The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

DXO Em-1

jonoslack

Active member
This was my claim:
Well, and that was what I was disagreeing with, and if you're talking of people like Ming Thein, then I know who's opinions I value :)

So let's change the subject slightly - The Q7 is obviously an interesting camera - the only reason I'm not going there is because I have to carry a bag anyway, so either an M or an E-M1 are simple to carry about.

I actually feel that APS-c is Dooooomed (it'll fall between the stool of smaller lenses (µ43) and that of smaller DOF (FF)) we shall see (this is an opinion, not a fact).
 

Riley

New member
I dont think DxO is a bad thing, but I can remember plenty of times when its been used to batter the 43rds format by individuals on a mission to destroy it.

and I dont buy the 'bigger sensor is always better argument' it isnt. No camera is a panacea, they all have points for and against.

As an example, it was popular with 'theorists' to drag out D800 'king of' DxO specs to derail positive perceptions about M5. Until it was pointed out that its noise performance and DR metrics are actually in arrears to M5 when put into the equivalence context.

Further examples encounter the usefulness of some lenses. In my own occupation good ultra wides are not so easy to find, yet I have the trio of 7-14, 9-18, and 11-22 that can all shoot very well at f/4.5. I dont know many lenses that compare with that and still provide an expansive DoF.

On a more positive note Nikons 14-24 fits well, as does the very enviable MF Canon TS17, but they still need to run f/9 to compare in DoF, and that is so much harder on flash equipment and batteries because they get outside the ideal exposure window. They can both raise the ISO but they still cant drag the shutter as well as stabilised Olympus, so they have to shoot off a tripod to match my shooting window.

There are a lot of very good choices out there for the present, and considerable support for a number of shooting propositions. What is important for those of us within this system are the further advances in equipment; within that there are a number of prospects to look forward to. Theres a lot of APSC with little to look forward to as cheap FF takes up the advanced options previously held by APSC.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I dont think DxO is a bad thing, but I can remember plenty of times when its been used to batter the 43rds format by individuals on a mission to destroy it.

and I dont buy the 'bigger sensor is always better argument' it isnt. No camera is a panacea, they all have points for and against.

. . . .snip

There are a lot of very good choices out there for the present, and considerable support for a number of shooting propositions. What is important for those of us within this system are the further advances in equipment; within that there are a number of prospects to look forward to. Theres a lot of APSC with little to look forward to as cheap FF takes up the advanced options previously held by APSC.
Excellent Riley - why couldn't I put it that well!

all the best
 

dhazeghi

New member
Short story - if you liked the E-M5, you'll like the E-M1 (or vice versa). 18 months later, basically the same image quality at the RAW level.

I'm still waiting for a usable ISO 6400. That's the point where I can finally declare victory and go home (e.g. stop looking forward to the next generation of m4/3).
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Well, and that was what I was disagreeing with, and if you're talking of people like Ming Thein, then I know who's opinions I value :)
I don't believe I have said Ming Thein. :) But you are certainly more than empowered to value anyone's opinion.

You also clearly disagreed with the sensor photo site site, and provided what you thought was evidence to it, to support your claim, as part of why my claim was wrong.

When the very logic and evidence you proposed to use did not work out (and nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter to owning to it and moving on- there should be absolutely no shame in that), you just changed the subject/approach/criteria ignoring that. That suggests an approach that invites thinking, clinging to previous thought no matter what.

We can just agree to disagree at that point.

So let's change the subject slightly - The Q7 is obviously an interesting camera - the only reason I'm not going there is because I have to carry a bag anyway, so either an M or an E-M1 are simple to carry about.
Cool. For my needs I can have a carry bag too but (i) I still find that cumbersome (ii) the Q7 makes me more invisible on the streets with a leaf shutter and size (iii) the Q7 handles surprisingly well, (iv) I can fit the entire lens system of it in my coat pockets and (v) the Q7 does better, much better than people think, as a canvas of light.

I actually feel that APS-c is Dooooomed (it'll fall between the stool of smaller lenses (µ43) and that of smaller DOF (FF)) we shall see (this is an opinion, not a fact).
That's fine. I have seen similar reasons to think m4/3rds is doomed but more in a twist were APS-C comes down too fast while FF does not come down as fast while the 1'' sensors move up.

What I think is as long as the price differentiation exist, all formats will continue. Even say a Nikon 1 format, with the P&S cameras gone.

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I dont think DxO is a bad thing, but I can remember plenty of times when its been used to batter the 43rds format by individuals on a mission to destroy it.
Who? I saw many times individuals simply trying to state a truth being told they were trying to do exactly that simply because they didn't agree with some claims or propositions within the system. I would imagine there would be a couple as there exist for everything.

I certainly believe that you didn't see DxO in good light- at least before given previous conversations.

and I dont buy the 'bigger sensor is always better argument' it isnt. No camera is a panacea, they all have points for and against.

As an example, it was popular with 'theorists' to drag out D800 'king of' DxO specs to derail positive perceptions about M5. Until it was pointed out that its noise performance and DR metrics are actually in arrears to M5 when put into the equivalence context.
Actually the D800 still does have better DR, ISO and color depth. That hasn't changed at all. I am not sure if I saw the so called evidence of the equivalent shooting you mention, but I did see one claim with imaging resources raws and the claim was flawed due to several reasons:

1 - It ignored the fact the D800 has more megapixels, so even in the event the EM1 sensor edged per pixel the D800 slightly at higher ISO, downsampling a D800 3x+MP to 16 will more than make up for any difference.
2 - It ignored other sensor aspects as DR, color sensitivity
3 - It finally ignored that the comparison had to resort to an equivalence- to m4/3rds in order for the em1 to even be compared at all in terms of sensor performance.
4 - that then there's no equivalent comparison at all in native FF (i.e. Fast lenses using the sensor at the same ISO then with shorter DOF).

Basically FF gives you the choice there by stopping down while in m4/3rds you don't have the choice back when opening up.

Does this really matter to all photographers? No. All systems have tradeoffs. I recognize the D800 has one of the best sensor image quality out there, yet I would not buy nor carry one even if I had cash to burn.

Further examples encounter the usefulness of some lenses. In my own occupation good ultra wides are not so easy to find, yet I have the trio of 7-14, 9-18, and 11-22 that can all shoot very well at f/4.5. I dont know many lenses that compare with that and still provide an expansive DoF.
A bit misleading since the lens comparison with what you can do goes both ways. It certainly depends what each photographer is looking for.

On a more positive note Nikons 14-24 fits well, as does the very enviable MF Canon TS17, but they still need to run f/9 to compare in DoF, and that is so much harder on flash equipment and batteries because they get outside the ideal exposure window. They can both raise the ISO but they still cant drag the shutter as well as stabilised Olympus, so they have to shoot off a tripod to match my shooting window.
They can raise the iso and in doing so, match. Olympus will have in some situations an advantage as you mention with the IBIS (not that the other system have horrible IBIS options- they do have reasonably good ones too). But there's also other advantages to shooting it FF, so pros and cons.

There are a lot of very good choices out there for the present, and considerable support for a number of shooting propositions. What is important for those of us within this system are the further advances in equipment; within that there are a number of prospects to look forward to. Theres a lot of APSC with little to look forward to as cheap FF takes up the advanced options previously held by APSC.
That's a hard claim to make given the advances happening in APS-C. Both systems are moving forward with a plurality of options.

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Short story - if you liked the E-M5, you'll like the E-M1 (or vice versa). 18 months later, basically the same image quality at the RAW level.
Sure seems that way ;-) I am actually happy to see Olympus moving forward with the EM-5 vs what was the E-3/E-5 design by committee (the words of at least two big review sites).

I'm still waiting for a usable ISO 6400. That's the point where I can finally declare victory and go home (e.g. stop looking forward to the next generation of m4/3).
I do not know what specifically your ISO 6400 needs are but I am inclined to think the ISO 6400 on the EM1 is reasonable for a wide range of uses, even if not does not match APS-C (or I shall say everything but Canon APS-C :) ).

- Ricardo
 

Riley

New member
Who? I saw many times individuals simply trying to state a truth being told they were trying to do exactly that simply because they didn't agree with some claims or propositions within the system. I would imagine there would be a couple as there exist for everything.

I certainly believe that you didn't see DxO in good light- at least before given previous conversations.
In the beginning the context of those previous discussions was based on your incorrect assertions that Olympus were cheating their ISO.
The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.
Around that time you were using DxO noise data based on their interpretation of ISO.

Also back when M5 was released prior to the release of the long coming DxO data you assured everyone that your take on M5 was that the sensor was no better than GX1. I argued against that and predicted a 12.4 stop DR, as it happened when the data was released DxO measured it as 12.3. If I was asked, I would say you seem to have a penchant for trashing Olympus in particular masked with faint praise.

At the end of the day its a simple proposition, I just dont think DxO always matches reality, but then really what does. So I am happy to take the case whenever it appears. Take the case of 6D vs M1. On the 'equivalent basis m1 flattens 6D, but in reality 6D is one of the cleanest performing FF out there, certainly more than a shake better than D800. Yet D800 was pronounced the king of DxO, so go figure..

raist3d said:
Actually the D800 still does have better DR, ISO and color depth. That hasn't changed at all. I am not sure if I saw the so called evidence of the equivalent shooting you mention, but I did see one claim with imaging resources raws and the claim was flawed due to several reasons:

1 - It ignored the fact the D800 has more megapixels, so even in the event the EM1 sensor edged per pixel the D800 slightly at higher ISO, downsampling a D800 3x+MP to 16 will more than make up for any difference.
2 - It ignored other sensor aspects as DR, color sensitivity
3 - It finally ignored that the comparison had to resort to an equivalence- to m4/3rds in order for the em1 to even be compared at all in terms of sensor performance.
4 - that then there's no equivalent comparison at all in native FF (i.e. Fast lenses using the sensor at the same ISO then with shorter DOF).
again this is only true when one disregards equivalent settings but this is common. People like to have this both ways, they like to say the higher ISO is cleaner, and they have the benefit of lower ISO DR. If they ever operated both a m43rds and a FF body they would realise a few things, that raising ISO to hold shutter speed is a common issue and generally negates any performance advantage while retaining operational disadvantages. FF can go shallower, but I can run slower with any lens. Some FF has resolution advantages, OTOH web and print resolutions are crushed by the medium but FF still carry a burden with edges and corners

raist3d said:
Basically FF gives you the choice there by stopping down while in m4/3rds you don't have the choice back when opening up.
of all the FF SLRs D800 is the diffraction monster. Even Nikon material shows the thing is in trouble due to softening at f/11 and that users are better off with better quality lenses, they even provide a list. Stopping down is one thing it can do, but at a severe penalty. This isnt to say there arent better value FF propositions out there, but then for some reason DxO nuts always seem to drag D800 out as proof of their assertions. Yet here it is in all its 'equivalent' glory.

shifted those 2 stops east, whos right on sensor performance of these two cameras?
The actual target D800 should match is the grey plot on its right, it falls well short of that, i.e. it is 'behind' the curve


I didnt buy M1 based on assumptions like these, I bought it to advance m43 kit I already operate and to continue using 43rds lenses. I picked pretty early that review sites were using poor RAW conversions so kept examining jpegs at mid/high ISO for detail and heavy NR effects and found myself happy with the ISO 1600 regime.

Along the way Ive had a few surprises that made me realise how far cameras have come and what the practical and operational divides actually are.
For the most part they are not what people think, and certainly not what is argued about.

raist3d said:
Does this really matter to all photographers? No. All systems have tradeoffs. I recognize the D800 has one of the best sensor image quality out there, yet I would not buy nor carry one even if I had cash to burn.

A bit misleading since the lens comparison with what you can do goes both ways. It certainly depends what each photographer is looking for.

They can raise the iso and in doing so, match. Olympus will have in some situations an advantage as you mention with the IBIS (not that the other system have horrible IBIS options- they do have reasonably good ones too). But there's also other advantages to shooting it FF, so pros and cons.

That's a hard claim to make given the advances happening in APS-C. Both systems are moving forward with a plurality of options.

IMO C&N are rolling out of APSC for all but base options. Sony have recognised this and have been quick to adjust. If not the next generation then the generation after, mirrorless will obliterate any perceived advantage of SLR formats irrespective of size.

Mirrorless and processing are the future.
 
Last edited:

raist3d

Well-known member
In the beginning the context of those previous discussions was based on your incorrect assertions that Olympus were cheating their ISO.
Can you please quote where I said Olympus was cheating in their ISO? Where did I say such thing?

The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.
Around that time you were using DxO noise data based on their interpretation of ISO.

Let's start from the beginning here because I am not sure what the beginning is. I started to look at DXo way WAY before this. And examination of what I did with the e-620 pre-dates this post.

Also back when M5 was released prior to the release of the long coming DxO data you assured everyone that your take on M5 was that the sensor was no better than GX1. I argued against that and predicted a 12.4 stop DR, as it happened when the data was released DxO measured it as 12.3. If I was asked, I would say you seem to have a penchant for trashing Olympus in particular masked with faint praise.
That is a big mischaracterization of what I have historically done and as such a complete half truth. You keep bringing this up and I am glad you do because it proves a major point- I was very wrong about the DR about the E-M5, but I also fully admitted it, corrected myself when the evidence (still pre-dxo) was presented in RAW files which I examined with draw. If anything that just proves more than anything that I am interested in truth, not in making things up- which was very often the case in other situations where the "camera doing better or as good as" didn't come true (particularly the E-5).

None of the people that were trying to correct me came pretty much with virtually any more valid arguments than when the same story happened with the E-5 or even previous camera. And that includes you. So yes, this time I was wrong, while the people who would usually blindly expect a great performance for anything new Olympus, were more (most) by chance right than wrong. That still doesn't mean they were logical at all in it.

In the meant time I have at times admitted when I have been incorrect. I can't say the same for you. Since imagine you are human well.. .but ok, let's focus on other things.

At the end of the day its a simple proposition, I just dont think DxO always matches reality, but then really what does. So I am happy to take the case whenever it appears. Take the case of 6D vs M1. On the 'equivalent basis m1 flattens 6D, but in reality 6D is one of the cleanest performing FF out there, certainly more than a shake better than D800. Yet D800 was pronounced the king of DxO, so go figure..
I have to say in general DXo has corroborated with what I have found with all the cameras I have had the use of. So I cannot agree with you though that doesn't mean Dxo is going to be perfect. But yes, I do not think the EM1 sensor will put with the D800.

again this is only true when one disregards equivalent settings but this is common. People like to have this both ways, they like to say the higher ISO is cleaner, and they have the benefit of lower ISO DR.
No, with even with the equivalence, I see the resolution difference is being disregarded. This would more than make up for any other lingering differences. Of course the FF will give you the other option not available in m4/3rds. But like I said- pros and cons. m4/3rds is far lighter, I would certainly pick m43/rds for my personal use over FF.

If they ever operated both a m43rds and a FF body they would realise a few things, that raising ISO to hold shutter speed is a common issue and generally negates any performance advantage while retaining operational disadvantages. FF can go shallower, but I can run slower with any lens. Some FF has resolution advantages, OTOH web and print resolutions are crushed by the medium but FF still carry a burden with edges and corners
Not sure if you refer to the lens performances but that depends on the lens. It's not like m4/3rds as a standard performs like good old 4/3rds.


of all the FF SLRs D800 is the diffraction monster. Even Nikon material shows the thing is in trouble due to softening at f/11 and that users are better off with better quality lenses, they even provide a list. Stopping down is one thing it can do, but at a severe penalty. This isnt to say there arent better value FF propositions out there, but then for some reason DxO nuts always seem to drag D800 out as proof of their assertions. Yet here it is in all its 'equivalent' glory.
Even with the diffraction you still have more resolution to downsample from.

shifted those 2 stops east, whos right on sensor performance of these two cameras?
The actual target D800 should match is the grey plot on its right, it falls well short of that, i.e. it is 'behind' the curve


For the case of the two stops in the DR case, yes, I think you made a good case. That's of course only if you shoot with the same DOF. For many shots separating just 1 stop DOF things aren't that clear, let alone in the other categories and let alone if you do not need to shoot 2 stops closer. And not to be misleading: yes, the D800 will still beat the Em1 hands down at shooting a landscape in a high contrast situation, so the DR advantage in a lot of shots is still quite real.

I didnt buy M1 based on assumptions like these, I bought it to advance m43 kit I already operate and to continue using 43rds lenses. I picked pretty early that review sites were using poor RAW conversions so kept examining jpegs at mid/high ISO for detail and heavy NR effects and found myself happy with the ISO 1600 regime.
Certainly one has to buy according to needs and wants, but I was never against that point. My point is what seems to be this "complex" if you will of some to prove at all costs that 4/3rds, m4/3rds is just as good as APS-C or even FF. There are tradeoffs for every single one of them. Like I said, I would never buy myself a D800 or carry one even if I had the cash. That doesn't mean I need to think for example that the K-5 or Fuji matches it.

So, you can say what you want *now that finally* there's a reasonably good sensor in m4/3rds with the advent of the Em-5 and Panasonic's GX7's, but the whole of this conversation in its context dates back to a time when that was not even the case (and it's not even now,t here are still tradeoffs but the balance is pretty reasonable, imho). IN the days of the E-5 many things were said that were simply not true, that camera was quite lacking vs competitors at the time it came out in the sensor department.

Along the way Ive had a few surprises that made me realise how far cameras have come and what the practical and operational divides actually are.
For the most part they are not what people think, and certainly not what is argued about.

IMO C&N are rolling out of APSC for all but base options. Sony have recognised this and have been quick to adjust. If not the next generation then the generation after, mirrorless will obliterate any perceived advantage of SLR formats irrespective of size.

Mirrorless and processing are the future.
Well, but there are ASPC mirror less and FF mirror less. If your proposition is that mirror less cameras are the future, yes, I can most likely agree with that. That's a different point though.

- Ricardo
 

Brian Mosley

New member
OK, I'm going word blind at this point. Can we all move on please? This isn't dpreview.

Thank you Ricardo, Riley with respect to you both.

Brian
 

Craftysnapper

New member
Oooh, 15 posts of troll-bashing. Nothing like martial arts for breakfast. Batter away, boys.

scott
I could not agree more Scott

This reminds me of my film day when the tec heads who could not take a decent image to save there lives spent all there time photographing test charts and arguing one lens was better than another when in the real world the differences were not to be seen in the largest prints (does anybody print large now).

Once at a international exhibition where I had a 20x16 b&W print excepted two guys were looking at it when one said to the other that must have been a expensive lens used to get that quality (the type of 35mm camera used did not make a difference in those days}.

I could not resist butting in and telling them it was mine and had been taken with a Cosina 135mm f2.8 lens that I had brought second hand for £15 and they quiclky moved on chuntering to there selves.

Nice to see nothing has changed in my 30 year of photography just that there is more of it with the invention of the internet. ;)

By the way just like Ricardo who used to use as E-400 and changed to Pentax, I also changed from a E-30 (Panasonic 12mp sensor) to to a Pentax K-30 for better image quality.

But then I brought a MTF system E-PL5 as a carry around camera and ran both systems side by side for nearly twelve months, but here is the thing when comparing images I was consistantly getting better quality with the mtf system than the Pentax one, so for me it was a no brainer a lighter system with equal or better image quality so I sold my Pentex system and brought a E-M5.

Now this decision was made on real world use of both camera systems side by side not test charts, DXO ratings or sensor size and pixel pitch but what I was seeing on my monitor and prints, and for me real world is where it counts not if its APC-S or MFT which I could not give a monkeys about. :)
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I could not agree more Scott

This reminds me of my film day when the tec heads who could not take a decent image to save there lives spent all there time photographing test charts and arguing one lens was better than another when in the real world the differences were not to be seen in the largest prints (does anybody print large now).

Once at a international exhibition where I had a 20x16 b&W print excepted two guys were looking at it when one said to the other that must have been a expensive lens used to get that quality (the type of 35mm camera used did not make a difference in those days}.

I could not resist butting in and telling them it was mine and had been taken with a Cosina 135mm f2.8 lens that I had brought second hand for £15 and they quiclky moved on chuntering to there selves.

Nice to see nothing has changed in my 30 year of photography just that there is more of it with the invention of the internet. ;)

By the way just like Ricardo who used to use as E-400 and changed to Pentax, I also changed from a E-30 (Panasonic 12mp sensor) to to a Pentax K-30 for better image quality.

But then I brought a MTF system E-PL5 as a carry around camera and ran both systems side by side for nearly twelve months, but here is the thing when comparing images I was consistantly getting better quality with the mtf system than the Pentax one, so for me it was a no brainer a lighter system with equal or better image quality so I sold my Pentex system and brought a E-M5.

Now this decision was made on real world use of both camera systems side by side not test charts, DXO ratings or sensor size and pixel pitch but what I was seeing on my monitor and prints, and for me real world is where it counts not if its APC-S or MFT which I could not give a monkeys about. :)

Since apparently if I am one of those "...tec heads who could not take a decent image to save there lives spent all there time photographing test charts and arguing..." - did I get that right? please by all means correct me on that one, - one may think from what you wrote that I would never touch a Q with a ten foot pole yet that's what I am using for a lot of my work.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/48549-fun-q7.html

I already mentioned that all systems have their tradeoffs and it all depends what you are trying to do and what you want. *shrugs*

Ah yes, you couldn't care less about this discussion, but you had to post some condescending opinion on it all right? But no worries, I know you know oh so much better. ;-)

- Ricardo
 

Annna T

Active member
Ricardo,

This is getting very boring, you are beating a dead horse. Why don't you keep that for the DPreview forums ? No need to import these endless arguments here.

Ok, you own a Pentax K something and a Pentax Q (which I would never want to buy) and perhaps a D800 (?), so why do you need to come here and tell us that our cameras have crappy sensors, or at least not the last state of the art sensor ? Use the cameras you own/want and let us enjoy ours in peace. Why all this flood of negativity ?
 

jonoslack

Active member
I
When the very logic and evidence you proposed to use did not work out (and nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter to owning to it and moving on- there should be absolutely no shame in that), you just changed the subject/approach/criteria ignoring that.
I changed the subject because I didn't want to carry on with a pointless argument - is all.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Ricardo,

This is getting very boring, you are beating a dead horse. Why don't you keep that for the DPreview forums ? No need to import these endless arguments here.

Ok, you own a Pentax K something and a Pentax Q (which I would never want to buy) and perhaps a D800 (?), so why do you need to come here and tell us that our cameras have crappy sensors, or at least not the last state of the art sensor ? Use the cameras you own/want and let us enjoy ours in peace. Why all this flood of negativity ?
Sorry but you don't get to ask me a question like "so when are you going to stop beating your wife?" There was a Dxo discussion. It seems that when there is a discussion and someone presents arguments people may not want to hear, or when someone wants to discuss and finds the truth about say AF in a new model (I saw you were in that discussion too, at least following it), then this person is portrayed as "the bad guy."

I am really sorry I see you playing that game. Also, do you feel obligated and compelled any thread even when he discussion is boring or sounds "negative?" Why follow a thread or discussion of no interest to you?

Please point out where exactly I said "your camera has a crappy sensor." (in private if you will so we can stop the thread now). I never said such thing in this discussion of the EM1/EM5 sensor. If all you want to do when trying to have a reasonable discussion is just read what you want to hear, then I don't know what to tell you.

I actually stopped when Brian kindly asked it, because he was nice about it and quite frankly like you, I was getting bored with the ongoing discussion. But then I see a condescending comment and felt the need to reply to it- as I also feel the need now to set the record straight with you now.

As for what I own, I own more 4/3rds equipment (still) than anything else. No, I don't own a D800. And I made it very clear above that I would never buy one.

You will note that the discussion was about Dxo and what it meant, and why a camera with different sensor sizes does different yield of DR, ISO, tones, color sensitivity. I even gave the example of the Q as an example that I am not just following a high Dxo score to pick a camera.

Note who introduced what subjects, and what it was replied with. Please read more carefully before attributing me with things that I am not quite responsible for.

- Ricardo
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
OK, please please please.
This is not in the spirit of this forum.
Those who cannot follow our rules of decorum will be asked to take their flames elsewhere.
thanks
-bob
 
Top