OM-D needs more light, longer exposure times! (imaging-resource.com)

Started May 15, 2012 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Oh Cr@p!

Louis_Dobson wrote:

there is no tooth fairy

I feel sick.

temama OP Contributing Member • Posts: 528
No C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, just marketing

szlevi wrote:

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, this is too boring to debate more. I'm sure E-M5 is a great camera, with its many fine features. I'm glad that Olympus managed well with this model.

No, do not stop, do not give up, SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, GET TO THE ROOT OF THIS EVIL C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol. If anything, this is nothing more that only Olympus' marketing trick.

If it is just fine for you, then it is also fine for me. I don't even own this camera

temama OP Contributing Member • Posts: 528
Re: No, you're right...

Louis_Dobson wrote:

temama wrote:

I don't trolling, I did just a observation - and I'm not the only one with this notice

Quite. Someone made this, entirely incorrect, observation before, a bunch of people who (for assorted warped reasons of their own) want the sensor to be rubbish repeated and now some mathematically challenged people firmy beleive it and keep repeating it, and if you explain to them why they are wrong (which has to be done endlessly...) they just think you are a fanboy. It is very tiresome. Like watching small children who think they've discovered where the tooth fairy lives. The idea there is no tooth fairy is too hard to get through to them.

And the other way around

It's not a problem for me, if you want to believe that E-M5 exp.times and ISO values are in line. It is completely OK to me. I will not continue this debate longer. If the issue is significant, we will hear more about it yet - from other sources.
I have no need to poison this forum with my observations (if you think so).

A great shot, BTW!

zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 3,935
whats your point???

People do not shoot the way you do??? We are talking about users in general and not how you would take a photograph on a tripod and claim that every thing is fine and dandy for you.

If a camera takes larger exposure times and the issue is real for people who shoots handheld.

Louis_Dobson wrote:

temama wrote:

I don't trolling, I did just a observation - and I'm not the only one with this notice

Quite. Someone made this, entirely incorrect, observation before, a bunch of people who (for assorted warped reasons of their own) want the sensor to be rubbish repeated and now some mathematically challenged people firmy beleive it and keep repeating it, and if you explain to them why they are wrong (which has to be done endlessly...) they just think you are a fanboy. It is very tiresome. Like watching small children who think they've discovered where the tooth fairy lives. The idea there is no tooth fairy is too hard to get through to them.

BTW - This is not the first time that the camera manufacturers do tricks with ISO values and exposure methods.

Pentax did so with their K-7 model. This model was equipped with a relatively poor 14.6mp samsung sensor...Click here to read more:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36860449

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33527502

... are set to reduce the brightness so this overexposed raw data appears with the expected brightness in the produced JPEG, although there will be some extra tendency to clip bright tones in colour channels. If one were cynical, they might assume that this is to cause the camera's metering system to Expose To The Right (ETTR) as far as possible and a little bit extra to help mask the somewhat high deep shadow noise of the K-7 as compared to its major competitors...

Whee! So the K7 "cheats" the other way!

In point of fact it is entirely up to the manufacturer to decide where he wants to give you highlight or shadow latitude, and if you as a user prefer the other, fine, write a change.

I over exposed this by a stop as part of a bracket, and in JPG the over exposure is obvious. As you can see, everything, including the highlights, has come right back. The Oly majors on highlight recovery rather than quiet shadows, which is great by me. If you don't like it, ETTR.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Louis_Dobson
Louis_Dobson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,315
Re: whats your point???

It doesn't take longer exposure time. Simple enough for you?

zxaar wrote:

People do not shoot the way you do??? We are talking about users in general and not how you would take a photograph on a tripod and claim that every thing is fine and dandy for you.

If a camera takes larger exposure times and the issue is real for people who shoots handheld.

Louis_Dobson wrote:

temama wrote:

I don't trolling, I did just a observation - and I'm not the only one with this notice

Quite. Someone made this, entirely incorrect, observation before, a bunch of people who (for assorted warped reasons of their own) want the sensor to be rubbish repeated and now some mathematically challenged people firmy beleive it and keep repeating it, and if you explain to them why they are wrong (which has to be done endlessly...) they just think you are a fanboy. It is very tiresome. Like watching small children who think they've discovered where the tooth fairy lives. The idea there is no tooth fairy is too hard to get through to them.

BTW - This is not the first time that the camera manufacturers do tricks with ISO values and exposure methods.

Pentax did so with their K-7 model. This model was equipped with a relatively poor 14.6mp samsung sensor...Click here to read more:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36860449

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33527502

... are set to reduce the brightness so this overexposed raw data appears with the expected brightness in the produced JPEG, although there will be some extra tendency to clip bright tones in colour channels. If one were cynical, they might assume that this is to cause the camera's metering system to Expose To The Right (ETTR) as far as possible and a little bit extra to help mask the somewhat high deep shadow noise of the K-7 as compared to its major competitors...

Whee! So the K7 "cheats" the other way!

In point of fact it is entirely up to the manufacturer to decide where he wants to give you highlight or shadow latitude, and if you as a user prefer the other, fine, write a change.

I over exposed this by a stop as part of a bracket, and in JPG the over exposure is obvious. As you can see, everything, including the highlights, has come right back. The Oly majors on highlight recovery rather than quiet shadows, which is great by me. If you don't like it, ETTR.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

 Louis_Dobson's gear list:Louis_Dobson's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Danel Senior Member • Posts: 2,905
Here's my point

temama wrote:

Danel wrote:

temama wrote:

Fiatopichan wrote:

Not the same day test, the light doesn't always the same everyday. This doesn't prove anything.

Yes, it proves. They use exactly the same kind of studio lighting in these indoor samples.

How do you know the light levels remain the same? They change with dpreview and may with Imaging Resource as well.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40930304

I do not believe in strange coincidences.
Why two different site changed the lighting just when E-M5 came out?

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, this is too boring to debate more. I'm sure E-M5 is a great camera, with its many fine features. I'm glad that Olympus managed well with this model.

I doubt that it was an isolated incidence. Studio lighting on these sites probably changes more often than just when they change equipment. All it would take is to have the lighting source distance to subject to change, or angle of lighting to change a bit, and that would be enough to result in minor changes in metering that would affect shutter speed. My point is that these test shots at various ISOs may result in different shutter speeds because of small changes in lighting, not necessarily because of differences in camera ISO sensitivity or because the manufacturer is "cheating". Just a thought.

 Danel's gear list:Danel's gear list
Canon PowerShot SD800 IS Canon PowerShot G15 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II +5 more
Aleo Veuliah
Aleo Veuliah MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 14,628
Re: Many brands "cheat" on ISO (nt)
-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +4 more
Everdog Veteran Member • Posts: 4,837
DPR said lighting was different

You are correct.

From day one, DPR stated the lighting was different and they they now have different lights with a dimmer switch to better adjust lighting. They said there was less light for the E-M5.
Some people choose to ignore that.

olimpero Regular Member • Posts: 375
I have both E-M5 and GH2

Testing now, gh2, em5, d7000

In my experience, I need add 1/3EV more in GH2 raw file to get the same E-M5 histogram in Lightroom, with the same shutter speed, same lens, same aperture, using two modelling lights,

I can link the raw files

Louis_Dobson
Louis_Dobson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,315
Re: I have both E-M5 and GH2

Yes, but that's working with RAW.

The camera maker's job is to produce an 18% grey in JPG while producing a picture with as little noise and as few blown highlights as possible.

How much or how little he saturates the RAW ro achieve this is his business.

Now, if you step into the process at the RAW stage, you would get a lighter or darker file - except LR automatically compensates.

If the manufacturer chooses to heavily saturate the RAW file, he will tend to gain noise performance at the expense of highlight latitude (this is the GH2 approach, where there is little highlight headroom).

If the manufacturer chooses to lightly saturate the RAW file he will tend to gain highlight latitude at the expense of noise performance (this is the Oly approach - highlights are very well preserved, but surprisingly noise is good too).

So there is nothing to test. Nobody is cheating or not cheating because there is nothing to cheat AT. Provided the pictures develop correctly, how much the maker chooses to saturate the RAW is nobody's business but his.

olimpero wrote:

Testing now, gh2, em5, d7000

In my experience, I need add 1/3EV more in GH2 raw file to get the same E-M5 histogram in Lightroom, with the same shutter speed, same lens, same aperture, using two modelling lights,

I can link the raw files

 Louis_Dobson's gear list:Louis_Dobson's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Detail Man
Detail Man Forum Pro • Posts: 16,402
Re-inventing the Wheel over and over in The Vast Wasteland ...

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Yes, but that's working with RAW.

The camera maker's job is to produce an 18% grey in JPG while producing a picture with as little noise and as few blown highlights as possible.

