On 12/2/2012 4:05 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Thanks, Mike, that's really interesting. The EM-5 equals or exceeds the
> 5D (and 7D) in every category except that the 5D holds a one stop
> advantage in low light noise. Another big surprise though it that the
> entire EM-5 ISO range seems to be overstated by about one stop. ISO 200
> is really 100, 400 is 200, etc. I'm wondering how this relates to the
> camera's own metering measurement vs that of an external meter. Could
> make a big difference in, say, using an external meter for studio flash
> work. Not a problem as long as you know it exists.
That's why DxOMark gives you a plot of camera ISO vs. sensor ISO. It doesn't
reveal that a camera manufacturer is
"fudging" or "lying." It tells you how the two different kinds of ISO, which
are legitimately determined in very
different ways, compare. That's all. It's not an exposé. It's just technical
information. So far as real photography
practices go, we care a lot more about camera ISO.
- Ctein
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html>
Much more detail, including how it relates specifically to the E-M5.
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html>
In my tiny pond, I'd say that in actual practice, shooting the things I shoot,
the E-M5 ISOs are about the same as 5D
and 60D and the compact cameras I have. No tests, just moving from one camera
to the other and seeing the image files
that come out.
If It Moves ... Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|