PDA

View Full Version : Four Thirds High ISO Better Than You Think!


Zuiko
23rd October 2010, 11:50 PM
Reggie on Four Thirds User has posted a great blog entry (http://fourthirds-user.com/forum/blog.php?b=202)which dispels the myth that Four Thirds cameras cannot compete against APS-C cameras at high ISO. He makes a strong case that in many ways they are actually superior. Facinating reading. :)

Glen Bentley
24th October 2010, 07:34 AM
John,

Thanks for pointing this out.

OlyPaul
24th October 2010, 07:37 AM
John I brought this up a few years ago's on here and it used to be worse.

The Canon D350 at a true ISO of 1600 was in reality only ISO 900 where as the E-500 true IS0 was ISO 1790.

When I brought this up on well known magazines forum the then editor replied it was not there responsibility to make sure ISO' were accurate and could only go on the camera makers specs (very scientific testing) and just furthered my low opinion of magazine hacks and there biased testing. A bit like testing a car with a 25% faster speedo than the opposition and saying that car is faster.;)

jonsey
24th October 2010, 09:21 AM
thats a great read....oh the irony of it all....i like the fact that oly`s pro e3 is not a pro camera.....:D

Zuiko
24th October 2010, 11:24 AM
John I brought this up a few years ago's on here and it used to be worse.

The Canon D350 at a true ISO of 1600 was in reality only ISO 900 where as the E-500 true IS0 was ISO 1790.

When I brought this up on well known magazines forum the then editor replied it was not there responsibility to make sure ISO' were accurate and could only go on the camera makers specs (very scientific testing) and just furthered my low opinion of magazine hacks and there biased testing. A bit like testing a car with a 25% faster speedo than the opposition and saying that car is faster.;)

Hi Paul,

I thought the whole idea of an independent test was to verify manufacturer's claims. If Oly was smart they would have rated ISO 1600 as ISO 6400 on the E-5, built in hidden NR even in raw, and sat back for rave reviews.

Can you imagine buying a car based on stated fuel economy of 1600km per tank only to find it actually did 900 km per tank? :eek:

Greytop
24th October 2010, 08:46 PM
Hi Paul,

I thought the whole idea of an independent test was to verify manufacturer's claims. If Oly was smart they would have rated ISO 1600 as ISO 6400 on the E-5, built in hidden NR even in raw, and sat back for rave reviews.

Agreed but exposure is all encompassing and the shutter speed and aperture combination should give the game away.
I have to agree though that this is exactly what I noticed when running both Pentax and Olympus systems (at that time an E-510 and a K20D) that I could shoot at a higher shutter speed with my Oly for a given aperture at the same ISO setting. To be honest however even with that perceived advantage the E-510 couldn't compete with the K20D in low light performance.
Today however the E-5 may well be a different animal.

Radar
24th October 2010, 09:52 PM
What wasn't mentioned was the fact that the FT-system gives a bigger DOF and can easily be used wide open and get a good DOF while FF and APS-C/DX cameras will have to stop down the lens in order to gain the same DOF. As an example, when I do horse photography I use f2.8-f4 ang gets good DOF. A "competitor" uses a nikon D3 with MASSIVE and expensive lenses and have to stop down to f5.6-8 to get the same DOF. Which means I can use a lower ISO and therefor get the same quality as he does with 1-2 stop higher ISO than me.

Zuiko
24th October 2010, 10:42 PM
What wasn't mentioned was the fact that the FT-system gives a bigger DOF and can easily be used wide open and get a good DOF while FF and APS-C/DX cameras will have to stop down the lens in order to gain the same DOF. As an example, when I do horse photography I use f2.8-f4 ang gets good DOF. A "competitor" uses a nikon D3 with MASSIVE and expensive lenses and have to stop down to f5.6-8 to get the same DOF. Which means I can use a lower ISO and therefor get the same quality as he does with 1-2 stop higher ISO than me.

An excellent point. :)