Who understands Olympus prices?

samtheman2014 wrote:

between the D800 and D810 yes the adoption of a lower 64 ISO base was a step forward I never mentioned the D850. Again based on controlled RAW testing not charts , though in this instance I owned both cameras

Do you have any of these "controlled RAW testing" results you can share? Why doesn't this difference show up in testing?   Aside from the D850 getting a boost at ISO 400+, I see no difference.

D800 vs D810 vs D850

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"?

Bill's data based on using the in camera ISO labeling vs how it is comparatively to other cameras is a weakness of the data and as I have now mentioned a couple of times the RAW results are what matters to me and should be what matters to any photographer . And as can be clearly seen

Again, I'm comparing within the same brand.  Does Olympus use different methodology for ISO rating for the EM1mkII and PEN-F? Does Nikon use use different methodology for ISO rating for the D800, and D810?  The relative differences show Olympus made more DR improvement in 6 months than Nikon made in 5 years.

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?

These are not ISO invariance samples they are DPreview DR samples , the E-M1II is arguably slightly poorer if anything compared to the Pen F and GH5

Poorer at boosting shadows 5EV on a DPReview test scene.  Think about what you're saying.  Perhaps some examples of a backlit face or bird would be a better comparison.

Olympus ISO numbers based on DXO "measured ISO" fill the charts of having the most discrepancy between measured and claimed ISO . Though DXO measured ISO is also a bit dubious which is why I am interested in actual controlled RAW results which is where the rubber meets the road

Yet you keep showing RAW results from a static staged test scene.  There appears to be no actual performance metrics to quantify the difference you claim.  If I'm shooting a staged test scene with the EM1mkII in order to lift shadows 5EV, I'm shooting high-res 

Do real world RAW shots have some magical quality that does not exist in literally hundreds of different RAW samples tested in a range of conditions by several respected websites such Dpreview, Imaging Resource, Focus numerique etc . . Again I never mentioned or posted anything to do with ISO in-variance I posted the DPreview DR tests

Okay, let's boost these test shots (shadows to 100) in PS and see the difference.

But if the swines would just give us a true low base ISO sensor things could be markedly improved in one simple step.

I don't disagree with your point of all this.  A true base 50 or 64 would be ideal.  Dual gain, BSI, bring it all.