kwalsh wrote:
No, actually it is DxO's concept of ISO that is "creative". Olympus ISO is spot on as is its meter. You'll want to read up on what ISO actually is. Articles about that both on DxO and DPR.
What is going on here is that Olympus is protecting highlights more than the other manufacturers. That choice of highlight headroom has noting to do with ISO as the standards specify it. DxO has its own definition of ISO based on the saturation level of the RAW file, there is no standard that specifies that at all they just made it up as it was one useful way to compare sensor performance.
Thanks for the correction Ken. Still, DxO definition shows a larger discrepancy between their measurements and the manufacturer concept than with basically any other sensor I have checked on their site. I would take as Olympus ISO definition is rather odd.
At any case, the excellence of the OMD sensor shows and I will probably be a happy owner of a converted EPL5 in the near future
PS shouldnt a ISO measurement that standardizes several sensors ISOs be considered more like a "standard" while the private sauce measurements of a given company should be considered ....lets say...."proprietary" or in a more facetious way...."creative"?
Jman13 wrote:
The newest Sony APS-C and full frame sensors have crazy good DR..
But I don't think it's fair to say that it's really falling behind. I mean, the DR on the E-m5 appears to be better than any Canon camera in existence, and I don't hear constant complaints of people with their 5D IIs and IIIs having issues with DR.
Yeah, I don't buy it. I'll wait for some different testing, you know, one that doesn't put the OM-D's dynamic range between 9-10 stops (vs the 12+ tested everywhere else). If true, though, it'd be nice...pulling some magic out of that sensor. The E-PL5 looks like a great camera. I've thought about trading my GX1 for it, but ultimately, I don't think I will.
More DR is always nice, though I think the jump from 10.5 EV to 12EV is critical, as most tones in bright daylight will fit in a 12 EV window, but not in a 10.5 EV window. For this reason, the jump the OM-D provided was really a big improvement. Further improvements are always welcome, but not quite as critical to my shooting.
More than 12 comes into play for things like sunset landscapes shooting the sun in frame with shadowed foreground, but a two stop bracket/merge fixes those pretty well, so it's not as critical for me as that earlier step.
I don't think there are any surprises there in the testing. I do think it's cool that the mini 2 and E-PL5 are getting the same sensor (unfortunately, not the same 5-axis IBIS, but supposedly an improvement over the old iteration). Sony's really given themselves an uphill battle positioning the NEX against such a good performer with a more mature lens line.
Actually, the Sony sensors are supposedly a bit better, and larger, so they clearly make the better alt platform. I don't know if they are aware of that...
I would be more worried if I were Canon. The E-M5 is beating many of the low- to mid-range Canon DSLRs in image quality. Crazy when you think that Canon was the leader in CMOS sensors just a few years ago.
I would seriously wait for a more comprehensive test. I've no idea who does the testing at m43eu, but they're screwing something or other up quite bad.
According to their measurements, linear extrapolation from ISO3200 would put the base ISO DR at about 16Ev. Or alternatively that even with NR turned off, you get about 4Ev of noise suppression (16x lower pixel-pixel contrast) at ISO3200.
Neither answer is even remotely probable, so take the claims with a few million grains of salt.
carstenw wrote:
Actually, the Sony sensors are supposedly a bit better, and larger, so they clearly make the better alt platform. I don't know if they are aware of that...
Agreed, but I think that's only going to please a limited subset of shooters (like people in this forum). But if you walked into a camera store looking for a small camera and some system AF lenses, I wonder which would present better. It seems to me like the advantage would go to Oly.
carstenw wrote:
I would be more worried if I were Canon. The E-M5 is beating many of the low- to mid-range Canon DSLRs in image quality. Crazy when you think that Canon was the leader in CMOS sensors just a few years ago.
Again, agreed. If I were Canon, I'd be a more than a little concerned about the recent threats to the company's dominance, and not just from Oly.
freaklikeme wrote:
Agreed, but I think that's only going to please a limited subset of shooters (like people in this forum). But if you walked into a camera store looking for a small camera and some system AF lenses, I wonder which would present better. It seems to me like the advantage would go to Oly.
It might well, but the E-M5 is not a cheap camera, the 5N was about half, and I presume the 5R is about the same. But I am guessing that the determining factor here is more likely to be which company gives a higher profit margin. The salespeople are going to be pushing that system, and I bet it is the Sony.
.