Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Canon versus Olympus re RAW files

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    Camairish
    Camairish  81276 forum posts Scotland
    30 May 2010 - 12:00 PM

    I've been using an Olympus E-P2 for the last 5 months and the RAW files are so much better than those of the 5D (Mk I). The colours are superb and there is never any dust to worry about. In short, the RAWs take so much less time to process with the Oly than the Canon.
    I'm selling the 5D as I'm not really using it any more. I've kept my L lenses (24-105 & 70-200) and my question is - do the newer Canon bodies (full frame not important) have better colour rendition than the 5D? I shoot mostly stock landscapes with the DSLR and use the m4/3 for street/candid stuff.

    At the moment I've gone back to using the Canon lenses on my old EOS 100 with film!

    Ian.

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    30 May 2010 - 12:00 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    cameracat
    cameracat  108575 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
    30 May 2010 - 12:25 PM

    What your seeing there is the march of technology.

    My other half noticed the same improvements, Each time she upgraded her Canon bodies.......Smile

    Good though the 5D is its still old in digital terms, Lets face it it pre-dates the 20D.

    Now my other half uses a Canon 5D MkII and 40D bodies, All the old ones have been sold, In her words the RAW images from either of these, Are good enough to go straight to print, Where as the older cameras raw output would almost always need processing to some degree or other.

    For my part the same applies to my Nikon bodies, My D700 for example produces fantastic raw files, Hardly need any processing at all.

    Not taking anything away from the older bodies ( whatever brand ) But in this digital age, Nothing stays still with new developments coming almost weekly.

    Those who constantly tell people a lens is a better upgrade than a body, May have had a point way way back in film days, But the same is not true in digital world.

    That said a lens is always a better financial invetsment......Grin

    This years must have camera, Is next years Ebay bargain......Sad Thats digital for you.....Wink

    Camairish
    Camairish  81276 forum posts Scotland
    30 May 2010 - 3:24 PM

    Thanks Vince, that's what I suspected. The 5D RAWS look remarkably lacklustre in comparison with the E-P2's and I've lost the will (and don't have the knowledge) to spend hours in front of the PC trying to tease out the image that I saw in the field.

    The 5D body etc are on eBay now and I'll revert to film (EOS 100 & XPan) and continue using the E-P2 for digital until I research a new digital Canon body.

    Any advice on what recent Canon body will produce better quality RAWS than the old 5D? I'll be using it almost exclusively at low ISO with no flash and tripod mounted, I use aperture priority or manual only and don't need millions of focus points etc. Stock landscapes are pretty undemanding on the technology front - I just need better Canon RAWS !

    Many thanks,

    Ian.

    cameracat
    cameracat  108575 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
    30 May 2010 - 4:03 PM


    Quote: recent Canon body will produce better quality RAWS

    Well according to my ( very fussy other half " KathyW " ) Her 5D MkII is a big jump on the mark 1 in that respect, Her 40D is also a big favourite with her.

    So the 5D MkII get a big thumbs up from her, She still loves her 40D too, I'm guessing the 50D might be a little better still.

    If your not in a big hurry and get the chance, Get some test shots in via a friendly camera shop, Speaking as a Nikon shooter, The 5D MkII output looks very impressive straight from the camera, The 40D has always impressed since it first appeared, Like all things you can push them further, But I/We don't think they need pushing quite so hard as the older camera bodies.

    Wink

    Camairish
    Camairish  81276 forum posts Scotland
    30 May 2010 - 8:37 PM

    Cheers Vince - I'll check out the 40D or 50D - the 5DMkII probably out of my budget just now (thanks to a new Triumph Thunderbird!)

    Ian.

    Last Modified By Camairish at 30 May 2010 - 8:37 PM
    Phil1958
    Phil1958  5272 forum posts Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
    2 Jun 2010 - 12:58 AM

    I've noticed that I'm doing less processing in RAW with my 550 & 50D than with my Mk1 5D, I always use AV & -1/3rd of a stop. I use PSE 8 and the levels are more or less spot on with the newer bodies, might put the 5D on e bay and save up for a Mk2 or even a 7D - didn't realise that the 5D pre dates the 20D though!

    meercat
    meercat  5278 forum posts United Kingdom
    2 Jun 2010 - 12:38 PM

    Sorry off topic, but the 20D (2004) is older than the 5D(2005) both solid performers, and still very usable.

    john64
    john64 e2 Member 9824 forum postsjohn64 vcard England
    2 Jun 2010 - 1:11 PM

    If I was you I'd take the time to save for a 5DmkII (or maybe even the mkIII, which can't be too far away). I got myself one at Focus as I've recently got into portraits/studio work and the FF and general overall quality is giving me some great results.

    Triumph Thunderbird eh? That reminds me, I need to update my CBR600. Maybe a chat with my treasurer, sorry wife, is in order. Grin

    Coleslaw
    Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
    2 Jun 2010 - 1:16 PM


    Quote: I'll check out the 40D or 50D

    If you are disappointed with raw files from 5D1, I doubt you will like it much from 40D or 50D.

    Also, I am very surprise to hear that raw file from EP2 is better than 5D1. But I don't own neither, so can't say anything about them.

    Last Modified By Coleslaw at 2 Jun 2010 - 1:17 PM
    strawman
    strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    2 Jun 2010 - 1:53 PM

    I think it may well depend on the RAW converter, the Adobe RAW converter always gave me disappointing results without a lot of adjustments, Capture 1 or DPP get it much closer out of the box.

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.