Olympus E-30 high ISO comparisons

[Bear]

clknight - I've seen the dxomark ratings. they are pretty conclusive but they are measured after the fact. I am more interested in whether or not there is a standard method for claibration by manufacturers, an external standard if you like. Something that declares all ISO 1600's to be equal, as it were. I suspect there isn't and if there is clearly not all manufacturers adhere to it. Interesting issue regarding hed to head comparisons in reviews though. I wonder if any publications represented here could be persuaded to comment ?

[Xtack]

DXOMark uses ISO 12232 standard protocol for measuring ISO equivalency of different cameras. I believe the measurement/calibration methods used by Nikon and Canon are different than the above protocol. I do not know what other protocols exist.

It is not hard for camera users using two different systems to realise that for the same ISO and aperture the shutter speeds are different. Canon and Nikon are mature and reputed companies who understand that they will not get away with fudging numbers.

I think that the answer lies in whether the companies use 12% grey or 18% grey as their midtone reference. This may be only a small part of the answer.

-
Xtack

[Bandit]

I really don't see how any ISO numbers could be fudged on any camera? This would effectivly screw up any light meter, especially external ones. I have not seen any evidence of this on the DSLR's I have used/owned, Olympus, Canon & Nikon. ( I use a Nikon D700 & a Fuji S5 now) Olymus E-410 for travel

[Bear]

It may simply be that there is no external standard to which all camera companies adhere when calibrating their sensors. I use and E3, and E510 and a Sigma SD14 and they will not give the same settings for the same scene when set at the same ISO. Something is always different. All other things being equal (which admitedly they rarely are) if the amount of light falling on the sensor is the same and the cameras are set to the same metering modes then for the same ISO they should set the same parameters.

[Bandit]

I agree with the above, they should be set the same. I can't see any evidence they arn't though? I have compared a my old 5D and my new D700, both give the same result at hi iso, the D700 just shows less noise. Even if they are a stop out from any camera make, the FF stuff still outperforms the Crop frame bodies by a huge margin. I'm not so sure this is the case with APS-C and the new four thirds sensor though?

[Bear]

Bandit

Agreed entirely on the performance thing. Absolutely no doubt about it. D700 and the new 5D are, apparently outstanding as far as noise goes. I just find it interesting that dxomark rates ISO fidelity differently across brands and models and have been wondering why.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Bear

Bandit

Agreed entirely on the performance thing. Absolutely no doubt about it. D700 and the new 5D are, apparently outstanding as far as noise goes. I just find it interesting that dxomark rates ISO fidelity differently across brands and models and have been wondering why.

Me too? Seems daft and pointless. Hi ISO performance is not the be all and end all to compare camera systems. Not all people need this kind of performance. It's a great way of marketing a product though.

[Bear]

Could be a marketing issue as the press loves to find something to add an air of objectivity to the reviews. Is high ISO performance the new pixel count I wonder. I find it somewhat amusing that there are some people who will freely admit they never ever loaded anything faster than 400 ISO film into their cameras back in the day will choose a DSLR on the basis of the noise performance at 3200 !

I shoot a lot of low light stuf at 1600 and above and always have done - concerts and the like and find that the noise performance I get from my E3 far outstrips anything I could get from film. It is just not an issue. We would all like better noise performance at higher ISO's just because mostly but the real issue is the one you identify - DR - 2 or three stops better DR would be a huge bonus.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Bear

Could be a marketing issue as the press loves to find something to add an air of objectivity to the reviews. Is high ISO performance the new pixel count I wonder. I find it somewhat amusing that there are some people who will freely admit they never ever loaded anything faster than 400 ISO film into their cameras back in the day will choose a DSLR on the basis of the noise performance at 3200 !

I shoot a lot of low light stuf at 1600 and above and always have done - concerts and the like and find that the noise performance I get from my E3 far outstrips anything I could get from film. It is just not an issue. We would all like better noise performance at higher ISO's just because mostly but the real issue is the one you identify - DR - 2 or three stops better DR would be a huge bonus.

Yeah the DR thing is the main killer for me, ( it's OK but you just have to be a lot more carefull, this means more time) but I'm sure with time this will get sorted. Re the Film thing, I only used ISO 50 & 100. I used faster films when shooting B&W, And I used Medium format too. Digital has brought out a whole new way of working, my style has changed a considerable amount. We can now do things not possible with film, especially in social photograhy such as weddings. Hi ISO performance is very very handy at weddings, but that is only a small part of what we as a whole use our cameras for.

[Xtack]

Answer to our questions of why the ISO equivalence ratings are different between different manufacturers is in the FAQ section off DXOMark

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...Q-Database#663

So if we are doing E-30 noise comparisons with D300, it would be fair to compare raw images captured by reducing ISO in E30 closest to the ISO measured by DXOMark for D300.

-
Xtack