Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] MooseRant on Low Light Shoot-Out

Subject: Re: [OM] MooseRant on Low Light Shoot-Out
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:08:54 -0800
On 1/30/2014 4:46 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks for that detailed analysis, Moose. I had thought it exceedingly
> likely you had done something like that with the images
> but am glad to be able to follow along.  Confirms my confidence in the
> MSOA designation.
>
>
> Close Attention Moose (CAM)  writes:
>>> I think it's far more complex than we might wish it were.
>
> Yeh, a single number to summarize the performance of a lens/sensor is a
> bit much. One of my points was that the DXO methodology
> and much of its rationale is well elucidated and they do aid in the
> intepretation of what comprise meaningful differences. One can diagree
> with their choices but at least they are interpretable and not arbitrary.

Yes, elucidated. Yes, interpretable; No, not arbitrary. BUT - not meaningful.

DXOMark say about Low-Light ISO, E-M1 = 757, E-M5 = 826, GX7 = 718.

These numbers are so close as to be a toss-up. But, they show the E-M5 to be 
better than the GX7. This is simply not 
true in actual use. In my testing, the GX7 is significantly better at higher 
ISOs.

Therefore, the numbers are not meaningful. All the theory in the world doesn't 
mean anything if it doesn't predict 
results. If the Sun didn't bend starlight, Einstein would just be a footnote.

And, as before, it really matters to at least some of us is how the noise 
responds to NR - what does the final image 
look like. I realize they are not intending, nor implying that their numbers 
cover this. Yet it is crucial to the many 
practical photographers.

> If they had linked them to relevant images to provide context like you
> did, that would have been much superior.

Indeed. I'd guess this is a low rent operation, mainly done to promote sales of 
their software. I rather doubt they have 
the hours and perhaps the expertise to do that.

>
>>>> the GX7 holds detail in shadow, responds to NR there better and has 
>>>> significantly fewer wormy artifacts.
> I wonder how the new incarnation of DXO Opic pro noise reduction
> dperforms with higher ISO OMD raw files.  Its very first incarnation
> was too tough on detail but they refined it.  It looks at about 1000
> surrounding pixels to help sort out noise.

It's just too expensive a toy for me. I tried out a free sample, and couldn't 
see where it was worth my time and money.

> Can take 5min to process an image but so does a layered NI.

Not sure what you mean by layered NI. I only process one layer at a time, 
generally as my first step. I've also 
discovered that a fast, multi core computer with gobs of memory makes a big 
difference. :-)

>
> Paying close attention to CAM, Mike


-- 
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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz