On 2/2/2014 2:01 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> 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.
> I found this curious as well in some respects. DXO normalizes
> measurement of ISO and it is often not exactly what corresponds to the
> manufacturer's stated ISO.
Did you read this?
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html>
And this?
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html>
I took a long series of shots at different ISOs of the same complex, multi
colored subject, same lens, same light, on a
tripod, with E-M5 and GX7. There just isn't a noticeable difference in image
brightness with the same exposure on both
bodies. I believe Ctein is right, and the DXOMark ISOs are an artificial
construct from the far end of the histogram and
don't reflect the middle of the curve.
> DXO graphs them out for you under the measurement tab. ISO "200" for
> the OMD is closer to 100. The GX-7's are close to being spot on as
> measured so the effect is in the opposite direction and doesn't explain
> the difference in results. There are rounding issues as well. It
> appears the images on DPR in the studio comparison shot widget are taken at
> the nominal camera ISO as best as can be discerned. So one isn't really
> comparing apples to
> apples anyway.
I believe they are comparable, for the reasons given above, as well as the
comparable exposures of actual Raw files of
the DPReview shots.
> That be said, all the cams are within 1/3 EV so the rank order as
> well as the absolute values should not be over- interpreted. If the
> absolute amount of noise is similar the quality of the noise and
> response to PP
> may matter more as you demonstrated.
>
> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5#tabs-2
>
> (be sure to hit measurement tab--can't directly link to it--perhaps a
> flash thing. )
>
>
>
>>> I rather doubt they have
>>> the hours and perhaps the expertise to do that.
> Yikes, last I knew they had stables full of optics PhD's and I saw some
> ads for more in Information Week a few months back.
1. I was not referring to DXO as a whole, but to the DXOMark operation, which
is almost certainly a separate department
with its own budget constraints.
2. PhDs are not necessarily photographers, nor good judges of what the numbers
they come up with mean to images from the
equipment.
>
>>> 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.
> Yes for you it wasn't worth it back then. It is several releases past
> that and thought it might be worth a 10 min download/ installation for
> a re look-see.
But it's not really so quick. I would be looking at at least a few hours to get
an idea. Different light and subjects,
not just ISO, make a difference.
> The new "Prime" noise reduction especially after revision in 9.1 seems
> very good. They recognized the elephant in the room and one can
> directly export the tiff to PS from within DXO and use it as a very fancy
> converter. The highlight
> recovery has improved and color handling for my purposes is often
> better than ACR. It correctly places skin tones and purple
> in the same image with my Canyon, that ACR rarely gets right and it is
> otherwise very fussy for me to fix and often I am not skilled enough to
> do w/o DXO.
We have different cameras, subjects and problems.
> At high ISO it would be a bit too aggressive and loose detail, but that
> seems fixed with this iteration
That's one thing that drives we a little crazy with some NR. With NI, I can
adjust all the parameters myself, and save
named sets. One size does not fit all.
> and I think as good as NI and less work.
I already have NI profiles for all cameras/ISOs. It's only for a small # of
images that I need even look at the image in
NI. Even when paying close attention, as for the ISO 3200 images of fabrics I
recently posted, once I get it right for
one, I don't have to look at the rest, just turn off manual input and let 'er
rip.
> Hidden in one of your posts
> was that you had succumbed to CC model. I was a bit surprised as
> though you would ride CS6 quite a while longer.
I figured it would happen sooner or later, and I might as well get in on the
$10/mo. deal. Whether that will turn out to
be a good deal and what their long term pricing will be, I don't know.
Also, I keep thinking I should check out LR again, and LR5 comes with the deal.
As yet, all it's done is slightly
befuddle me for one thing I wanted to test, but I'll try other things. The NR
settings are pretty limited (as in ACR).
By not allowing different settings for different frequencies, they limit what
can be done.
> http://mikepasini.com/corners/2013/10/23-dxo-optics-pro-9-review/index.htm
>
>
> (first version of Prime too--less loss of detail now-totally adjustable
> as well)
First look at the examples, and I'm not impressed. I don't care about JPEG and
don't use ACR for my NR, so the examples
don't tell me much. I may look closer later, and comment.
Quiet 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/
|