Another Olympus E-M1 and SONY a7 walkabout test, high ISO

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,473
Re: Really?

quezra wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

LOL. Sergey's wrong again. Seems to be making a habit of that, lately.

Wrong how exactly?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

This thread is getting full quickly.

Daniel (the OP) merely posted images side by side which showed a difference. Even after his retake there is still a difference. A bigger difference than the (suggested interpretation) of the DxO graphs should suggest.

But heck, even DxO themselves rates a bigger difference between these cameras/sensors than these graphs suggest.

I am with Sergey - all these comparison discussios always center around one graph in DxO that nobody seems to be able to translate into real pictures.

Fact is that not all images use the full DR, and that, especially under low light, differences become less significant. But Sergey hit the nail on the head: if the OP exposed properly for highlights (protection), the shadows in the Oly would become a lot nosier.

The examples that are typically used in defense of the (graph) analysis do not have highlights (for they would be clipped, as in the OP's example).

Both cameras take fine pictures, but I would not declare one better than the other. However, in high-ISO (low light), I would take the larger sensor camera.

You're right, but you don't actually go far enough in dismissing these silly arguments.

The whole dynamic range 'equivalence' crap is a red herring and totally irrelevant to most photography. Do most shooters notice their dynamic range changing between ISO 400 and 1600 (sorry adjust accordingly if you are using m4/3)? And does it matter for the majority of most pictures typically taken in these ranges? Absolutely not. But when you do need to maximise DR is in specific types of shots where you absolutely need to be at ISO 100. Shooting pictures of your black and white cat might seem like a lot of dynamic range to some people but it really isn't. Ironically, these 'equivalence' paper theorists discount the one area when DR matters the most, yet think people shooting between ISO 400 and 6400 are shooting images where half stops of DR is important. When maximal DR is needed, there is only one choice, and the EM1 doesn't have it. All the equivalence crap is just convoluted exercises in self-justification that have no bearing on real photography.

DR-maximising photographers shoot FF or MF or LF. Fact. They wouldn't be shooting a cheetah at sunset running at full speed against an orange sky or whatever weird combination they need to somehow be at 1/800 and ISO 800 but ISO 3200 is too little DR all of a sudden now. It just goes to show how convoluted paper exercises can get, but when you actually shoot more often, you realise these tiny half stop differences don't matter as much as getting your shutter and aperture right - even DxOmark has to remind people that a one-stop difference isn't really likely to be noticeable. When you need maximal DR, you shoot at ISO 100. End of story. When you don't need the maximum, the rest of the curve is really not that important because the half stop reductions are nearly imperceptible , hence why DxOmark weights base ISO DR so much.

Sorry to burst the various bubbles here, I know you've spent months cooking up these ridiculous notions to demonstrate how m4/3 is the best possible sensor of all possible sensors but it simply is you trying to smuggle in a dozen (invalid) assumptions about photography to make your tortured logic hold together.

I think that you are absolutely right about all of that.

I bookmarked this thread

-- hide signature --


 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony Alpha a7R II +36 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow