To those with both EM5-II and EM1

AdamT wrote:

Here, by the way, is what you get if you look at directly comparable test shots from the E-M5.2, the E-M10 (presumably more or less the same Sony-designed sensor), and the E-M1 (Panasonic sensor). Comments?

Yeah, I`d say the Chroma noise looks worse from the EM1 by a margin and with more / larger size "noise mess" in some parts of the sample but there`s not much in it . for some reason it`s softer too , as if there`s some hidden NR going on in the RAWs or LR is adding some to EM1 Raws (I`d not put it past it, LR isn`t the truest of converters by a long mark) ..

I noticed the slight downgrade of high ISOs moving from EM10 to EM1 at the time but the trade-off was more than worth it to get the far better functionality of the EM1 body (the extra func buttons and the better dials more than anything)

That's interesting. Your description of your visual impressions can of course be contrasted with objective measurements. The conclusion is that, unlike most people, you see less noisiness the more of it there actually is.

In this case, the SNR in the darkest part of the E-M5.2 crop I linked to is about 1.25 versus 1.35 for the E-M1. Not a big difference to be sure and noone has claimed it would be. But it's there. So let me suggest that you take a serious look at bodies with older sensors and stay away from the current crop. Those with the original 12 MP sensor are likely to be particularly well suited to your pereceptions.

Oh, and no, the explanation is not that LR applies some hidden NR to the E-M1 without granting the E-M5.2 the same favor. This is easily checked by using a RAW converter that is known not to apply any NR at all except that implied by the demosaicing algorithm as such, e.g., DCRAW.

That's interesting. Your description of your visual impressions can of course be contrasted with objective measurements. The conclusion is that, unlike most people, you see less noisiness the more of it there actually is.

you believe whatever you want to .......

Objective measurements on your hollowed DXO site state that the EM5-II is better at high ISOs than the EM1 ..... I actually see a difference but not as big as DXOs figures suggest

AdamT wrote:

That's interesting. Your description of your visual impressions can of course be contrasted with objective measurements. The conclusion is that, unlike most people, you see less noisiness the more of it there actually is.

you believe whatever you want to .......

All of us have that privilege but only some of us choose to believe what a critical examination of the facts actually tell us.

Objective measurements on your hollowed DXO site state that the EM5-II is better at high ISOs than the EM1

Yes. And they are wrong about that (and consequently not so "hollowed") based on my perceptions as well as those of most others as shown by this poll. The DxO "low-light score" is in practice primarily a measure of SNR 18%, i.e., SNR in the midtones. What primarily bothers most people, however, is SNR in the shadows, where the SNR is always weakest and noisiness therefore most apparent. That's why I choose to link to a dark section of the DPR studio scene and single out shadow noise in my earlier reply to you here.

Now SNR in the shadows is better indexed by DR than by the DxO "low-light score". And if you look at the DxO DR curve (not the DR score, which is for base ISO only), you will see that the E-M1 is slightly ahead at low and high ISOs alike.

..... I actually see a difference but not as big as DXOs figures suggest

As already evidenced, you saw more noisiness where there is actually less. A simple case of deviant perception, presumably due to wishful thinking/confirmation bias, nothing else.

..... I actually see a difference but not as big as DXOs figures suggest

As already evidenced, you saw more noisiness where there is actually less. A simple case of deviant perception, presumably due to wishful thinking/confirmation bias, nothing else.

Likewise on your part ....... Touche .

As I said, I noticed a Slight drop in high ISO performance moving from EM10 to EM1 and noticed the improvement from EM1 to EM5-II . my original "am I seeing things" was that it looked better than I remember from the EM10 - whatever, it`s better than the EM1 even if by a margin.

I get the Impression that we`ll never agree on anything

AdamT wrote:

..... I actually see a difference but not as big as DXOs figures suggest

As already evidenced, you saw more noisiness where there is actually less. A simple case of deviant perception, presumably due to wishful thinking/confirmation bias, nothing else.

Likewise on your part ....... Touche .

By no means. Unlike yours, my perceptions are in complete agreement with the objective facts.

As I said, I noticed a Slight drop in high ISO performance moving from EM10 to EM1 and noticed the improvement from EM1 to EM5-II . my original "am I seeing things" was that it looked better than I remember from the EM10 - whatever, it`s better than the EM1 even if by a margin.

I know you said that (based on incomparable evidence and memory recall, which leaves a lot of leeway for wishful thinking). But my comments about your deviant perceptions refer to what you said here about the DPR studio scene samples I linked to. When faced with directly comparable evidence, your report about your perceptions turned out to be out of line with the objective facts.

By no means. Unlike yours, my perceptions are in complete agreement with the objective facts.

SO you do believe that the EM5-II is better at high ISOs than the EM1 then ......... Gotcha

AdamT wrote:

By no means. Unlike yours, my perceptions are in complete agreement with the objective facts.

SO you do believe that the EM5-II is better at high ISOs than the EM1 then ......... Gotcha

No. Your perceptions betray you yet again. I consistently said the opposite based on the objective fact that the E-M1 has better SNR in the shadows than the E-M5.2. As I additionally pointed out, shadow noise is what primarily bothers most people (as evidenced by the poll I conducted about the matter) and SNR in the shadows is better indexed by DR than by the DxO "low-light score". And with regard to DR, the E-M1 is slightly ahead of the E-M5.2 (and other current Olys) across the entire ISO range, as illustrated by the DPR studio scene crops I linked to.

No. Your perceptions betray you yet again.

Whatever matey - have a good day ................

AdamT wrote:

No. Your perceptions betray you yet again.

Whatever matey - have a good day ................

Same to you. As already indicated, my point is not that the E-M1 is a better camera than the E-M5.2. As your OP suggests, both have their pros and cons, and which you prefer is just a matter of how you weigh their importance. Further, as my reply to that OP indicates, I might personally lean towards the E-M5.2 if I were to make the choice afresh. But it's nice to get the facts right about what the pros and cons actually are.

Same to you. As already indicated, my point is not that the E-M1 is a better camera than the E-M5.2. As your OP suggests, both have their pros and cons, and which you prefer is just a matter of how you weigh their importance.

I agree - as a package they are a different set of compromises , I will miss the deep grip of the EM1 and doubt there`s as great a difference in the IBIS as some make out (seems much the same so far but then my only long lens is a Panny with Power OIS) but I need the EM5-II`s silent mode, super quiet true EFC shutter and even its Video capability (no need to drag a Panny along for clips) far more than drive mode speed , C-AF performance and usability with 4/3 lenses ..