High ISO sample images from cameras old and new

[Ian]

Originally Posted by dingenus

I understand what you mean. Sorry if I put the bar too high. Have you already overhauled the sharpness test E5-GH2 ?

Yep - I have re-shot the GH2 with a 50 f/2 macro but not yet analysed the results. Will do that early next week.

Ian

[John Perriment]

Originally Posted by Ian

I'm sorry if there was a slight inaccuracy with the focus, but let's face it, this was never intended to be a lab test. Criticality is not something to expect with high ISO photography. At f/7.1 and at a reasonable viewing distance the focus discrepancy described will not be significant. But I do hope these comparisons will still be useful for evaluating noise grain, banding, etc.

Ian

I think this test achieved what it was set up to do and is a unique comparison for Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds users which is not available anywhere else on the web. There is so much useful information here that I'm still trying to take it all on board, in between doing other things. I, for one, appreciate this very much indeed, Ian. Thank you.

[Geodasher]

Thanks for the considerable effort to round up all these cameras and post the many images. It is interesting to see how well the latest models perform.

On a Mac I am seeing a strong bluish cast in your E-3 raws as if something is wrong although I do not see anything in the data. My own E-3 files do not have this problem. Maybe the camera's manual setting is off the mark.

[John Perriment]

Originally Posted by Geodasher

Thanks for the considerable effort to round up all these cameras and post the many images. It is interesting to see how well the latest models perform.

On a Mac I am seeing a strong bluish cast in your E-3 raws as if something is wrong although I do not see anything in the data. My own E-3 files do not have this problem. Maybe the camera's manual setting is off the mark.

That's a puzzle, I've just rechecked on my screen and I'm not getting a cast with the E-3 raws, they look pretty much like the JPEGS in terms of WB. I would suspect your raw converter but you are not experiencing that with your own E-3 so I don't know.

[fluffy]

Have to agree with John here. I'm looking at both the RAWs and JPGs on a Mac, with a calibrated screen. Both look pretty much the same in WB and none have any noticeable cast.

[Clint]

Ian,
Thanks much for the time and work involved and posting of the comparisons.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Geodasher

Thanks for the considerable effort to round up all these cameras and post the many images. It is interesting to see how well the latest models perform.

On a Mac I am seeing a strong bluish cast in your E-3 raws as if something is wrong although I do not see anything in the data. My own E-3 files do not have this problem. Maybe the camera's manual setting is off the mark.

Thanks for the feedback. I see blue cast on the dark areas on the very highest ISO shots for some of the cameras. I just attribute this to a consrquence of the extreme high ISO settings. But the vast majority of the samples look normal when viewed in Lightroom.

It should not be an issue related to camera settings as RAW viewers will normally automatically evaluate the RAW data and provide a caculated preview, often independent of any colour or tone settings on the camera.

Ian

[RealRaist3d]

The GH2 in this test on the RAWS seems to run 1/2 a stop behind the E-5 (ISO 6400) but other than that, the GH2 clearly has more shadow range than the E-5, probably by about 1/2 a stop from these shots. Which makes sense because the GH2 would have a bit more highlight also, creating the 2/3rds of a stop higher DR difference.

Would have been interesting to get a shot with banding and compare who bands. My vote is on the E-5 banding first :-)

Thanks for all the work Ian.

- Raist

[allenrob]

The answer to your original question of: Is it really that bad?, is No! It's what I always thought was the case and now, to me, you've proven it. Thanks