So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Questions
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
Re: What's weak about the GH3?

Anders W wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Hi,

I know this is an initial test/ preview- but if you look at the Hi-Iso test just completed by DPR, almost anything you put up against the OM-D looks second rate- within reason(IMO). It takes jumping into some of the high dollar dslr's to find comparables so it seems. GH3 isn't totally out of the question- I'll be looking for more examples/info/reviews. As I mentioned, Olympus really has a winner in the OM-D. Hopefully they have a newer release for the future that gives us a bigger option

It's been said on another test but the samples posted by DPR are simply unrepresentative of user experience. If you want to go with that, it's fine, but in all honesty it's identical to better than the E-M5 in real world use.

Because I'm talking about actual use, and not shooting a pointless test scene with a tripod it may simply be that the GH3 is more of a photographers camera (e.g. it allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings to get enhanced results). Nonetheless, I'll take the camera that gives me better results/more keepers at the end of the day.

First, are you saying that DPR has made some kind of mistake specifically when shooting or processing the GH3 samples? If so, what mistake would that be?

Anders, not sure old son, all I can say is that these samples aren't representative of comparative real world use or, to say it another way I prefer the results I get from the GH3, which look better to me than what I get from the E-M5. As I pointed out on another post, it may just be the ergonomics and controls suit are better which means I achieve more keepers - but in saying that perhaps I'm trying to be conciliatory?

Second, are you saying that the DPR studio scene is useless for judging the image quality of a camera? If so, for what specific reasons would that be?

I don't find it valuable - this test actually suggests better image quality from the GH@ compared to the E-M5 and the GH3. I question that. Further, the test scene suggests a prevalence of moire on X-Pro1 shots whereas I find the E-M5 and X100 for worse is real world use.

Finally, are you saying that the GH3 allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings that affect image quality than for example the E-M5? If so, what would those settings be?

It allows for quicker/button dial based control and/or no need to menu dive to reach settings

Thanks,

Simon

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: What's weak about the GH3?

sgoldswo wrote:

Anders W wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Hi,

I know this is an initial test/ preview- but if you look at the Hi-Iso test just completed by DPR, almost anything you put up against the OM-D looks second rate- within reason(IMO). It takes jumping into some of the high dollar dslr's to find comparables so it seems. GH3 isn't totally out of the question- I'll be looking for more examples/info/reviews. As I mentioned, Olympus really has a winner in the OM-D. Hopefully they have a newer release for the future that gives us a bigger option

It's been said on another test but the samples posted by DPR are simply unrepresentative of user experience. If you want to go with that, it's fine, but in all honesty it's identical to better than the E-M5 in real world use.

Because I'm talking about actual use, and not shooting a pointless test scene with a tripod it may simply be that the GH3 is more of a photographers camera (e.g. it allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings to get enhanced results). Nonetheless, I'll take the camera that gives me better results/more keepers at the end of the day.

First, are you saying that DPR has made some kind of mistake specifically when shooting or processing the GH3 samples? If so, what mistake would that be?

Anders, not sure old son, all I can say is that these samples aren't representative of comparative real world use or, to say it another way I prefer the results I get from the GH3, which look better to me than what I get from the E-M5. As I pointed out on another post, it may just be the ergonomics and controls suit are better which means I achieve more keepers - but in saying that perhaps I'm trying to be conciliatory?

Well, if what you actually want to say is that the user interface of the GH3 suits you so much better that you get more keepers with that camera, then I (and probably others) completely misunderstood what you had in mind. The DPR studio samples obviously do not even purport to show the impact of the user interface in practical photography. There is no way they can do that. What they do try to show is the quality of the sensor and (for OOC jpegs) the image processing.

Second, are you saying that the DPR studio scene is useless for judging the image quality of a camera? If so, for what specific reasons would that be?

I don't find it valuable - this test actually suggests better image quality from the GH@ compared to the E-M5 and the GH3.

The GH@? You mean the GH2 or what? Are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs? And in what way do you think the samples suggest that the GH@ (GH2?) is better?

I question that. Further, the test scene suggests a prevalence of moire on X-Pro1 shots whereas I find the E-M5 and X100 for worse is real world use.

Where do you see the moiré from the X-Pro1? And again are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs?

Finally, are you saying that the GH3 allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings that affect image quality than for example the E-M5? If so, what would those settings be?

It allows for quicker/button dial based control and/or no need to menu dive to reach settings

OK. So you mean quicker rather than greater control.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: What's weak about the GH3?

sgoldswo wrote:

texinwien wrote:

It really gets you upset that I own both cameras and don't prefer the one you own doesn't it? That's funny - did no one explain to you it's perfectly fine for you to like one camera and someone to like another?

I don't care how many cameras you own, or which ones are your personal favorites.

Cool, for the record I own an M9, an X-pro1, and X100, an X-E1, a GH3, an E-M5 an E-PL5 and a GX1(IR), whoops, nearly forgot the Contax G2. Oh and occasionally my OH lets me use her RX100. I used to own an E-P3, X10, A100, A700, A900, A55, A77. NEX-5, NEX-5N and NEX-7. I've spent a good bit of time using a 5D II as well (not mine though). Cheers for asking, you are welcome.

Proof that owning a large number of cameras does not one a camera or photography expert make, I reckon

I do care if you're making demonstrably false statements

What are those then?

It's not clear that you have, as of yet, but evidence is mounting in that direction.

and why is it you take so long writing replies to me old son?

I have other things to do, and answering anti scientists falls well behind most of them, old son.

or claiming that your personal experience has more validity than the results of multiple tests

What a joke - no I claim my experience and that of others who actually use cameras is more valid than pointing a camera at a pointless test scene. Thanks

What a joke is right. Anti science and anti intellectualism are on the rise. At least you can take comfort in being part of a trend, of sorts.

performed by highly trained professionalsm no matter which camera is your personal favorite.

tex

Thanks tex, I love you too

That's just luvly., chap.

tex

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great
2

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

It's actually not, but I'd welcome you to give it 'the old college try'.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs.

Yes, because that is all the ISO Standard applies to, as the authoritative sources to which I linked and which I quoted make quite clear..

If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

'Should be' according to whom?

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?

tex

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs. If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

Could you please spell out precisely what you mean when you say the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

"Should be" according to what standard?

One stop worse with regard to what?

I can think of two answers to this:

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs. If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

Could you please spell out precisely what you mean when you say the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

"Should be" according to what standard?

One stop worse with regard to what?

I can think of two answers to this:

You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

texinwien wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

It's actually not, but I'd welcome you to give it 'the old college try'.

Okay.

My understanding of Dpreview's argument is that it is based on jpegs. Essentially, Dpreview says that the E-M5 underexposes by a stop and then pushes the image data in firmware, and the result is a jpeg that looks normally exposed. For example, if you choose ISO 800, the E-M5 will shoot at ISO 400 and then brighten the Raw data by the equivalent of a stop and present you with a jpeg that looks correctly exposed.

Dpreview argues that there is nothing wrong with doing this.

The problems start when you shoot in Raw and process the data yourself on your computer using, for example, ACR. Initially the Raw image looks fine, but when you start to adjust shadows and highlights you find that there is little leeway because the exposure has already been pushed by a full stop.

Compare this with data from a camera that has shot at ISO 800 and not manipulated the data.

Raw from such a camera has a lot of leeway for manipulation - certainly a lot more than the E-M5 - because it has not already been pushed close to its limit.

If you search through the forums and on other parts of the internet you will find a lot of comments from Olympus shooters, and E-M5 users in particular, who say that Raw images from their cameras do not respond well to being manipulated in software.

I'm not trying to push any particular barrow here. I'm an Olympus shooter myself.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs.

Yes, because that is all the ISO Standard applies to, as the authoritative sources to which I linked and which I quoted make quite clear..

If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

'Should be' according to whom?

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?

tex

See above.

-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs. If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

Could you please spell out precisely what you mean when you say the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

"Should be" according to what standard?

One stop worse with regard to what?

I can think of two answers to this:

You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: What's weak about the GH3?
3

texinwien wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

texinwien wrote:

It really gets you upset that I own both cameras and don't prefer the one you own doesn't it? That's funny - did no one explain to you it's perfectly fine for you to like one camera and someone to like another?

I don't care how many cameras you own, or which ones are your personal favorites.

Cool, for the record I own an M9, an X-pro1, and X100, an X-E1, a GH3, an E-M5 an E-PL5 and a GX1(IR), whoops, nearly forgot the Contax G2. Oh and occasionally my OH lets me use her RX100. I used to own an E-P3, X10, A100, A700, A900, A55, A77. NEX-5, NEX-5N and NEX-7. I've spent a good bit of time using a 5D II as well (not mine though). Cheers for asking, you are welcome.

Proof that owning a large number of cameras does not one a camera or photography expert make, I reckon

I've been following all this abuse with interest, because I enjoy a good slanging-match, but at this point I feel compelled to step in and take sides with .... with .... with ... with texinwien!

The first reason I'm going to take sides with texinwien, Mr sgoldswo, is that you've just given us a list of 19 cameras that you own or have owned recently and yet your image gallery is full of snapshots. These two nuggets of information suggest to me that your interest in photography leans more towards a gearhead acquisition syndrome than it does towards actually taking photographs. Not that there is anything wrong with that - there are lots of gearheads in these forums who make valuable contributions to various topics - but it does mean that your "real world experience" with high-end cameras might be treated with a grain of salt.

The second reason that I'm going to take sides with texinwien, Mr sgoldswo, is that your arguments have grown increasingly ad hominem. That's low. And not very nice.

Have a wonderful day.

Scott

I do care if you're making demonstrably false statements

What are those then?

It's not clear that you have, as of yet, but evidence is mounting in that direction.

and why is it you take so long writing replies to me old son?

I have other things to do, and answering anti scientists falls well behind most of them, old son.

or claiming that your personal experience has more validity than the results of multiple tests

What a joke - no I claim my experience and that of others who actually use cameras is more valid than pointing a camera at a pointless test scene. Thanks

What a joke is right. Anti science and anti intellectualism are on the rise. At least you can take comfort in being part of a trend, of sorts.

performed by highly trained professionalsm no matter which camera is your personal favorite.

tex

Thanks tex, I love you too

That's just luvly., chap.

tex

-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: What's weak about the GH3?

Anders W wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Anders W wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

It's been said on another test but the samples posted by DPR are simply unrepresentative of user experience. If you want to go with that, it's fine, but in all honesty it's identical to better than the E-M5 in real world use.

Because I'm talking about actual use, and not shooting a pointless test scene with a tripod it may simply be that the GH3 is more of a photographers camera (e.g. it allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings to get enhanced results). Nonetheless, I'll take the camera that gives me better results/more keepers at the end of the day.

First, are you saying that DPR has made some kind of mistake specifically when shooting or processing the GH3 samples? If so, what mistake would that be?

Anders, not sure old son, all I can say is that these samples aren't representative of comparative real world use or, to say it another way I prefer the results I get from the GH3, which look better to me than what I get from the E-M5. As I pointed out on another post, it may just be the ergonomics and controls suit are better which means I achieve more keepers - but in saying that perhaps I'm trying to be conciliatory?

Well, if what you actually want to say is that the user interface of the GH3 suits you so much better that you get more keepers with that camera, then I (and probably others) completely misunderstood what you had in mind. The DPR studio samples obviously do not even purport to show the impact of the user interface in practical photography. There is no way they can do that. What they do try to show is the quality of the sensor and (for OOC jpegs) the image processing.

Anders, in defence of sgoldswo, he never actually said that the test scene gave wrong data. He was simply making the point that when he picks up the camera and starts shooting with it he prefers it to the E-M5.

Dpreview tries to be objective in its reviews and for that reason is data-heavy. This is great because we get something objective to base our comparisons on, but it doesn't give us the kind of insight into the camera that a real-world reviewer (such as Robin Wong or Ming Thein) would offer.

I think sgoldswo's position in regards to ergonomics is perfectly legitimate. I personally don't like the E-M5 because of its ergonomics and would probably buy the GH3 over the E-M5 for precisely that reason.

Second, are you saying that the DPR studio scene is useless for judging the image quality of a camera? If so, for what specific reasons would that be?

I don't find it valuable - this test actually suggests better image quality from the GH@ compared to the E-M5 and the GH3.

The GH@? You mean the GH2 or what? Are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs? And in what way do you think the samples suggest that the GH@ (GH2?) is better?

I question that. Further, the test scene suggests a prevalence of moire on X-Pro1 shots whereas I find the E-M5 and X100 for worse is real world use.

Where do you see the moiré from the X-Pro1? And again are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs?

Finally, are you saying that the GH3 allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings that affect image quality than for example the E-M5? If so, what would those settings be?

It allows for quicker/button dial based control and/or no need to menu dive to reach settings

OK. So you mean quicker rather than greater control.

-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

It's actually not, but I'd welcome you to give it 'the old college try'.

Okay.

My understanding of Dpreview's argument is that it is based on jpegs. Essentially, Dpreview says that the E-M5 underexposes by a stop and then pushes the image data in firmware, and the result is a jpeg that looks normally exposed.

Where did you see DPR make that statement? Please provide a link to the specific passages you have in mind.

For example, if you choose ISO 800, the E-M5 will shoot at ISO 400 and then brighten the Raw data by the equivalent of a stop and present you with a jpeg that looks correctly exposed.

The E-M5 will shoot at ISO 800 just as much as any other camera set to the same ISO. It will amplify the sensor signal slightly less than some other cameras (e.g., the GH3) before writing the data to the RAW file, thereby leaving more highlight headroom in the RAW data. Since it amplifies the RAW data less than some other cameras before writing them to the RAW file, it has to scale them more upwards than some other cameras in the next step, when it converts those RAW data to out-of-camera jpegs.

Dpreview argues that there is nothing wrong with doing this.

If "this" refers to what I wrote above, rather than to your (probably partly mistaken) interpretation of what DPR said, there isn't anything wrong with it.

The problems start when you shoot in Raw and process the data yourself on your computer using, for example, ACR. Initially the Raw image looks fine, but when you start to adjust shadows and highlights you find that there is little leeway because the exposure has already been pushed by a full stop.

No, it hasn't. This is a misunderstanding on your part. The total amplification/gain/scaling that takes place when shooting at ISO 800 can be divided into two parts: before the data are written to the RAW file and when the RAW data are converted to jpegs. In the first stage, the E-M5 applies less gain than some other cameras. In the second stage, it applies more than some other cameras to compensate for the fact that it used less in the first stage. The total amount of gain applied is the same as for other cameras (e.g., the GH3).

Compare this with data from a camera that has shot at ISO 800 and not manipulated the data.

There is no more manipulation of the RAW data on the E-M5 than on any other camera.

Raw from such a camera has a lot of leeway for manipulation - certainly a lot more than the E-M5 - because it has not already been pushed close to its limit.

See above.

If you search through the forums and on other parts of the internet you will find a lot of comments from Olympus shooters, and E-M5 users in particular, who say that Raw images from their cameras do not respond well to being manipulated in software.

I haven't seen any such comments, probably due to the fact that the E-M5 RAWs are better than those of any other MFT cameras before it and at least as good as any one released later.

I'm not trying to push any particular barrow here. I'm an Olympus shooter myself.

Whether you are an Olympus user or not is of no importance here. But you appear to have an insufficient understanding of what the ISO norm the manufacturers follow really means and not, and what the DxOMark "measured ISOs" really mean and not. This makes you draw conclusions that are simply invalid.

I am reacting to what you say not because I am an E-M5 or Olympus "fanboy" or because I want to put you down but because there is apparently a lot of misunderstandings of what the various things called ISO really mean and not and I think those misunderstandings are unfortunate.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs.

Yes, because that is all the ISO Standard applies to, as the authoritative sources to which I linked and which I quoted make quite clear..

If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

'Should be' according to whom?

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?

tex

See above.

-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs. If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

Could you please spell out precisely what you mean when you say the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

"Should be" according to what standard?

One stop worse with regard to what?

I can think of two answers to this:

You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

I don't think you did. "Should be" implies a norm that the manufacturer are obliged to follow. There is no such thing when it comes to the DxOMark "measured ISOs". The only norm the manufacturers are obliged to follow concern OOC jpegs, not RAWs.

When it comes to the rest of your response below, I have already dealt with that in my previous reply to you (the one in which I commented on what you said in a post meant for texinwien).

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:


You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

I don't think you did. "Should be" implies a norm that the manufacturer are obliged to follow. There is no such thing when it comes to the DxOMark "measured ISOs". The only norm the manufacturers are obliged to follow concern OOC jpegs, not RAWs.

When it comes to the rest of your response below, I have already dealt with that in my previous reply to you (the one in which I commented on what you said in a post meant for texinwien).

We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's true that manufacturers have not agreed upon a norm for ISO. This is one reason why we are seeing ISO-creep. However, it is still possible to compare cameras based on the way they meter and record data from a scene. It simply means that, instead of comparing the data with a norm, we compare it with data from other cameras.

I don't see anything in your comments that offers an objection to this.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

It's actually not, but I'd welcome you to give it 'the old college try'.

Okay.

My understanding of Dpreview's argument is that it is based on jpegs. Essentially, Dpreview says that the E-M5 underexposes by a stop and then pushes the image data in firmware, and the result is a jpeg that looks normally exposed.

Where did you see DPR make that statement? Please provide a link to the specific passages you have in mind.

For example, if you choose ISO 800, the E-M5 will shoot at ISO 400 and then brighten the Raw data by the equivalent of a stop and present you with a jpeg that looks correctly exposed.

The E-M5 will shoot at ISO 800 just as much as any other camera set to the same ISO. It will amplify the sensor signal slightly less than some other cameras (e.g., the GH3) before writing the data to the RAW file, thereby leaving more highlight headroom in the RAW data. Since it amplifies the RAW data less than some other cameras before writing them to the RAW file, it has to scale them more upwards than some other cameras in the next step, when it converts those RAW data to out-of-camera jpegs.

Dpreview argues that there is nothing wrong with doing this.

If "this" refers to what I wrote above, rather than to your (probably partly mistaken) interpretation of what DPR said, there isn't anything wrong with it.

The problems start when you shoot in Raw and process the data yourself on your computer using, for example, ACR. Initially the Raw image looks fine, but when you start to adjust shadows and highlights you find that there is little leeway because the exposure has already been pushed by a full stop.

No, it hasn't. This is a misunderstanding on your part. The total amplification/gain/scaling that takes place when shooting at ISO 800 can be divided into two parts: before the data are written to the RAW file and when the RAW data are converted to jpegs. In the first stage, the E-M5 applies less gain than some other cameras. In the second stage, it applies more than some other cameras to compensate for the fact that it used less in the first stage. The total amount of gain applied is the same as for other cameras (e.g., the GH3).

Compare this with data from a camera that has shot at ISO 800 and not manipulated the data.

There is no more manipulation of the RAW data on the E-M5 than on any other camera.

Raw from such a camera has a lot of leeway for manipulation - certainly a lot more than the E-M5 - because it has not already been pushed close to its limit.

See above.

If you search through the forums and on other parts of the internet you will find a lot of comments from Olympus shooters, and E-M5 users in particular, who say that Raw images from their cameras do not respond well to being manipulated in software.

I haven't seen any such comments, probably due to the fact that the E-M5 RAWs are better than those of any other MFT cameras before it and at least as good as any one released later.

I'm not trying to push any particular barrow here. I'm an Olympus shooter myself.

Whether you are an Olympus user or not is of no importance here. But you appear to have an insufficient understanding of what the ISO norm the manufacturers follow really means and not, and what the DxOMark "measured ISOs" really mean and not. This makes you draw conclusions that are simply invalid.

I am reacting to what you say not because I am an E-M5 or Olympus "fanboy" or because I want to put you down but because there is apparently a lot of misunderstandings of what the various things called ISO really mean and not and I think those misunderstandings are unfortunate.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs.

Yes, because that is all the ISO Standard applies to, as the authoritative sources to which I linked and which I quoted make quite clear..

If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

'Should be' according to whom?

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?

tex

See above.

-- hide signature --

Well, that's good news.

-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: What's weak about the GH3?

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Anders W wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:


It's been said on another test but the samples posted by DPR are simply unrepresentative of user experience. If you want to go with that, it's fine, but in all honesty it's identical to better than the E-M5 in real world use.

Because I'm talking about actual use, and not shooting a pointless test scene with a tripod it may simply be that the GH3 is more of a photographers camera (e.g. it allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings to get enhanced results). Nonetheless, I'll take the camera that gives me better results/more keepers at the end of the day.

First, are you saying that DPR has made some kind of mistake specifically when shooting or processing the GH3 samples? If so, what mistake would that be?

Anders, not sure old son, all I can say is that these samples aren't representative of comparative real world use or, to say it another way I prefer the results I get from the GH3, which look better to me than what I get from the E-M5. As I pointed out on another post, it may just be the ergonomics and controls suit are better which means I achieve more keepers - but in saying that perhaps I'm trying to be conciliatory?

Well, if what you actually want to say is that the user interface of the GH3 suits you so much better that you get more keepers with that camera, then I (and probably others) completely misunderstood what you had in mind. The DPR studio samples obviously do not even purport to show the impact of the user interface in practical photography. There is no way they can do that. What they do try to show is the quality of the sensor and (for OOC jpegs) the image processing.

Anders, in defence of sgoldswo, he never actually said that the test scene gave wrong data. He was simply making the point that when he picks up the camera and starts shooting with it he prefers it to the E-M5.

As far as I can see he criticizes the DPR studio samples calling them unrepresentative of user experience and a pointless test scene. Now I hope you agree with me that the DPR studio samples were never meant to be representative of experiences with for example the camera's user interface. And I consider it rather pointless to criticize them for not being what they were never intended to be. Furthermore, I don't agree at all that they are "a pointless test scene" since they are quite valuable for what they are.

Dpreview tries to be objective in its reviews and for that reason is data-heavy. This is great because we get something objective to base our comparisons on, but it doesn't give us the kind of insight into the camera that a real-world reviewer (such as Robin Wong or Ming Thein) would offer.

I think DPR are no less "real-world" than Robin Wong or Ming Thein. But for pretty obvious reasons, they discuss the ergonomics and user interface of the camera in other sections than that in which they present the studio samples.

I think sgoldswo's position in regards to ergonomics is perfectly legitimate. I personally don't like the E-M5 because of its ergonomics and would probably buy the GH3 over the E-M5 for precisely that reason.

I am not sure I share your opinion but that's a matter of personal preference and a bit beside the point here, so no reason to go into detail.

Second, are you saying that the DPR studio scene is useless for judging the image quality of a camera? If so, for what specific reasons would that be?

I don't find it valuable - this test actually suggests better image quality from the GH@ compared to the E-M5 and the GH3.

The GH@? You mean the GH2 or what? Are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs? And in what way do you think the samples suggest that the GH@ (GH2?) is better?

I question that. Further, the test scene suggests a prevalence of moire on X-Pro1 shots whereas I find the E-M5 and X100 for worse is real world use.

Where do you see the moiré from the X-Pro1? And again are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs?

Finally, are you saying that the GH3 allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings that affect image quality than for example the E-M5? If so, what would those settings be?

It allows for quicker/button dial based control and/or no need to menu dive to reach settings

OK. So you mean quicker rather than greater control.

-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:


You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

I don't think you did. "Should be" implies a norm that the manufacturer are obliged to follow. There is no such thing when it comes to the DxOMark "measured ISOs". The only norm the manufacturers are obliged to follow concern OOC jpegs, not RAWs.

When it comes to the rest of your response below, I have already dealt with that in my previous reply to you (the one in which I commented on what you said in a post meant for texinwien).

We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's true that manufacturers have not agreed upon a norm for ISO.

They have agreed to follow an ISO norm that applies to jpegs.

This is one reason why we are seeing ISO-creep. However, it is still possible to compare cameras based on the way they meter and record data from a scene. It simply means that, instead of comparing the data with a norm, we compare it with data from other cameras.

I don't see anything in your comments that offers an objection to this.

I don't object to comparing cameras. It's just that with respect to what you are talking about, the difference between camera ISO and DxOMark "measured ISO", there is nothing better about cameras where this difference is small than about those where it is larger. Hence, there is no "should be" involved. Let me know if you still think there is, and if so on what grounds.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: What's weak about the GH3?

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:


Anders, in defence of sgoldswo, he never actually said that the test scene gave wrong data. He was simply making the point that when he picks up the camera and starts shooting with it he prefers it to the E-M5.

As far as I can see he criticizes the DPR studio samples calling them unrepresentative of user experience and a pointless test scene. Now I hope you agree with me that the DPR studio samples were never meant to be representative of experiences with for example the camera's user interface. And I consider it rather pointless to criticize them for not being what they were never intended to be. Furthermore, I don't agree at all that they are "a pointless test scene" since they are quite valuable for what they are.

He didn't criticise them as far as I can recall. I didn't see any comment about the test scene being "pointless". He just said that the Dpreview tends to concentrate on controlled review paramaters rather than the user experience.

I do agree with you that there is a point to the test scenes. Dpreview attempts to review cameras and lenses under controlled conditions and, like you, I think that this can be useful.

Dpreview tries to be objective in its reviews and for that reason is data-heavy. This is great because we get something objective to base our comparisons on, but it doesn't give us the kind of insight into the camera that a real-world reviewer (such as Robin Wong or Ming Thein) would offer.

I think DPR are no less "real-world" than Robin Wong or Ming Thein. But for pretty obvious reasons, they discuss the ergonomics and user interface of the camera in other sections than that in which they present the studio samples.

I think they are much less "real world" than Robin Wong or Ming Thein. Those guys take the cameras out and shoot with them under real-world conditions and talk about all kinds of aspects of the cameras. They are also very good photographers and are capable of really showing what the cameras can do.

I have never seen a Dpreview photographer take a really good photograph. Not one single one.

We are usually shown a photo of a bridge, some guy standing in a hallway and some trees. We don't get much of a discussion about the way that the camera handles, the way that people react to it in the street, any minor difficulties we might encounter when changing lenses, how a m43 camera/lens combo might handle a macro scene in comparison with a Nikon DSLR system, etc. All of these things are more likely to be addressed by real-world reviewers.

I think sgoldswo's position in regards to ergonomics is perfectly legitimate. I personally don't like the E-M5 because of its ergonomics and would probably buy the GH3 over the E-M5 for precisely that reason.

I am not sure I share your opinion but that's a matter of personal preference and a bit beside the point here, so no reason to go into detail.

Second, are you saying that the DPR studio scene is useless for judging the image quality of a camera? If so, for what specific reasons would that be?

I don't find it valuable - this test actually suggests better image quality from the GH@ compared to the E-M5 and the GH3.

The GH@? You mean the GH2 or what? Are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs? And in what way do you think the samples suggest that the GH@ (GH2?) is better?

I question that. Further, the test scene suggests a prevalence of moire on X-Pro1 shots whereas I find the E-M5 and X100 for worse is real world use.

Where do you see the moiré from the X-Pro1? And again are you talking about ACR-processed RAWs or OOC jpegs?

Finally, are you saying that the GH3 allows for greater button/dial based fine tuning of settings that affect image quality than for example the E-M5? If so, what would those settings be?

It allows for quicker/button dial based control and/or no need to menu dive to reach settings

OK. So you mean quicker rather than greater control.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,695
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:


You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

I don't think you did. "Should be" implies a norm that the manufacturer are obliged to follow. There is no such thing when it comes to the DxOMark "measured ISOs". The only norm the manufacturers are obliged to follow concern OOC jpegs, not RAWs.

When it comes to the rest of your response below, I have already dealt with that in my previous reply to you (the one in which I commented on what you said in a post meant for texinwien).

We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's true that manufacturers have not agreed upon a norm for ISO.

They have agreed to follow an ISO norm that applies to jpegs.

This is one reason why we are seeing ISO-creep. However, it is still possible to compare cameras based on the way they meter and record data from a scene. It simply means that, instead of comparing the data with a norm, we compare it with data from other cameras.

I don't see anything in your comments that offers an objection to this.

I don't object to comparing cameras. It's just that with respect to what you are talking about, the difference between camera ISO and DxOMark "measured ISO", there is nothing better about cameras where this difference is small than about those where it is larger. Hence, there is no "should be" involved. Let me know if you still think there is, and if so on what grounds.

I don't understand your second sentence because it is ungrammatic. Please rephrase.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)

tex

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great
2

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

It's actually not, but I'd welcome you to give it 'the old college try'.

Okay.

I'm going to do my best to stay cool and calm - I'm not trying to start a scene here

My understanding of Dpreview's argument is that it is based on jpegs.

That's because ALL manufacturers (according to DxOMark) report ISO Settings that are based on JPEGs.

Essentially, Dpreview says that the E-M5 underexposes by a stop

DPReview has never said this, as far as I'm aware, not even 'essentially'.

DPReviewThe only other definition of ISO you're ever likely to encounter is one that can be used for RAW data. The problem is that it's based on a combination of the sensor's saturation point and a generic tone curve – which isn't necessarily the tone curve your camera's JPEGs or metering are based on. So, discrepancies between this figure and your camera's reported ISOs aren't the result of under or over-reporting of ISO, they're a measure of how different your camera's tone curve is from this generic tone curve.

Comment: What you are calling an 'ISO creep' elsewhere is actually the totally 'legal' and 'allowed' discrepancy between different manufacturers' tone curves.

DPReviewIs the Olympus underexposing ISO 100 to produce its ISO 200 or is it overexposing ISO 200 to give an ISO 100 setting (Which is what Nikon implies about the D5000)? The answer is, of course, that there is absolutely no difference between the two statements. Or, to be absolutely precise, neither statement is correct because nothing is being overexposed or underexposed.

Comment: In DPReview's own words, it would not be 'absolutely precise' to say that the E-M5 underexposes by a stop - rather, that nothing is being overexposed or underexposed.

DPReviewPlease do not take the DxO 'ISO' figures to mean Olympus is mis-representing ISO - that's not what those figures show. In effect what they show is how each company (totally legitimately within the ISO standard), chooses to expose their sensors. A lower figure means they're trying to capture more highlights, at the expense of noise - a higher figure suggests they're doing the opposite. It does not mean one is under or over-rating ISO.

Comment: This ISO standard is the only official 'should' that exists, and the E-M5 is compliant with the standard.

DxOThe JPEG results are achieved by playing with the tone curve shape. This is absolutely legitimate: the ISO standard allows manufacturers to use this JPEG value. They are not cheating.

Comment: I think it's instructive to see that DxO uses almost the exact same terminology as DPReview ('tone curve', 'legitimate'). I think it's also instructive how emphatic they are - "absolutely legitimate" is a strong and emphatic statement. It sounds like they mean it! Do you think they don't?

and then pushes the image data in firmware, and the result is a jpeg that looks normally exposed.

A more precise way to formulate this would be to say that the manufacturer applies its tone curve to the RAW data in order to generate a JPEG file that has the correct brightness according to the ISO standard.

For example, if you choose ISO 800, the E-M5 will shoot at ISO 400

No, you'll have to stop using 'ISO' here like this, because it makes what you're saying incorrect. We've already established that the E-M5 is standards-compliant, so it is simply incorrect to say that, on its face. You could say, to paraphrase Imatest and borrow DxOMark's data, "The E-M5's Saturation-based ISO sensitivity is 394 when the Exposure Index (aka ISO Setting) is set to 800."

Now it's clear that we're talking about two different numbers that have two different meanings. The E-M5 will shoot at Exposure Index (aka ISO Setting) 800 when you choose ISO Setting 800 on the camera, as per the standard.

and then brighten the Raw data by the equivalent of a stop and present you with a jpeg that looks correctly exposed.

'Brighten' is too simplistic. Rather, Olympus applies its proprietary tone curve to the RAW data in order to generate a JPEG with standards-compliant brightness (among other things).

Dpreview argues that there is nothing wrong with doing this.

Because there isn't. DxO argues the exact same point, and very emphatically (This is absolutely legitimate).

The problems start when you shoot in Raw and process the data yourself on your computer using, for example, ACR. Initially the Raw image looks fine, but when you start to adjust shadows and highlights you find that there is little leeway because the exposure has already been pushed by a full stop.

Well, there are several problems with this statement, but I will focus on one: Olympus' tone curve brings with it positive and negative effects (as do all tone curves from all manufacturers).

Specifically (and as repeated by DxO, DPReview and others), Olympus has, absolutely legitimately, chosen a tone curve that protects highlights at the expense of slightly more shadow noise.

So, for you to say that there is little leeway to make adjustments in post-processing ignores the fact that the E-M5 has oodles of leeway on the highlights-recovery side. It's one of the things I recall early-adopters gushing on and on about - >>It's almost impossible to blow highlights on this camera!<<

On the other hand, I have not heard many complaints, at all, from users who claim that the RAW files don't have lots of room for manipulation in both directions. In fact, it seems that the new sensor is so advanced and efficient that Olympus was able to program in significant highlight protection without adding, on the other side, too much shadow noise. It's the gift that having  a sensor with such a high dynamic range gives to the camera maker.

Aside: If you read digital photography guides that discuss exposure in detail as it pertains to digital photography, you'll often find the author or teacher recommending that his students underexpose, then push in post processing in order to protect highlights. Blown highlights are the bane of digital photographers. Shadow noise generally creeps up slowly on one end, but blown highlights clip in an ugly and unrecoverable way. Olympus decided, absolutely legitimately, to use some of the extra DR on this miracle sensor ( ) to protect highlights by design, freeing novice photographers from having to even think about it. We RAW photographers, on the other hand, can still expose to the right if we want to live dangerously and get close to saturating the sensor. I do, often, when I have the time. I also appreciate that I'm unlikely to have blown highlights when I'm in a situation that doesn't allow me a lot of time to control my exposure settings - it works without thought when I need it to, and it works even better when I have the time to shoot deliberately. What a camera!

Compare this with data from a camera that has shot at ISO 800 and not manipulated the data.

That camera is much more likely to suffer from blown highlights. And, if that camera is an m43 camera that was released before the E-M5, it's also likely STILL to suffer from more shadow noise. The E-M5 sensor is so good that Olympus was able to use a tone curve that saves highlights without adding a significant amount of shadow noise (in comparison to previous m43 models and even to a number of APS-C cameras).

Raw from such a camera has a lot of leeway for manipulation - certainly a lot more than the E-M5 - because it has not already been pushed close to its limit.

Again, not correct, as I have shown above. It may have more leeway in one direction, but will most certainly have less leeway in the other.

And, if you're the kind of shooter who cares about these things, and you shoot RAW, you can ignore Olympus' tone curve and be daring. As a matter of fact, the live view highlight and shadow indicators (aka blinkies) make it easy for RAW shooters who want to live on the edge do just that.

This camera works when you don't have time to carefully adjust exposure, trying to get as close to saturation as possible without blowing highlights, and it also works EXTREMELY well when you do have the time to do that (via the blinkies).

Conservative, highlight-protecting tone curve per default, plus the tools to live on the edge right at your fingertips. For me, it hits a real sweet spot.

If you search through the forums and on other parts of the internet you will find a lot of comments from Olympus shooters, and E-M5 users in particular, who say that Raw images from their cameras do not respond well to being manipulated in software.

I can't recall seeing many of these comments, and it certainly doesn't mirror my experience. It also doesn't seem to mirror the reports of any of the many professional third-party reviewers who have written about the camera.

What you WILL find, if you search the forums and other parts of the Internet, is scads of people raving about the E-M5's ability to protect highlights.

I'm not trying to push any particular barrow here. I'm an Olympus shooter myself.

That's cool - I'm also not trying to do that. The E-M5 is my first camera from Olympus and my first m43 camera. I've owned cameras from Sony, Fuji and Canon along the way, and have found things to like (and dislike) about all of them.

tex

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
JamieTux Veteran Member • Posts: 4,072
Re: So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Hey, I'm a big guy with big hands and the OM-D is fine for me - even with thin gloves on, by ther sound of things you really need to find a way to try it yourself first - even if it's a case of speaking to the mail order retailer first to get their approval.

The ergonomic issue I have is the positions of some of the menu items - that doesn't feel intuitive at all.

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Nikon 1 J5 Fujifilm X-E3 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Zeiss Touit 50mm F2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 PD-Zoom +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads