Another Olympus E-M1 and SONY a7 walkabout test, high ISO

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,004Gear list
Like?
Hmm .. so let's see ..
In reply to Lab D, 9 months ago

Lab D wrote:

Yeah, where is that giant dynamic range difference again at ISOs 120-12800? LOL! I see about .5 stop.

It depends on how the camera is optimized, and where the priority is given. Olympus have always been blamed for noisy images, and they took great care to minimize it to absolute minimum. FF cameras on the other hand known for good tonal curve, they usually deliver very smooth gradients with very pleasing skin tones, and highlights. So even though Olympus pushed into the shadows, you can not have it both ways. For the same tech physics just do not allow it. Good enough is where it is.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,138Gear list
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to Sergey_Green, 9 months ago

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

LOL. Sergey's wrong again. Seems to be making a habit of that, lately.

Wrong how exactly?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

This thread is getting full quickly.

Daniel (the OP) merely posted images side by side which showed a difference. Even after his retake there is still a difference. A bigger difference than the (suggested interpretation) of the DxO graphs should suggest.

But heck, even DxO themselves rates a bigger difference between these cameras/sensors than these graphs suggest.

I am with Sergey - all these comparison discussios always center around one graph in DxO that nobody seems to be able to translate into real pictures.

Fact is that not all images use the full DR, and that, especially under low light, differences become less significant. But Sergey hit the nail on the head: if the OP exposed properly for highlights (protection), the shadows in the Oly would become a lot nosier.

The examples that are typically used in defense of the (graph) analysis do not have highlights (for they would be clipped, as in the OP's example).

Both cameras take fine pictures, but I would not declare one better than the other. However, in high-ISO (low light), I would take the larger sensor camera.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lab D
Senior MemberPosts: 4,314Gear list
Like?
We have it on record now.
In reply to blue_skies, 9 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

But heck, even DxO themselves rates a bigger difference between these cameras/sensors than these graphs suggest.

That is hilarious. The graphs are the actual measurements and are more accurate than arbitrary "over-all" ratings.

But now we have it on record that you think you can tell more from those arbitrary ratings than the graphs. Right? YOU say that the score tells us more than the actual measurements and graphs. LOL!

We will use this in the future to judge you.   I can't wait for everyone to see your post.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
quezra
Senior MemberPosts: 2,562Gear list
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to blue_skies, 9 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

LOL. Sergey's wrong again. Seems to be making a habit of that, lately.

Wrong how exactly?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

This thread is getting full quickly.

Daniel (the OP) merely posted images side by side which showed a difference. Even after his retake there is still a difference. A bigger difference than the (suggested interpretation) of the DxO graphs should suggest.

But heck, even DxO themselves rates a bigger difference between these cameras/sensors than these graphs suggest.

I am with Sergey - all these comparison discussios always center around one graph in DxO that nobody seems to be able to translate into real pictures.

Fact is that not all images use the full DR, and that, especially under low light, differences become less significant. But Sergey hit the nail on the head: if the OP exposed properly for highlights (protection), the shadows in the Oly would become a lot nosier.

The examples that are typically used in defense of the (graph) analysis do not have highlights (for they would be clipped, as in the OP's example).

Both cameras take fine pictures, but I would not declare one better than the other. However, in high-ISO (low light), I would take the larger sensor camera.

You're right, but you don't actually go far enough in dismissing these silly arguments.

The whole dynamic range 'equivalence' crap is a red herring and totally irrelevant to most photography.  Do most shooters notice their dynamic range changing between ISO 400 and 1600 (sorry adjust accordingly if you are using m4/3)?  And does it matter for the majority of most pictures typically taken in these ranges?  Absolutely not.  But when you do need to maximise DR is in specific types of shots where you absolutely need to be at ISO 100.  Shooting pictures of your black and white cat might seem like a lot of dynamic range to some people but it really isn't. Ironically, these 'equivalence' paper theorists discount the one area when DR matters the most, yet think people shooting between ISO 400 and 6400 are shooting images where half stops of DR is important.  When maximal DR is needed, there is only one choice, and the EM1 doesn't have it.  All the equivalence crap is just convoluted exercises in self-justification that have no bearing on real photography.

DR-maximising photographers shoot FF or MF or LF.  Fact.  They wouldn't be shooting a cheetah at sunset running at full speed against an orange sky or whatever weird combination they need to somehow be at 1/800 and ISO 800 but ISO 3200 is too little DR all of a sudden now.  It just goes to show how convoluted paper exercises can get, but when you actually shoot more often, you realise these tiny half stop differences don't matter as much as getting your shutter and aperture right - even DxOmark has to remind people that a one-stop difference isn't really likely to be noticeable.  When you need maximal DR, you shoot at ISO 100.  End of story.  When you don't need the maximum, the rest of the curve is really not that important because the half stop reductions are nearly imperceptible , hence why DxOmark weights base ISO DR so much.

Sorry to burst the various bubbles here, I know you've spent months cooking up these ridiculous notions to demonstrate how m4/3 is the best possible sensor of all possible sensors but it simply is you trying to smuggle in a dozen (invalid) assumptions about photography to make your tortured logic hold together.

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 Nokton +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lab D
Senior MemberPosts: 4,314Gear list
Like?
Re: Hmm .. so let's see ..
In reply to Sergey_Green, 9 months ago

Sergey_Green wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Yeah, where is that giant dynamic range difference again at ISOs 120-12800? LOL! I see about .5 stop.

It depends on how the camera is optimized, and where the priority is given. Olympus have always been blamed for noisy images, and they took great care to minimize it to absolute minimum. FF cameras on the other hand known for good tonal curve, they usually deliver very smooth gradients with very pleasing skin tones, and highlights. So even though Olympus pushed into the shadows, you can not have it both ways. For the same tech physics just do not allow it. Good enough is where it is.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Keep trying to dig out of that hole. 

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,138Gear list
Like?
Re: So what's the consenses between the E-M1 vs A7 regarding noise in stops?
In reply to Stu 5, 9 months ago

Stu 5 wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Lab D wrote:

skyglider wrote:

There's been a lot of data posted in this thread. But I'm still left wondering. Which camera system will produce better looking images with less noise in low light situations like an indoor wedding at a dimly lit church (no flash allowed)?

  1. Micro 4/3: OMD E-M1 with the 12-40mm, F2.8 Pro lens?
  2. Full Frame: Alpha 7 with the kit 24-70mm F3.5 - F5.6 OSS lens?

Sky

Sony has a 28-70 f3.5-5.6 lens and an expensive 24-70 f4 lens.

The 28-70 is a poor kit lens. The other is much better.

What does "poor" mean in this context?

Have you used it? Have you read the reviews?

It gets high remarks for a kit lens.

Hardly anyone gives high marks in reviews. One of the worst kit lenses out there. It is fine on the long end but poor on wide end and gets worse on the wide end when closed down. Also has poor quality control. Quite a lot (for a lens) get returned for 2nd or 3rd copies due to the fact when not being used some of the elements including I.S. group are floating. When used these faulty elements do not centralise correctly causing blurring on the edges and the lens sometimes not engaging I.S correctly which shows on the far right hand edge from.

24-70 still needs to be proved if it is good. First photos I saw from it showed blurring again on the wide end on the edges. Hopefully this is a one off poor sample and not a poor design.

And you know all this how?

Fwiw - Eric's review here and I put some side by sides here. Eric also reviewed the 24-70 here

The kit lens needs corrections (applied JPG or LR/pp), but once applied, the lens is fairly decent, better than the kit lenses on the Nex camera, which were rated above average, especially in comparison to the revered Canikons.

As kit lenses go, this kit lens impresses - remember that the A7 has only 24Mp and puts a lesser demand on the lenses. On an A7r, with 36Mp, the obvious choice would be the 24-70 version, which is pricier.

Kit lens example - make sure that you click on link to original to see detail

The Olympus is a stop faster, has a wider range and makes a great close up lens.

Yes, but it is a f/5.6 lens in FF equivalent terms. That is the slow end of the 'poor' kit lens (hint - it is not that poor).

So, what is the answer to Sky's question?

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,138Gear list
Like?
Re: We have it on record now.
In reply to Lab D, 9 months ago

Lab D wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

But heck, even DxO themselves rates a bigger difference between these cameras/sensors than these graphs suggest.

That is hilarious. The graphs are the actual measurements and are more accurate than arbitrary "over-all" ratings.

But now we have it on record that you think you can tell more from those arbitrary ratings than the graphs. Right? YOU say that the score tells us more than the actual measurements and graphs. LOL!

We will use this in the future to judge you. I can't wait for everyone to see your post.

DxO obviously interprets their graphs quite differently that you do

Maybe you are overlooking a number of things?

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,138Gear list
Like?
Re: Hmm .. so let's see ..
In reply to Lab D, 9 months ago

Lab D wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Yeah, where is that giant dynamic range difference again at ISOs 120-12800? LOL! I see about .5 stop.

It depends on how the camera is optimized, and where the priority is given. Olympus have always been blamed for noisy images, and they took great care to minimize it to absolute minimum. FF cameras on the other hand known for good tonal curve, they usually deliver very smooth gradients with very pleasing skin tones, and highlights. So even though Olympus pushed into the shadows, you can not have it both ways. For the same tech physics just do not allow it. Good enough is where it is.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Keep trying to dig out of that hole.

Or take some sides by sides - with non-blown out highlights.

Case closed

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,138Gear list
Like?
Re: Really?
In reply to quezra, 9 months ago

quezra wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

LOL. Sergey's wrong again. Seems to be making a habit of that, lately.

Wrong how exactly?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

This thread is getting full quickly.

Daniel (the OP) merely posted images side by side which showed a difference. Even after his retake there is still a difference. A bigger difference than the (suggested interpretation) of the DxO graphs should suggest.

But heck, even DxO themselves rates a bigger difference between these cameras/sensors than these graphs suggest.

I am with Sergey - all these comparison discussios always center around one graph in DxO that nobody seems to be able to translate into real pictures.

Fact is that not all images use the full DR, and that, especially under low light, differences become less significant. But Sergey hit the nail on the head: if the OP exposed properly for highlights (protection), the shadows in the Oly would become a lot nosier.

The examples that are typically used in defense of the (graph) analysis do not have highlights (for they would be clipped, as in the OP's example).

Both cameras take fine pictures, but I would not declare one better than the other. However, in high-ISO (low light), I would take the larger sensor camera.

You're right, but you don't actually go far enough in dismissing these silly arguments.

The whole dynamic range 'equivalence' crap is a red herring and totally irrelevant to most photography. Do most shooters notice their dynamic range changing between ISO 400 and 1600 (sorry adjust accordingly if you are using m4/3)? And does it matter for the majority of most pictures typically taken in these ranges? Absolutely not. But when you do need to maximise DR is in specific types of shots where you absolutely need to be at ISO 100. Shooting pictures of your black and white cat might seem like a lot of dynamic range to some people but it really isn't. Ironically, these 'equivalence' paper theorists discount the one area when DR matters the most, yet think people shooting between ISO 400 and 6400 are shooting images where half stops of DR is important. When maximal DR is needed, there is only one choice, and the EM1 doesn't have it. All the equivalence crap is just convoluted exercises in self-justification that have no bearing on real photography.

DR-maximising photographers shoot FF or MF or LF. Fact. They wouldn't be shooting a cheetah at sunset running at full speed against an orange sky or whatever weird combination they need to somehow be at 1/800 and ISO 800 but ISO 3200 is too little DR all of a sudden now. It just goes to show how convoluted paper exercises can get, but when you actually shoot more often, you realise these tiny half stop differences don't matter as much as getting your shutter and aperture right - even DxOmark has to remind people that a one-stop difference isn't really likely to be noticeable. When you need maximal DR, you shoot at ISO 100. End of story. When you don't need the maximum, the rest of the curve is really not that important because the half stop reductions are nearly imperceptible , hence why DxOmark weights base ISO DR so much.

Sorry to burst the various bubbles here, I know you've spent months cooking up these ridiculous notions to demonstrate how m4/3 is the best possible sensor of all possible sensors but it simply is you trying to smuggle in a dozen (invalid) assumptions about photography to make your tortured logic hold together.

I think that you are absolutely right about all of that.

I bookmarked this thread

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,138Gear list
Like?
Re: "in FF equivalent terms"
In reply to Fred Mueller, 9 months ago

Fred Mueller wrote:

DOF only actually - you make a misleading statement - f/2.8 is f/2.8 no matter the focal length

being "stuck" with very shallow DOF in order to preserve FF light gathering advantage is not always a good thing

And you don't understand what 'equivalent noise levels' means

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads