Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,599Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to JunzInc, 6 months ago

JunzInc wrote:

Just FYI - We have got another Image quality analysis over at imaging resource. Not sure if it was linked here.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A.HTM#IQC

Regards

JM

Thank you for this! The first thing that struck me was the large amount of noise in the red comparison photos of the A6000 image, beside the one from the Fuji XM-1, GX7 and NEX-6. Is noise going to become a big deal for shooting with this new Sony? These shots were only ISO 100!

Steve

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711Gear list
Like?
Re: Try harder...
In reply to captura, 6 months ago

captura wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I'm not buying it either, Henry. This review begs the question about the honesty or the real intent of the reviewer.

Crowded pixel sensors such as the A6000 are going to have more noise and the reverse is true: witness the 12 mp A7s. The A6000 has more pixel crowding than the E-M5. For obvious reasons but perhaps also the side-effect of the A6000 having all those dedicated PDAF pixels and the E-M5 having none. The E-M5 is inferior to the A6000 in every other way...who would dispute that? And yet that fact was mostly ignored in this comparison. Q? - Was the E-M5 cherry picked especially to downgrade the A-6000? Disinformation?

It's not surprising that the M-43 Forum LOVES this article; witness this thread.... Amazing!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53482204

And big surprise that Sony fans take issue with the article. No one would ever have seen that coming.

The EM5 was chosen because Mr. Laing owns it. He mentions trying to get an EM-10 from Olympus to make a more current comparison, but couldn't. If you take issue with an EM-10 comparison as well, need I remind you the recent thread in which you participated yourself where a guy considers switching from the EM-10 to the A6000 (then changes his mind). Both cameras are in a similar price backet and category, it begs a comparison.
I'm sure when DPR scores the A6000, the EM-10 will be mentionned. If it scores lower, people here will complain, no doubt (I'm guessing it will be scored very similarly though).

Laing could have used a newer E-M1 for the test. I did not participate in any discussion on M43 but you did yourself, on this very topic. One of the commonest excuses for the non-performance of the OMD cameras being made is that the M43 lenses are so vastly superior to E-mount, that no further comparison needs be made. Since you agreed to that statement in your M43 post, I need to remind you of the strawman argument.

Check out the DxO overall ratings; 82 vs 72 for A6000 vs OMD.

I only know Laing owns the E-M5. I guess he could have asked Oly the E-M1 but why when he could get the EM-10 which is more recent and more relevant to a comparison? You know the immediate rebuttal to a E-M1 comparison would be "but the A6000 is like half the price, it's more bang for the buck!"

There's no need for excuses for the "non-performance" of the O-MD, obviously the opposite is talked about in your own link in the OP. Smaller sensor coupled with superior imaging processing equals IQ on par with Sony APS-C. The same was evident with the 16MP NEX6 2 years ago.

Maybe you should mention on-sensor PDAF again? Maybe pixel density?

I disagree. You said, "Smaller sensor coupled with superior imaging processing equals IQ on par with Sony APS-C."

DxO scores reveal better performance with the A6000. And please don't use the standard M43 argument that M43 cameras should be excepted from all DxO testing because they are unfair. Some excuse that is!

I'm not using DXO, I'm using your very own link you posted in the OP. Stay focused. You wanted a discussion about it, you got it. As another member quickly pointed out in response to your topic "I couldn't see hardly any difference". So when you have that type of response, you fall back on DXO?

Those numbers must look very nice on your wall printed out and framed.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rayman 2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,218
Like?
Re: Try harder...
In reply to bluevellet, 6 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I'm not buying it either, Henry. This review begs the question about the honesty or the real intent of the reviewer.

Crowded pixel sensors such as the A6000 are going to have more noise and the reverse is true: witness the 12 mp A7s. The A6000 has more pixel crowding than the E-M5. For obvious reasons but perhaps also the side-effect of the A6000 having all those dedicated PDAF pixels and the E-M5 having none. The E-M5 is inferior to the A6000 in every other way...who would dispute that? And yet that fact was mostly ignored in this comparison. Q? - Was the E-M5 cherry picked especially to downgrade the A-6000? Disinformation?

It's not surprising that the M-43 Forum LOVES this article; witness this thread.... Amazing!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53482204

And big surprise that Sony fans take issue with the article. No one would ever have seen that coming.

The EM5 was chosen because Mr. Laing owns it. He mentions trying to get an EM-10 from Olympus to make a more current comparison, but couldn't. If you take issue with an EM-10 comparison as well, need I remind you the recent thread in which you participated yourself where a guy considers switching from the EM-10 to the A6000 (then changes his mind). Both cameras are in a similar price backet and category, it begs a comparison.
I'm sure when DPR scores the A6000, the EM-10 will be mentionned. If it scores lower, people here will complain, no doubt (I'm guessing it will be scored very similarly though).

Laing could have used a newer E-M1 for the test. I did not participate in any discussion on M43 but you did yourself, on this very topic. One of the commonest excuses for the non-performance of the OMD cameras being made is that the M43 lenses are so vastly superior to E-mount, that no further comparison needs be made. Since you agreed to that statement in your M43 post, I need to remind you of the strawman argument.

Check out the DxO overall ratings; 82 vs 72 for A6000 vs OMD.

I only know Laing owns the E-M5. I guess he could have asked Oly the E-M1 but why when he could get the EM-10 which is more recent and more relevant to a comparison? You know the immediate rebuttal to a E-M1 comparison would be "but the A6000 is like half the price, it's more bang for the buck!"

There's no need for excuses for the "non-performance" of the O-MD, obviously the opposite is talked about in your own link in the OP. Smaller sensor coupled with superior imaging processing equals IQ on par with Sony APS-C. The same was evident with the 16MP NEX6 2 years ago.

Maybe you should mention on-sensor PDAF again? Maybe pixel density?

I disagree. You said, "Smaller sensor coupled with superior imaging processing equals IQ on par with Sony APS-C."

DxO scores reveal better performance with the A6000. And please don't use the standard M43 argument that M43 cameras should be excepted from all DxO testing because they are unfair. Some excuse that is!

I'm not using DXO, I'm using your very own link you posted in the OP. Stay focused. You wanted a discussion about it, you got it. As another member quickly pointed out in response to your topic "I couldn't see hardly any difference". So when you have that type of response, you fall back on DXO?

Those numbers must look very nice on your wall printed out and framed.

given the same Technology a bigger sensor has a better mark BUT a smaller sensor also has half to one stop advantage due to higher dof ..so in the end its a tie........

there is no winner they are both very good..

I own both the om-d 5 and the nex 6 and 7 and all I can say is that if you mount lenses on them

you get a different angle out of the same lenses... thats just the difference.....

Peter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 966
Like?
Re: Try harder...
In reply to bluevellet, 6 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

...

I'm not using DXO, I'm using your very own link you posted in the OP. Stay focused. You wanted a discussion about it, you got it. As another member quickly pointed out in response to your topic "I couldn't see hardly any difference". So when you have that type of response, you fall back on DXO?

Those numbers must look very nice on your wall printed out and framed.

Your are yet another m43 fanboy disregarding DXOMark - but with your other contributions in here, this low level was expected from you.

Gordon Laing has either got an agenda for his beloved m43 cameras or is still clueless (after all the years since the EM5 vs NEX-7 talks).

First of all the olympus ISO is overstated by 2/3 of a stop compared to the Sony A6000, here is the link proving it:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5___942_937_793

Second of all he has not down sampled the A6000 to make an equivalent test with a 16MP sensor.

Gordon Laing, if you are reading this, then this test is a bit low for your level according to your reputation. Understand ISO overstating by manufacturers and start down sampling now that you supposedly have a reputation on being meticulous, especially with the m43 crowd.

We are looking at almost a stop of difference to Sony A6000, a remarkable camera for less than the E-M5, and yes, that IQ advantage will be visible on your wall as well

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,182
Like?
Touch screen
In reply to captura, 6 months ago

captura wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

ryan92084 wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

The A6000 is not a very high spec camera at all.....just a low level one( with great IQ and great AF).

I am curious about this statement. What specs are you talking about; what makes it a low level one?

Michael

Just a guess but the EVF(more of a side grade imo), no digital level, no jacks, and no touch screen. That about covers the usual complaints. Every camera has strengths and weaknesses. The a6000 is no exception and I don't think that makes it low end.

Yes, those......I don't think the A6000 is low end in that sense but it is low spec. Having said that it is still higher spec than many higher level cameras from only a year or two ago.

In addition to no horizon level, no touch screen and lower res EVF and mic jack

there are also.....

1/4000 max shutter speed (higher level cameras now have 1/8000)

30 sec min shutter speed vs 60 sec on higher spec cameras (a7 only has 30 sec with 1/8000 though)

flash sync of 1/160 VS 1/320 for the likes of EM-1 and GX7 1/250 for the A7

Choice of IBIS or in lens (this one is somewhat maker limited but Sony does have cameras with IBIS) ...higher end M4/3 cameras have both. Pentax can do both at all levels.

The A6000 specs were top level a generation or so ago (EG NEX7) but others have moved up since.

Imagine if there was a camera with the higher level things but with an APSC sensor from Sony.....would the A6000 be getting anything like the threads here now or would it be more like the A3000 or A5000? With lots of why does the A6000 get no love or split the forum because no one is talking A6000 posts!

A6000 is pretty much like the Nikon D5300 (or a bit lower even) but in a system without anything else up to the D600....

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_nex7&products=sony_a7&products=panasonic_dmcgx7&products=oly_em1&products=sony_a6000&sortDir=ascending

Some might consider these to be niggly little points considering the superior performance specs. and the lower price when comparing to the competition. Also noteworthy; I guess that most serious Sony APS-C buyers don't want a touchscreen.

I never wanted one, didn't mean anything but since having one in the GX7, well it is very nice to have from time to time.....not just touch screen but also touch shutter.

coupled with completely silent mode, makes a nice stealth kit or for quiet moments.

As I said, others will have a different opinion, but it is things like that that make some brands have more than one model!

And again, for ME, 1/8000 and IBIS alone are worth more than the IQ difference, some others are useful to me too......for someone who wants tracking AF, then the A6000 is a no brainer (in mirrorless currently).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RichRMA
Contributing MemberPosts: 822Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 6 months ago

Build quality:  Olympus.  The NEX's, apart from the NEX-7 have never felt substantial.  Plus, the 7's now have that warning about "heavy lenses" used on them so I wonder if the lesser models are in the same construction boat?

 RichRMA's gear list:RichRMA's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Pentax K-01 Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711Gear list
Like?
Re: Try harder...
In reply to spacemn, 6 months ago

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

...

I'm not using DXO, I'm using your very own link you posted in the OP. Stay focused. You wanted a discussion about it, you got it. As another member quickly pointed out in response to your topic "I couldn't see hardly any difference". So when you have that type of response, you fall back on DXO?

Those numbers must look very nice on your wall printed out and framed.

Your are yet another m43 fanboy disregarding DXOMark - but with your other contributions in here, this low level was expected from you.

Gordon Laing has either got an agenda for his beloved m43 cameras or is still clueless (after all the years since the EM5 vs NEX-7 talks).

First of all the olympus ISO is overstated by 2/3 of a stop compared to the Sony A6000, here is the link proving it:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5___942_937_793

Second of all he has not down sampled the A6000 to make an equivalent test with a 16MP sensor.

Gordon Laing, if you are reading this, then this test is a bit low for your level according to your reputation. Understand ISO overstating by manufacturers and start down sampling now that you supposedly have a reputation on being meticulous, especially with the m43 crowd.

We are looking at almost a stop of difference to Sony A6000, a remarkable camera for less than the E-M5, and yes, that IQ advantage will be visible on your wall as well

Ah yes, everyone not worshipping Sony is a fanboy in here, the old ISO cheat excuse often repeated here when photographic reality becomes troublesome (and lol at the "proof") and then attack the person making the test rather than discussing the test results or the test itself.

Andy Westlake of DPR put it quite bluntly many years ago.

The 'multiples of a standard' we are dealing with here are not between different manufacturers, who actually all appear to use the same standard, but between them and DxO who use a different one.

Fact is that if you want ISO to mean a value which when combined with shutter speed and aperture gives you the correct exposure, all of the manufacturers ISOs will work, but DxO's won't. Ultimately this is because DxO are using a definition which allows a specific approach to comparing RAW sensor data but tells you nothing about how to operate the camera (as they themselves make quite clear on their site).

The bottom line is that if you take an E-3, Sony A900 and Nikon D300, point them at a grey card and let them expose it according to their own devices, they'll give the same result despite having different sensor ISOs according to DxOs definition. This isn't DxO being wrong, it's just them choosing a different definition of ISO which makes more sense to them when profiling a camera for DxO Optics Pro.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tokumeino
Regular MemberPosts: 150Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to exdeejjjaaaa, 6 months ago

Sorry. I've been lazy and only looked at the synthetic rating : ISO 1347 vs 757.Anyway we agree : for the same generation, the bigger is the sensor, the highest are sensibility and/or DR. People claiming that a m4/3 sensor is as performant as a crop one are necessarily wrong. Same for people hoping that their A6000 will perform as well as a A7.

 tokumeino's gear list:tokumeino's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,599Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to tokumeino, 6 months ago

tokumeino wrote:

Sorry. I've been lazy and only looked at the synthetic rating : ISO 1347 vs 757.Anyway we agree : for the same generation, the bigger is the sensor, the highest are sensibility and/or DR. People claiming that a m4/3 sensor is as performant as a crop one are necessarily wrong. Same for people hoping that their A6000 will perform as well as a A7.

Ah yes, but I should be able to throw an A6000 much higher than an A7.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rmxa
Junior MemberPosts: 44
Like?
Re: and since the OM-D overstates ISO's...
In reply to TrojMacReady, 6 months ago

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rmxa
Junior MemberPosts: 44
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to JunzInc, 6 months ago

JunzInc wrote:

Just FYI - We have got another Image quality analysis over at imaging resource. Not sure if it was linked here.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A.HTM#IQC

Regards

JM

But these are OOC JPEG comparisons. Does anyone know of any comparisons with RAWs we can download?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711Gear list
Like?
Re: and since the OM-D overstates ISO's...
In reply to rmxa, 6 months ago

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Shhh!

The E-M5 must have compensated with 2/3 of a stop slower shutter speeds because ISO and F number are the same. Gordon Laing has an agenda and he is obviously not revealing the shutter speed! He's just another m43 fanboy obviously, trying to ignore DXO numbers with that pretense of a real world test.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 966
Like?
Re: and since the OM-D overstates ISO's...
In reply to rmxa, 6 months ago

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

It is funny he explicitly writes that and at the same time do not disclose the shutter speeds (I can't see them anywhere to compare the E-M5 and A6000 exposures) either he just do not understand exposure and overstated ISOs or he is hiding this fact. In tests on the net it is exactly the shutter speed that discloses the overstated ISO.

It is a quite bad test and should affect his reputation unless he gets it right and admit his test is not comparable.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 966
Like?
Re: and since the OM-D overstates ISO's...
In reply to bluevellet, 6 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Shhh!

The E-M5 must have compensated with 2/3 of a stop slower shutter speeds because ISO and F number are the same. Gordon Laing has an agenda and he is obviously not revealing the shutter speed! He's just another m43 fanboy obviously, trying to ignore DXO numbers with that pretense of a real world test.

Ah, you are clueless The devil is in the detail. Of course the shutter speeds are different on those shots, as the ISO and F stops are the same. I bet the exposures are not the same. DXOMark ISO sensitivity comparisons usually are bang on the buck. You can keep your conspiracies to yourself and some DPReview person's empty statements.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711Gear list
Like?
Awesomely predictable
In reply to spacemn, 6 months ago

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Shhh!

The E-M5 must have compensated with 2/3 of a stop slower shutter speeds because ISO and F number are the same. Gordon Laing has an agenda and he is obviously not revealing the shutter speed! He's just another m43 fanboy obviously, trying to ignore DXO numbers with that pretense of a real world test.

Ah, you are clueless The devil is in the detail. Of course the shutter speeds are different on those shots, as the ISO and F stops are the same. I bet the exposures are not the same. DXOMark ISO sensitivity comparisons usually are bang on the buck. You can keep your conspiracies to yourself and some DPReview person's empty statements.

Ah I knew it! I knew it was going to be that excuse. No shred of evidence yet the shutter speed must be different because... it doesn't match DXO.
You know, instead of relying on third parties, you could always conduct the test yourself and would easily discredit Gordon Laing. According to this forum, Olympus has been cooking their ISO values forever. You should be able to take any m43 camera, even the old 43 DSLRs and shoot at same exposure values against any Sony camera. Many users in this very thread own both systems, just find yourself a gray background like Westlake recommended and shoot away. The DPR staff never found evidence of this, yet some users here believe in this stuff like some Holocaust deniers.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 966
Like?
Re: Awesomely predictable
In reply to bluevellet, 6 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Shhh!

The E-M5 must have compensated with 2/3 of a stop slower shutter speeds because ISO and F number are the same. Gordon Laing has an agenda and he is obviously not revealing the shutter speed! He's just another m43 fanboy obviously, trying to ignore DXO numbers with that pretense of a real world test.

Ah, you are clueless The devil is in the detail. Of course the shutter speeds are different on those shots, as the ISO and F stops are the same. I bet the exposures are not the same. DXOMark ISO sensitivity comparisons usually are bang on the buck. You can keep your conspiracies to yourself and some DPReview person's empty statements.

Ah I knew it! I knew it was going to be that excuse. No shred of evidence yet the shutter speed must be different because... it doesn't match DXO.
You know, instead of relying on third parties, you could always conduct the test yourself and would easily discredit Gordon Laing. According to this forum, Olympus has been cooking their ISO values forever. You should be able to take any m43 camera, even the old 43 DSLRs and shoot at same exposure values against any Sony camera. Many users in this very thread own both systems, just find yourself a gray background like Westlake recommended and shoot away. The DPR staff never found evidence of this, yet some users here believe in this stuff like some Holocaust deniers.

Mate I lost you now. What does cooked ISO mean? I have heard of the expression "cooked RAW", but not cooked ISO.

Let me show you two test shots from Imaging Resource, if you are still in denial after this, then you are pretty incurable:

E-M5: F8, ISO6400 and 1/640s (you should be able to see the EXIF by downloading the full image)

A6000: F8, ISO6400 and 1/1000s

Here's your "real world comparison"... See the 2/3 stops difference in shutter speeds? (Sony sensor more sensitive at ISO6400 than the Oly) funny, DXOMark was right again it seems.

(Sorry, your favourite site DPReview first of all does not have comparable shots when one wants to compare ISO sensitivity (pictures are taken at different F-stops) and do not have the A6000 shot yet)

This is what Gordon Laing was not showing us (shutter speeds) and why ISO comparison is faulty. Are you still not convinced?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711Gear list
Like?
Re: Awesomely predictable
In reply to spacemn, 6 months ago

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Shhh!

The E-M5 must have compensated with 2/3 of a stop slower shutter speeds because ISO and F number are the same. Gordon Laing has an agenda and he is obviously not revealing the shutter speed! He's just another m43 fanboy obviously, trying to ignore DXO numbers with that pretense of a real world test.

Ah, you are clueless The devil is in the detail. Of course the shutter speeds are different on those shots, as the ISO and F stops are the same. I bet the exposures are not the same. DXOMark ISO sensitivity comparisons usually are bang on the buck. You can keep your conspiracies to yourself and some DPReview person's empty statements.

Ah I knew it! I knew it was going to be that excuse. No shred of evidence yet the shutter speed must be different because... it doesn't match DXO.
You know, instead of relying on third parties, you could always conduct the test yourself and would easily discredit Gordon Laing. According to this forum, Olympus has been cooking their ISO values forever. You should be able to take any m43 camera, even the old 43 DSLRs and shoot at same exposure values against any Sony camera. Many users in this very thread own both systems, just find yourself a gray background like Westlake recommended and shoot away. The DPR staff never found evidence of this, yet some users here believe in this stuff like some Holocaust deniers.

Mate I lost you now. What does cooked ISO mean? I have heard of the expression "cooked RAW", but not cooked ISO.

Let me show you two test shots from Imaging Resource, if you are still in denial after this, then you are pretty incurable:

E-M5: F8, ISO6400 and 1/640s (you should be able to see the EXIF by downloading the full image)

A6000: F8, ISO6400 and 1/1000s

Here's your "real world comparison"... See the 2/3 stops difference in shutter speeds? (Sony sensor more sensitive at ISO6400 than the Oly) funny, DXOMark was right again it seems.

(Sorry, your favourite site DPReview first of all does not have comparable shots when one wants to compare ISO sensitivity (pictures are taken at different F-stops) and do not have the A6000 shot yet)

This is what Gordon Laing was not showing us (shutter speeds) and why ISO comparison is faulty. Are you still not convinced?

It's meaningless if you don't know if they adjust studio lighting for whatever reasons. We know DPR does that, even though you can find matching exposure values between m43 and NEX in their tests (most of the times but not always). And apparently, Imaging Resource does that too if you check an ISO 200 test from different Sony models (same test scene):

NEX5T at ISO 200, f8 and 1/30s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-5t/NEX5ThSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A3000 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/40s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a3000/AA3000hSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A7 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/25s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/AA7hSLI00200NR2D.ARW.HTM

So tell me, how do you explain the different shutter speeds at the same ISO 200 and F8 between all 3 of those Sony cameras released within a year from one another? Apparently, the A7 "cheats" just like the E-M5 does, at roughly 2/3 stop difference.

It's because they're ISO tests, not exposure tests. They just try to nail exposure to give readers a chance to see ISO performance under fair conditions.

Got anything else?

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ryan92084
Regular MemberPosts: 469Gear list
Like?
Re: Awesomely predictable
In reply to bluevellet, 6 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

...snip

It's meaningless if you don't know if they adjust studio lighting for whatever reasons. We know DPR does that, even though you can find matching exposure values between m43 and NEX in their tests (most of the times but not always). And apparently, Imaging Resource does that too if you check an ISO 200 test from different Sony models (same test scene):

NEX5T at ISO 200, f8 and 1/30s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-5t/NEX5ThSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A3000 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/40s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a3000/AA3000hSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A7 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/25s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/AA7hSLI00200NR2D.ARW.HTM

So tell me, how do you explain the different shutter speeds at the same ISO 200 and F8 between all 3 of those Sony cameras released within a year from one another? Apparently, the A7 "cheats" just like the E-M5 does, at roughly 2/3 stop difference.

It's because they're ISO tests, not exposure tests. They just try to nail exposure to give readers a chance to see ISO performance under fair conditions.

Got anything else?

I don't know how much it would effect the shutter speeds but those three examples are using very different lenses. The 5t is using an a-mount zoom at 50mm, a3000 the 70mm sigma macro that was their go to lens for all platforms for a while, and the a7 is using the sel55f18z.

But I agree with the lighting comment. Who knows when imaging resource changed their bulbs or lighting equipment.  That is the problem with doing testing over the course of months/years.  While they do an admirable job trying to keep everything even it never quite will be.

As for the OP I pick the a6000 as the better picture in many more shots than a tie (and never a loser) in all but the straight RAW. For the straight RAW I'm not a good enough editor to make that call.

 ryan92084's gear list:ryan92084's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 966
Like?
Re: Awesomely predictable
In reply to bluevellet, 6 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

spacemn wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

rmxa wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light

That third point can easily make 2/3 EV of a difference alone.

  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

The author states this in the article:

"The exposures used by each camera were identical here, so their results are absolutely comparable."

Shhh!

The E-M5 must have compensated with 2/3 of a stop slower shutter speeds because ISO and F number are the same. Gordon Laing has an agenda and he is obviously not revealing the shutter speed! He's just another m43 fanboy obviously, trying to ignore DXO numbers with that pretense of a real world test.

Ah, you are clueless The devil is in the detail. Of course the shutter speeds are different on those shots, as the ISO and F stops are the same. I bet the exposures are not the same. DXOMark ISO sensitivity comparisons usually are bang on the buck. You can keep your conspiracies to yourself and some DPReview person's empty statements.

Ah I knew it! I knew it was going to be that excuse. No shred of evidence yet the shutter speed must be different because... it doesn't match DXO.
You know, instead of relying on third parties, you could always conduct the test yourself and would easily discredit Gordon Laing. According to this forum, Olympus has been cooking their ISO values forever. You should be able to take any m43 camera, even the old 43 DSLRs and shoot at same exposure values against any Sony camera. Many users in this very thread own both systems, just find yourself a gray background like Westlake recommended and shoot away. The DPR staff never found evidence of this, yet some users here believe in this stuff like some Holocaust deniers.

Mate I lost you now. What does cooked ISO mean? I have heard of the expression "cooked RAW", but not cooked ISO.

Let me show you two test shots from Imaging Resource, if you are still in denial after this, then you are pretty incurable:

E-M5: F8, ISO6400 and 1/640s (you should be able to see the EXIF by downloading the full image)

A6000: F8, ISO6400 and 1/1000s

Here's your "real world comparison"... See the 2/3 stops difference in shutter speeds? (Sony sensor more sensitive at ISO6400 than the Oly) funny, DXOMark was right again it seems.

(Sorry, your favourite site DPReview first of all does not have comparable shots when one wants to compare ISO sensitivity (pictures are taken at different F-stops) and do not have the A6000 shot yet)

This is what Gordon Laing was not showing us (shutter speeds) and why ISO comparison is faulty. Are you still not convinced?

It's meaningless if you don't know if they adjust studio lighting for whatever reasons. We know DPR does that, even though you can find matching exposure values between m43 and NEX in their tests (most of the times but not always). And apparently, Imaging Resource does that too if you check an ISO 200 test from different Sony models (same test scene):

NEX5T at ISO 200, f8 and 1/30s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-5t/NEX5ThSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A3000 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/40s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a3000/AA3000hSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A7 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/25s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/AA7hSLI00200NR2D.ARW.HTM

So tell me, how do you explain the different shutter speeds at the same ISO 200 and F8 between all 3 of those Sony cameras released within a year from one another? Apparently, the A7 "cheats" just like the E-M5 does, at roughly 2/3 stop difference.

It's because they're ISO tests, not exposure tests. They just try to nail exposure to give readers a chance to see ISO performance under fair conditions.

Got anything else?

You will stay in denial It is not a matter of Oly or Sony cheating. It is a matter of understanding the technology. Different manufacturers may measure ISO sensitivity differently or as you state that studio lighting may be different in the case of the Sony cameras. In the latter case you need to evaluate the picture and the exposure.

What I forgot to mention was that the studio even seems less lit up on the A6000 picture than the EM5, which even makes a slightly stronger case for the A6000. The EM5 and the A3000 conditions however seems exactly the same. Maybe with newer cameras the studio conditions have also changed a bit.

That is why you should always state the shutter speed when doing ISO comparison, or else it will not make sense at all and why you need test sites like DXOMark who can measure the exact ISO sensitivity and compare the different sensors or do the test under exactly same conditions. Do it yourself now that you say you have both cameras from Sony and from Olympus or you can stay in denial.

Bottom line is that Gordon Laing's test is sadly useless, not having stated the shutter speeds and not down sampled the A6000 shot.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,711Gear list
Like?
Re: Awesomely predictable
In reply to ryan92084, 6 months ago

ryan92084 wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

...snip

It's meaningless if you don't know if they adjust studio lighting for whatever reasons. We know DPR does that, even though you can find matching exposure values between m43 and NEX in their tests (most of the times but not always). And apparently, Imaging Resource does that too if you check an ISO 200 test from different Sony models (same test scene):

NEX5T at ISO 200, f8 and 1/30s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-5t/NEX5ThSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A3000 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/40s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a3000/AA3000hSLI00200NR1.ARW.HTM

A7 at ISO 200 f8 and 1/25s

http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/AA7hSLI00200NR2D.ARW.HTM

So tell me, how do you explain the different shutter speeds at the same ISO 200 and F8 between all 3 of those Sony cameras released within a year from one another? Apparently, the A7 "cheats" just like the E-M5 does, at roughly 2/3 stop difference.

It's because they're ISO tests, not exposure tests. They just try to nail exposure to give readers a chance to see ISO performance under fair conditions.

Got anything else?

I don't know how much it would effect the shutter speeds but those three examples are using very different lenses. The 5t is using an a-mount zoom at 50mm, a3000 the 70mm sigma macro that was their go to lens for all platforms for a while, and the a7 is using the sel55f18z.

But I agree with the lighting comment. Who knows when imaging resource changed their bulbs or lighting equipment. That is the problem with doing testing over the course of months/years. While they do an admirable job trying to keep everything even it never quite will be.

As for the OP I pick the a6000 as the better picture in many more shots than a tie (and never a loser) in all but the straight RAW. For the straight RAW I'm not a good enough editor to make that call.

There was an issue about studio lighting recently at DPR where, I think, it was the EM-10 review and readers found a discrepancy in the studio test. When you'd go at very high ISOs, there was no difference in shutter speeds. It looked like an error, but the DPR staff reveal it wasn't and it had to do with the 1/4000 shutter of the EM-10 and how it couldn't keep up with faster shutters of other cameras (1/8000-1/16000). DPR weren't willing to put filters on that could affect IQ or cause diffraction by stopping down the lens further so they just reduce the lighting in the studio to achieve the same exposure.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads