m4/3rds matches common APS on ISO noise

On 14/09/2015 14:42, RichA wrote:
The new Olympus E-M10II matches and perhaps just very slightly improves upon the noise shown by a D7200 Nikon. Both however are still noisier than Samsung's NX-1 with its BSI sensor.

You think so?
You don't think that the fact that the Olympus camera needed more than
1/2 stop greater exposure time to get the same exposure at f5.6 with the
same studio lighting on DPReview's test has some bearing on the result
that you think you're seeing?

In article , Me
wrote:

On 14/09/2015 14:42, RichA wrote:
The new Olympus E-M10II matches and perhaps just very slightly improves
upon the noise shown by a D7200 Nikon. Both however are still noisier than
Samsung's NX-1 with its BSI sensor.

You think so?
You don't think that the fact that the Olympus camera needed more than
1/2 stop greater exposure time to get the same exposure at f5.6 with the
same studio lighting on DPReview's test has some bearing on the result
that you think you're seeing?

And the Nikon has twice the sensor area... Good call. Bigger is better!
;-)
--
teleportation kills

On 16/09/2015 16:46, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2015 01:08:31 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/09/2015 14:42, RichA wrote:
The new Olympus E-M10II matches and perhaps just very slightly improves upon the noise shown by a D7200 Nikon. Both however are still noisier than Samsung's NX-1 with its BSI sensor.

You think so?
You don't think that the fact that the Olympus camera needed more than
1/2 stop greater exposure time to get the same exposure at f5.6 with the
same studio lighting on DPReview's test has some bearing on the result
that you think you're seeing?

Are you talking about the -0.33 stop exposure bias value in the D7200 shot?

No - exposure bias is just a metering setting.
I'm talking about how when set at ISO 200 and f5.6 under controlled
lighting, the Olympus camera needed an exposure time of 1/60th to
achieve an approximately equivalent exposure. It looks like ISO 200 on
that Olympus camera is overstated. The D7200, Canon 7D2 needed 1/100.
People like you - using things like DPReview "comparison tool" without
looking at the full picture only encourage companies like Fuji and
Olympus to push the boundaries - in overstating ISO.

By the way, analysis of Samsung's NX1 raw files show that signal to
noise ratios at all settings are lower (by about 1/2 stop) than the
D7200. The NX1 is noisier than the D7200 - but it's not bad, about
equivalent to a D7000 from a few years ago, also with similar low read
noise / high base ISO dynamic range.
If there's an advantage shown by BSI, then perhaps it might be to do
with on-chip circuits required to achieve the extremely fast readout
speeds - in other words perhaps if the same circuits were on an
equivalent FSI sensor, an advantage would be shown. That's
hypothetical, it's probably fair to accept what Samsung say, but it's
demonstrably not as efficient as the D7200 for noise performance at any ISO.

On 17/09/2015 17:42, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 19:10:22 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 16/09/2015 16:46, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2015 01:08:31 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/09/2015 14:42, RichA wrote:
The new Olympus E-M10II matches and perhaps just very slightly improves upon the noise shown by a D7200 Nikon. Both however are still noisier than Samsung's NX-1 with its BSI sensor.

You think so?
You don't think that the fact that the Olympus camera needed more than
1/2 stop greater exposure time to get the same exposure at f5.6 with the
same studio lighting on DPReview's test has some bearing on the result
that you think you're seeing?

Are you talking about the -0.33 stop exposure bias value in the D7200 shot?

No - exposure bias is just a metering setting.
I'm talking about how when set at ISO 200 and f5.6 under controlled
lighting, the Olympus camera needed an exposure time of 1/60th to
achieve an approximately equivalent exposure. It looks like ISO 200 on
that Olympus camera is overstated.

Yes, I didn't look at that. I was looking for visible noise so I looked at 1600 ISO. The exposures for the Nikon and the Olympus were identical. What this really means is that perhaps Nikon could release a FF camera with a higher megapixel count, like at least 64mp or 80mp for those who don't care if there is visible noise above 800 ISO.

http://i.imgur.com/inWVi9g.png

When I looked at ISO 1600, that's what I saw.
Compared to the D7200, the u4/3 looks lousy.

On 17/09/2015 21:36, Rich A wrote:
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:54:35 AM UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 17/09/2015 17:42, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 19:10:22 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 16/09/2015 16:46, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2015 01:08:31 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/09/2015 14:42, RichA wrote:
The new Olympus E-M10II matches and perhaps just very slightly improves upon the noise shown by a D7200 Nikon. Both however are still noisier than Samsung's NX-1 with its BSI sensor.

You think so?
You don't think that the fact that the Olympus camera needed more than
1/2 stop greater exposure time to get the same exposure at f5.6 with the
same studio lighting on DPReview's test has some bearing on the result
that you think you're seeing?

Are you talking about the -0.33 stop exposure bias value in the D7200 shot?

No - exposure bias is just a metering setting.
I'm talking about how when set at ISO 200 and f5.6 under controlled
lighting, the Olympus camera needed an exposure time of 1/60th to
achieve an approximately equivalent exposure. It looks like ISO 200 on
that Olympus camera is overstated.

Yes, I didn't look at that. I was looking for visible noise so I looked at 1600 ISO. The exposures for the Nikon and the Olympus were identical. What this really means is that perhaps Nikon could release a FF camera with a higher megapixel count, like at least 64mp or 80mp for those who don't care if there is visible noise above 800 ISO.

http://i.imgur.com/inWVi9g.png

When I looked at ISO 1600, that's what I saw.
Compared to the D7200, the u4/3 looks lousy.

Better get your eyes checked then.

Why?
There's significantly more detail retained on the D7200 image. I hope
you're not back to your old trick of looking at noise on a "per pixel"
basis. In that case they do look similar - no doubt because they've got
similar pixel pitch, but it's irrelevant - in the link above the D7200
retains detail beyond 28 (00 LPH?), the OMD turns to mush and moire at
about 22 - so as well as having ~25% more linear resolution, the D7200
looks better.