ogo

ogo

Lives in France Paris, France
Joined on Jan 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? news story (1514 comments in total)

why no x-e1 ?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 13:42 UTC as 414th comment
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 test samples news story (458 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogo: Why can't people just admit that a 4/3 sensor can be good at high ISO, and instead of that just say that Olympus cheated on high iso ?

Now think about this :
- R. Butler clearly stated that you can't use those studio samples to judge ISO scale
- for those shots E-M5 exposure times are the same that Panasonic GX1. Did anyone accuse Panasonic to cheat here ? Just look at DXOMark of GX1 (DXOmark being the "reference" for those accusing Oly to cheat). GX1 is right on scale
- you can't compare exposure for 4/3 and other sensors because the aspect ratio is not the same (3:2 vs 4:3). 3:2 sensors have more white on the sides to expose, thus making the comparison impossible
- you ignore light transmission differences between lenses (T-stops) which can have a big impact
- studio samples on another site (focus-numerique.com) show same exposure times for NEX-5N and E-M5, and still the noise results are very comparable with what is shown here.

manmachine242, I give up with you if this can help your ego. Have better things to do :)

PS: I know what is aperture, light, light meter because I use them to make photos :) I also know that if I shoot a white panel, the exposure time will be less that if I shoot a grey one (perhaps even more with a black one LOL). You do not seem to agree, you must be right :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 10:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 test samples news story (458 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogo: Why can't people just admit that a 4/3 sensor can be good at high ISO, and instead of that just say that Olympus cheated on high iso ?

Now think about this :
- R. Butler clearly stated that you can't use those studio samples to judge ISO scale
- for those shots E-M5 exposure times are the same that Panasonic GX1. Did anyone accuse Panasonic to cheat here ? Just look at DXOMark of GX1 (DXOmark being the "reference" for those accusing Oly to cheat). GX1 is right on scale
- you can't compare exposure for 4/3 and other sensors because the aspect ratio is not the same (3:2 vs 4:3). 3:2 sensors have more white on the sides to expose, thus making the comparison impossible
- you ignore light transmission differences between lenses (T-stops) which can have a big impact
- studio samples on another site (focus-numerique.com) show same exposure times for NEX-5N and E-M5, and still the noise results are very comparable with what is shown here.

manmachine242,

More white on image means more incoming light and thus less exposure time, this is what I say. You can't say ISO is cheated if you don't expose the same quantity of light.

Also look at the G1X (Canon) samples which is 4:3 ratio. They have the same exposure value than the E-M5 at 6400 ISO. Did Canon also cheat ?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 09:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 test samples news story (458 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogo: Why can't people just admit that a 4/3 sensor can be good at high ISO, and instead of that just say that Olympus cheated on high iso ?

Now think about this :
- R. Butler clearly stated that you can't use those studio samples to judge ISO scale
- for those shots E-M5 exposure times are the same that Panasonic GX1. Did anyone accuse Panasonic to cheat here ? Just look at DXOMark of GX1 (DXOmark being the "reference" for those accusing Oly to cheat). GX1 is right on scale
- you can't compare exposure for 4/3 and other sensors because the aspect ratio is not the same (3:2 vs 4:3). 3:2 sensors have more white on the sides to expose, thus making the comparison impossible
- you ignore light transmission differences between lenses (T-stops) which can have a big impact
- studio samples on another site (focus-numerique.com) show same exposure times for NEX-5N and E-M5, and still the noise results are very comparable with what is shown here.

manmachine242,

"I hope you have heard about method of measure the incoming light. It is only 50 years old at least."
Just look at the histograms ... They don't lie

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 09:37 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 test samples news story (458 comments in total)

Why can't people just admit that a 4/3 sensor can be good at high ISO, and instead of that just say that Olympus cheated on high iso ?

Now think about this :
- R. Butler clearly stated that you can't use those studio samples to judge ISO scale
- for those shots E-M5 exposure times are the same that Panasonic GX1. Did anyone accuse Panasonic to cheat here ? Just look at DXOMark of GX1 (DXOmark being the "reference" for those accusing Oly to cheat). GX1 is right on scale
- you can't compare exposure for 4/3 and other sensors because the aspect ratio is not the same (3:2 vs 4:3). 3:2 sensors have more white on the sides to expose, thus making the comparison impossible
- you ignore light transmission differences between lenses (T-stops) which can have a big impact
- studio samples on another site (focus-numerique.com) show same exposure times for NEX-5N and E-M5, and still the noise results are very comparable with what is shown here.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 08:45 UTC as 64th comment | 22 replies
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5