E-M5 Firmware update... V 2.0 today..

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
milek
Regular MemberPosts: 128
Like?
Re: You have no idea
In reply to dpalugyay, 7 months ago

dpalugyay wrote:

what Olympus intends to do with future firmware, so your ASSumption is just that. I just read that focus peaking is still a possibility to be released via firmware.

Have you considered the pretty likely possibility that the website in question simply got the details wrong?

They mentioned a "firmware update on the way". What do you know -- a new firmware shows up for E-M5 just a few hours later! Isn't it logical to assume that that is the update they meant, and not some another, mythical update further in the future? Do also note that the website only mentioned one update...

Yes, these are all assumptions, including yours, but there is also this thing called Occam's razor.

But hey, if you enjoy getting your hopes up on the flimsiest of "evidence", be my guest... Personally, I expect 2.0 to be the "swan song" update for E-M5. If Olympus wanted to port more features from newer models, they would've done it in 2.0 -- there is no reason to do it piecemeal over multiple updates.

Then again, who am I to second-guess Olympus -- if somebody asked me 24h ago for chances of seeing the 2.0 firmware, I would've laughed, yet here it is -- so it's not like I wish for you to be wrong...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 18,631Gear list
Like?
Using 100 ISO equivalent.......
In reply to kenjim, 7 months ago

kenjim wrote:

Wait, we have ISO100 in E-PL5?

Always. By sneaky means.

Do what the other ones do and over-expose ISO 200 by 1 stop but be careful with the highlights.

In the cameras that have the 100 ISO feature, like E-PL1  and E-M1 etc, they warn in the manuals that 100 ISO makes for less noise at the expense of decreased dynamic range.

If the scene has a very low dynamic range then maybe 2 stops over is possible for 50 ISO equivalent.

It's actually called "expose to the right", use the RAW and then alter the brightness down to what you want to see in post process.

Getting the jpeg to "look right" in the camera is a sure way to get mediocre results at times. Use RAW, expose to the right, then check the RAW histogram with RawDigger to see if close to RAW over-exposure, get to know the camera.

For interest, page 41 of the E-PL1 manual....

Regards.... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,271
Like?
I had never updated above 1.1... but
In reply to Christophotog, 7 months ago

I had never updated above 1.1, but a small focus point is worth it!

Thanks for the heads up.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
toporossa
Regular MemberPosts: 123
Like?
Re: Focus peaking soon to come?
In reply to cmorse, 7 months ago

For me the main argument that focus peaking could be enabled is that the E-P5 share the same image processor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olfdee
Forum MemberPosts: 62Gear list
Like?
Re: WiFi is a gimmick to me.
In reply to zuikowesty, 7 months ago

I agree, but this 'limited use' can sometimes save your best shot (day when I lost my cable shutter relaese and later swore didn't take usb cable to transfer photos when struggling with card reader immediately spring to my mind). I would personally love to see option to tether Olympus camera (again) to PC, but well... 'pro' E-M1 clearly needs smartphone link (which I don't mind) more than studio tools.

For that matter I don't use custom self timer often neither, but when I do, I can't get why my E-PM2 has it, and my E-M5 doesn't.

Anyway WiFi being purely hardware related is not subject of this discussion, I'm sure E-M5 successor will be equipped with that.

 Olfdee's gear list:Olfdee's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
OliverNZ
Forum MemberPosts: 60Gear list
Like?
Re: WiFi is a gimmick to me.
In reply to Olfdee, 7 months ago

Hi,

Well, reading the chatter about the 100ISO for the M5, I get the feeling that this would be much akin to shooting a slide film. Hardly any DR.

If this is true then I'm in heaven!! I love slide film!!

Please correct me if i'm confused.....

Oliver

-- hide signature --

No, I don't have an iPhone or iPad.

 OliverNZ's gear list:OliverNZ's gear list
Ricoh Caplio GX200 Olympus Stylus Tough 6000 Ricoh GR Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
madf
New MemberPosts: 15
Like?
Re: E-M5 Firmware update... V 2.0 today..
In reply to Christophotog, 7 months ago

Great!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Thomas Niemann
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,067
Like?
Re: Incorrect Explanation
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

duartix wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Two new features were included in the firmware update: ISO 100 and small focus points.

ISO 100. In the ISO menu you'll notice ISO 100 is marked as LOW and ISO 200 is Recommended. This indicates that ISO 100 is actually ISO 200 over-exposed by one stop. For example, if the ISO 200 exposure was 1/100 @ f/4, and you shot it at 1/50 instead, you would be over-exposing by one stop. And 1/50 @ f/4 would be the proper exposure for ISO 100. The result would be highlight clipping and less dynamic range because ISO 200 is the optimal ISO for the sensor. As a benefit, shadows would receive more exposure and, consequently, less noise.

As I have noted elsewhere in this thread, this explanation is incorrect. It is incorrect for the E-M1 and the E-P5, and will with practical certainty also be incorrect for the E-M5.

ISO 200 on the E-M5 (and all of the other Olympus m43 cameras with this Sony sensor) is actually ISO ~100 underexposed. The new LOW settings will be like ISO 100 exposed correctly.

Are you talking about this? http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1#tabs-2

That is correct. As you can see from that graph, the sensor saturation ISO is close to 100 when the camera is set to ISO 100. It's even closer than that on the E-M5.

Then you also mean that ISO400 is also ISO ~200 underexposed and that ISO800 is ISO ~1600 underexposed, and so on...

That is correct, and exactly how the cameras are calibrated to work. They 'underexpose' by one stop, by design, at every ISO (except for LOW / 100) in order to preserve highlights. It's been known and talked about in detail since shortly after the E-M5 was released.

We were talking nominal ISO here, that's why it gets confusing. But if this is your reason, then it's nothing but a JPEG trick.

Whether you want to call it a JPEG 'trick' or not is your call. I'm interested in the effects on RAW, which are, basically, none at all. No (or very minor) loss of DR for RAW shooters, so anyone saying LOW will result in reduced DR is incorrect.

Interesting articles on this topic are here and here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: Incorrect Explanation
In reply to Thomas Niemann, 7 months ago

Thomas Niemann wrote:

texinwien wrote:

duartix wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Two new features were included in the firmware update: ISO 100 and small focus points.

ISO 100. In the ISO menu you'll notice ISO 100 is marked as LOW and ISO 200 is Recommended. This indicates that ISO 100 is actually ISO 200 over-exposed by one stop. For example, if the ISO 200 exposure was 1/100 @ f/4, and you shot it at 1/50 instead, you would be over-exposing by one stop. And 1/50 @ f/4 would be the proper exposure for ISO 100. The result would be highlight clipping and less dynamic range because ISO 200 is the optimal ISO for the sensor. As a benefit, shadows would receive more exposure and, consequently, less noise.

As I have noted elsewhere in this thread, this explanation is incorrect. It is incorrect for the E-M1 and the E-P5, and will with practical certainty also be incorrect for the E-M5.

ISO 200 on the E-M5 (and all of the other Olympus m43 cameras with this Sony sensor) is actually ISO ~100 underexposed. The new LOW settings will be like ISO 100 exposed correctly.

Are you talking about this? http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1#tabs-2

That is correct. As you can see from that graph, the sensor saturation ISO is close to 100 when the camera is set to ISO 100. It's even closer than that on the E-M5.

Then you also mean that ISO400 is also ISO ~200 underexposed and that ISO800 is ISO ~1600 underexposed, and so on...

That is correct, and exactly how the cameras are calibrated to work. They 'underexpose' by one stop, by design, at every ISO (except for LOW / 100) in order to preserve highlights. It's been known and talked about in detail since shortly after the E-M5 was released.

We were talking nominal ISO here, that's why it gets confusing. But if this is your reason, then it's nothing but a JPEG trick.

Whether you want to call it a JPEG 'trick' or not is your call. I'm interested in the effects on RAW, which are, basically, none at all. No (or very minor) loss of DR for RAW shooters, so anyone saying LOW will result in reduced DR is incorrect.

Interesting articles on this topic are here and here.

Both of those articles contain a number of incorrect and misleading statements. They've been discussed in detail here, almost exactly a year ago. I originally defended them as flawed primers on their respective subjects when they were first shared on this board, but subsequently had to admit that they are indefensible and likely do more harm than good.

Nonetheless, I am talking exactly about the difference between sensor ISO and camera ISO. The fact that the E-M5 has a sensor ISO 107 at camera ISO 200 means Olympus can (and did) add a Low / ~100 Camera ISO that has a sensor ISO of 107 without really sacrificing DR.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,500Gear list
Like?
Re: Hurray!!!
In reply to kenw, 7 months ago

kenw wrote:

Anders W wrote:

But as to the ISO 100: Why would you even want to use that as a RAW shooter? Surely, all the ISO 100 setting does is to alter the metering and the tone curve of the OOC jpegs. The clipping point in RAW stays unchanged and if you go by the live-view "blinkies" when setting exposure, as I do, there is no difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200.

Hi Anders,

Yeah, long time no see. Thanks for replying! Just popping my head in quickly with the EM-10 and FW2.0 and I'll probably disappear again for a long while.

You are right that the end result for a RAW shooter is no different for ISO100 and ISO200 +1EV. For me it is just an ease of use and convenience thing. In landscape mode I end up with quite a bit of +EV and I'm happy to have one less stop of washed out on the live view.

I see your point with respect to the brightness of live-view as well as the brightness of the OOC jpegs we use for in-camera review. And of course, having the option to regulate that a bit better than before is hardly a bad thing. Yet, for the reasons I mentioned, I doubt that I'll make much use of it. But as always, the future will tell.

But you are right it doesn't add any new functionality. The focus box size is a much bigger deal. And there are certainly a few other features I'd pick over "fake" ISO 100.

Good point by the way on "fake" ISO actually being bad for a multi-ISO RAW shooter. I hadn't thought of that. Right now my DR maximization is just landscapes on tripod and always at base ISO - I've got a Myset with those settings (which sadly gets very rarely used these days). When shooting the kid it is auto-ISO and speed - and most of the time dark enough or I need a shutter speed fast enough I'm never even near base ISO. That's like 99.9% of my shooting these days!

Can't say I am surprised. The landscapes can wait.

So for me not a problem because I use the camera with completely different settings in those two cases. But good point - probably most RAW shooters would want to stay away from ISO 100, would cause more problems than it helps.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --

Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
peevee1
Senior MemberPosts: 5,491Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M5 Firmware update... V 2.0 today..
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 7 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Hallelujah!

I hope this means that Olympus does monitor this forum and has heard the numerous complaints about the lack of updates to provide features that have long be available on lower models like the E-PL5 etc.

Let's hope there will be a V 2.1 soon with Focus Peaking.

What, so many people use it with manual focus lenses? Maybe 5%. There are so much more real customers would benefit from - panning detection for IBIS, better object tracking algorithms (for AF-C+TR), more reliable predictive AF-C, better video codecs, smooth digital zoom (including in video) instead of the pathetic 2x teleconverter, 25p for Europe, in-camera panorama (at least the way it is done in their point and shoots, better yet, how it is done by Sony and smartphones), AutoISO/shutter speed programming/biasing depending on FL, in-camera CA correction... So much more to spend their precious R&D resources on than support a few people who don't buy their lenses. And if focus peaking has any value, it is IN VIDEO - where for some reason it does not work in E-P5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Thomas Niemann
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,067
Like?
Re: Incorrect Explanation
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

texinwien wrote:

duartix wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Two new features were included in the firmware update: ISO 100 and small focus points.

ISO 100. In the ISO menu you'll notice ISO 100 is marked as LOW and ISO 200 is Recommended. This indicates that ISO 100 is actually ISO 200 over-exposed by one stop. For example, if the ISO 200 exposure was 1/100 @ f/4, and you shot it at 1/50 instead, you would be over-exposing by one stop. And 1/50 @ f/4 would be the proper exposure for ISO 100. The result would be highlight clipping and less dynamic range because ISO 200 is the optimal ISO for the sensor. As a benefit, shadows would receive more exposure and, consequently, less noise.

As I have noted elsewhere in this thread, this explanation is incorrect. It is incorrect for the E-M1 and the E-P5, and will with practical certainty also be incorrect for the E-M5.

ISO 200 on the E-M5 (and all of the other Olympus m43 cameras with this Sony sensor) is actually ISO ~100 underexposed. The new LOW settings will be like ISO 100 exposed correctly.

Are you talking about this? http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1#tabs-2

That is correct. As you can see from that graph, the sensor saturation ISO is close to 100 when the camera is set to ISO 100. It's even closer than that on the E-M5.

Then you also mean that ISO400 is also ISO ~200 underexposed and that ISO800 is ISO ~1600 underexposed, and so on...

That is correct, and exactly how the cameras are calibrated to work. They 'underexpose' by one stop, by design, at every ISO (except for LOW / 100) in order to preserve highlights. It's been known and talked about in detail since shortly after the E-M5 was released.

We were talking nominal ISO here, that's why it gets confusing. But if this is your reason, then it's nothing but a JPEG trick.

Whether you want to call it a JPEG 'trick' or not is your call. I'm interested in the effects on RAW, which are, basically, none at all. No (or very minor) loss of DR for RAW shooters, so anyone saying LOW will result in reduced DR is incorrect.

Interesting articles on this topic are here and here.

Both of those articles contain a number of incorrect and misleading statements. They've been discussed in detail here, almost exactly a year ago. I originally defended them as flawed primers on their respective subjects when they were first shared on this board, but subsequently had to admit that they are indefensible and likely do more harm than good.

Nonetheless, I am talking exactly about the difference between sensor ISO and camera ISO. The fact that the E-M5 has a sensor ISO 107 at camera ISO 200 means Olympus can (and did) add a Low / ~100 Camera ISO that has a sensor ISO of 107 without really sacrificing DR.

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images. I wonder why Olympus would recommend ISO 200 when, per your comment, ISO 100 would be better as an increase in exposure would yield less noise.

Can you link to tests that have been done to verify that no highlight clipping takes place when  switching from ISO 200 to ISO 100 and increasing exposure?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: Incorrect Explanation
In reply to Thomas Niemann, 7 months ago

Thomas Niemann wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

texinwien wrote:

duartix wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Two new features were included in the firmware update: ISO 100 and small focus points.

ISO 100. In the ISO menu you'll notice ISO 100 is marked as LOW and ISO 200 is Recommended. This indicates that ISO 100 is actually ISO 200 over-exposed by one stop. For example, if the ISO 200 exposure was 1/100 @ f/4, and you shot it at 1/50 instead, you would be over-exposing by one stop. And 1/50 @ f/4 would be the proper exposure for ISO 100. The result would be highlight clipping and less dynamic range because ISO 200 is the optimal ISO for the sensor. As a benefit, shadows would receive more exposure and, consequently, less noise.

As I have noted elsewhere in this thread, this explanation is incorrect. It is incorrect for the E-M1 and the E-P5, and will with practical certainty also be incorrect for the E-M5.

ISO 200 on the E-M5 (and all of the other Olympus m43 cameras with this Sony sensor) is actually ISO ~100 underexposed. The new LOW settings will be like ISO 100 exposed correctly.

Are you talking about this? http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1#tabs-2

That is correct. As you can see from that graph, the sensor saturation ISO is close to 100 when the camera is set to ISO 100. It's even closer than that on the E-M5.

Then you also mean that ISO400 is also ISO ~200 underexposed and that ISO800 is ISO ~1600 underexposed, and so on...

That is correct, and exactly how the cameras are calibrated to work. They 'underexpose' by one stop, by design, at every ISO (except for LOW / 100) in order to preserve highlights. It's been known and talked about in detail since shortly after the E-M5 was released.

We were talking nominal ISO here, that's why it gets confusing. But if this is your reason, then it's nothing but a JPEG trick.

Whether you want to call it a JPEG 'trick' or not is your call. I'm interested in the effects on RAW, which are, basically, none at all. No (or very minor) loss of DR for RAW shooters, so anyone saying LOW will result in reduced DR is incorrect.

Interesting articles on this topic are here and here.

Both of those articles contain a number of incorrect and misleading statements. They've been discussed in detail here, almost exactly a year ago. I originally defended them as flawed primers on their respective subjects when they were first shared on this board, but subsequently had to admit that they are indefensible and likely do more harm than good.

Nonetheless, I am talking exactly about the difference between sensor ISO and camera ISO. The fact that the E-M5 has a sensor ISO 107 at camera ISO 200 means Olympus can (and did) add a Low / ~100 Camera ISO that has a sensor ISO of 107 without really sacrificing DR.

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images.

Indeed, I've read that article (and many others on the subject) backwards and forwards many times. It, in no way whatsoever, disproves anything I've said. As a matter of fact, it's at the foundation of what I'm saying.

I wonder why Olympus would recommend ISO 200 when, per your comment, ISO 100 would be better as an increase in exposure would yield less noise.

Well, the error-laden article you linked to talks about it a bit. A manufacturer can set camera ISO arbitrarily either with more care taken to preserve highlights, or more care taken to minimize noise. Olympus made a conscious choice to calibrate camera ISOs on the E-M5 (and its other recent m43 models) with an emphasis on saving highlights at the expense of a little added noise. The new LOW setting is calibrated to have lower noise at the expense of more clipped highlights IF you rely on the camera's meter to set your other exposure parameters (which I hardly ever do - I am almost always in M mode, and use the highlight/shadow clipping "blinkies" to nail optimal exposure).

Can you link to tests that have been done to verify that no highlight clipping takes place when switching from ISO 200 to ISO 100 and increasing exposure?

You're asking the wrong question here. You're more likely to clip highlights using ISO LOW if you rely on the camera's meter to set your other exposure parameters, BUT you will gain an approximately equal amount of DR on the shadow end (i.e. less noise). You're simply shifting the DR window to the right (toward the highlights), but since the E-M5 has an extra stop of highlight headroom, and the LOW ISO only shifts exposure one stop toward hilghlights, there's not a loss of actual DR.

As Anders pointed out elsewhere in this thread, setting the exposure manually (aperture and shutter speed), then taking the same image at ISO LOW and ISO 200 results in the exact same RAW file.

You can test all of this out yourself with a program like RawDigger, or you can do some more reading and get up to speed on what many of us have known about this particular camera since soon after its release (I purchased it the first day it was available in the country where I reside, and have been eagerly learning its ins and outs ever since).

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Clarification:
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images.

Indeed, I've read that article (and many others on the subject) backwards and forwards many times. It, in no way whatsoever, disproves anything I've said. As a matter of fact, it's at the foundation of what I'm saying.

I wonder why Olympus would recommend ISO 200 when, per your comment, ISO 100 would be better as an increase in exposure would yield less noise.

Well, the error-laden article you linked to talks about it a bit.

Here I was referring to the TOP articles you originally linked to, not to the wikipedia article on Film Speed, to which you also linked.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Thomas Niemann
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,067
Like?
Re: Clarification:
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images.

Indeed, I've read that article (and many others on the subject) backwards and forwards many times. It, in no way whatsoever, disproves anything I've said. As a matter of fact, it's at the foundation of what I'm saying.

I wonder why Olympus would recommend ISO 200 when, per your comment, ISO 100 would be better as an increase in exposure would yield less noise.

Well, the error-laden article you linked to talks about it a bit.

Here I was referring to the TOP articles you originally linked to, not to the wikipedia article on Film Speed, to which you also linked.

In a previous post you stated that "The fact that the E-M5 has a sensor ISO 107 at camera ISO 200 means Olympus can (and did) add a Low / ~100 Camera ISO that has a sensor ISO of 107 without really sacrificing DR.".

The dpreview of the E-M1 indicated that there was less highlight detail at ISO 100. Their graphs also indicate this. (scroll down to the end of this page).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 15,961
Like?
Re: Incorrect Explanation
In reply to Thomas Niemann, 7 months ago

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images.

Not well-exposed but images that appear to have correct brightness, while that brightness is just a result of the tone curve and have little to do with exposure per se. ROI does not put strict regulations on noise, while acceptable noise is one of the criteria of well-exposed image.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 15,961
Like?
Re: Clarification:
In reply to Thomas Niemann, 7 months ago

The dpreview of the E-M1 indicated that there was less highlight detail at ISO 100. Their graphs also indicate this. (scroll down to the end of this page).

It is from processed images, not from the raw data. To decide how the midtone placed in the raw one needs to operate directly on the raw data, without any tone curves that a converter applies. The difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 settings is just the placing of the midtone - 1 stop higher for ISO 100. Means the headroom in highlights for ISO 100 is 1 stop less. You can easily determine the exact number yourself by shooting some evenly lit surface out of focus while allowing the exposure meter to set the exposure; and looking at the placement of the histogram peak in raw data.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: Clarification:
In reply to Thomas Niemann, 7 months ago

Thomas Niemann wrote:

texinwien wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images.

Indeed, I've read that article (and many others on the subject) backwards and forwards many times. It, in no way whatsoever, disproves anything I've said. As a matter of fact, it's at the foundation of what I'm saying.

I wonder why Olympus would recommend ISO 200 when, per your comment, ISO 100 would be better as an increase in exposure would yield less noise.

Well, the error-laden article you linked to talks about it a bit.

Here I was referring to the TOP articles you originally linked to, not to the wikipedia article on Film Speed, to which you also linked.

In a previous post you stated that "The fact that the E-M5 has a sensor ISO 107 at camera ISO 200 means Olympus can (and did) add a Low / ~100 Camera ISO that has a sensor ISO of 107 without really sacrificing DR.".

And that is correct with regards to the RAW file, where it really matters.

The dpreview of the E-M1 indicated that there was less highlight detail at ISO 100. Their graphs also indicate this. (scroll down to the end of this page).

Those results are talking about JPEGs, so they're irrelevant to a discussion about the actual/RAW DR at a specific ISO setting.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
texinwien
Senior MemberPosts: 2,650Gear list
Like?
Re: Clarification:
In reply to texinwien, 7 months ago

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

texinwien wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Thomas Niemann wrote:

Note that ISO 12232:2006 includes the Recommended Exposure Index that allows manufacturers to specify an ISO value that produces well-exposed images.

Indeed, I've read that article (and many others on the subject) backwards and forwards many times. It, in no way whatsoever, disproves anything I've said. As a matter of fact, it's at the foundation of what I'm saying.

I wonder why Olympus would recommend ISO 200 when, per your comment, ISO 100 would be better as an increase in exposure would yield less noise.

Well, the error-laden article you linked to talks about it a bit.

Here I was referring to the TOP articles you originally linked to, not to the wikipedia article on Film Speed, to which you also linked.

In a previous post you stated that "The fact that the E-M5 has a sensor ISO 107 at camera ISO 200 means Olympus can (and did) add a Low / ~100 Camera ISO that has a sensor ISO of 107 without really sacrificing DR.".

And that is correct with regards to the RAW file, where it really matters.

The dpreview of the E-M1 indicated that there was less highlight detail at ISO 100. Their graphs also indicate this. (scroll down to the end of this page).

Those results are talking about JPEGs, so they're irrelevant to a discussion about the actual/RAW DR at a specific ISO setting.

Don't look at the graphs (based on JPEGS), read the text (from your link, to which I also linked earlier in this discussion).

DPReview says: This is because the ISO Low and ISO 200 settings are derived from the same sensor amplification setting - ISO 200 images are exposed to less light, protecting highlights, compared to ISO 100.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Thomas Niemann
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,067
Like?
Thank you
In reply to Iliah Borg, 7 months ago

Iliah Borg wrote:

The dpreview of the E-M1 indicated that there was less highlight detail at ISO 100. Their graphs also indicate this. (scroll down to the end of this page).

It is from processed images, not from the raw data. To decide how the midtone placed in the raw one needs to operate directly on the raw data, without any tone curves that a converter applies. The difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 settings is just the placing of the midtone - 1 stop higher for ISO 100. Means the headroom in highlights for ISO 100 is 1 stop less. You can easily determine the exact number yourself by shooting some evenly lit surface out of focus while allowing the exposure meter to set the exposure; and looking at the placement of the histogram peak in raw data.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads