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
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 5,170
It's my fault, I admit it

texinwien wrote:

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that I mentioned in the previous thread.

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

scott_mcleod wrote:

Some of what you are seeing in the superiority of the Oly is an artifact of the E-M5 under-rating its ISO by about a full stop across the range (i.e. ISO 1600 on the camera is actually only 782)

Hi Scott, that's an oft-repeated mantra, but it is a misconception - one that DPReview have been very specific in countering - I will include some links to official DPReview statements at the end of this post.

The ISO 12232:2006 standard (Exposure Index Standard) only applies to the sRGB output of a camera (practically, the out of camera JPEGs). It says nothing about the RAW files, and the 'under-rating' you mention here is only seen in the RAW files. As such, that 'under-rating' is allowed by the ISO standard. Meaning, in effect, that it's not an under-rating at all.

The E-M5 is standards-compliant in regards to ISO 12232:2006.

Hi Tex,

Thanks for referring me to this thread. I think your comment above misses the point. Nobody is saying that ISO 12232 doesn't allow a manufacturer to call ISO whatever they like (it does and they do), and who cares whether Olympus is underrating on purpose or not (we'll never know).

It seems you haven't read all of the posts I linked for you. As DPReview says, there is no overrating or underrating going on.

The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation, as Scott says. Here is one more example, EM5 vs a G3 .

And this is your misconception. It is, first and foremost, apples to apples. Secondarily, it wouldn't matter if it were apples to oranges, instead.

I'll answer your misconception in the other thread. You've linked to the exact post of yours there to which I referred earlier.


Duck, duck, duck.  All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger. You may be fine with comparing apples to oranges when deciding to outlay a fair amount of cash.  I presume most other people are not.  Here is another example to drive the point home.

Jack out.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow