{"id":914,"date":"2012-06-07T06:23:54","date_gmt":"2012-06-07T11:23:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=914"},"modified":"2012-06-07T08:47:25","modified_gmt":"2012-06-07T13:47:25","slug":"om-d-e-m5-vs-a-full-frame-legend-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/om-d-e-m5-vs-a-full-frame-legend-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"OM-D E-M5 vs a Full Frame Legend, Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Canon 1Ds Mark II<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

One of my more popular (and controversial) articles has been my comparison<\/a> of the Panasonic GH2 and GX1 to my old, yet still amazingly good Canon 1Ds Mark II.\u00a0 The 1Ds II has been surpassed in the full frame arena by more modern cameras, but the image quality out of it is still very, very good, and it was a camera that was (and to some extent still is used by many professionals for it’s excellent output.<\/p>\n

The Micro 4\/3 format has a distinct disadvantage with regards to photon collection vs its full frame counterparts, simply because it has 1\/4 the area to collect photos.\u00a0 However, 8 years is a long time in the world of cameras; is it long enough to make up the difference in physics?\u00a0 To test this, I’m going to evaluate how the new Olympus OM-D E-M5 compares to the 1Ds II.<\/p>\n

Over the next week or two, I’m going to do a few different tests.\u00a0 Some will be controlled, like this one, though most of the others will be much more ‘real world’ based. \u00a0 I’m going to look at dynamic range and tonal response in contrasty scenes, perhaps some night shooting, and so on. \u00a0 Charts and graphs are nice, but it’s not what I do here. I’m much more interested on how things work in the real world.\u00a0 This first test is a simple test of ISO noise, and while I have my thoughts, I encourage you to take a look at the results and form your own conclusions.<\/p>\n

ISO Test<\/span><\/h3>\n

The first thing I did to evaluate the noise control between the cameras was to see how close the rated ISOs were between the cameras.\u00a0 I started by setting up the cameras on a tripod about 2-3 feet from my bookshelf.\u00a0 I then took photos with their respective normal lenses (the Sigma 50mm f\/1.4 on the 1Ds II and the Leica 25mm f\/1.4 on the E-M5) and took shots at the same settings (both lenses set to f\/4 and ISO 200 and the same shutter speed).\u00a0 I looked at some medium toned areas of the images and I saw how they compared in exposure in Lightroom.\u00a0 I was very surprised to see that the E-M5 was underexposed when compared to the 1Ds II by nearly 2\/3 stop!\u00a0 Now, I was surprised because I’ve tested the E-M5 vs the Panasonic GX1 in exposure, and they were identical at the same settings, and DxO says that the GX1 and 1Ds II are extremely close in ISO rating.<\/p>\n

Hmm…..then I had an idea….Either the Sigma has a higher transmission, the actual f-stop when set to f\/4 is slightly different between the lenses (in how much the blades close down), or a little of both.\u00a0 To settle this, I mounted the exact same lens on both cameras (the Olympus OM 50mm f\/3.5 Macro), shot the scene at the exact same settings (with the shot twice as far away on the OM-D to make the framing identical) and then evaluated….and… VOILA! Exposure was within 1\/6 of a stop of each other.\u00a0 Close enough to be trivial.<\/p>\n

So, knowing that SENSOR wise, the exposure of the two cameras is extremely close at the same ISO, I went back to the 50mm equivalent lenses and shot with the cameras metered the same.\u00a0 (the small variations in shutter speed to counteract the difference in lens transmission\/diaphragm accuracy should be trivial with regards to noise).I tested the cameras at all comparable ISOs (ISO 200-3200) and then did a ‘push’ equivalence for the 1Ds II for ISO 6400 and 12,800 (under exposing by one and two stops then bringing it up in RAW.)\u00a0The results are below.\u00a0 These are all 100% crops of two different areas of the image.\u00a0 Click the image to view full size for an accurate view.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Olympus E-M5 vs Canon 1Ds Mark II - ISO Comparison<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The very slight difference in perspective is due to the OM-D’s shorter stature on the tripod.<\/p>\n

Looking at the crops above, I note the following:<\/p>\n