So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Questions thread
NZ Scott
Senior MemberPosts: 3,512Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great
In reply to Anders W, Mar 15, 2013

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

It's actually not, but I'd welcome you to give it 'the old college try'.

Okay.

My understanding of Dpreview's argument is that it is based on jpegs. Essentially, Dpreview says that the E-M5 underexposes by a stop and then pushes the image data in firmware, and the result is a jpeg that looks normally exposed.

Where did you see DPR make that statement? Please provide a link to the specific passages you have in mind.

For example, if you choose ISO 800, the E-M5 will shoot at ISO 400 and then brighten the Raw data by the equivalent of a stop and present you with a jpeg that looks correctly exposed.

The E-M5 will shoot at ISO 800 just as much as any other camera set to the same ISO. It will amplify the sensor signal slightly less than some other cameras (e.g., the GH3) before writing the data to the RAW file, thereby leaving more highlight headroom in the RAW data. Since it amplifies the RAW data less than some other cameras before writing them to the RAW file, it has to scale them more upwards than some other cameras in the next step, when it converts those RAW data to out-of-camera jpegs.

Dpreview argues that there is nothing wrong with doing this.

If "this" refers to what I wrote above, rather than to your (probably partly mistaken) interpretation of what DPR said, there isn't anything wrong with it.

The problems start when you shoot in Raw and process the data yourself on your computer using, for example, ACR. Initially the Raw image looks fine, but when you start to adjust shadows and highlights you find that there is little leeway because the exposure has already been pushed by a full stop.

No, it hasn't. This is a misunderstanding on your part. The total amplification/gain/scaling that takes place when shooting at ISO 800 can be divided into two parts: before the data are written to the RAW file and when the RAW data are converted to jpegs. In the first stage, the E-M5 applies less gain than some other cameras. In the second stage, it applies more than some other cameras to compensate for the fact that it used less in the first stage. The total amount of gain applied is the same as for other cameras (e.g., the GH3).

Compare this with data from a camera that has shot at ISO 800 and not manipulated the data.

There is no more manipulation of the RAW data on the E-M5 than on any other camera.

Raw from such a camera has a lot of leeway for manipulation - certainly a lot more than the E-M5 - because it has not already been pushed close to its limit.

See above.

If you search through the forums and on other parts of the internet you will find a lot of comments from Olympus shooters, and E-M5 users in particular, who say that Raw images from their cameras do not respond well to being manipulated in software.

I haven't seen any such comments, probably due to the fact that the E-M5 RAWs are better than those of any other MFT cameras before it and at least as good as any one released later.

I'm not trying to push any particular barrow here. I'm an Olympus shooter myself.

Whether you are an Olympus user or not is of no importance here. But you appear to have an insufficient understanding of what the ISO norm the manufacturers follow really means and not, and what the DxOMark "measured ISOs" really mean and not. This makes you draw conclusions that are simply invalid.

I am reacting to what you say not because I am an E-M5 or Olympus "fanboy" or because I want to put you down but because there is apparently a lot of misunderstandings of what the various things called ISO really mean and not and I think those misunderstandings are unfortunate.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs.

Yes, because that is all the ISO Standard applies to, as the authoritative sources to which I linked and which I quoted make quite clear..

If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

'Should be' according to whom?

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?

tex

See above.

-- hide signature --

Well, that's good news.

-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Sony QX1 Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
+1New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow