Thread: Comparing all (!) my cameras in low light.

Originally Posted by Luckypenguin

Ray, are you still shooting the Fuji in jpeg and the Olympus in raw, and if so do you think that the difference could be in the tone curve of the Fuji jpeg engine?

When DxOMark measured the E-M5 they found that it was overstating the ISO sensitivity by approx 1 stop, and when I did my own comparison between the E-M5 and the NEX-5N at higher ISOs the Sony would produce an image around 2/3 stop brighter with identical settings. Assuming that the Sony was more accurate with it's reported ISOs, it essentially confirmed DxO's numbers for me. I thought that this was a bit cheeky on the part of Olympus but then the camera is genuinely good in low light so it didn't really matter all that much. If your findings are typical then it would indicate that the Fujis might be overstating their higher ISO sensitivities by anything up to 2 stops which is no small amount. From what I have seen they're obviously still fantastic low light cameras, but maybe not by quite as large a margin as I had thought.

Yeah, JPEG for the Fuji, raw for the Oly. Because those are the ways I get the best results from both. Not sure about how the ISO ratings equate to some theoretical "neutral", just how they seem to compare. I'm not one to look at numbers a lot, or do these types of comparisons often, but I was curious to see if it verified what I'd observed over months of shooting. The other time I did similar tests was with the Ricoh GRD 3 and 4. The 4 did better at higher ISO, but they'd basically just overstated the ISO ratings on the new one relative to the old one - they were nearly identical in practice.

The X-Pro and OMD are both really fine low light cameras, but any differences are minor the point of insignificance, although the files do look different, so it's reasonable to prefer one to the other. I tend to prefer the Fuji slightly, but I'm really happy with both.

-Ray

[QUOTE=christilou;106318]I won't bore you with the pictures but having put up the Christmas tree yesterday evening I did the obvious thing and began to see what sort of photos I could get in the gloom with just the lamps on in the living room and the tree lights on. I began with the Pentax K-01 using the 1.8 FA77, auto iso. Having been not much impressed by that I began to try the other cameras from my stable...[QUOTE]

I'm curious Christina, where did you find the K-01 + FA77 lacking? I've found my K-01 very usable at ISO3200. It should also be noted that the 77 has a much longer equivalent focal length than the other cameras you mentioned.

John I think that it was mainly the focusing with the FA77 on auto focus. Yes, I could use it manually but it's quite difficult to hold it steady for a low light shot and get a decently sharp picture. I too have found that iso 3200 is perfectly useable :) I've spent the last couple of days playing with a couple of manual lenses, the SMC K 55 1.8 and the SMC M 50 f2. and have come to see that the FA77 is much easier to manual focus too!

I wonder if the E-PM2 and E-PL5 would give the same low-light performance as the OM-D. Same sensor but I wonder how much the E-M5's five-axis IBIS has to do with it.

The key difference between the IBIS in the E-M5 and that in the Pens (and any lens-based IS system for that matter) is not necessarily the magnitude of motion that it can correct for but the range of motion that it can correct for. If the motion of the camera is up-down or left-right then you're fine, but the E-M5 can also correct for pitch, yaw, and roll.

And the practical implication of the difference is that for still subjects, I can shoot the OMD a much slower shutter speeds than I ever could with any of the previous models (and I either owned or shot with the EPL1, EP2, EP3, and EPL3) or that I expect I'd be able to do with the EPL5 or EPM2. For dynamic scenes with movement, it doesn't really make much difference unless you're going for motion blur, but there's a difference. I couldn't quantify it precisely, but I've done things with confidence with the OMD that I never even bothered to do badly with other models. Like 1/2 second exposures handheld at waist level, with just the strap to add a bit of stabilization. Where the movement is blurred past the point of recognition but the background is sharp. In honestly, I haven't found myself using it for this type of application much (at least after the first few weeks). But it also comes in really handy by stabilizing the view in the EVF prior to the shot, which makes composing with a really long lens (say, 300mm, or 600 equivalent) SO MUCH easier than it ever was before. You can actually fix the focus box on your target without the view jumping around in the finder. And for video there's no comparison. The IBIS in the other models is basically non-existant for video and its nice to have a Pany lens with OIS. But with the OMD its remarkable how steady the handheld camera stays while shooting. I don't do much video, but the difference is really plain even for someone like me who doesn't.

So there are real advantages for some types of use, minimal if any benefits for other types of uses. And some of the greatest benefits have nothing to do with low light - once you can shoot at 3200 or 6400 there aren't many shots you'd have trouble with in low light even without IBIS - I do fine with my X-Pro and there's no stabilization on that.

-Ray

As a one mirrorless system type of guy, this thread makes me feel warm all over reenforcing I did good by choosing the OM-D. That OM-D just does so many things well in such a small package. Ray mentioned that with clean high ISO the relance on IBIS/IS is minimized ... and it is, but having clean high ISO and five axil IBIS is even better than clean high ISO alone. A great one-two punch which allows the photog many more choices in documenting/interpreting an image.

Gary

PS- I almost picked-up a Fuji a while back (to go with the Leica I almost picked-up), this thread is melting my resolve.
G