Last update: 4th December 2023
Introduction.
Why would one review this? Many photographers prefer to avoid technical discussions about digital cameras. They will follow social media advice or their experience to find the best settings for "ISO sensitivity," exposure, and exposure compensation. Corporate marketers prefer this state of mind when they design and manage commercial programs like the "size and capture" theory.
We are reviewing the benefits of having technical conversations versus focusing on specifications. My goal is not to critique but to review the benefits technical information adds to our "digital" journey. The images in this article were captured with different cameras, like E-Series and M43 Olympus cameras. The Enhanced Raw Files from Olympus were converted in Workspace and are best viewed on a large display. The converted raw files were exported as 16-bit Tiff files and prepped in PS...
Technical information reveals why Image Quality is NOT a function of sensor size. It also explains why we don't benefit from arguing which sensor has less noise or more DR. All digital cameras have noise and too little dynamic range. After all, they all have the same technical limitations.
Oversimplification is the norm when discussing cameras today. Phrases like "the larger one captures more light" are treated as "factually accurate." Nobody questions the technical validity of these oversimplified claims. It's like saying my motorcar is faster because it has bigger wheels...
Even worse, marketers persuaded photographers to collectively "police" and prevent conversations about sensor size. Why do intelligent people allow this kind of behavior? How many critical and everyday topics are labeled "not open for public discussion" and policed by those affected most..?
Figure 2
1. Learning through reading and technical conversations..?
This section focuses on the technical conversation that could improve your image quality. Knowledge empowers people and is the difference between successful and average photography...
The lack of technical know-how became a big handicap for most digital photographers. For example, only some know that sensor Saturation and SNR are critical, or Standard CMOS, Live MOS, and BSI sensors are based on the old CMOS architecture. Why should we discuss these sensor types, and why would one use a specific one? Because each type has unique advantages and disadvantages.
Doesn't high ISO values imply we are under-exposing the sensor? An underexposed sensor tells us the sensor is de-saturated, and the SNR is lower with more visible noise. The solution is not bigger sensors because they ALL have similar technical limitations. The main differences between image sensors are Quantum and Optical efficiencies, pixel area, and the noise floor. An informed reaction is to add more reflected light onto the sensor. How do we add more light to the sensor?
How do we monitor the exposure level of the sensor? The histogram was designed to display the sum of the sensor's exposure (shutter speed and aperture) and ISO amplification. Any fixed variables of the exposure formula are also displayed. How do we isolate the image sensor's "exposure" data? Change to "MANUAL" ISO and select a fixed ISO. That means the aperture and shutter speed are the only remaining variables. I typically start my exposure process with an auto-exposure reading. I use that information to "optimize" my exposure settings, optical effects, and the image sensor...
See this article explaining the shutter and aperture functions and passing light onto the sensor...
The camera's exposure level (Aperture and Shutter Speed) determines the sensor's Saturation Level and Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or the visibility of the Noise Floor. The final image will have less noise with more Reflected Light and more noise with less Reflected Light on the sensor. Your ISO does not adjust the sensor's sensitivity. It only amplifies the image signal and the SNR...
These unique technical characteristics apply to all sensor sizes.
See this video for excellent tips on various types of scenes.
An excellent video explaining how to set exposure.
Study this article for more information.
Study this article for more about the Gradation Function.
Does the Gamma function improve the camera's Dynamic Range? The best way to treat questions like these is to study my articles and understand the image-taking process. The illustration below shows how the Image Taking Processor applies the Gamma Curve (Tonal Response Curve) in step 2. That means the image sensor already captured the image and Dynamic Range in Step 1.
Which of PDAF or Contrast Detection AF is more efficient? Is the camera's AF requirements the same for video and photography? The tested camera's autofocus is not like Canon's. This is one of the most repeated statements in reviews. Does this apply to photography or only video applications? Are test videos with people running to the camera or jumping in and out of the FOV applicable to video or photography? For example, I would rather see a list of photography applications and a summary of the camera's autofocus abilities and efficiencies for each type of application.
One rarely knows which of the different AF applications reviewers or promoters tested. We only see meaningless one-line statements like "Sony's or Canon's tracking capability is superior." Again, does this apply to video or photography? Marketers created the same confusion on autofocus as they did with sensor size. I am working on a new article to discuss autofocus applications.
Each photographer has specific AF needs like Birding (BIF), travel, family, portrait, or landscape photography. This is one of the reasons why the Panasonic G9 is popular amongst M43 photographers and unpopular amongst many videographers. Having said this, the ongoing critique of Panasonic's Contrast Detect AF makes no sense to most Lumix G9 photographers. In fact, the constant repetition of G9 auto-focus problems looks more like counter-marketing than information...
Technical conversations improve our knowledge and are critical in finding our way through the web of bogus information spread by fanboys, unworthy reviewers, and forum experts (promoters).
Why don't we learn much from the ISO comparisons in camera reviews? Because technical equivalence is critical when comparing digital cameras and sensors. See this example. Andrew is one of my favorite M43 wildlife photographers. What do you learn from his ISO examples?
Also, see my article about the DxOMark sensor (image quality) database.
While newer sensors continue improving, the new G9 II high-resolution sensor and processor upped the G9 II's perceived IQ while maintaining the older G9's noise performance. Andrew mentions a 2-Stop ISO and 1-Stop base ISO improvement. The smaller and likely less efficient pixel area of the new 24MP sensor makes it hard to justify a +2-stop ISO efficiency. This means the G9 II's improvements could be like the previous G9's noise performance (Fig. 1), and the G9 II's lower base ISO might slightly up its Dynamic Range. Andrew also showed the importance of a steady platform by using a tripod.
Why are small M43 lenses presented as having quality irregularities? Forum experts and reviewers often caution folks about M43 lenses because they are "known" for problems like soft corners, flaring, off-center focusing, and lens diffraction. See this discussion. These experts repeatedly recommend the Olympus 12 - 100mm F4.0 Pro lens. Does its "size/weight" support the transition to full-frame cameras? A quick search tells us Olympus and Panasonic factories are ISO9001 certified. ISO9001 is a manufacturing and quality standard used by quality-conscious manufacturers like Olympus.
Can we trust the advice from reviewers and forum experts? Watch this introduction to unethical marketing techniques like Astroturfing. I appreciate why full-frame marketers like to prevent M43 photographers from raving and enjoying positive feedback on M43 lenses like the Lumix 35 - 100mm f2.8, the Lumix 45 - 175mm, or the Lumix 7 - 14mm f4. The tiny Vario PZ 45 - 175mm f4 to f5.6 is one of the most criticized M43 lenses. I never experienced quality issues from multiple copies of this "fast" pocket-sized 350mm zoom lens. Another example of Astroturfing and questionable info about M43 lenses are the Olympus Premium Zuiko 12mm f2.0, 17mm, and 25mm f1.8 lenses...
Where does one find reliable info? Photo services like Flickr are helpful. Find the lens you like to buy and study the images taken with this lens. As an example, see the Olympus 25mm f1.8. This will help you to learn how any lens performs, plus photos are free from marketing noise...
The M43 segment has many more examples of excellent compact lenses. The Leica 25mm f1.4, the Lumix 20mm f1.7, and the Zuiko 75mm f1.8 resemble only a few. For example, the Zuiko 9-18mm f4 is one of the finest ultra-wide lenses in its size and weight category. We should celebrate the high-quality M43 lenses by the various M43 lens manufacturers. I received my free 17mm Pro lens with my EM1 III and might sell it because I always reach for my trusty Zuiko 17mm f1.8.
Why don't I buy Pro M43 lenses? The short answer is size and price. For example, I had my 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens for years. It's an excellent lens, but I hardly ever use it. The 12-45mm f4 Pro lens was an instant hit in my camera bag with its small size and excellent image quality. Olympus Pro Lenses are perfect for demanding wet and dusty applications, with their fast apertures and +/-2% better IQ. Standard and Premium Zuiko lenses are slower but deliver fantastic image quality.
Why should we own a flash and tripod? I understand why some would say they don't need a tripod or flash because IBIS and the camera's ISO performance are that good. What if a tripod or flashlight is the difference between excellent and average results? Why do we benefit from a sturdy platform, a flashlight, or the know-how to do flash photography? I saw this interesting video from Chris Baitson using his tripod and LED light while doing macro photography.
See this information from Olympus on flash photography - link.
See this video discussing macro photography and using a flash - link.
See this excellent video on using a flash for portrait photography - link.
Why is it necessary to review the benefits of having a tripod, flashlight, or LED panel in 2023? Only a few apply the benefits of more light, flooding a sensor, or upping the sensor's saturation. Tripods and flashlights are perfect for poor lighting situations. For example, a tripod provides a stable platform for sharper landscapes, macro, product, and blue hour or nighttime scenes. Accept for heat, longer shutter speeds do not negatively impact the sensor's saturation process? It's better to use a tripod and shutter speeds of +10 seconds for nighttime city scenes than upping the ISO...
2. Let's review a few examples
Our aim with these examples is to demonstrate how one improves the sensor's Saturation and SNR. The challenge is the differences between highlights and shadows. The various surfaces and luminance levels (shadows) reflect different light intensities to the sensor. The goal is to reduce noise and increase tonal data by pushing the sensor's Saturation and SNR.
The above example shows two methods for upping the sensor's saturation and SNR in the shadows. Although ETTR worked well for the above image, I could not control the different parts of the scene. A flashlight allows us to illuminate (light source) the subject separately from the background. For example, a "fill-in" flash adds more control to the look and feel of our portrait images.
The above image is a typical landscape. The marked areas risk having more visible noise and less tonal data because the sensor receives less light from the shadow areas. My tripod provided a stable platform for my camera. Early morning scenes are more challenging with their deep shadows.
Always inform yourself about the different types of reflected light. For example, how do different colors or surfaces reflect the light? The mountain has less reflected light than the water or houses. Less reflected light means a lower SNR. Deep shadow areas reflect very little light onto the sensor.
I used a fill-in flash to saturate the sensor for the person in the above scene. That means the person is noise-free because the flash improved the sensor's saturation in that area. The flash also balanced the inside and outside exposure levels. This is only possible with an artificial light source.
I typically set my flash output manually to prevent the flash from overpowering the scene. A smaller flash output does not disturb others and doesn't need diffusers or special techniques to keep the subject from glaring or overexposing. This technique takes practice to work well...
The above image is unique because the older E-P3 had a new 12MP sensor and a TruePic VI Due Core Image Processor. It's a step above the previous models, but having an older sensor, we can expect more visible noise (noise floor) than more recent M43 cameras. I upped my shutter speed and used ISO400, an aperture of f1.8, and -0.7EV to improve my image sharpness. I lowered the SNR with a -0'.7EV exposure compensation and a 1-stop (ISO400) image signal amplification.
Being a handheld image, I knew the sensor was less saturated with likely more visible shadow noise. I know the noise filter in Workspace works well, and I only had to select the "Low" option for this example. My camera settings were not ideal, but I could up my shutter speed by keeping the ISO low with an exposure compensation of -0.7EV. The E-P3 is fully compatible with the Enhanced Raw Format and WS. I also relied on the EP3's improved IBIS and the excellent 75mm f1.8 lens...
We are blessed with cold weather and lots of snow this year. I opted for my EM1 III as we walked the dog. I had the previous model for 6 years when OM-System did a special on the Olympus EM1 III with the 17mm f1.2 lens. I mistakenly assumed the MKII and MKIII were the same because they use the same sensor. What a surprise when the Olympus EM1 III became the finest M43 camera I ever owned. Its image quality is fantastic, and the TruePic IX Image Processor is brilliant. It feels like using a completely different camera. As you can see (above image), it was sunny with reflecting surfaces and high dynamic range areas. I used my Polarizing filter to tone down the highlights...
As said, the EM1 MKII and III use the same sensor. This is important because the MKII was launched in 2016. Even though DxO rated this the best M43 sensor in 2016, the actual sensor is at least 10 years old. While the EM1 III's low-light capability is relatively good, it can't compete with newer sensor & processor combos. Knowing that, how does one improve its low-light performance? The answer is preparation, manual exposure, and focusing on saturating (optimizing) the sensor.
I used the following camera settings:-
- ISO1250 (I knew I could use AI noise reduction, and it's available from ISO800 in WS)
- 1/200 Shutter Speed (This is the lowest shutter speed to "freeze" movement)
- I controlled my flash by varying its output between -1/3 to -1EV
- I "sacrificed" DOF to control the light with my aperture
The flash enabled me to increase my shutter speed as it added a new variable to my exposure mix. The flash helped me to drastically improve my low-light image quality, even though I couldn't saturate the sensor. The reduced output of the FL300 gave me a "friendly" or less intrusive light source. I managed the intensity and reach of my flash with my ISO and aperture combinations...
How would one plan the above photo? Consider your exposure strategy, unique camera settings, focusing plan, and the raw file conversion/editing when capturing the above scene. Consider the reflective properties of surfaces plus the reflected intensity (energy) of various colors. Use the sensor's saturation characteristics (SNR) and what you can do to improve the shadow information, knowing that all digital cameras (sensors) benefit from knowledge and planning...
