Reading mode: Light Dark

NEX 7 V OLY EP5 High ISO

Go to last post
Based on the metering in the NEX-7, the ISO 6400 “sample” in the OP suggests a scene that is 1-stop darker than the typical NBA arena where ISO 1600 and f/2.8 should get 1/500-1/800s shutter speed on practically any camera. The NEX will get you that.

However, the Olympus metered the same scene 2-stops slower. This means that in the typical NBA arena, if you’re using ISO 1600 on a NEX, you’d have to use ISO 6400 on the Olympus to maintain the shutter speed instead of settling for 1/160s-1/200s and motion blur that would entail.
 
Sk8trguy said:
Sk8trguy wrote:

I will add that from what I could tell the Olympus cameras focus better, have better lenses and offer IS that works in the viewfinder/LCD and with all lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's all necessarily true. The OM-D/E-P5 do have the reputation of focusing extremely quickly in good light, but I wonder how continuing development of hybrid AF will change the scene.

There are many beautiful lenses for m4/3, but many are not cheap. If you're willing to pay a lot, there are at least a few good ones for NEX as well, particularly if you're willing to shell out for the Zeiss-labeled lenses.

Also, AFAIK, IS works in the viewfinder/LCD for in-lens stabilized optics. In-body is of course nice to have.
 
EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Based on the metering in the NEX-7, the ISO 6400 “sample” in the OP suggests a scene that is 1-stop darker than the typical NBA arena where ISO 1600 and f/2.8 should get 1/500-1/800s shutter speed on practically any camera. The NEX will get you that.

However, the Olympus metered the same scene 2-stops slower. This means that in the typical NBA arena, if you’re using ISO 1600 on a NEX, you’d have to use ISO 6400 on the Olympus to maintain the shutter speed instead of settling for 1/160s-1/200s and motion blur that would entail.
Click to expand...
I'll go with what DxO says. The Oly does have a steeper tone curve which confuses some people and the NEX 7 blacks turn gray as ISO goes up.

DxO are the pros though.
 
olliess said:
olliess wrote:
olliess said:
Sk8trguy wrote:

I will add that from what I could tell the Olympus cameras focus better, have better lenses and offer IS that works in the viewfinder/LCD and with all lenses.
Click to expand...
Also, AFAIK, IS works in the viewfinder/LCD for in-lens stabilized optics.
Click to expand...
True...but not with Sony's SSS in their Alpha series.

The Oly IBIS works also works in the view finder and LCD. I would argue that it works better than in-lens IS too.

There are some great videos on youtube of people shaking their cameras while the LCD display remains perfectly still. It is totally amazing.
olliess said:
In-body is of course nice to have.
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
Sk8trguy wrote:

I spent the past day trying to find anything that would back up what this guy claims. All I found were about 4 posters who vigorously promote Sony cameras repeating the same things over and over. When I checked DxO (they only test RAW output), I found a lot of data that conflicts with their claims. For example, most review sites that look at jpegs match what DxO finds for RAW files.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a lot of claims without evidence to me.

Go back to the original OP and read out the EXIF data on the pictures. Then realize that the Oly requires three to four times as much light to cover the same reported ISO.

Then please explain to me why that is equivalent? Four times is 2 stops and I can shoot with the Nex at 1/4th the ISO value.

Furthermore, I was searching for ISO 1600 - ISO 3200 images on the internet/dpreview galleries. I see hardly any such images, and read in many posts that ISO 200 - ISO 1000 is the 'working range'.

On the Nex camera, ISO 3200 is the 'default' max ISO (except on Nex-7 and older Nex cameras which use ISO 1600).

ISO being wrong or right, to me, this means that the Nex can work under low-light at much higher shutter speeds than the Oly. Sure, I can get a low light image with the Oly (and claimed ISOs), but they require longer shutter times, and (helped by IBIS) they come out decent... for anything that does not move.

But it is not the same.

Again, ISO = ISO, exposure = exposure, RAW = RAW. This was established by the industry as standards that are really insensitive to camera sensor sizes. To me it means that same exposure = same sensitivity = same ISO.

In Oly terms - check the OP again - this means that I trade exposure (longer) for higher ISO. But in all my experiences, longer exposure leads me to lower ISO.

Add to this that the ISO ceiling is proportional to the sensor size.

Comparing camera JPG engines, well here is an example of what I mean: Steve Huff's crazy comparison

Now - here is my point. Steve used a tripod and used 1/10 for the Oly and 1/13 for the Nex. He used 1/2 for the Fuji, which shows dramatic over-exposure.He also turned NR off on the Oly which makes the outputs more comparable.

I find this useful, because it highlights that the Nex exposed properly. The Oly on the other hand was used the same ISO and 30% more shutter time. So it should expose the same, right?

Now look at the lantern light in the center: the Fuji, as it is over-exposing, blows the highlight complete, and the Nex is already struggling, and barely looses it. The Oly, to my eye, is close to the Fuji, meaning it blows the highlights completely and is struggling with exposure and keeping things clean.

There are low res images - low res tens to compress the problems (or hide them). The full size originals allow for better optimizations - but not blown highlights recovery.

Don't read me wrong, none of the images is properly exposed, but given the same exposure, seeing the Oly blowing out the highlights tells me enough.

I'd rather be using the Nex, or the Fuji, if properly exposed.

BTW - Steve Huff confirms the OP findings - the Oly needs more light as same ISO.

Or, to read this the other way - the Oly uses longer shutter times to match the APS-C camera's higher sensor sensitivity. Nothing wrong with that if you can avoid motion blur and blown highlights, which is typically the case in a studio environment. So - reviewers, including DxO, will score the cameras closer thatn they are in real life.

Take some real pictures and see for yourself. The Nex (APS-C) simply gives you more headroom under low light.






Member said:
I will add that from what I could tell the Olympus cameras focus better, have better lenses and offer IS that works in the viewfinder/LCD and with all lenses. I worry that Sony is more preoccupied with the new Alphas and an expensive full frame camera, and the NEX system will suffer.
Click to expand...
Adding this because it is meaningful?

How many lenses do you really have? And how does this matter if you have good lenses? The Nex lens line is filling in, and two upcoming lenses (fast E85/OSS and G or Zeiss mid-tele zoom) will help. All that is missing is a faster longer OSS tele lens.

I have the lenses to make my claim:





--
Cheers,
Henry
 
Just Having Fun said:
Just Having Fun said:
EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Based on the metering in the NEX-7, the ISO 6400 “sample” in the OP suggests a scene that is 1-stop darker than the typical NBA arena where ISO 1600 and f/2.8 should get 1/500-1/800s shutter speed on practically any camera. The NEX will get you that.

However, the Olympus metered the same scene 2-stops slower. This means that in the typical NBA arena, if you’re using ISO 1600 on a NEX, you’d have to use ISO 6400 on the Olympus to maintain the shutter speed instead of settling for 1/160s-1/200s and motion blur that would entail.
Click to expand...
I'll go with what DxO says. The Oly does have a steeper tone curve which confuses some people and the NEX 7 blacks turn gray as ISO goes up.

DxO are the pros though.
Click to expand...
Never go with something you don't understand properly, as an excuse to coverup your own understanding of the subject and what has been asked of it. Just admit denial.
 
blue_skies said:




Click to expand...
Well to keep a very long story to the point.

1) the Oly is overexposed. The sky (not what I call a highlight) is clearly lighter too for instance. Same with the Fuji

2) Oly 1/13 mnd Sony 1/10. Oly would look better at 1/13. It would look identical (exposure) to the Sony. And that is btw exactly what happens in the new comparison tool of dpreview where all shots are RAW btw. In bad light they all use the same shutterspeed at the same aperature and the same ISO....

3) You calculate how the Oly would have been exposed? So you assume it is 30% less sensitive than they say and so you must bump the shutterspeed to 1/10 s??? No: you do not assume such a thing and look through the EVF and set it properly and make shure they all look equal.

4) Funny thing: Sony NR is to low (not off) and the others are off...and then this guy compares...Yes that is really a good and scientific sound method.

5) None of these pics have nearly the same FOV. Great..

6) Now is it impossible to set the Fuji to MF and properly focus and save the remark as an aside (did not focus after 4 times)? What was this guy trying to prove? The fuji is completely out of focus....

7) the biggest highlight looks the best with Oly. The Sony has strange halo's around it. Possibly some "low" NR artifacts or a lens that does not cope too well. I don't know, but it does not look okey to me.

1/13 s vs 1/10...does that equal 2 stops in your book? You think these pics are giving us better, more reliable data than DxO or dpreview comparisons?
 
Last edited:
Jorginho said:
Jorginho wrote:
Jorginho said:




Click to expand...
Well to keep a very long story to the point.

1) the Oly is overexposed. The sky (not what I call a highlight) is clearly lighter too for instance. Same with the Fuji

2) Oly 1/13 mnd Sony 1/10. Oly would look better at 1/13. It would look identical (exposure) to the Sony. And that is btw exactly what happens in the new comparison tool of dpreview where all shots are RAW btw. In bad light they all use the same shutterspeed at the same aperature and the same ISO....

3) You calculate how the Oly would have been exposed? So you assume it is 30% less sensitive than they say and so you must bump the shutterspeed to 1/10 s??? No: you do not assume such a thing and look through the EVF and set it properly and make shure they all look equal.

4) Funny thing: Sony NR is to low (not off) and the others are off...and then this guy compares...Yes that is really a good and scientific sound method.

5) None of these pics have nearly the same FOV. Great..

6) Now is it impossible to set the Fuji to MF and properly focus and save the remark as an aside (did not focus after 4 times)? What was this guy trying to prove? The fuji is completely out of focus....

7) the biggest highlight looks the best with Oly. The Sony has strange halo's around it. Possibly some "low" NR artifacts or a lens that does not cope too well. I don't know, but it does not look okey to me.

1/13 s vs 1/10...does that equal 2 stops in your book? You think these pics are giving us better, more reliable data than DxO or dpreview comparisons?
Click to expand...
Did you look at them at 100%?

They are all over exposed. But this should help SNR. E.g. compare the Fuji to the Oly. Noise in the Fuji is much less.

As a 'real life' image, I would be most pleased with the Nex.

It has the better WB too.

You can expose a camera different ways: automatic, by ISO, by shutter, by speed, by aperture, etc. If exposed the same by same values, the images should be the same, after pp, right?

That is your main point: equivalence.

I say that this is only true for certain histograms and lumens/SNR values, (i.e. sufficient headroom remains), but if this is not true, then the Nex camera is your best bet to produce keepers (more headroom remaining).

To me this is not equivalent.



--
Cheers,
Henry
 
blue_skies said:
blue_skies wrote:
blue_skies said:
Jorginho wrote:
blue_skies said:




Click to expand...
Well to keep a very long story to the point.

1) the Oly is overexposed. The sky (not what I call a highlight) is clearly lighter too for instance. Same with the Fuji

2) Oly 1/13 mnd Sony 1/10. Oly would look better at 1/13. It would look identical (exposure) to the Sony. And that is btw exactly what happens in the new comparison tool of dpreview where all shots are RAW btw. In bad light they all use the same shutterspeed at the same aperature and the same ISO....

3) You calculate how the Oly would have been exposed? So you assume it is 30% less sensitive than they say and so you must bump the shutterspeed to 1/10 s??? No: you do not assume such a thing and look through the EVF and set it properly and make shure they all look equal.

4) Funny thing: Sony NR is to low (not off) and the others are off...and then this guy compares...Yes that is really a good and scientific sound method.

5) None of these pics have nearly the same FOV. Great..

6) Now is it impossible to set the Fuji to MF and properly focus and save the remark as an aside (did not focus after 4 times)? What was this guy trying to prove? The fuji is completely out of focus....

7) the biggest highlight looks the best with Oly. The Sony has strange halo's around it. Possibly some "low" NR artifacts or a lens that does not cope too well. I don't know, but it does not look okey to me.

1/13 s vs 1/10...does that equal 2 stops in your book? You think these pics are giving us better, more reliable data than DxO or dpreview comparisons?
Click to expand...
Did you look at them at 100%?

They are all over exposed. But this should help SNR. E.g. compare the Fuji to the Oly. Noise in the Fuji is much less.
Click to expand...
They are clearly not overexposed to the same degree. Look at the night sky: how is this the same?

Fuji is renowned for low noise, but also for low details it seems. I am not getting into a Fuji argument over here BTW.
blue_skies said:
As a 'real life' image, I would be most pleased with the Nex.
Click to expand...
COuld be, the sky seems smudged because of low noise reduction. Also the Sony is zoomed in more so we can see more detail. But these cams are not set to perform equally, where the photog could easily do this. I mean: we have live view and setting NR to off or setting them all to Low is not so difficult is it?
blue_skies said:
It has the better WB too.
Click to expand...
I don't see it. It is JPEGs...I shoot RAW. If you want to compare how a sensor performs, JPG is jsut the opposite of ideal for this purpose.
blue_skies said:
You can expose a camera different ways: automatic, by ISO, by shutter, by speed, by aperture, etc. If exposed the same by same values, the images should be the same, after pp, right?
Click to expand...
No, you still have differences in sensor interpretation of colours etc. Let's keep to the point: we want to compare how these three fare in the same situation. And that is done poorly. Not the same FOV, not the same exposure, not the same noise settings, not the same focus (one is out of focus).
blue_skies said:
That is your main point: equivalence.
Click to expand...
And: is it here?
blue_skies said:
I say that this is only true for certain histograms and lumens/SNR values, (i.e. sufficient headroom remains), but if this is not true, then the Nex camera is your best bet to produce keepers (more headroom remaining).
Click to expand...
Oh..well..I think in this situation we could get away with ISO 1600 on the Oly with its IBIS on. And we could not do the same tjhing with the Sony...You would indeed need a tripod.
blue_skies said:
To me this is not equivalent.
Click to expand...
To me neither: so what's the point of this whole comparison?
blue_skies said:
--
Cheers,
Henry
Click to expand...
Finally: you were the one saying this "I think that Ian just proved that "real life' exposures heavily favor the Nex."" So...where did these all of a sudden go? 1/3 of a stop...
 
Unfortunately, and as you pointed out, these three images were taken at three different FOVs. Better comparison will involve all three with the same fov, shutter speed, aperture and iso. Or, leave iso auto to see how each camera meters the scene.

If Olympus turns in a slower shutter speed, much less by nearly 2-stops, at same ISO, you would have discovered the trick.
 
Jorginho said:
Jorginho wrote:
Jorginho said:
blue_skies wrote:
Jorginho said:
Jorginho wrote:
Jorginho said:




Click to expand...
Well to keep a very long story to the point.

1) the Oly is overexposed. The sky (not what I call a highlight) is clearly lighter too for instance. Same with the Fuji

2) Oly 1/13 mnd Sony 1/10. Oly would look better at 1/13. It would look identical (exposure) to the Sony. And that is btw exactly what happens in the new comparison tool of dpreview where all shots are RAW btw. In bad light they all use the same shutterspeed at the same aperature and the same ISO....

3) You calculate how the Oly would have been exposed? So you assume it is 30% less sensitive than they say and so you must bump the shutterspeed to 1/10 s??? No: you do not assume such a thing and look through the EVF and set it properly and make shure they all look equal.

4) Funny thing: Sony NR is to low (not off) and the others are off...and then this guy compares...Yes that is really a good and scientific sound method.

5) None of these pics have nearly the same FOV. Great..

6) Now is it impossible to set the Fuji to MF and properly focus and save the remark as an aside (did not focus after 4 times)? What was this guy trying to prove? The fuji is completely out of focus....

7) the biggest highlight looks the best with Oly. The Sony has strange halo's around it. Possibly some "low" NR artifacts or a lens that does not cope too well. I don't know, but it does not look okey to me.

1/13 s vs 1/10...does that equal 2 stops in your book? You think these pics are giving us better, more reliable data than DxO or dpreview comparisons?
Click to expand...
Did you look at them at 100%?

They are all over exposed. But this should help SNR. E.g. compare the Fuji to the Oly. Noise in the Fuji is much less.
Click to expand...
They are clearly not overexposed to the same degree. Look at the night sky: how is this the same?

Fuji is renowned for low noise, but also for low details it seems. I am not getting into a Fuji argument over here BTW.
Jorginho said:
As a 'real life' image, I would be most pleased with the Nex.
Click to expand...
COuld be, the sky seems smudged because of low noise reduction. Also the Sony is zoomed in more so we can see more detail. But these cams are not set to perform equally, where the photog could easily do this. I mean: we have live view and setting NR to off or setting them all to Low is not so difficult is it?
Jorginho said:
It has the better WB too.
Click to expand...
I don't see it. It is JPEGs...I shoot RAW. If you want to compare how a sensor performs, JPG is jsut the opposite of ideal for this purpose.
Jorginho said:
You can expose a camera different ways: automatic, by ISO, by shutter, by speed, by aperture, etc. If exposed the same by same values, the images should be the same, after pp, right?
Click to expand...
No, you still have differences in sensor interpretation of colours etc. Let's keep to the point: we want to compare how these three fare in the same situation. And that is done poorly. Not the same FOV, not the same exposure, not the same noise settings, not the same focus (one is out of focus).
Jorginho said:
That is your main point: equivalence.
Click to expand...
And: is it here?
Jorginho said:
I say that this is only true for certain histograms and lumens/SNR values, (i.e. sufficient headroom remains), but if this is not true, then the Nex camera is your best bet to produce keepers (more headroom remaining).
Click to expand...
Oh..well..I think in this situation we could get away with ISO 1600 on the Oly with its IBIS on. And we could not do the same tjhing with the Sony...You would indeed need a tripod.
Jorginho said:
To me this is not equivalent.
Click to expand...
To me neither: so what's the point of this whole comparison?
Jorginho said:
--
Cheers,
Henry
Click to expand...
Finally: you were the one saying this "I think that Ian just proved that "real life' exposures heavily favor the Nex."" So...where did these all of a sudden go? 1/3 of a stop...
Click to expand...
Did you miss the point that these are not Steve's images, but my pp output thereof from LR with auto-exposure, auto-WB (except for Oly), mild NR and mild sharpening applied?

I use this LR 'auto' button successfully to equalize the Nex images when using different (legacy) lenses.

More so, using the 'auto' button I try to be fair. I can still optimize each image differently. I did not - I am merely highlighting an observation.

On a properly exposed JPG image, I get quite pleasing results. The Oly image is sub-par.

Steve's images, per his post, differ dramatically

--
Cheers,
Henry
 
Oke: were these pics PP by you via RAW in LR or did you use JPGS and convert them to your liking? If so, what are the comments all about in the pics?
 
Jorginho said:
Jorginho wrote:

Oke: were these pics PP by you via RAW in LR or did you use JPGS and convert them to your liking? If so, what are the comments all about in the pics?
Click to expand...
Steve Huff posted low res JPG images, which included his comments. They differ so much that I let Adobe LR 'equalize' the JPGs. I posted the Adobe output.

No trickery, anyone can do the same.
 
So we have this:

1) DxO and dpreview who OR simply measure the sensors RAw output with or without a lens in controlled situations

And:

2) We have JPGS from camera's with different settings, one even not well focussed run to yet another program by someone.

Now which one would be more objective? Which one is affected by less andwhich one is influenced by more non-sensor related variables you think?

Believe it or not, but to some over here the second option is the prefered one.And we find this on the Sony NEX forum and it are a few Sony NEX owners who prefer option nr 2...I am not suprised.
 
Jorginho said:
Jorginho wrote:

So we have this:

1) DxO and dpreview who OR simply measure the sensors RAw output with or without a lens in controlled situations

And:

2) We have JPGS from camera's with different settings, one even not well focussed run to yet another program by someone.

Now which one would be more objective? Which one is affected by less andwhich one is influenced by more non-sensor related variables you think?

Believe it or not, but to some over here the second option is the prefered one.And we find this on the Sony NEX forum and it are a few Sony NEX owners who prefer option nr 2...I am not suprised.
Click to expand...
Or we have this:

1. Two cameras that under controlled circumstances produce 'claimed' same output, but there are questions as to what exactly is meant by 'same'.

2. Two cameras that show an image of the same (low light) subject, illustrating my point per my earlier post.

What is it that you are not getting here?

Or, take a 16Mp crop of the Nex-7 (same pixel size as Oly) and compare it in RAW against the Oly. Guess what? The Oly looks better. Now pp both images and look again. Guess what? They look the same.

But the Nex-7 has 24Mp, there is a lot of headroom left. You get that in a Nex-6 with the larger pixel sites.

I just show 'real life' examples where it matters.

I don't have the m43 camera, but I have experience with (stabilized) smaller sensors and this is exactly where I incurred these kind of problems that the Nex simply addressed better. I am sure that the m43 sensor also addresses this better, due to its also larger sensor, but not to the same degree that the Nex does.

Again, my original point, that started this (sub)thread is that if you do compare after pp, the final results do favor the Nex's larger sensor. Not necessarily always (sufficient SNR ratio), but there are times when this matters...

It sometimes also doesn't differ much with a P&S image, until the ISO goes up.
 
blue_skies said:
blue_skies wrote:
blue_skies said:
Jorginho wrote:

Oke: were these pics PP by you via RAW in LR or did you use JPGS and convert them to your liking? If so, what are the comments all about in the pics?
Click to expand...
Steve Huff posted low res JPG images, which included his comments. They differ so much that I let Adobe LR 'equalize' the JPGs. I posted the Adobe output.

No trickery, anyone can do the same.

--
Cheers,
Henry
Click to expand...
So I went to that site. What is Steve's OWN conclusion about these pics adn these cams?

1) Olympus low light shots are really really good
2) Olympus is the only camera that autofocussed immediately and constantly, the Sony did only after the thrid try!

3) Sony NEX has a tendency to underexpose, exactly what I noted in the OP! So the shuttertime is shorter...

More importantly: Steve noted, "So the OM-D was set to OFF. The Fuji to LOW (-2) and the Sony to LOW. The Fuji and Sony do NOT let you turn it OFF. So.. I knew I would get some of you asking me why I did not take a shot with the Olympus set to LOW. Makes sense right? So below you can see the shots with the Olympus set to LOW.

Well, apparantly it did not make sense to you because you preferred to use Oly files with noise off and the other two with NR low. Why, if you want a fair comparison.

And it is also you and not Steve that overexposed the files unequally.

So here are the original files and tow files in which I used Adobe smart repair, no more and no less to see what adobe does.

Here the two original files and below the tow run through Adobe Photoshop elements:

b9282fbbc2fc404cb0847104c0c5625f.jpg

0f4352149a3c447ba47702f31f2fb2a1.jpg

Run through Photshop by ONLY using smart repair...

e203888f6200466e82f3238f2bdd5bc7.jpg

bb2cd272ef6842da8ad890184702dc56.jpg

To me, this still means little but it is only to show how we can trust you and your way to compare the Olympus and the SOny....not in the same way....

The only one who seems to have some tricks up his sleeve is not mr Oly..
 
Last edited:
Which grass? Oooohhhh....I thought it was bamboo...;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top