I've just been converting some high speed (ISO 1600) photos taken last night at the carneval in Bellinzona. The differences between Adobe Camera Raw and Olympus Studio are really quite striking. I think I prefer the colour from Olympus Studio - I think it is more accurate. But ACR has more punch. Finally you end up wondering which is closest to the "truth" ... Converted with Adobe Camera Raw: Converted with Olympus Studio (noise reduction ON, High Speed): Noise reduction is also interesting. I thought, from screen previews, that ACR was better. But on review in Photoshop, I found that Studio seems to do a better job - it reduces colour noise better, without losing so much detail. Of course it is not so easy to do a straight comparison, as the two programs have different controls. But for batch processing on this evidence I might tend to prefer Studio. But there are plenty more parameters to fiddle with yet. 100% zoom, ACR: 100% zoom, Studio: One strange thing I discovered in ACR (to me anyway) is that the Preview button toggles between the current setting and the "initial" settings. Well, obviously it has to start somewhere, but it might be nicer if it used a "flat" setting as the reference, with all settings zero or neutral.

I don't know anything about this guy - just encountered his URL on the Chasseur d'Images forum. But his daily photos, posted on his very low key website, are seriously addictive!

With all the talk of accessories and rumours of 3rd party E-System components, it is worth mentioning that one already exists: the Really Right Stuff Arca Swiss style plate for the E-1, model number BOE-1 A. This is a really worthwhile addition to any E-1 system. I use a Acratech ball head, with an Arca Swiss style clamp, and in combination these produce a very stable platform. I also have an 84D plate for the 50-200mm lens. It isn't a perfect match - unlike the body plate it isn't a specific design - but it works. There is also a photo of an E-1 / HLD2 with an RRS plate at Digital Outback Photo, but I don't have this one (yet), neither do I know the model number. Anyway, RRS stuff is highly recommended.

Quick post for today:

Jon Ragnarsson has updated his Four Thirds System web page. Well worth a visit for E1 fans.

I've had a chance now to evaluate the differences between the Olympus Studio RAW conversion, and the new Photoshop CS Camera Raw 2.1. So far it isn't an easy choice. (an inhabitant of Novaggio, Ticino, taken with the 50-200mm lens, handheld) ACR has the big advantages of histogram display and responsiveness. The live over / under exposure warnings you can get when dragging the exposure / shadow sliders are really good. So for exposure control, no problem. ACR wins. Olympus Studio just has a single slider for increasing or reducing exposure, and, incredibly, no histogram in the RAW converter. On the other hand, the noise reduction algorithms in Studio seem more sophisticated. ACR insists on applying colour noise reduction by default, as I've said before, but both experiment and general consensus indicate that except at ISO 3200 the E1 doesn't suffer much from this kind of noise. What is also nice in Studio is the (presumably) intelligent lens distortion correction. There's nothing like this in ACR. It does have vignetting and chromatic aberration correction, but, again, these are not known as E1 faults. However, ACR does have one big advantage, at least according to Digital Outback Photo's Digital Photography Workflow Handbook (highly recommended by the way), which is that the internal resizing algorithm is very good. Certainly comparing 2:1 with 1:1 ACR output I could see little significant difference. So, whilst it is nice to think that Studio has some E1 specific tricks up its sleeve, especially since I paid for it, on balance, unless you've got a lot of time to spare, are really worried about lens distortion, and don't care too much about exposure correction, Photoshop CS ACR 2.1 seems the way to go. At least until Olympus decides to put some real development effort into Studio.