it is just a different choice. The best jpg is not always with the biggest dynamic range… Dynamic range is useful in RAW files…
(i think the sensor is the same)
@Squeegee –
I said graphic, not graph.
The admin explicitly states that at ISO 200 and 400 there is a 1 stop difference.
And if he is referring to the image above, at 200 there is not 1 stop difference – take what you will from that.
I don’t think he’s referring to the image he embedded, that image is to do with noise. The DR images and graphs are on the other link. If you go to the other link, you will see graphics of graphs which show at 200 iso there is a 1 stop difference – in jpegs.
I think all of you should now start buying the e-pl5 (sarcasm was intentional)
Wait for dxo mark. I find the results suspect
It could take 6 months for DXOMark results.
Sadly less Noise only needed when in high ISO not in lower or lowest ISO where noise tend to disappear or barely visible. I think this only proofing that Olympus deliberately tweak the processing so EM-5 look superior compared to EPL-5. Low noise in high ISO is what everybody try to achieve. So the article look exaggerating fact that not too important.
Cool, If they can keep improving with a $699 body… I cant wait to see what they can stuff in to a pro body for $1799 🙂
But I thought the GH3 was already too expensive for m43.
Check of one EU price comparison gives 1200€ as pre-order price of GH3 in some continental Europe shops.
That’s lower than what E-M5 and grip set costs…
I second this, the price of the GH3 is perfect.
I was thinking a 43rds camera… But hey, if they can do it for m43rds cool, but it has to AF my 43rds lenses… That is my wish 🙂 and I will but it for 1799.
The GH3 is nice, played with it yesterday, along with the 35-100 lens. Sweet combo, it has a new very small AF box (like a PDAF box) which would work well for portraits and fashion (but not for anything moving as far as I could tell). It is loaded with configurable buttons, I dont like the Vertical Grip, it is nowhere near as comfortable as the main grip (which is very comfortable)… To my mind only SOny ever gets the VG right (on the a900/a850) as they treat it like the normal grip.
All in all a nice camera, 35-100 is very small, and the OIS worked really well.
But, will it AF my 12-60 🙂
Why ,is a kit lens that is F4 at the long end such a big deal ?
I dont know you from adam, so I wont make assumptions about the motivations for your silly comment…
But it goes like this, a high quality zoom that starts at f2.8 and goes to f4 across a 5x zoom range which I already own and have paid for, and still works is worth more than a fictional lens that I will have to buy again and actually doesnt exist in m43rds.
The cost of replacing a $1000 lens will pay for a good chunk of the new body… I hope that explains it.
Yeah, except Olympus doesn’t actually make any money from that lens you already own or somebody else may buy used. So their incentive for dedicating resources to a new camera from a system that was a financial failure is what, exactly?
Well that is interesting, however, it specifically mentions that the test relies on JPEGs. Olympus seems to change up their JPEG engine in basically every single release, so it could simply be an improvement in the JPEG engine.
Or it could be a legitimate improvement is actual sensor processing. Either way interesting and possibly good.
testing anything based on what Olympus claims as ISO is bit tricky on the E-P3 dxo rated that cameras 200 ISO as 132 compared to the E-M5 claimed ISO 200 in reality 107.Probably they got their creative accounting dept in to do the creative ISO claims always within one of the standards lol .The fact that there are different ISO standards is a bit of problem right away
When will they add a time-lapse mode on the cameras?
I don’t now much about these tests… but…looking at the grayscale, the E-M5 seems to perform better in the darker part and E-PL5 better in the lighter grays. Seems like an exposure difference. The E-PL5 seems slighty underexposed, showing better highlights but crushing the blacks, while the E-M5 seems the opposite.
Does this make sense?
Happy everybody? And you haven’t heard the best yet: you are going to learn photography and maybe get a blow job!
Wow! I didn’t know a camera could do that!
why do you need better dynamic range when the camera main viewfinder (e.g. LCD screen) is useless for framing/composition? Or are you the type of P&S photographers who are afraid to use brain/foot/WB/exp+/-…?
overall Olympus is milking the cow once again with this cheap plastic toy and its tiny 2.5 inch horrible display (when in still 4:3 mode) but I feel m43 crowd is becoming an iSheep crowd soon – due to disillusion present when any competition comments will arrive here (NEX, full-frame etc)
‘Now, on the E-PL5, they used a different screen, perhaps it is the same screen as the E-PL3 or E-PM1 (I have none to compare, so I cannot verify if it is the same). The resolution is lower than the E-M5, and that color balance somehow seemed even worse. I was reviewing photographs taken both on the street and the previous entry’s wedding event, and the main problem I had was how the skin tone looked through the screen. I remembered a friend cough Jason Mumbles cough who stood beside me as I was shooting commented on how “horrible” the colors from the camera was… and I was having a very difficult time to convince him that the colors you see on that not so great LCD screen was completely different from the real output of the camera. Indeed to my eyes the colors on the screen looked overly saturated and unrealistic at all. Working with OM-D files and generally the signature Olympus colors have always stayed the same through the many years, hence looking at the screen I knew very well I cannot trust working with it at all.’
Robin Wong
HE may need to turn off the vivid setting for the back screen.
Sounds promising, but looking at the specs, I don’t see any option to shoot in 3:2 ratio. Did I miss something or did Olympus just decide that everyone wants to shoot exclusively in 4:3 ratio.
it’s not multi-aspect sensor so any other ratio (16:9, 3:2…) is just the crop and nothing else (unlike GH2).
anyway this camera is cheap junk, why are the people interested in it is behind my comprehension.
– plasticky built
– no controls whatsoever (even my pocketable RX100 is better in it)
– the shities LCD ever in its camera field (name _any_ worse LCD out there)
– LCD (the only composition/framing you have!) worse than even the Panasonic GX1 dissaster – and I sold it due to impossibility of WB tuning / exposure comp / framing etc
– LCD screen is tiny cca 2.5 inch (is 3 inch only in 16:9) which brings even worse framing like looking via the cheapest tiniest viewfinder out there with zero magnification and gigantic black borders with very low resolution;)
– doesn’t have EM-5 stabilization in (only the old one) – which is the MAIN reason to get OM-D – no matter what naysayers say (kills Canikon, NEX, anything in video, and is excellent with lightweight legacy lenses!)
– doesn’t have focus peaking and with that low-res screen proper manual focus lock is impossible
– isn’t weather sealed
– is just tiny bit cheaper than OM-D when you buy viewfinder (and even that is one generation behind compared to today’s offering – Fuji X-1 Pro, NEX7/6)
– no controls (have I said that? NO CONTROLS, not even crucial exp+/- dial which compact P&S cameras have! RX100, Canon G10-G15…)
– bla bla bla
– and mainly – is generally introduced by Olympus to just milk stupid m43 crowd which with its much bigger userbase now has demented as the current Apple iSheep crowd has…
m43 was great system and I loved it (note the past tense).
Began as *very cheap* competition to DSLRs with amazing GF1 + amazing 14-45 japanese kit lens for few bucks. DSLRs have improved *a lot* (D800 or D600!)
m43 hasn’t so much. Hell, Pana 20mm is 3+ years old and still the best/most popular lens? Heh. m43 has just grown to be *very* expensive system (vital Lenses for £1000-£1300? give me a break – its not like I require niche focal lenght) but the sensor hasn’t grown bigger no matter how long I’ve waited 😉
So here you go, unless there’s some cheating done (ISO200=ISO100, ISO3200=ISO1600…) the system is only evolving, and what one thought was a great fresh start (OM-D) is now again the same it was – milking the cow…
I am ready for your flames ;p
You want flames? Here is one…
> its not like I require niche focal lenght) but the sensor hasn’t grown bigger no matter how long I’ve waited
4/3 and m4/3 is about the sensor size, specifically, the active area of the sensor having the same diagonal as a 4/3″ video tube.
Making it bigger would do what? Oh, make all existing lenses unusable.
So lets see, you wanted a flame eh? If a bigger sensor is what you have been waiting for, you are an idiot 🙂
What people like you totally don’t understand is that for a gearhead, the best camera is the one with the best numbers but for a photographer the best camera is the one that is best suited for the job and that he has with him. That can be a lowly ‘travel zoom’ compact or a Leica M9 or a D800 or a D3s or an E-M5 or a GH2 or…
Polish friends not “polish friends” jUST mY 5 cENTS.
It’s polish actually.
i notice the comparison was with E-M5 firmware 1.0
Anyway, i have always thought Olympus’ E-PLx range gives the best image quality of all similar sensors Olys… starting from E-PL1.
I bet it is noise reduction and a consequent increase in shadow noise.