Conclusion
The first step in improving my IQ was to master my camera. The various computational features of my Olympus cameras meant nothing if I couldn't select and apply features like Live ND, Pro Capture, and Live Composite. The technical aspects reviewed in this article were the 2nd step in improving my image quality. The 3rd step was walking away from social media "experts" and undisclosed (paid) camera reviews. I learned to trust my camera and the brand I selected. For example, I always have my camera ready and use every opportunity to photograph.
It takes only a moment to learn how marketers say anything or contract services like Astroturfing to sell more products. It also takes only one incident or technical discussion to realize what we always expected is, in fact, happening. There is always a reason for social media or the news industry to hype about things. For example, why do we see so many OM-1 and XT-5 concerns and quality reports from presumably "grassroots owners?" Does this X-T5 report explain why..?
I continue to learn new things, like the Reflective Qualities of light, surfaces, and colors. You will find that the theoretical principles discussed in my articles are always the same. In other words, saturating the sensor or increasing the SNR is always applicable. I am currently studying 2 relevant books in German. Search for "Light and Exposure" by Michael Freeman or "Light and Exposure with 50 Questions" by Chris Weston. These books are great and will help any photographer...
Siegfried
5 comments:
Concerning lens quality issues. My main camera is the EM-1.3. I also use the OM-1.1 regularly together with the EP-2, 3 and yes - the E-P1 occasionally.
I also regularly shoot older Nikons (D700/ D200) and a fujifilm x-10 with the fujinon 35 mm 1.4 as the only lens (wonderful lens BTW).
Therefore I do have experience with lenses, and I have many including voigtlaenders for my old M8.
The Olympus leneses however proved to be the worse in terms of QC. the 25 F1.2, 20 F1.4, 35 F1.8 and 20 F2 all came de-centered new and out of the box and all not exactly cheap. and since some of these issues were discovered at a later point, I had to return under warranty for repair which was a long and frustrating experience. I actually gave up on the 25 1.2 and just use it as is. Perhaps I am just unlucky but I expected more at this price point.
Hello Malak.
It's sad to learn you had a negative experience with these Pro lenses. I have never had a decentered lens. Please mail me a test image. Except for the 25mm f1.2 lens, the rest are from the new company, right
Best
Siegfried
I stand corrected - the 17 F1.8 and the 12 F2 (instead of 35 / 20 as written). only the 20 F1.4 is an OM System lens. apart from the 25 1.2 mm - all three were serviced under warranty to various degrees of success. I had so much grief in the process with the 20 1.2 returned again that I didnt bother with sending the 25 1.2 in - the left 5th of the image is out but I use mostly for portraits and DOF effects thus I can live with and pretend it's "character" but I expected more.
Hello Malak
Thank you for updating the details about your lenses. Did I miss the announcements of new pro lenses? :-) Did you make another mistake with the 20mm 1.2 (1.4)?
Malak, I didn't see any photos from you. Please mail me those examples. I saw an interesting test you can do in Photography Life. https://photographylife.com/good-bad-copy-of-lens
I have to ask Malak. Do you spend much time on forums like DPReview? Many of these forums are marketing spaces, and it's nothing new to have one person running the weekly discussions on quality problems...
It's important to send me those test images of the 4 lenses. It's strange for one person to have 4 faulty lenses, right?
Best
Siegfried
yes too many aperture values:)
Many thanks for the offer but I do my own tests and in some cases this was done rather late as, as you might know, changing the intended scope i.e. small aperture / landscape > medium aperture architecture / low light reveals a problem.
Yes its strange - I guess I've been unlucky. Lesson learnt and any lens I buy Olympus or otherwise is extensively tested following purchase.
May I ask as to what relevance does DPR have to do do with my input?
What I am saying is that the QC process for Olympus / OM lenses is no different from any mass marketed product. For some of the the premium prices asked, I personally would have expected more. Not all feedback given re. quality of a product is conspiracy driven against the manufacturer. I, for example, prefer the rendering, acuity and handling of the 25 1.2 over the fuji 35 1.4 at large apertures.
Further, wrt. the following statement:
"Forum experts and reviewers always caution photographers not to buy M43 lenses because they are known for quality problems like soft corners, flaring, and excessive diffraction."
I am certainly not aware of such statements being thrown all over the place and if it were true, I am sure that certain other reviewers and experts caution against full frame lenses therefore I wouldn't even bother.
Post a Comment