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
Randell Tober
OP Randell Tober Regular Member • Posts: 248
Re: So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Thanks... I'm leaning a bit towards the GH3 (I feel I'm on a ship with rough sea's) ... I know it would fit me right out of the box without issue. I would think Oly has something coming out around the corner that is a little more forgiving/ergo friendly. Not positive yet... You mentioned rebates... I'm going to google, but any particular? One negative in my opinion is the cost of the HLD6. I think Oly should’ve left that at a very reasonable price being the issues many are mentioning in regards to suitability. Just a thought.  Another thing I’m noticing it appears the price of glass seems to be rapidly increasing. Makes me think the longer I wait- the more I might pay. Appreciate the feedback

 Randell Tober's gear list:Randell Tober's gear list
Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +2 more
Uncle Frank
Uncle Frank Forum Pro • Posts: 21,511
Re: what's the rush?

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... I'm leaning a bit towards the GH3 (I feel I'm on a ship with rough sea's) ... I know it would fit me right out of the box without issue.

I don't understand the gh3 as a u4/3 camera. It's bigger than a dslr

Another thing I’m noticing it appears the price of glass seems to be rapidly increasing. Makes me think the longer I wait- the more I might pay. Appreciate the feedback

Actually, I think it's going the other direction. I've seen great deals on u4/3 lenses lately, like the $99 special I fell across on the Oly 40-150 telezoom. And Sigma has entered the u4/3 lens market with some very affordable lenses. So don't let that fear stampede you into buying something you're not sure of. Instead, consider an inexpensive gently used older model , and get familiar with u4/3. Go about the business of equipping it with lenses. Then be prepared to strike when the body of your dreams is introduced. Jmho.

-- hide signature --

Warm regards, Frank
Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com

 Uncle Frank's gear list:Uncle Frank's gear list
Nikon D700 Olympus PEN E-P5
Randell Tober
OP Randell Tober Regular Member • Posts: 248
Re: what's the rush?

Indeed... Understand. I will more than likely buy a couple primes first. I'm wanting to see what Oly has on the near horizon and what the GH3 has in the new update.

One gentleman that I have much respect for in the forums uses the GH3 and has been very happy with it. I wouldn't have a problem grabbing one if and when a good deal becomes available and then a Oly down the road. What I do want to do is buy quality glass that is good for both  2.8 – 2.0 glass isn’t cheap, but one gets what they pay for.

 Randell Tober's gear list:Randell Tober's gear list
Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +2 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Admitting you're the problem is the first step

To recovery, Jack. I support your journey.

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that I mentioned in the previous thread.

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

scott_mcleod wrote:

Some of what you are seeing in the superiority of the Oly is an artifact of the E-M5 under-rating its ISO by about a full stop across the range (i.e. ISO 1600 on the camera is actually only 782)

Hi Scott, that's an oft-repeated mantra, but it is a misconception - one that DPReview have been very specific in countering - I will include some links to official DPReview statements at the end of this post.

The ISO 12232:2006 standard (Exposure Index Standard) only applies to the sRGB output of a camera (practically, the out of camera JPEGs). It says nothing about the RAW files, and the 'under-rating' you mention here is only seen in the RAW files. As such, that 'under-rating' is allowed by the ISO standard. Meaning, in effect, that it's not an under-rating at all.

The E-M5 is standards-compliant in regards to ISO 12232:2006.

Hi Tex,

Thanks for referring me to this thread. I think your comment above misses the point. Nobody is saying that ISO 12232 doesn't allow a manufacturer to call ISO whatever they like (it does and they do), and who cares whether Olympus is underrating on purpose or not (we'll never know).

It seems you haven't read all of the posts I linked for you. As DPReview says, there is no overrating or underrating going on.

The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation, as Scott says. Here is one more example, EM5 vs a G3 .

And this is your misconception. It is, first and foremost, apples to apples. Secondarily, it wouldn't matter if it were apples to oranges, instead.

I'll answer your misconception in the other thread. You've linked to the exact post of yours there to which I referred earlier.

Jack

Duck, duck, duck. All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger.

Your statement makes no sense. I have shot down your argument, but I've never aimed at you, personally. Ad hominem isn't my style.

You may be fine with comparing apples to oranges when deciding to outlay a fair amount of cash. I presume most other people are not. Here is another example to drive the point home.

That's not an example - it's pure fiction, as you, yourself were kind enough to admit.

Jack out.

Jacks' run out of ideas is more like it, amiright?

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
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: I am going to regret this, but...
1

Mal_In_Oz wrote:

Anders W wrote:

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.

Anders, this type of argument about comparable ISO has been pervading the forum for ages, and it would be really useful for everyone to come to some agreement about what it means.

I couldn't agree more.

I doubt my questions will solve the battle but I am going to give it a try.

It's a pretty good try.

1. What do you think is a better way to compare these cameras, by using the same ISO or by using the same aperture and shutter speed? I use the word "better" in this question but you could interpret it to mean "fairer" for the purpose of establishing which camera produces the best image quality in the same conditions. I also wish to note that the comparison between the GH3 and the EM5 are a rare opportunity to remove the lens from the equation because both cameras are tested with the same 50mm F2 lens on the DPReview tests, so my question in the first instance relates specifically to a comparison between the GH3 and the EM5, but you could add comments about a more general comparison too.

First, what I think you really mean here is not just the same aperture and shutter speed but the same exposure, which can be obtained, for example by using the same f-stop, the same shutter speed, and, last but not least, the same light conditions. Second, if that's what you mean, the question is not whether we should compare cameras at the same camera ISO or at the same exposure. Rather, I would say that a fair way to compare cameras is to shoot them at the same camera ISO and the same exposure.

Furthermore, that's for the most part exactly what DPR is doing, although a lot of people mistakenly think that such is not the case. These people look at the samples from two cameras and note (for example) that the shutter speed used was longer for one than for the other while the f-stop remained the same. They then jump to the mistaken conclusion that the exposure used was not the same. This conclusion rests on the assumption that the light conditions were identical and DPR has made it clear that this assumption is incorrect. The light level in the studio where they shoot the studio scene samples is not controlled and they make no particular effort to keep it constant. Consequently, variations in shutter speed are as a rule simply a way of compensating for variations in the studio light level.

What I say in the previous paragraph rests on the presumption that both cameras have passed the DPR ISO accuracy test reported in the "noise and noise reduction" section of each review without any discrepancy. The large majority of cameras do so but there are exceptions. The E-M5 is one of them. In this case, DPR reports that there is a discrepancy of 1/3 EV in the direction of "too dark". This would ordinarily mean that the E-M5 enjoys the extra benefit of 1/3 EV more exposure when the studio scene samples are subsequently shot, and that you would have to keep that extra advantage in mind when comparing the E-M5 samples with those of other cameras.

Now there are ways to check whether two cameras actually got the same exposure for the studio scene samples or not (although, as already pointed out, it is not possible by simply checking the f-stop and shutter speed used). For a variety of reasons, I have performed that check for the E-M5 in comparison with each of three other cameras (the GH2, the D800, and the GH3) and in no case found any trace of the 1/3 EV extra benefit that DPR's ISO accuracy report gives us reason to expect. So in spite of what DPR says in the "noise and noise reduction" section of the E-M5 review, the E-M5 studio scene samples are fully comparable to those of other cameras.

For those interested in the methods used to perform this check, it is exemplified here with regard to the E-M5 versus the GH3:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51023463

2. Do you think there is a "normal" response (with required aperture and shutter settings) from cameras to achieve a given ISO? If you took all the current manufactured cameras (or a suitable subset) and produced a table of ISO to aperture and shutter speed for one specific condition of lighting and scene, could we establish a normal response with which to compare all cameras?

Thanks.

(apologies in advance for possible slow response).

I have to rush away now, so I'll have to return to your second question at a later time.

 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
RealPancho
RealPancho Senior Member • Posts: 1,313
Re: Caveat: I haven't read the other posts

PAUL TILL wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

My hands are not really big, but they are long. I'm 6'4" (193cm) tall.

Your hand looks about the same size as mine and I would call mine small.

You sound a little insecure. Try believing in yourself more.

9.5" is just a bit over 24 cm, and if your hands can span that distance, they are not small. They're not gargantuan, but they're longer than average. Go on, try it out.

-- hide signature --

The 10% Rule:
You Must Be 10% Smarter Than The Equipment You're Operating

-- hide signature --

Frank

 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +6 more
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,944
Re: Admitting you're the problem is the first step

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote: Duck, duck, duck. All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger.

Your statement makes no sense. I have shot down your argument, but I've never aimed at you, personally. Ad hominem isn't my style.

Really? I must have misread what consitutes about half of the words in your message then:

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that...

And this is your misconception.

I'll answer your misconception...

Jacks' run out of ideas is more like it, amiright?

Fact is, tex, amongst all the words explaining that I am full of misconceptions and out of ideas, I am having trouble understanding what they are and what argument you have supposedly shot down.  Can you reread the two posts I made in this thread and tell me exactly what my misconceptions are and the argument that you have supposedly shot down? America wants to know

Cheers,

Jack

texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Admitting you're the problem is the first step

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote: Duck, duck, duck. All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger.

Your statement makes no sense. I have shot down your argument, but I've never aimed at you, personally. Ad hominem isn't my style.

Really? I must have misread what consitutes about half of the words in your message then:

Indeed - I only addressed your misconceptions, your erroneous conclusion and your errors in logic - all parts of your argument. None of these were attacks on your person.

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that...

And this is your misconception.

I'll answer your misconception...

Yes, saying you've run out of ideas is, again, attacking the insufficiency of your argument.

Jacks' run out of ideas is more like it, amiright?

So, yes, I'm not sure which of my words you misunderstood, since none of them (at least none of the ones you quoted here) have anything to do with ad hominem.

Wait - are you shooting the messenger now? Didn't you say that's the last thing someone does when they run out of arguments? Does that mean you're admitting, in a round about way, that you've run out of arguments?

Fact is, tex, amongst all the words explaining that I am full of misconceptions and out of ideas,

No. The words mention ONE misconception that you have, and that misconception forms a crucial part of your false argument - again, attacking the argument, and not you.

And yes, it seems all you are coming up with now are attacks against me and ridiculous fictitious examples, since I've THOROUGHLY destroyed (perhaps in a way you found humiliating?) your first 'example' by pointing out the fact that you forgot about exposure when preparing a 'proof' in a discussion about photography.

Jack Hogan's thoroughly discredited example, for those in the peanut gallery who are following along.

Tex's total, thorough and overwhelming destruction of Jack Hogan's example  (which Mr. Hogan has refused to even respond to, almost a full day later).

And by the way - your primary misconception, the one I have mentioned from my very first post to you on this subject, is that you think (thought?) you can (could?) compare two images based on their saturation sensitivities when those two images were exposed based on camera ISO Settings - a HUGE misconception, indeed, friend.

I am having trouble understanding what they are and what argument you have supposedly shot down.

Ah, see above. I thought it was clear to you since you dropped your obviously erroneous G3 vs. E-M5 example (the one I creamed) and have started posting fictitious fairy tale 'examples' now, where you say nothing about exposure or anything else that might be tricky

Can you reread the two posts I made in this thread and tell me exactly what my misconceptions are and the argument that you have supposedly shot down?

I've done it else where and linked to it above, for America. For the world.

America wants to know

Cheers,

Jack

Ciao!

 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
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,944
Issue 1: inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote: Duck, duck, duck. All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger.

Your statement makes no sense. I have shot down your argument, but I've never aimed at you, personally. Ad hominem isn't my style.

Really? I must have misread what consitutes about half of the words in your message then:

Indeed - I only addressed your misconceptions, your erroneous conclusion and your errors in logic - all parts of your argument. None of these were attacks on your person.

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that...

And this is your misconception.

I'll answer your misconception...

Yes, saying you've run out of ideas is, again, attacking the insufficiency of your argument.

Jacks' run out of ideas is more like it, amiright?

So, yes, I'm not sure which of my words you misunderstood, since none of them (at least none of the ones you quoted here) have anything to do with ad hominem.

No. The words mention ONE misconception that you have, and that misconception forms a crucial part of your false argument - again, attacking the argument, and not you.

And by the way - your primary misconception, the one I have mentioned from my very first post to you on this subject, is that you think (thought?) you can (could?) ...

My gosh, so many words, so little time.  There are two issues here:

1) Inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling by manufacturers; and
2) How to set up two cameras to fairly compare their SNR performance in the same scene, subject to the same artistic intent.

Let's take them one at a time, lest we get confused by too many words.  Here is what I said in my first post here about issue 1)

"The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation"

Ok.  Point out the misconception and erroneous conclusion here.

Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,944
Issue 2: How to fairly compare output image IQ of two similar DSCs

I never addressed Issue 2 here, but here goes a summary of the posts in the other thread. Given Issue 1, the fact that in-camera ISOs are mostly not directly comparable, how does one then go about comparing two cameras fairly in the same scene and with the same photographic intent (blur, dof, and retained shadows and highlights)? The answer is pretty straight forward.

Place both cameras to look at the same scene, with the same lens, the same Exposure (i.e. shutter speed and f/number) and to record the same tonal range (highlights and shadows). To capture the same tonal range you could simply read the ISO difference in stops off of the DxO graphs and dial in-camera ISOs with that difference into the two cameras. That's how I'd do it, because I trust DxO for things like this. Or you could figure it out yourself as follows:

In Manual mode, set the same shutter speed and f/number in both cameras and place them in the scene. Then take a capture of a gray card with both at the same estimated nominal ISO for the desired tonal range, say 1600. Correct the ISO of one of the two while keeping Exposure fixed, iteratively, until the gray card appears in the same spot of the Raw histogram of both*, say 10% of full scale. This way both cameras will be recording the same range of incoming tones, from shadows to highlights. Having set them up to respond equally to the incoming light, you can now take a capture of the scene with both DSCs, process them with the same Raw converter parameters while ensuring that the brightness and size of the output images are more or less the same and judge their relative IQ - SNR in this discussion - fair and square.

If you were to go through this exercise with the EM5 and the G3, you'd find that you'd end up with the EM5 at in-camera ISO 3200 and the G3 at 1600 - at the same Exposure and very similar SNR (EM5 slightly better as per DxO graph).

The further thing from my mind is suggesting to shoot evey scene in the field like this. But I am suggesting that if you wanted to compare the two cameras fairly that's one way you could do it. On the other hand, comparing two cameras at the same ss, f/n and in-camera ISO setting is more often than not misleading because of Issue 1.

So back to us. Where are my misconceptions and erroneous conclusions here?

Jack
* RawDigger is a great free program to obtain a Raw histogram from.

texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Issue 1: inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote: Duck, duck, duck. All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger.

Your statement makes no sense. I have shot down your argument, but I've never aimed at you, personally. Ad hominem isn't my style.

Really? I must have misread what consitutes about half of the words in your message then:

Indeed - I only addressed your misconceptions, your erroneous conclusion and your errors in logic - all parts of your argument. None of these were attacks on your person.

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that...

And this is your misconception.

I'll answer your misconception...

Yes, saying you've run out of ideas is, again, attacking the insufficiency of your argument.

Jacks' run out of ideas is more like it, amiright?

So, yes, I'm not sure which of my words you misunderstood, since none of them (at least none of the ones you quoted here) have anything to do with ad hominem.

No. The words mention ONE misconception that you have, and that misconception forms a crucial part of your false argument - again, attacking the argument, and not you.

And by the way - your primary misconception, the one I have mentioned from my very first post to you on this subject, is that you think (thought?) you can (could?) ...

My gosh, so many words, so little time. There are two issues here:

1) Inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling by manufacturers; and
2) How to set up two cameras to fairly compare their SNR performance in the same scene, subject to the same artistic intent.

Let's take them one at a time, lest we get confused by too many words. Here is what I said in my first post here about issue 1)

"The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation"

Ok. Point out the misconception and erroneous conclusion here.

No sir, we're going to do this the other way. I have pointed out the error in your first 'proof' that your idea is correct.

Your first proof is simply invalid. I take it from your silence that you agree with me, but simply don't want to discuss the glaring error you made there.

So, I will ask YOU again, to provide a proof that is not invalid, and that is also not a complete fiction. You're making the claims here, you back them up. Your first attempt to do that was a miserable failure, since you completely forgot to equalize exposure, exposure being the #1 most important part of photography.

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
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,944
Re: Issue 1: inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling

texinwien wrote:

My gosh, so many words, so little time. There are two issues here:

"The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation"

Ok. Point out the misconception and erroneous conclusion here.

No sir, we're going to do this the other way. I have pointed out the error in your first 'proof' that your idea is correct.

Yes you did, misrepresenting my post.  To follow a train of thought one needs to read all of the posts in a thread from first to last, not just a snippet here and one there, otherwise they may miss context.  Which is why, to help us, I summarized them in these two simple posts.

Issue 1 is pretty straight forward and hard to argue against, isn't it? Let's move on to Issue 2).

texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Issue 2: How to fairly compare output image IQ of two similar DSCs

Jack Hogan wrote:

I never addressed Issue 2 here, but here goes a summary of the posts in the other thread. Given Issue 1, the fact that in-camera ISOs are mostly not directly comparable, how does one then go about comparing two cameras fairly in the same scene and with the same photographic intent (blur, dof, and retained shadows and highlights)? The answer is pretty straight forward.

Place both cameras to look at the same scene, with the same lens, the same Exposure (i.e. shutter speed and f/number) and to record the same tonal range (highlights and shadows). To capture the same tonal range you could simply read the ISO difference in stops off of the DxO graphs and dial in-camera ISOs with that difference into the two cameras. That's how I'd do it, because I trust DxO for things like this. Or you could figure it out yourself as follows:

In Manual mode, set the same shutter speed and f/number in both cameras and place them in the scene. Then take a capture of a gray card with both at the same estimated nominal ISO for the desired tonal range, say 1600. Correct the ISO of one of the two while keeping Exposure fixed, iteratively, until the gray card appears in the same spot of the Raw histogram of both*, say 10% of full scale. This way both cameras will be recording the same range of incoming tones, from shadows to highlights. Having set them up to respond equally to the incoming light, you can now take a capture of the scene with both DSCs, process them with the same Raw converter parameters while ensuring that the brightness and size of the output images are more or less the same and judge their relative IQ - SNR in this discussion - fair and square.

If you were to go through this exercise with the EM5 and the G3, you'd find that you'd end up with the EM5 at in-camera ISO 3200 and the G3 at 1600 - at the same Exposure and very similar SNR (EM5 slightly better as per DxO graph).

That is exactly right, and you'd also end up with an E-M5 3200 ISO photo that got one full EV of exposure more than the E-M5 3200 ISO photo you tried to compare with DPReview's G3 ISO 1600 photo.

In other words, I agree with your test setup, but your proof didn't. As a matter of fact, I often ignore the camera ISO and expose roughly by DxO's measures, which means, in effect, that I dial in one extra EV of exposure compensation than my E-M5's ISO Setting would indicate.

And, as you might imagine, RAW files taken at ISO Setting 200 on my E-M5 and exposed based on saturation sensitivity of ~107 look even better than RAW files taken at ISO Setting 200 on my E-M5 and exposed based on the ISO Setting. Which is clear, of course, since the saturation sensitivity files get a full EV (or more if I really push) than the ISO Setting files.

And perhaps you'll realize here, if you think it through - if I expose based on the ISO setting, and the ISO setting leads to 1/2 the exposure that the saturation sensitivity would, I'm UNDEREXPOSING (on the E-M5) by one full EV (in comparison to our 'ideal' exposure, based on saturation sensitivity).

Lower exposure = more noise, right Jack? Whereas you were making the opposite claim - that this underexposure could be used by a devious camera company to fake lower noise for a camera. Ouch, that's gotta sting!?

For a practical example (the very one that invalidated your G3 vs. E-M5 'proof'), the DPReview E-M5 ISO 1600 RAW files were underexposed by one full EV from the ideal, whereas the G3 files were exposed very near to the ideal.

What you have claimed could be used to Olympus' advantage, as some way of making the camera appear to have less noise than it should, actually results in the camera producing more noise than it should (or could, if exposed ideally). That means the performance you're seeing in DPReview's tests is worse than camera's optimum best. You're looking at the worst, and it only gets better from here Jack. Do I hear you putting in an order at Amazon.com for an E-M5 over there?

And, as DxO and DPReview and everyone else who has a handle on the difference between saturation sensitivity, ISO settings and why the ISO standard is written with the conscious intention of allowing this (and other) variance(s) - leaving it up to the manufacturer - the reason Olympus would choose to expose a full EV lower than the ideal is to protect highlights at the expense of additional shadow noise.

DxOMark - Measurements - ISO Sensitivity

As tests show, the ISO settings [aka Exposure Indices or EIs] reported by camera manufacturers can differ significantly from measured ISO [a type of Saturation-based Sensitivity measure] in RAW. This difference stems from design choices, in particular the choice to keep some “headroom” to avoid saturation in the higher exposures to make it possible to recover from blown highlights.

DxOMark: RAW ISO measures are inferior to manufacturer ISOs: is this a problem?

In fact, it is precisely the JPEG ISO value [aka Exposure Index or EI] that all the manufacturers publish. ... This is absolutely legitimate: the ISO standard allows manufacturers to use this JPEG value. They are not cheating.

...

Moreover, underexposing the RAW file allows manufacturers to use their own complex algorithms to obtain a better output for the highlights while retaining good medium tones.


Note: I am posting these quotes to show that, not only does DxO understand and accept that the variances between saturation sensitivity and ISO Setting are legitimate, they also make one half of the point I made above - camera manufacturers usually have ONE REASON for introducing such a variance, and that is to protect the highlights.

And as I'm sure you know, the wider the variation between ISO Setting and saturation sensitivity, the more 'headroom' or highlight protection ability a camera will have (in comparison to the 'ideal' exposure based purely on saturation sensitivity) AND the more shadow noise the camera will have (in comparison to the same ideal).

Are you with us Jack? Are you seeing why your arguments are wrong-headed? I get the impression you were already starting to turn toward the light, since you've abandoned your invalid G3 vs E-M5 comparison, ostensibly realizing that it was fatally flawed, and with it, a crucial part of your own argument.

The further thing from my mind is suggesting to shoot evey scene in the field like this. But I am suggesting that if you wanted to compare the two cameras fairly that's one way you could do it.

That'd be awesome! As I have stated in more than one reply to you, that would be a valid addition to the tests based on camera ISO setting that most testing sites already run, as long as they maintain equivalent exposures, 'cause, woops, forgetting to do that will just mess everything right up, am I right? Jack? Am I right, or am I wrong?

I am right.

On the other hand, comparing two cameras at the same ss, f/n and in-camera ISO setting is more often than not misleading because of Issue 1.

More often than not? Remember, you gave us a flawed example with a G3 and an E-M5 that you thought offered proof of your misguided conclusions. I'm going to have to ask you to offer support for this claim (again).

So back to us. Where are my misconceptions and erroneous conclusions here?

See above.

Jack
* RawDigger is a great free program to obtain a Raw histogram from.

I downloaded it 10 months ago, just after I purchased my E-M5. I have used it regularly with files from my E-M5, as well as with RAW files from DPReview, imaging-resource.com and other test sites. I have the latest version available for my operating system. Same with RAW Therapee - also great if you want to geek out a little on this stuff.

As a matter of fact, I used Raw Digger to record black frame read noise measurements from my E-M5 in May of 2012. Measurements that Anders W, another forum member, used to estimate the camera's dynamic range. His estimates were, by the way, quite close to the measures provided by DxO some months later.

A few of us even suspected that the variance between ISO setting and saturation sensitivity on the E-M5 was between 2/3EV and 1EV, long before DxO came out with its report, and a number of us were already experimenting with exposing based on suspected saturation sensitivity long before DxO released it's (rather delayed) measurements of the E-M5.

So yeah, dunno Jack. I'm with you in a lot of ways here, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're making one or two small errors in logic that are throwing off the entire rest of your argument.

Sucks how that works - you can know the inner workings of the entire space and be 100% correct on 99.9% of your reasoning, but that 0.1% of incorrectness can cause your entire case to be invalid.

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
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,944
Re: Issue 2: How to fairly compare output image IQ of two similar DSCs

texinwien wrote: So yeah, dunno Jack. I'm with you in a lot of ways here, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're making one or two small errors in logic that are throwing off the entire rest of your argument.

Only for people that take snippets of my posts out of their context.  I've known this stuff as summarized in these two posts for years and certainly did not change my mind in the last couple of days for these two threads.

Jack

PS This phantomatic 'proof' you keep referring to was just a fictitious example connected to issue 1 (inconsistent in-camera ISOs between cameras and manufacturers),  labelled as such for correctness and nothing to do with exposure, of what may happen when in-camera ISO labels are arbitrarily assigned by a a manufacturer - foolish people take them at face value at their own peril when deciding where to lay their money.

texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Issue 1: inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

My gosh, so many words, so little time. There are two issues here:

"The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation"

Ok. Point out the misconception and erroneous conclusion here.

No sir, we're going to do this the other way. I have pointed out the error in your first 'proof' that your idea is correct.

Yes you did, misrepresenting my post.

Please point out the misrepresentation. Your proof offered two images - one (the G3) that was exposed based on the ideal (saturation sensitivity), and one (the E-M5) that was exposed based on camera ISO Setting, one full EV lower than the ideal.

And you thought that was proof that the variance between saturation sensitivity and camera ISO setting that is allowed by the standard could be used by Olympus to 'fake' better noise performance.

It looked good. Convincing to someone who doesn't take all of the variables into account. But the fatal flaw was your failure to equalize exposure.

And your train jumped the tracks when it stopped in at the station where you thought that underexposing a file (compared to the ideal) could ever possibly be used by a camera company to 'fake' better noise performance than a camera actually offered.

When the reality is, in the truest and most literal sense of the word, the exact opposite.

You can't underexpose a file to fake better noise performance. No, underexposing a file 'fakes' poorer noise performance. That's right, underexposing by a full EV, then boosting the gain (as the E-M5 does, according to DxOMark) amplifies noise. It actually makes it look as if the E-M5 is worse regarding noise than it actually is if carefully and ideally exposed.

Dastardly Olympians, eh?

To follow a train of thought one needs to read all of the posts in a thread from first to last, not just a snippet here and one there, otherwise they may miss context.

Ok, shoot - point out my error above. Why did you drop that 'proof' like a hot potato after I picked it apart? Why haven't you addressed the context I missed along the way?

Which is why, to help us, I summarized them in these two simple posts.

Yes, both wrong.

Issue 1 is pretty straight forward and hard to argue against, isn't it?

Not at all, and I already have. Comparing any number of cameras based on camera ISO Setting, as long as we know that all of those cameras have had their ISO settings measured and verified by a trusted third party using the SOS method (as DPReview does) is completely valid, as long as exposure was set carefully and correctly in all cases.

And, since the vast majority of consumers will only ever expose based on camera ISO Setting, it's not only a valid method of testing, it's also the one that's most useful for the audience who will be buying and using the tested devices.

Let's move on to Issue 2).

Yes, let's. I'm so excited!

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: Issue 2: How to fairly compare output image IQ of two similar DSCs

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote: So yeah, dunno Jack. I'm with you in a lot of ways here, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're making one or two small errors in logic that are throwing off the entire rest of your argument.

Only for people that take snippets of my posts out of their context.

Sorry, Jack, meta-argumentation is weak sauce. Address the errors in my arguments or admit that you were wrong, which you were. I understand why you'd resort to meta-arguments here.

Tip: I'm a nice guy, and as soon as you come around to seeing the error of your ways, I bet we'll get along real fine. Don't let your ego get in the way! It's not worth it...

I've known this stuff as summarized in these two posts for years and certainly did not change my mind in the last couple of days for these two threads.

Argumentum ad verecundiam - you obviously know a lot, but everyone makes mistakes. Your appeal to your own authority is fallacious. Admit your mistakes and let's move forward.

Jack

PS This phantomatic 'proof' you keep referring to was just a fictitious example connected to issue 1 (inconsistent in-camera ISOs between cameras and manufacturers), labelled as such for correctness and nothing to do with exposure, of what may happen when in-camera ISO labels are arbitrarily assigned by a a manufacturer - foolish people take them at face value at their own peril when deciding where to lay their money.

Ah, no. It was much more than that. It was the very illustration of the thinking errors you made in coming to the incorrect conclusions to which you came.

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
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,247
Re: Issue 2: How to fairly compare output image IQ of two similar DSCs

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote: So yeah, dunno Jack. I'm with you in a lot of ways here, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're making one or two small errors in logic that are throwing off the entire rest of your argument.

Only for people that take snippets of my posts out of their context. I've known this stuff as summarized in these two posts for years and certainly did not change my mind in the last couple of days for these two threads.

Jack

PS This phantomatic 'proof' you keep referring to was just a fictitious example connected to issue 1 (inconsistent in-camera ISOs between cameras and manufacturers), labelled as such for correctness and nothing to do with exposure, of what may happen when in-camera ISO labels are arbitrarily assigned by a a manufacturer - foolish people take them at face value at their own peril when deciding where to lay their money.

I still want an example of point 1

"1) Inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling by manufacturers."

Eg: If most cameras require ISO200, 1/200, f5, to generate a nice jpeg, find me a camera that requires ISO400, 1/200, f5 for the same scene.

The OM-D is not an example of this, as you have claimed here;

"The issue is that if you take in-camera ISOs at face value you end up comparing apples to oranges, especially with the EM5 which is a relative outlier in its ISO interpretation"

as it's manufacturers ISO matches other cameras manufacturers ISOs very well.

Or, to reiterate Texinwein's comment.

"Not at all, and I already have. Comparing any number of cameras based on camera ISO Setting, as long as we know that all of those cameras have had their ISO settings measured and verified by a trusted third party using the SOS method (as DPReview does) is completely valid, as long as exposure was set carefully and correctly in all cases.

And, since the vast majority of consumers will only ever expose based on camera ISO Setting, it's not only a valid method of testing, it's also the one that's most useful for the audience who will be buying and using the tested devices."

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Jack: One Question, Short and Sweet

I'm a camera manufacturer. I'm about to build a camera. One of my engineers tells me that if I choose a 2-to-1 ratio for camera ISO Setting-to-saturation sensitivity across the whole range (i.e. ISO Setting 200 = saturation sensitivity 100 ... ISO Setting 25,600 = saturation sensitivity 12,800 with no deviations on the scale), I will effectively be 'faking' (or would be able to use the variance to fake) better noise performance than the camera actually offers, and sites like DPReview won't notice this faking or mention it to their readers.

Should I fire the engineer or give him a raise, Jack? Does he know what he's talking about, or is he sadly mistaken?

Looking forward to your answer.

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
M Colyer Regular Member • Posts: 469
Big handed people ..............

Whilst "big handed" people have complained about the small size of modern cameras, you hear very few complaints about the size of mobiles.................................

Maybe its more a complaint about the coming obsolescence of traditional dSLR's!!

Food for thought!

NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,786
Re: Big handed people ..............
2

M Colyer wrote:

Whilst "big handed" people have complained about the small size of modern cameras, you hear very few complaints about the size of mobiles.................................

Maybe its more a complaint about the coming obsolescence of traditional dSLR's!!

Food for thought!

Seriously though, you don't "grip" a mobile phone like you do a camera. You just let it sit in the palm of your hand.

-- 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads