So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Questions thread
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,789
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

I don't think you did. "Should be" implies a norm that the manufacturer are obliged to follow. There is no such thing when it comes to the DxOMark "measured ISOs". The only norm the manufacturers are obliged to follow concern OOC jpegs, not RAWs.

When it comes to the rest of your response below, I have already dealt with that in my previous reply to you (the one in which I commented on what you said in a post meant for texinwien).

We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's true that manufacturers have not agreed upon a norm for ISO.

They have agreed to follow an ISO norm that applies to jpegs.

This is one reason why we are seeing ISO-creep. However, it is still possible to compare cameras based on the way they meter and record data from a scene. It simply means that, instead of comparing the data with a norm, we compare it with data from other cameras.

I don't see anything in your comments that offers an objection to this.

I don't object to comparing cameras. It's just that with respect to what you are talking about, the difference between camera ISO and DxOMark "measured ISO", there is nothing better about cameras where this difference is small than about those where it is larger. Hence, there is no "should be" involved. Let me know if you still think there is, and if so on what grounds.

I don't understand your second sentence because it is ungrammatic. Please rephrase.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)


-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow