Who understands Olympus prices?

samtheman2014 wrote:

The base ISO of 64 of the D810 vs the D800 also gave cleaner shadows I am a long term Nikon shooters and the DR advantage in use is closer to half a stop over the D800 not huge but then we are already dealing with the best on the market DR at that time

D800 -> D810 -> D850 according to Bill's data shows 0.2EV difference (1.8%), while DxO shows 0.4 EV difference in landscape DR (2.8%) over a 5yr period spanning 3 models which you say is noticeable.

Yet, when Bill's data shows a 0.5EV difference (5.4%) between the EM1mkII and PEN-F and DxO shows a 0.4EV difference (3.2%) which gary0319 says is discernible you say "RAW differences are inconsequential"?

And those numbers are clearly not related to Shadow DR as can clearly be seen in the RAW DR test by Dpreview which is pretty much hidden on m43 tests for good reason I suspect.

Nor do they need to be.  You keep referring to shadow as if it's the only part of the histogram that matters.  ISO invariance does not equal PDR.  mFT sensors are not ISO invariant, right?

Bill's tests are based on what the in-camera ISO states not on any measured ISO per se which given Olympus's flexibility of ISO definitions makes me concerned .

So ignore the absolute values and look at the relative difference. Did Olympus only fudge numbers on one model and not the other?  Bill reports a 0.5 EV difference and DxO reports 0.4 EV.  This may not seem like much improvement but then neither is the D800 -> D850 by that measure.

Without any bias do you honestly see any gain in these samples from a selection of m43 cameras. If anything I would say the Pen F is marginally cleaner with the GH5 being the leader by the slightest of margins .

Gain in real-world use, yes.  Having edited over 150k EM5 RAW's, 15k PEN-F RAW's and 30k EM1mkII RAW's, I will take the latter ever time.  Much as I take your word that D800 -> D810 processing brought subtle improvements.  Does that make a difference in mFT ISO invariance comparisons?  Nope.  Nor do I think that is the sole measure of IQ improvement.

What really irks me about it is just how easily it could be done with current technology no miracle sensor tech needed. Though it may not seem so I would love to get rid of my FF gear and a 50 base ISO m43 sensor with a few more extra MP would facilitate that nicely I have been shooting with m43 since 2009 and given the excellent selection of fast primes and the superb IBIS options we have { for static stuff } a slower base ISO would be no hardship yet offer so much

I'm with you.  Same situation.

But in this area there is no m43 option that has a worthwhile advantage regardless how much or little you pay since the E-M5 1 there has been basically no shadow DR advance of any merit

I'm afraid shadow DR advance is not the feature people look to for mFT.  mFT does many things well but not everything.  Perhaps the dual gain sensor in the GH5s will be a step in the right direction.

I push shadows on a very regular basis as do for example BIF shooters { the resulting noise of which ruins many otherwise superbly captured images } certainly not by 5 stops . While as I specifically pointed out it is indeed an extreme example however on the FF cameras and for that matter the better APS cameras there is effectively no penalty for doing so whereas with any m43 it would be disastrous . Plus with or without shadow pushing thanks to a combination of too high a base ISO and the smaller sensor even base ISO m43 files have more noise than I like

I don't question the value of this.  To me it's an occasional need, like long exposure hand-held shots, pixel shift high-res, focus stacking, 4k/60p.  Some will need more than others.  I don't feel it constrains me but everyone's threshold for noise and image quality is different.