Last Updated:- 29th July 2022
As high as 99% of global crisis events over the past 5 years could have been prevented if countries had a truly independent news media. It's easy to question the mainstream media's (television and press) role in the high levels of ignorance about modern counter-marketing techniques? Most people choose to ignore what is happening on television and social media. For example, marketing programs like astroturfing or short statements like "This one has better autofocus" or "That one has better image quality" determine the success of new cameras.
I was surprised at how little time it took counter-marketers to target the OM-1 with new counter-marketing "fact" statements like the "the autofocus and tracking of the OM-1 are not reliable" or "OMD-System is dishonest and can't be trusted". Like the mainstream media, marketers use a network of "trusted experts" to repeat, validate, and cement strategic "fact statements" into the minds of trusting consumers. One of the trademarks of modern counter-marketing is accuracy is not critical because the combination of ignorance and repetition is enough to let consumers accept almost anything.
The same thing happened to the Fuji XT-5. For example, what are the 3 main problem areas of the XT-5, and how were they "programmed" into the minds of consumers and forum "experts?"
Photographers are facing 2 critical issues today. One is the commercial "size and capture" strategy to sell more FF cameras, and the other is a counter-marketing program. They are linked and explain why one should know more about the technical aspects of digital cameras and marketing.
The difference between old-school and modern marketing is huge. Old-school marketing was regulated, and modern marketers have ways to sidestep these regulations. Repetition is critical for cementing trigger words or moving people to trust "expert" opinions. For example, count the times you see typical "size and capture" statements on forums, YouTube videos, and camera reviews.
My wife and I recently returned from a visit to South Africa. I will review 2 of the images I took in South Africa to show the effect of counter-marketing and social media. We will also see why photographers benefit when turning away from promoters dressed up as reviewers or a small group of social media experts who stage up to 80% of all forum "product complaints/problems" or "this camera is not good enough" discussions on social media.
We will review 3 aspects of modern marketing:-
- The process of creating fact statements or phrases and why repetition is key
- Promoting "higher value" products while canceling others in product reviews
- Active promotions/counter-marketing, ie social media, forums, and YouTube
Each topic has two parts. The 1st part consists of modern marketing phrases and actions, and the 2nd is the correct information about the camera, Workspace, or technique.
1. We are reviewing the following topics in this article
- I will review the ISO, ETTR, and DR of two photos from South Africa.
- Image 1 - Is misinformation the reason for poor camera performance?
- Are repetition and fact statements the reason for social media posts?
- Do marketers have a unique technical support service for promoters?
- Image 2 - A better way of photographing with ANY Digital Camera
- Dishonesty and why FF sensors offered more image quality initially?
- It's clear that speculation only causes bad habits and confusion..?
- Do you think it is acceptable for reviewers to insult manufacturers?
- How do we control shadow noise with the "AUTO" Gradation function?
- Older PCs, newer versions of Workspace V2, and editing in PC-RAW Mode
- ETTR is all about saturating the sensor and improving shadow details.
- My experience with Auto Focus and cameras like the Olympus EM1 III
- Why would I hesitate to get a secondhand OM-1 when having a chance..?
- Why do we see shadow noise with the Olympus EM1 III and the Sony A1?
PS - The images in this article are best viewed on a large display - see the descriptions below each image.
1. South Africa, two images, ISO, ETTR, DR, and Marketing
1.1 Image 1 - Is misinformation the reason for having image noise?
1.2 Are repetition or fact statements the reason for having social media posts?
1.3 Do marketers have a unique technical support service for promoters?
- They fail to show how pixel area (sensor size) is only one sub-category of Optical Efficiency
- They accept ISO Invariance, which suggests noise-free sensors. Think of superconductors
- They criticize any DXO data that do not support or promote the "size and capture" theory
- Chart data comes from user images & calc. It's speculative, with NO manufacturer support
- The information is NOT informative but presented in support of the "size & capture" theory
1.4 Image 2 - A better way of photographing with ANY digital camera:-
Is it possible to "manage" shadow noise with the camera's available DR. For example, one could up the exposure (ETTR) to increase the camera's dynamic range and the sensor's SNR in the shadows. That means using the sensor's Dynamic Range to increase its saturation in the shadows. The more we learn, the better control we have over the ISO (image brightness) and visible noise.
How do we correct our ETTR adjustments? By applying a "negative" ETTR in Workspace. This will rebalance the exposure to 18% gray. Is it OK to use the Brightness slider in WS? No, the Brightness slider does not apply a balanced adjustment on the RGB colors. Use Exposure Compensation or Curves (both Workspace options) to correct the brightness of your image.
Take care when upping the sensor's exposure level (shutter/aperture). For example, determine which parts of the image are more critical and select your expose accordingly. As you know, it's possible to double the reflected light to the sensor with each exposure increase of 1-stop (1EV).
One can also use the camera's Shift Exposure function to have a default ETTR value. We have enough Dynamic Range headroom to correct an Exposure Shift of 2/6 (1/3EV). This means monitoring the histogram more regularly and doing any corrections in WS. I use this option in ESP mode.
For more on managing or saturating the image sensor, see this article.
1.5 Dishonesty about why Full-Frame sensors have more IQ
Marketers will say almost anything to push their strategy. For example, they will redefine science (size and capture theory) to support a campaign. This is one of the main reasons for getting poor information. Another is repetition and the high level of "digital" ignorance among digital photographers.
When you see commentary claiming the OM-1 Stacked BSI Sensor does nothing to improve the OM-1's image quality, question everything that person claims. For example, DPReview uses random statements like Sony's A7R II BSI sensor is better than Standard CMOS sensors, or the BSI sensor did nothing to improve other camera models. The "size and capture" theory is more important.
PS. See this article for a detailed but basic explanation of why BSI sensors improve IQ...
1.6 Does speculation cause bad habits and confusion?
There are many examples of bad marketing, misinformation, and the confusion it causes amongst M43 photographers. The OM-1 launch can fill pages of case studies on counter-marketing.
I was searching for info on the Panasonic LX100 II. Going through the review at DPReview.com, I saw the paragraph below. Do people really trust these "size and capture" repetitions? Mine is bigger than yours and that's why... They even applied the size and capture theory to the cropped section of the LX100 II sensor in video mode. Folks, the pixel areas stayed 100% the same in the crop section, the sensor's sensitivity did NOT change, and the noise floor was the same. No wonder the LX100 II is not having the success it should have. I own an LX100 II, and it's simply a great camera...
I see so many inaccuracies in the following forum post that it's hard to ignore. It's clear the premise for all the sensor data is speculation. In fact, almost everything this poster claims is speculating about data NOT coming from the manufacturer. No manufacturer gives details about their sensors.
For example, OM-System quoted a standard Dynamic Range increase of 2EV when they launched the new BSI sensor. The forum poster's dispute is based on speculative sensor data, an ISO test from DPR, and counter-marketing keywords. Judging by the feedback from OM-1 photographers, it's clear that the noise floor is smaller in the new BSI sensor. Like other BSI sensors, the temporal noise also decreased. A more sensitive sensor with a smaller noise floor means more Dynamic Range.
Since the OM-1 launch, there has been a flood of misinformation about image sensors. We especially see this with the different types of sensors in digital cameras. This is an example of a controlled forum discussion to confuse M43 readers about the new 40MP Fuji sensor. Many photography websites are spreading this misinformation. The question is, is the OM-1 pixel area smaller than the 40MP sensor of the XT-5. The pixel areas in these 2 cameras are:-
- Fuji X-T5 (40MP) is 9.17µm2
- Olympus OM-1 (20MP) is 11.3µm2
What is more effective in programming people's opinions, subliminal advertising, undisclosed promotions, or repetition? The more one learns about modern marketing, the more one realizes repetition is used to make people believe things they would never do in the past. I prefer old-style marketing...
1.7 Is it acceptable for reviewers to insult manufacturers?
See how this "grassroots" discussion questions the honesty and integrity of OM-System. We saw this sad behavior with the first ISO test from DPReview and again with the OM-1 review. Sadly, it looks like a deliberate strategy to discredit OM-System and question the OM-1 specification. This has been an ongoing strategy (theme) from this current OM-1 counter-marketing campaign.
Also, see this OM-System presentation about the new OM-1 sensor - link.
2. Olympus Auto Gradation and controlling Shadow Noise
Only some M43 photographers know how much the Olympus Gradation function improved and why we get better shadow information with a more saturated sensor. The reason is AUTO Gradation is similar to a flat profile protecting the highlights and shadows. It's possible to manage shadow noise with the sensor's saturation level. This is similar to what Panasonic does with the GH6...
M43 photographers would have known all this if camera reviewers were honest and if they had discussed the updated features on newer cameras. Instead, they opted to discredit OM-System because they did the right thing to quote the standard BSI +2EV noise and +1EV DR improvements.
3. The new Workspace (V2) and PC-RAW mode
Marketers are working hard to discredit the most recent versions of Workspace, the OM-1, and the new AI noise option. I reported that Workspace V2 is slower than previous versions. The exciting part is the PC-RAW mode is quick on older PCs. For example, the EM1 III Truepix IX Processor is a joy to edit my Enhanced RAW Files in PC-RAW mode.
Tip:- Keep your EM1 II when you upgrade to the MKIII or the OM-1. It's impossible to edit EM1 II raw files in PCRAW mode with the MKIII or the OM-1...
4. ETTR is all about saturating the sensor in the shadows
See this exciting example I posted a while back...
Did some photographers incorrectly apply ETTR? Yes, it happens when one uses the ISO to "Expose To The Right" (ETTR) or when promoters use the ISO to "prove" that ETTR has no benefits. Why is this so important to promoters? Marketers reject any alternatives to the "size and capture" theory.
Why does the ISO shift the histogram to the right, and how do we monitor sensor saturation? ISO is a variable in the formula calculating exposure, and exposure is linked to the histogram. Yes, it is possible to use the histogram to monitor the sensor's saturation or exposure level.
The solution is to use your ISO manually in challenging situations. Adjust and fix the ISO for more difficult photos and use the Shutter Speed and Aperture to control the Reflected Light. This will change the ISO from a variable (auto ISO) to a constant number and the histogram to a function of reflected light or the saturation level of the sensor. This is not an absolute, but it is possible to more accurately determine challenging exposures.
Don't let promoters discourage you when claiming the Olympus histogram is linked to JPEG data. They really want you to think the Live View histogram shows jpeg info. Consider this, they are talking about data that's not captured, processed, or saved on the camera's SD card.
It's all about reflected light and exposing the sensor. This also supports the theory about managing the performance of the image sensor. Size and capture theorists agree it's about light but then ignore the fact that pixels capture photons and NOT the size of the baseplate housing the pixels. Why do they always pivot to the size of the sensor? Think about what happens when you have more pixels...
5. My experience with Auto Focus and the Olympus EM1 III
6. Why say NO to a secondhand OM-1 when having a chance?
Why would anyone say no to a new OM-1? The answer is the OM-1 is too expensive secondhand, plus I am happy with my EM1 III. We also know the differences in IQ between the newer cameras are smaller because the underlying CMOS structure has reached its maximum efficiency capacity.
It can also mean I am enjoying excellent results with my EM1 III. I bought my EM1 III in Dec 2021 after using my MKII for 4 years. From my experience, the EM1 III is a significant upgrade, and I am more than happy to keep it until the secondhand OM-1 prices are more reasonable.
The role of the camera's image processor should be discussed more. The focus is so much on the "same sensor" and the 20MP of the EM1 III that photographers automatically assume the EM1 II is the same. What if the new Truepic IX processor has more detailed image processing and power? We should focus on image processing, functionality, speed, and the capacity of the new TruePic IX.
Folks, I cannot repeat this enough, we cannot trust camera reviews or forum experts!! Deception is NEVER a bad experience when it comes from a trusted or friendly promoter...
I think it's possible to equalize the Image Quality differences between cameras when you master the fundamentals of sensor efficiency. What is the main benefit of using a FF sensor? Depending on the sensor's age, they have a little better Optical Efficiency. We can get similar results when managing the reflected light to the image sensor. Marketers want you to believe the only way to improve sensor efficiency is when buying FF cameras.
6.1 Why do the EM1 III and the Sony A1 both have shadow noise?
I studied most of the Sony A1 images from South Africa, and apart from any resolution differences, most of the IQ differences came down to user mistakes. In fact, the shadow noise from both the EM1 III and the A1 is quite pleasing because they seem to have a lower temporal noise level.
All image sensors have a native noise floor. This is why all cameras have shadow noise. The "size" of this noise floor is influenced by the sensor's design and NOT the size of the sensor. We can control the visibility of the noise floor by how well we expose the sensor (SNR). Most of my articles are about "managing" the efficiency (saturation and SNR) of the sensor. This is one piece of information that promoters refuse to discuss.
We used the Sony time-lapse function to record our family pictures. It was fun and we had lots of natural-looking images from the A1, a tripod, and one-second intervals. Unfortunately, the A1 depth of field was a little tight at f1.4, plus the A1 pictures had more than expected shadow noise.
The challenge was to load the A1 images in the memory of my PC to sort 600 plus raw files at 58MB per image. The question is, would my 20MP Olympus EM1 III with the 17mm f1.2 lens be the better choice with its wider DOF and apertures? For example, I could up my sensor saturation with a full stop by using f1.2, ISO1250, and 1/100th shutter speed. A flash would also do wonders...
My intention with the above example was not to discredit the Sony A1 but to demonstrate that image noise is NOT simply a function of sensor size. Image Noise is directly linked to the type of sensor, the saturation level, and the SNR of the sensor. Each photographer would know this if marketers were honest and not pushing fake "size and capture" theories to sell more full-frame cameras...
I am not ignoring any visual or optical differences between sensor formats. They are all important and something photographers should study and evaluate when looking for a new camera. But to make photographers think a bigger sensor will improve IQ is dishonest...
Keep in mind the main IQ benefits from any higher sensitivity sensor like the BSI sensor in the X-T4, the OM-1, or the A1 are lower shadow noise, less temporal noise, more shadow details, and higher DR. It's possible to get similar results with something like the EM1 III using ETTR (more reflected light on the sensor). Most of the computational features in Olympus cameras also control image noise. Also, remember that the Olympus Live MOS sensor is already more sensitive than most of the standard CMOS (APC Canon) sensors and in many cases full-frame standard CMOS sensors.
Conclusion
It is possible to radically improve your digital camera knowledge if you let yourself see through the "grassroots" forum discussions or promoters dressed up as camera reviewers.
It is also critical to know that not everyone complaining is a promoter. Promoters are often small groups of well-trained social media experts. As with any brand loyalty, it's nothing strange to have more vocal supporters of any product, brand, or specific initiative...
Most important in this article is the clear difference between theory and modern marketing. One can be explained and the other is all talk. Each aspect of shadow noise, sensor saturation, and SNR can be explained. On the other hand, those who talk and talk "size and capture" theories have nothing other than modern marketing, fact statements, graphs, and repetition...
Some say I should review different photography sites and not only DPR. The challenge is the available time readers have to study these articles plus DPR is the leader in this space. The examples in this article apply to all photography websites. The "size and capture" theory is a great example of which websites are repeating "size and capture" fact statements...
If this is the first time you have seen something like this discussion on photography, counter-marketing, or saturating the image sensor, then I like to invite you to follow my journey. One of the biggest negatives of modern counter-marketing is the programming effect it has on people.
It makes any transformation back to normal a timeous experience from arguing the virtues of sensor size to managing the performance of your image sensor. My advice is to always be open-minded and question the obvious a little more...
Take care & God's Bless
Siegfried
PS. The DPReview ISO test has NO transparency or built-in mechanism to prevent incorrect results. For example, using a piece of white paper for your ISO tests is meaningless and it only opens the door to dishonesty. We really want to see how the sensor performs in the shadows. Why the shadows? A better way is to study everyday images (with Exif data) and to see how the sensor performs in the shadows, mid-tones, and highs.
Study this article.
The final image was taken with the Olympus XZ-2.
I did everything we discussed in the above image. The sun was below the skyline, and the blue hour just started. The shadows were dark and I applied an exposure shift of +1/3EV. Back home, I selected AUTO Gradation in WS. I only found small amounts of noise when studying the image a little closer. The sensor was obviously more saturated. It was possible to up the reflected light more, but the result showed it was enough for this example. The basic principles I discussed worked well...
