Interview with Tereda and other Olympus staff

Started Sep 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: The real Point is...

erichK wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Yes, but this is cherry picking results in your comparison of the E-M5 and the D800. Compare ISO 3200 E-M5 to ISO 12,800 on Imaging Resources. The E-M5 image is much better. And there are other examples like this for color depth and DR. I would give the D800 a 1 1/2 stop advantage.

herry picking 6400 is the higher than I would ever consider using even with FF . 12800 is atrocious on the E-M5 {I own both cameras, though the E-M5 is going to help with the E-M1 shopping }. Are you looking at the comparometer on imaging resource which uses default JPEG output .The default NR on the E-M5 is way to aggressive if all you want is mush then fine if you would like some detail not so good. The D800 has a 1.7 stop advantage over the E-M5 "IF" you choose to ignore the detail advantage. My noise tolerance is 3200 FF and 800 mFT .I am interested in detail as l assume I share your interest in landscape photography where detail ,DR and colour fidelity are what counts.

Just for fun here are the imaging resource RAW files compared D800 12800 ,E-M5 3200 pretty much the same story either significantly more detail or same noise while 2 stops apart again the RAW files are available for download from imaging resource

D800 12800 VS E-M5 3200 NO NR

With NR

That means that if the E-M1 is at least a half stop better than the E-M5, we are back to just a ~1 stop advantage for FF in everything except size of file. Hopefully, removing the AA filter will improve resolution a bit in the E-M1, but I'm getting huge prints out of my E-M5 so no complaints there.

I think that is a big if, the E-M1 looks to be fraction of a stop less bad at the ultra high ISO, there are plenty of RAW samples available which I have compared in detail using , Olympus viewer, light room and Raw therapy .There is wee gain in detail in the low ISO files but not anywhere near the D800 levels. I do wish that they had went higher with the MP count preferably with a genuine 50 ISO and to hell with high ISO

Again, I'm not saying that FF is not better, just that the assuming everyone keeps up with technology that the differences will be less and less important. A 1 stop advantage is a huge difference when there are only 5 stops. It is not such a big difference when were are looking at 11.5 or 12 stops. On the other hand, size doesn't change. FF lenses will always be huge.

Huge is a matter of opinion but they will of course always be larger than mFT options.For me mFT combined with FF makes for my one beautiful system


...that in 40 years of taking pictures, I can think of perhaps two dozen that needed such ISO settings/

I agree completely Erich, in the past I had a use for high ISO now my love is landscape photography and it is resolution , DR, colour fidelity and malleability of RAW files that matter to me. I would have loved the E-M1 to be targeted at this market with a higher MP count and genuine base  of 50 ISO. One need only look at any of the major photo sharing sites such as Flickr to see just how high a percentage of shots are taken at low ISO.


 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow