Curious about the bump in quality I found in shooting the EM-1 at LOW, I shot the same scene of backlit tulips indoors on a tripod at LOW vs 200 vs 200+1 EV (files linked by clicking)
The camera metered the scenes so that it 'saw' exactly the same EV for each shot (I shot in aperture priority) but the 200+1 shot presents as a little darker and the LOW shot presents as less contrasty. I don't think the light changed, nor did the camera, so I can't know for sure whether there actually is some difference between 100 (LOW) and 200 + 1EV exposure - even repeating it with flash wouldn't tell me for sure because of the variable output of flash units. But I suspect that there actually is some difference and that the LOW file is a little nicer than the 200+1 file. Not sure how that would happen.
The purpose of this was to understand whether I'm better off shooting at 200 (or AUTO)+1 where subject DR allows, or whether the extra effort of shooting at LOW might be worthwhile. To be continued but I suspect that LOW actually is a little better. What do others think? (RAW files linked above and for reference my preferred processing in LR is sharpening at 50/0.7/70/20 with NR at 17)
In either event both the LOW and the 200+1 files are a lot nicer than the 200 file.