You have -+3EV of recovery in both directions with the OM1.
That simply means you underexposed by 3 stops. Ideally, one will have *zero* recovery on the high end, but the ideal may not be achieved due to motion blur and/or DOF constraints.
There is no reason to expose to the right because 3EV is a lot of recovery.
That's like saying there's no need for a sharp lens 'cause the consumer lens is plenty sharp.
In the photo below where you see a bridge and people walking across it that started as a jpg, not RAW and that area was pitch black. I didn't think the sensor picked up anything in those shadows. I saw nothing there with my eyes. Of course this also illustrates HHRM cannot be used even for slow-walking people. It does work for people posing if you want a lot of detail in the background. With this much shadow recovery in a jpg and more with a RAW presumably, it is good enough for me. It just isn't usable for motion.
That wooden bridge on the left with two people walking across it, that area was as black as a coal mine. I didn't see anything in there but black. I was amazed that anything showed up in recovery. There is a lot of DR in this composition. Bright, direct sunlight and dark shadow and all of it looks good. The sky is smooth and clean on a hazy day. The colors are good. There is very little noise in the dark shadow-recovered areas. There are more enhancements in HHHR mode than resolution. I'm more impressed with that than I am with the additional resolution. I'm going to see how a 25MP file works when I want better IQ but not more resolution. This would have been a good opportunity to try the 25MP HHHR photo.
Any chance you can post the OOC jpg and/or RAW?
You are wrong about noise.
Not really, but let's discuss.
I didn't bookmark the chart that shows the OM-1 sensor is not generating noise at ISO800 and below but I know I saw it. It had the Z6 sensor included in the test. The way the curve works out, from ISO400 to ISO800 the noise curve on the OM is pretty flat but it rises on the Z6. Not what I expected.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, no, ISO 800 is definitely more noisy than ISO 400 on an OM1 (and every other camera):
I'm not arguing the OM-1 beats the Z6 in low-light capture, noise or shadow recovery. The Z6 wins. Z6 shadow recovery is +- 6EV if I remember correctly. Much better. It helps in extreme DR situations but when you have that much DR in the composition you need to think about using HDR anyway or find better lighting.
For the same exposure and more or less same sensor tech, FF has more or less two stops noise and one stop DR over mFT.
Setting the lab test aside, they don't always map perfectly over practical application. I'm looking for how the system works in the field. If the OM-1 recovers this much detail out of a totally black area of a jpg photo without delivering a grainy, noisy mess, with this IQ, I don't need anything that does it better.
If it's good enough for you, I won't tell you it isn't.
Photos where highlights were blown out, were not exposed correctly. There is no problem with this inside an 8EV DR range. 8EV is enough for all but extreme situations where you probably won't try to make a photo. The OM-1 DR range is more than 9.
Again, if the DR from the OM1 is good enough for you, I won't tell you it isn't.
Since I didn't bookmark the noise lab test you are going to have to post one that shows the FF sensor produces less noise from ISO800 and less but also produces a noticeable difference in a real-world image because I make photos, not lab tests. IMO if I have to use a longer exposure or a faster lens I'm going to be able to match the noise level of the FF sensor with the M43 camera.
Well, yeah -- if you use two stops greater exposure with mFT, then you'll match the noise levels of FF.
I can handhold the OM1 for ten seconds to do it if I can sit or lean on something. On a tripod, there is no time limit. For a single-image landscape, the FF camera can have more resolution. Nothing more. In most cases more than a 6EV range is not necessary so it doesn't help much as a practical matter.
FF can fire off as many shots as they like and stack and merge in post (software does alignment). The difference is convenience. And your example below at 1/320 is far, far, far from sharp *anywhere* in the frame.
You can produce a test that will show one system is better than another one but it could be only true for the test. If the system has the capability to capture the image, no greater capability adds anything to the effort.
True, there's the "good enough" clause. However, there is reason for better than "good enough" -- photos that are better than "good enough" have more latitude in processing, which gives more options.
Regarding your cell phone landscape, it's a terrible photo that demonstrates a situation where a cell phone works poorly. The sky is a weird color and the mountains and the trees in the foreground are too dark, and lack detail. I'd delete it.
I won't argue against your opinion -- its is a snap from a smartphone, after all -- but given the lack of detail in the photo above, well, I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than you seem to like the lack of detail in your photo but don't like it in mine.
Either way, let me make it crystal clear -- I'm not saying FF is better for you (or anyone else). I'm simply saying that it has advantages that may, or may not, be worth the differences in size, weight, price and operation. And, of course, there's considerable diversity in FF cameras. For example, the Canon RP and Sony A7R5 are both FF, but are worlds apart in almost every aspect aside, of course, from both being able to produce nice photos in many circumstances.
