Dynamic Range vs ISO setting: Was just reading an article about dynamic range vs ISO...and found it interesting that the EM1ii was holding it's own against larger sensors. Link to...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Was just reading an article about dynamic range vs ISO...and found it interesting that the EM1ii was holding it's own against larger sensors. Link to follow. I know I've personally noticed an uptick in performance in dynamic range since upgrading from the original em1...but I really didn't expect it to be pretty much on par with other APS-C sensors.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2080D,Canon%20EOS%20M50,FujiFilm%20X-T2,Nikon%20D7500,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-6500

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

And then tossing it into the ring with sensors 4 times larger (or more)...
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II,Pentax%20645Z,Sony%20ILCE-7M3,Sony%20ILCE-9

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

Cdouthitt wrote:

Was just reading an article about dynamic range vs ISO...and found it interesting that the EM1ii was holding it's own against larger sensors. Link to follow. I know I've personally noticed an uptick in performance in dynamic range since upgrading from the original em1...but I really didn't expect it to be pretty much on par with other APS-C sensors.

Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV).

As someone is sure to point out some brands, like Olympus, place middle gray at a different place in the raw data.
This doesn't mean that the dynamic range as measured is wrong, just that middle gray is lower than for most other cameras.
On The Other Hand (OTOH), middle gray will be in the expected place in JPEG files.
And ... who knows where middle gray will be in your image requiring high dynamic range?

Some people feel PhotonsToPhotos ought to use "Measured ISO" as the x-axis on these charts.
But because of variations, much as metering, I've determined that is no more useful than using the manufacturer stated ISO.

The Laws of Physics dictate that in general sensor area is going to control the maximum possible Dynamic Range (DR); so MFT can't reach the performance of APS-C, etc.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Cdouthitt wrote:

And then tossing it into the ring with sensors 4 times larger (or more)...

Yep, it's so good it handily beats the theoretical maximum in part by playing loose with the ISO.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

aflundi wrote:

Yep, it's so good it handily beats the theoretical maximum in part by playing loose with the ISO.

It's almost spot on with the ideal APS-C
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Ideal%20APS-C/DX,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Cdouthitt wrote:

It's almost spot on with the ideal APS-C
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Ideal%20APS-C/DX,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

Which is really, really good since that's absolutely impossible. When you see something too good to be true, ... .

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

aflundi wrote:

Which is really, really good since that's absolutely impossible. When you see something too good to be true, ... .

The thing is, I've been able to see quite a big difference between the original EM1 and the new EM1ii, especially in bright situations (dropping the highlights and pulling up the shadows)...so frankly I believe the data as I have seen the difference with my own eyes. Now is it as good as they say it is...I can't say as I don't have any APS-C gear to test it against in the same conditions.

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

Cdouthitt wrote:

The thing is, I've been able to see quite a big difference between the original EM1 and the new EM1ii, especially in bright situations (dropping the highlights and pulling up the shadows)...so frankly I believe the data as I have seen the difference with my own eyes. Now is it as good as they say it is...I can't say as I don't have any APS-C gear to test it against in the same conditions.

Sure, the E-M1 Mark II does have more PDR than the E-M1.
But comparisons against other brands and sensor sizes is obfuscated by their choice of where to place middle gray in the raw data.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

bclaff wrote:

Sure, the E-M1 Mark II does have more PDR than the E-M1.
But comparisons against other brands and sensor sizes is obfuscated by their choice of where to place middle gray in the raw data.

Just curious, where are you seeing/reading that Olympus places their middle gray at a different place in the raw data when compared to other camera brands?

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Cdouthitt wrote:

The thing is, I've been able to see quite a big difference between the original EM1 and the new EM1ii, especially in bright situations (dropping the highlights and pulling up the shadows)...so frankly I believe the data as I have seen the difference with my own eyes. Now is it as good as they say it is...I can't say as I don't have any APS-C gear to test it against in the same conditions.

Because the Mark II beats the Mark I doesn't mean it can do the impossible. It only means that the Mark II does a little better than the earlier version.

Olympus has a reputation for "ISO cheating" which makes it look like it is doing better than it really is if you peg the labeled ISO when doing comparisons. I suggest you go back and re-read Bill Claff's (bclaff) message.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

aflundi wrote:

Because the url=http://www.photonstophotos.net/Ch... (show quote)

I did...but he didn't say where that "measurable information" came from. I'd be curious of the source so I could read more and understand.

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

Cdouthitt wrote:

Just curious, where are you seeing/reading that Olympus places their middle gray at a different place in the raw data when compared to other camera brands?

DxOMark determines something they call "Measured ISO".

At PhotonsToPhotos a good place to look is in the sort-able table at underneath the DxOMark Derived Measured ISO chart.
Note the Factor and Stops columns; most cameras are at at least -3 rather than 0. And follow the links under "Further Reading".

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

bclaff wrote:

DxOMark determines something they call "Measured ISO".

At PhotonsToPhotos a good place to look is in the sort-able table at underneath the DxOMark Derived Measured ISO chart.
Note the Factor and Stops columns; most cameras are at at least -3 rather than 0. And follow the links under "Further Reading".

Correction ! -1/3 not -3