Why is Olumpus better at JPG than Canon and Nikon?

[bengtb]

I have been usin Oly a year now and compelling question that haunts me is that Olympus is so much better at making it from Raw to jpg.

Why isnt Canon and Nikon sompeting in that area...saves me a head lot of image editing...make me more creative with my shots...

 

[epp_b]

Says who?

 

[bengtb]

only my simple thoughts of course...prove me wrong and i be happy...

 

[epp_b]

You made the claim, you prove it first.

I never even made a counter-claim, I was just asking whether this is based on your experience or if you recently read some reviews or something.

 

[bengtb]

...Olympus and Canon...

I used much more Raw with my Canon. Using bibble...there is not as much editing with Olympus than with Canon...

Using a E-3 though before i used an EOS 350D

 

[Derrel]

Olympus is known for delicious,rich,saturated,fairly highly-sharpened out of camera JPEG images....almost eye-candy like images. That is the Olympus "rep"...it's fairly well known actually.

Another brand that has been known for good out of camera JPEG images is FujiFilm; the S3 and S5 Pro bodies can produce very rich,vibrant, highly-saturated JPEG images using the film simulation modes.

 

[musicaleCA]

The pressure has been on Canon and Nikon to improve their RAW capture as much as possible for awhile now. That's where their efforts are going, because the users of their products are demanding it.

 

[bengtb]

That is probably part of the answer... focus has been too much on Raw that theu forgot their jpg...

 

[epp_b]

bengtb, if your claim is that Olympus JPEGs are better straight out the camera than those from Nikon or Canon, please post example photos.

focus has been too much on Raw that theu forgot their jpg...

As it should be. Shooting RAW retains as much information as possible, while JPEG throws some away. Besides, I'd rather have my JPEGs completely flat so I can manipulate them later rather than having them oversaturated and oversharpened in the case that I want to do the complete opposite to them in post.

 

[patrickt]

I don't understand two things. One is the time saved. When I download my raw files to my editor, I have defaults set with a lot more precision than any in-camera processor. A high percentage of my shots both because of the nature of the shot and the precision of the exposure don't need any editing. A few shots get more attention. I'm not interested in creating graphic art so my time in editing is minimal.

The other thing I don't understand is the passionate devotion of Olympus users. Perhaps Olympus is just better at predicting what their users are likely to like but I suspect it's more like Apple computers where the users "love" whatever they're given.

 

[inTempus]

The other thing I don't understand is the passionate devotion of Olympus users. Perhaps Olympus is just better at predicting what their users are likely to like but I suspect it's more like Apple computers where the users "love" whatever they're given.

That's a pretty off base comment. You're "given" what Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. gives you. That is, unless you have an "in" at Canon or Nikon and you're able to order custom cameras.

Last time I checked they all had pros and cons. But then I don't have custom Canon's either.