Olympus Pen E-PL7: shooting quality | Part 1 - software and green mode

Hello GT! Once upon a time we talked about the Olympus Pen E-PL7 camera and promised the "second part" in just a couple of days. Well, a couple of days dragged on a bit, then more shots were taken, then new impressions appeared, and the article was slowly put off, grew, filled with details ... In general, this multi-page Talmud is unlikely to be mastered by the whole at a time, so it turns into a short series of articles about various aspects of the camera.

The topic for today is the “green” mode, software, camera JPEG, shooting in difficult conditions without using manual settings and some other features of the camera. Go!

Brief Preface

If someone has forgotten, but doesn’t want to read the previous article, we consider the Super Compact Micro Four Thirds (Micro 4: 3) mirrorless format. Here are its characteristics:

Matrix	Micro 4/3 17.2 MPix (effective - 16.1), crop factor 1: 2.0
Sensitivity	100-25 600 ISO in steps of шагом EV
Shutter speed range	1/4000 - 60 seconds in increments of ⅓, ½, 1 EV
Supported Image Formats	JPEG, 12-bit RAW, MOV, AVI
Maximum shooting resolution	Photo: 4608 × 3456, video: 1920 × 1080
Optical stabilization	In three axes, matrix shift
Autofocus	Hybrid, phase contrast, 81 points.
Source of power	Li-ion BLS-50, 8.7 Wh
Interfaces	HDMI, USB, A / V output, WiFi
Dimensions and weight	115 × 67 × 38.5 mm, 359 grams without a lens, with batteries and a memory card.

The camera belongs to the relatively “inexpensive” mirrorless, but common genes with other Olympus devices have led to the fact that the E-PL7 uses a powerful processor, a fast focusing system and a good optical stabilizer. At the same time, the matrix of this unit is relatively small (crop factor 2.0), but still much more than 99% of soap dishes and “super zoom”: that is, you can expect a good depth of field and some problems with portraiture. In the course of the articles, we will deal with these issues, with optics, and with the capabilities of the matrix itself, but for now - the “green” mode, the Kit lens (Olympus 14-42 mm, 1: 3.5 - 5.6) and rather difficult shooting conditions that can meet almost everyone.

About user cases

Do not forget that each product should be considered in terms of typical tasks for it. Of course, we can always hammer in nails with a microscope, but it’s better to use normal tools. In the case of the E-PL7, it is difficult to single out a specific target audience. I would call "photo enthusiasts" and "amateur photographers." Adjusted for the fact that this is the only “camera” in the family, people who are far from the words “shutter speed” and “aperture” will sometimes use it, and no one will buy a huge parking lot of optics: 1, maximum 2 additional lenses corresponding to your photo attraction Is the limit for such a system. A kind of camera for holidays, vacations and everyday shots.

Why did I choose this particular audience? The camera is compact and lightweight, it shoots amazingly in “simple” modes, practically does not make mistakes, and at the same time lends itself to “modding” in the form of good high-aperture optics, and it can shoot well in RAW, which are pleasantly processed. Okay, let's move on to test shots and discuss the camera itself.

Typical evening

The bright sun is slowly creeping up to the horizon, a pleasant evening, a light and warm breeze ... At least in Milan, at least in Paris, at least in Copenhagen, Zurich, Moscow, or in your country house, such shooting conditions will easily confuse the camera’s automation. Firstly, there are a lot of contrasting objects due to low light, and the color of the sun (and all objects around) is different from what you can see during the day. Secondly, it’s easy to catch the “back” light in a beautiful landscape, which does not add simplicity to the analysis either in terms of metering, in determining the white balance, or in the focusing system. Thirdly, it may already be dark enough in the shadows so that an excellent camera turns into a noisy or blurry half frame shot. In general, a complete set of problems. And that's how the E-PL7 deals with them.

Dogs

Note: in the title of each of the subsections is a RAW file processed on a PC that is as close as possible to the “original” vision of what was happening. Original camera JPEG and RAW, converted with "zero" characteristics inside each of the sections are compressed up to 1200px on the long side. The originals are available at the links under the photos. When converting RAW, 16 bit per channel was used. Full-sized JPEGs weigh approximately 7.5 - 8.5 MB.



Three objects of completely different brightness against a contrasting background. At the moment, the sky was cloudy and the lighting was relatively neutral, so there are no questions about determining the white balance. Camera JPEG turned out to be a bit noisy and lost in detail, in addition, the optics were clearly not enoughdepth of field to convey the entire scene (at least dogs) to the depth of field. Not everything is perfect with the dynamic range either: the camera tried to most accurately convey the color of the main objects, so the sky just blew out white:


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

In addition, noise reduction worked quite aggressively on the image. In principle, you can watch a photograph on the monitor, print it in 10x15 format - too, the question is how much information is in RAW and what can be pulled out of it.

The original RAW file (ORF format) on average weighs from 13 to 16 megabytes (I climbed above 15 only once, usually all files take ~ 13.5 - 14 MB) and is very different from what we see on the “camera” JPEG ' e, contrast is less, details are a little more:


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Flowers

A little later that evening I shot this:



Warm lighting, flowers that have an already difficult to transmit hue, and even the camera in "P" mode. The camera passed the test with flying colors. Although camera JPEG is not as atmospheric as the picture above, but there is enough detail on it, the main subject was surprisingly close in color to what I saw with my own eyes, and a good flu favorably separated the background from the foreground.


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Detailing the frame is pleasant. Especially when you consider that this is a whale lens with not the coolest optical properties among the line. The original RAW in this case looks completely unattractive. The image in it is even less contrasting: the background on the left became even brighter, and the flowers were lost among the branches due to the high brightness of the whole scene. Well, you all saw the result of processing above.


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Shadow shot

A sufficiently bright object is shot from the shade. There is no direct source of light in the frame, most of the "dark" part: grass in the foreground, a good third - "bright" in the form of the sky. Difficult conditions in terms of determining the exposure of the entire scene for camera automation: HDRi just begs here.



The original shot, alas, is not so balanced. The camera tried to “pull out” the middle and foregrounds, completely losing the evening sky:


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Shumodav worked not very aggressively, because even on the original RAW'e due to difficult shooting conditions , not the highest resolution optics and the camera itself, individual blades are worked out so-so.


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original(4.6k * 3.6k)}

At the same time, I would not call the frame and its interpretation by camera automation a crime in the field of photography. In the end, we are talking about a compact mirrorless and automatic mode, and the information in the source file was enough to get a beautiful sky and nice colors.

Against the sun, attempt # 1

Oh, and here automation should be frankly painful. A bright source of light, contrasting objects, a lot of different plans ... In general, a complete set of problems that the E-PL7 was confronted with in vain.



It is expected that under these conditions, the sensor saves. Lens flare, problems with exposure determination, aggressive noise reduction work where it turned out “dark” (anyway, no one will see it, yeah).


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

The original RAW contained enough information so that the frame could be pulled out to be beautiful, but there's nothing to be done with luminance noise.


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Nevertheless, luminance noise does not hurt the eyes as much as color, so ... let's call it “grain” and we will say that it is intended. - = ^ _ ^ = -

Against the sun, attempt # 2

The task is even more difficult, because contrasting objects are “evenly” smeared over all the plans of photography. Alas, here the camera simply did not have enough dynamic range.



Camera JPEG tried to capture the essence of the foreground and middle plan, completely losing the sky.


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Even shooting with a ^{flash plug} did not save the situation: the dynamic range was still not enough. In such conditions, only HDRi will save on a tripod with manual shooting parameters, and still, it will not save from the white "circle" instead of the sun.


^{Camera JPEG EV -2, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

The original RAWs simply do not contain traces of noise reduction. In this regard, they are also helpless, squeezing a beautiful frame out of them, alas, will not work, only if you collect HDRi.


<sup>RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)


RAW EV -2 -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)</sup>

Contrast object on a light background

In this case, a pine branch with a cone acted as a “model”. Shooting such a thing against a background of almost colorless sky causes certain problems for the camera. Firstly, the frame is just perfect for generating chromatic aberration . Secondly, a contrasting object would be nice to translate into a “normal” view from the point of view of exposure, however, the whole background is quite bright, and the camera will have a difficult choice, which is more important: general exposure or “private”. This is partly decided by the choice of the metering method . A “partial” one would do well here, but by default there is a “center-weighted” one or some Super-Intellectual-Auto.



Actually, the center-weighted metering worked as it was intended, but the whole photo turned out to be dark.


^{Camera JPEG EV + 2, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)}
But its version with EV +2 is completely normal:


^{Camera JPEG EV + 2, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

E-PL7 in this case overexposed the sky, but made the main object of the composition neutral. In addition, if you look at the original RAW, it becomes noticeable that the automation worked here: there are less chromatic aberrations on camera JPEG than on RAW:


^{RAW EV + 2 -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6 k)}

Dynamic scene in the shade

This shot was actually shot in a fairly dark area. That is, getting used to the lighting so that the eyes saw something like the one shown below was possible, but it had to be done intentionally.



The flow of water causes potential problems for the autofocus system, otherwise the frame is the same as the frame. Here's what Olympus E-PL7 did:


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

I would say that the result is as close to reality as possible without getting used to the eyes. With resizing for social networks, the picture quality is more than sufficient, but after developing RAW it becomes clear that there is enough information in it to get a brighter picture with approximately the same quality. It is clearly lighter than camera JPEG, and there are more details on the leaves on the right.


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px,original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Contrast scenes

There is almost no direct illumination in this shot, however, due to sunset, the sky changes from gray-blue in the east to almost white and then to pale peach in the west (it did not fit in the shot).



Many plans, contrasting vegetation, difficult to determine the white balance of the scene. There should be no problems with exposure. We open JPEG from the camera:


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k) The center-}

weighted metering “knocked out” the sky, the colors turned out to be close to what I would like to see. At the same time, the scene lost both in depth and in contrast. RAW seemed to me more saturated (and even less contrasting), and at the same time contained enough additional information to restore the sky and give the frame a complete look.


^{RAW -> Jpeg без изменений, 1200px, оригинал (4.6k*3.6k)}

Немного красненького

Back light, and even colored, and even a contrasting translucent object in the foreground.



Alas, the conclusions from the previous photographs are very obvious, and what we will see later fits into the general trend.


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Bleached sky, saved details and a good exposure of the main plan. Not ideal, but for such conditions - more than. Moreover, RAW, oddly enough, contains even more information in the shadows:


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

And at the same time it gave the "pull" of the sky and lights. Of course, the place where the sun was breaking through the foliage cannot be corrected by anything. But here, at least shoot on Hasselblad, the dynamic range and laws of physics cannot be fooled.

Backlit subject photography

A stunning landscape, the setting sun and some supercar. Oh, where I was, neither a supercar, nor just a clean car was not. But someone left this marvelous example of heavy construction equipment.



The sun gives the background stunningly deep and atmospheric radiance, pebbles - bright glare, in the rays of light flying specks of dust lit up brightly. In principle, if you don’t find fault with the picture “squeezed” by colors, the camera coped well. Even with JPEGs, simple means would make a good shot: a little more contrast and saturation, and the point is in the hat.


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

RAW, as usual, contains more information in the shadows (the wheels got more details, the contrast fence on the right and the wooden fence on the left, too), and no one rode noiselessly on the grass.


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Some greens

In fact, the whole frame is a test for JPEG detail.



The camera version lacks juiciness and micro-contrast, but on the whole it’s not bad, even it didn’t do anything criminal:


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, the original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

RAW, by tradition, is a bit less contrast and contains more noise that no one smoothed:


^{RAW -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

The test passed, Olympus ^{did a great job} .

Shooting a contrasting monochrome light source

This picture seems elementary at first glance, but many cameras (including telephone ones) save it. Coals give out red (in some places - orange) light, black by themselves, around there are also objects with "medium" illumination. However, the street was already dark enough for the camera.



The whole scene was filmed with a flash plug, and the “original” frame turned out to be so-so:


^{Camera JPEG, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k) The}

optical stabilizer did not save. However, a frame with -1 EV turned out to be normal. I would not even call it underexposed, it just has its own atmosphere and is much closer to the "original" perception of the picture with the eye:


^{Camera JPEG EV -1, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

Camera JPEG with EV -1 turned out to be even a bit darker and sharper than the resulting RAW with the same exposure compensation.


^{RAW EV -1 -> Jpeg unchanged, 1200px, original (4.6k * 3.6k)}

And with processing it can even be ^passed off as a “daytime” shooting: the original RAW with EV -1 allowed the “underexposed” frame of the camera to reach “normal” state:

Short conclusions on automatic shooting

The camera itself surprisingly accurately selects the settings: it doesn’t lie in white balance, it tries to work correctly with exposure, the processor and software surrender only in frankly indecent situations where the image does not fit into any gate of the dynamic range of a conventional matrix. Giving the camera to parents on vacation, you can safely be sure that the JPEG + RAW option will give you the opportunity to quickly correct the frames received in the "green" mode, and most of them, even in difficult situations, will be adequately perceived by the camera's automation. RAWs do not take up much space, so there will be no storage problems.

Camera JPEGs almost always suffer from a slight overexposure of the sky when trying to capture something: apparently, according to Olympus engineers, architecture and landscapes are more important than gradients. In part, they can be understood, because they remove the Coliseum, the Eiffel Tower and the other Kremlin (sometimes with themselves), and not the blue sky. On the other hand, underexposure is correctable, and overexposure is overexposure. On the whole, it seems that the camera is more concerned about getting a suitable RAW, rather than about ready-made JPEGs.

PS: The post is big, the GT engine is not new, and the editor smelled like mothballs, if something broke somewhere, fell off or doesn’t show - let me know in PM, I’ll understand. Thanks in advance.