And ISO itself (a JPG-referenced metric entirely) is defined as reaching a standard output brightness level for 18% grey illumination of the test-target (plus or minus 1/3 EV). Since ISO has meaning only in sRGB color-space and a non-linear Gamma correction curve is applied, this translates to an even lower percentage variation in output RGB color-channel levels (around 118 out of 255).

Since (JPG-referenced only) ISO is that output level (and nothing else), it cannot be "cheated" on

How much or how little he saturates the RAW ro achieve this is his business.

Now, if you step into the process at the RAW stage, you would get a lighter or darker file - except LR automatically compensates.

If the manufacturer chooses to heavily saturate the RAW file, he will tend to gain noise performance at the expense of highlight latitude (this is the GH2 approach, where there is little highlight headroom).

If the manufacturer chooses to lightly saturate the RAW file he will tend to gain highlight latitude at the expense of noise performance (this is the Oly approach - highlights are very well preserved, but surprisingly noise is good too).

So there is nothing to test. Nobody is cheating or not cheating because there is nothing to cheat AT. Provided the pictures develop correctly, how much the maker chooses to saturate the RAW is nobody's business but his.

And where it comes to RAW recording, UniWB configurations (and the like) allow users to come as close as they may dare to the actual RAW-channel saturation limits. Done. Over. Case closed ...

PS - I think that we should start invoicing the next yahoo who starts a thread about this dim BS ...

olimpero Regular Member • Posts: 375
raw files

thanks Louis,

very good and detailed explanation,

anyway, I share the RAW files if anyone want to play with them:

E-M5:
ISO 200, 1/6 f5.6 Leica R 60mm 2.8 lens

http://www.almafotoestudio.es/images/_5160003.ORF

GH2:
ISO 160, 1/6 f5.6 Leica R 60mm 2.8 lens

http://www.almafotoestudio.es/images/_1030543.RW2

D7000:
ISO 100, 1/3 f5.6 Leica R 60mm 2.8 lens

http://www.almafotoestudio.es/images/_DSC2356.NEF

NuFonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: OM-D needs more light, longer exposure times! (imaging-resource.com)

Hmmm... is the superiority of the EM-5 still bothering you that much? Just buy one and maybe the pain will go away

Adventsam wrote:

NuFonaut wrote:

There have been comparison shots between GH2 and EM-5 on another M4/3 forum (am trying to find it) which showed equally bright pictures with the completely same settings. I have no reason to believe the EM-5 differs more than 1/3 EV which is neglible.

The old Panasonics were underrated in terms of Isos, the newer ones aren´t so it makes basically no difference.

Bury, Head, Sand.

Jman13 wrote:

Everyone is inferring things from pictures taken on different days with different cameras under possibly different lighting.

I, however actually own an E-M5, and a GX1 and a GH2. I have tested the E-M5 at the same settings vs the GH2 and the GX1 and in BOTH cases, when shot under constant light at the same time, with the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture, the E-M5 image is BRIGHTER or the same as the GH2 and GX1.

I took a shot of the same subject this morning after seeing this thread, at the same time with the exact same settings on both cameras (ISO 200, f/2.8, 1/15s, 45mm). When sampling the dead center of the same middle toned square (it was a calendar I shot) on the shot from each camera:

The dead center of the GX1 shot showed values in Lightroom of: 60.9, 60.4, 64.0

The E-M5 in the exact same spot? 60.5, 60.9, 64.1.

-- hide signature --

Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlight.com
Jordan Steele Photography - http://www.jordansteele.com

-- hide signature --

What´s that noise?

From one of the Canon Forums:

'I just came back from my first holiday with the 5D II (I think my wife was there as well). '

-- hide signature --

What´s that noise?

From one of the Canon Forums:

'I just came back from my first holiday with the 5D II (I think my wife was there as well). '

NuFonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: Louis already covered this elsewhere

Good post.

It´s interesting that to a few theoretical number games matter much more than obviously technicaly superior pictures.

And all this just to win an imagined ego contest on an internet forum...

Tim F 101 wrote:

If it 'cheated' the M5 would either have more blown highlights (due to overexposing) or else less recoverable information in underexposed areas, depending on which sort of cheating we are talking about. An M5 image both has more recoverable highlights and more information in underexposed dark areas than an equivalent image by a GH2. Therefore its sensor has significantly better dynamic range than the previous best m4/3 sensor. That measurement in fact determines how good your pictures look, not how well ISO is calibrated.

-- hide signature --

What´s that noise?

From one of the Canon Forums:

'I just came back from my first holiday with the 5D II (I think my wife was there as well). '

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads