DPReview wrote in their test about the Olympus E-PL1 that it would have a bigger dynamic range at ISO 200, compared to its lowest setting of ISO 100. Consequently, in their later models Olympus even left away that ISO 100 setting. I always thought tho – like David Taylor-Hughes and a few others – that I’m getting cleaner images at ISO 100. And because today I took a photo with very low light – in fact with no artificial light at all except my monitor at work – I wanted to know, and also checked the measurements of DxOMark, whom I normally trust concerning numbers.
You can see it blurry in the background, on my monitor: at ISO 100, it’s a tad higher than at ISO 200, and just kisses their green line for a “good enough” image quality:
So I took this at ISO 100 and with an aperture of f=3,2 (hence the blur, because I focused on the keyboard). In post I cropped this to a 16:10 format because there isn’t much more information at the very top and/or bottom of the image. And tho the camera showed me some highlight warnings, and I slightly underexposed it about 0,3 stops, the image doesn’t really have a very high dynamic range.
Oh, and what DxOMark also confirmed was my guess that the E-520 has a slightly higher dynamic range, compared with the “Pen”. And I also think that its curves are slightly flatter (read: not as contrasty), compared to the 12MP sensor of the “Pen”. So together with the excellent 50mm macro lens, the DSLR with its also faster phase autofocus is still my go-to portrait camera.
My standard settings are “muted” on the E-520, and “normal”, but with contrast and saturation both set to “-1″ on the Pen. It’s always easier to increase contrast during post-processing than having too much of it from the start.
The photo in this post was converted using RawTherapee only.
Thanks for reading.
Hi
as owner of e-620 (well, not any more…) , e-pl1 and panasonic G1 I find results from DX0 quite “funny”. I did test once with all of those cameras as same settings, ISO 1600 and I didn’t have hard time guessing which camera was used on selected photo. From DXo results you would think that epl-1 and G1 is comparable at high iso, but this is just not true. I din’t want to go past ISO 800 on G1, as severe banding was present, almost identical to e-620. On the other hand, I was quite satisfied with ISO 1600 on e-pl1 and sometimes went up to 3200
yes, G1 exposure was a tad brighter, but still… E-620 was lovely camera, but once you use something with EVF or bigger OVF…I simply couldn’t use that dark tunnel again. And AA filter was so strong, that fist time that I used 14-54 on G1 it was like “WOW..I didn’t know i have such sharp lens
”
well, guess I am pixel peeper
Have a nice weekend !
Hello Miha,
thanks for your visit and for your comment. What you say is exactly what ctein of TOP was writing about – it’s not the numbers telling us everything we need to know most of the times.
And yes, coming from the big, bright viewfinder of my OM-2N for instance, the E-520 is a dark tunnel. And an EVF is much better in that regard, plus it has all that info about exposure and such before even taking the shot.
I guess I should get one of those OM-D or newer Pen cameras, put my 50mm macro on it, and be in heaven
You have a nice weekend as well!
Hello again, Wolfgang!
It is amazing how much data is available to us on cameras these days! When I first tried digital photography around 2002 it was first with a 2mp Olympus D-520 and then a 4mp Olympus C-4000Z and they were both actually quite good for their time and place in the market. I was in a lull in my photography between film and full adoption of digital.
I have become so concerned sometimes with the specifications of my camera — yet when I look back I find I took some very nice pictures with those old cameras!
My youngest daughter has a Panasonic G1, the oldest daughter has a Nikon D80 and D60 — and they make wonderful pictures with those “obsolete” cameras.
These discussions about technical details are still very useful to my mind though as we push the limits of our equipment — as long as we don’t get “analysis paralysis” and fail to do any photography at all, lol!
HDR for me was not a “special effect” as it is for many. In fact, HDR for me is simply a tool to squeeze more dynamic range into my final print. I print up to 24×36 inches and at that size quality shows. HDR allows me to take a less than stellar camera — or a great one — and capture a relatively still scene whose dynamic range would ordinarily force me to “throw something away” in the hightlights or shadows.
I really need to do a blog post on how I use HDR. I would like to encourage those who want to produce wider-range pictures but don’t want that “fantasy” look! It’s a great technique to have in your bag for those “special” situations and the “MySets” in the Olympus make it the matter of a moment to switch the camera over.
Hi John,
thanks for your comment.
When I was much younger, my brother bought a Canon A-1 some day, and I was intrigued. So I also bought one, together with some 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and 135mm f2.8 lenses. I shot mostly black & white Ilford, or Kodachrome or Ektachrome slides. The black & white I developed and enlarged myself. Learned from books like those from John Hedgecoe, or from friends who had some Konica or Nikon cameras.
These days with digital it’s much easier to learn, because you see the results right away, and especially indoors and when you can control the lights, that can be quite good.
Cameras? Yes, they can be a factor now because of the sensor, but if you shoot raw and with a calibrated setup you can more or less get similar results from different equipment.
HDR? Yes, I’ve used some “mild” version of exposure blending to enhance the dynamic range a bit when needed (or when I thought I needed it). Like you I don’t like it when it’s clearly visible as an effect.
Cool that you also read my blog – thanks again for the nice comments!