EM1:2......FW v3.0, ISO L64 & L100.

Matt Drown

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
311
Location
California, USA
The 64 and 100 ISO settings are software only ways to "push" the film You can get a similar experience by shooting at ISO200 with -1 or -2 exposure comp, and adjusting the exposure in post.

It should work in RAW mode, at the expense of dynamic range.

(Also, fyi, upgrade to 3.1, 3.0 had some initial bugs)
 

AussiePhil

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
2,927
Location
Canberra, ACT, Aust
Real Name
Phil
The 64 and 100 ISO settings are software only ways to "push" the film You can get a similar experience by shooting at ISO200 with -1 or -2 exposure comp, and adjusting the exposure in post.

It should work in RAW mode, at the expense of dynamic range.

(Also, fyi, upgrade to 3.1, 3.0 had some initial bugs)
I'm not a fan of DXO measurements however they are one of the few that have the data......

ISO64 provides MORE dynamic range see
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---Measurements#measuretabs-3

EDIT: as pointed out by MATT the graph linked is misleading and doesn't seem to measure ISO64 despite seemingly having the data point in that region ......

This matches personal experience in processing the files and who in their right mind with shadow noise always an issue for m43 files would deliberately under expose by 2 stops just to lift it in post by the same amount .....

Is there a change with FW3.x ..... doubt it, they just made ISO100 available is a setting you can choose....
 
Last edited:

Matt Drown

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
311
Location
California, USA
From page 197 of the Olympus EM1.2 manual (version 3):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


DXO graphs are a little misleading i think. If you hover over the dots, you'll see that the dot on the far left that you think is iso 64, is actually "measured 83, manufacturer iso 200". It doesn't look like they tested the lower 64/100 in my quick scan of the info.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I don't use 64/100 iso on the camera.
 

AussiePhil

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
2,927
Location
Canberra, ACT, Aust
Real Name
Phil
From page 197 of the Olympus EM1.2 manual (version 3):

View attachment 769871

DXO graphs are a little misleading i think. If you hover over the dots, you'll see that the dot on the far left that you think is iso 64, is actually "measured 83, manufacturer iso 200". It doesn't look like they tested the lower 64/100 in my quick scan of the info.

View attachment 769872

I don't use 64/100 iso on the camera.
Thanks Matt,
that just goes to why i dislike DXO measurements.

For the record i'll amend my post above.

Interestingly i use ISO64 a lot and find the files to be really good to work with and the behave like there is more range....

Cheers
 

Mack

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
939
I just ran a meter check using the Sekonic and their profiling software on ISO 200 and ISO 64 both this AM. Seems the ISO 64 clips ahead of ISO 200 in highlights, but the shadow curve is the same.

ISO-64.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


ISO-200.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


From Matt's posted link above, Olympus's manual on Version 3 (In bullet #2 above.) states: "[L64] and [L100] reduce the dynamic range." Seems my Sekonic meter test agrees, just I didn't think it was that much (i.e. ~1 stop) and only affected the highlights. Guess Olympus knew what they were doing when they picked ISO 200 as "Recommended."
 
Last edited:

Clint

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
2,377
Location
San Diego area, CA
Real Name
Clint
Interestingly i use ISO64 a lot and find the files to be really good to work with and the behave like there is more range....
I fully agree. I most often use L64 or L100 when using flash for portraits and I want to use f/1.2 or 1.4. They're also handy when wanting to slow the shutter speed as much as possible. Whatever the dynamic range is with these ISO settings, I do not hesitate to use them if they fit my need.
 

macro

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
521
Location
New Zealand
I only shoot RAW Dave and it works fine. Tried both 100 and 64. As Clint said, use what you need or want to really ...... ahh hang on ....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


At ISO 100

I honestly don't have an issue with it and IMHO it does have slightly less noise, not much in it though and of course, it could just be an old man's eyes.

Danny.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom