Re: [情報] E-M5的DxOMark報告出了
→
09/25 02:24,
09/25 02:24
→
09/25 02:25,
09/25 02:25
推
09/25 08:01,
09/25 08:01
→
09/25 08:02,
09/25 08:02
→
09/25 08:02,
09/25 08:02
→
09/25 08:02,
09/25 08:02
→
09/25 08:02,
09/25 08:02
推
09/25 08:03,
09/25 08:03
還沒整篇看完,不過下面這個留言
Added by hoodlum | September 24
Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off
As mentioned in another thread DPReview only tests exposure variance with
JPEG while DXO tests the exposure variance with RAW. That is the difference
you are seeing here.
Some E-M5 users have already reported that RAW is underexposed by 1EV vs JPEG
when shooting RAW+JPEG. Oly likely does this to help preserve the
highlights. So they likely push the underexposed RAW output of shadows and
mid-tones by 1EV, leaving highlights underexposed therefore preserving them
in JPEG. You noticed from Dpreview the E-M5 had very high JPEG DR.
Fuji does something similar with the X series above ISO1000.
如果ISO真的虛標整整1ev,那曝光就應該暗一級才對
這留言大意是說E-m5的RAW是欠曝1ev的,藉此保留高光的細節,
然後jpeg出圖再把暗部(shadow)跟中間調(mid-tone)拉高1ev
使最後出圖看起來曝光正常
就像我們平常會做的,拍的時候稍欠曝保留高光細節,
然後進LR拉曲線調亮
只是這個後製的步驟直接由機身jpeg出圖完成了
所以拍Raw+Jpg時兩者暗部曝光看起來會不太一樣
有em5使用者可以confirm這個說法嗎?
我看dpreview的iso測試照只覺得em5明顯對比跟銳化調比其他家強不少
所以在明顯的邊緣部分看起來清晰討喜
不過在毛髮、織物之類的部分就還是輸5N半級
即使這樣也已經是外星科技了
不過跟Dxo測的結果看來又不是這麼一回事...
Dxo ISO分數
EM5 826
5N 1079
NEX5 796
可是看dpreview EM5大概只略遜5N 起碼比NEX5好一級半
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 134.61.64.33
※ 編輯: cklppt 來自: 134.61.64.33 (09/25 08:29)
→
09/25 08:40, , 1F
09/25 08:40, 1F
→
09/25 08:45, , 2F
09/25 08:45, 2F
→
09/25 08:46, , 3F
09/25 08:46, 3F
推
09/25 09:39, , 4F
09/25 09:39, 4F
推
09/25 09:48, , 5F
09/25 09:48, 5F
→
09/25 10:02, , 6F
09/25 10:02, 6F
→
09/25 10:08, , 7F
09/25 10:08, 7F
→
09/25 10:10, , 8F
09/25 10:10, 8F
推
09/25 10:11, , 9F
09/25 10:11, 9F
→
09/25 10:12, , 10F
09/25 10:12, 10F
→
09/25 10:13, , 11F
09/25 10:13, 11F
→
09/25 10:14, , 12F
09/25 10:14, 12F
→
09/25 10:16, , 13F
09/25 10:16, 13F
→
09/25 10:16, , 14F
09/25 10:16, 14F
→
09/25 10:17, , 15F
09/25 10:17, 15F
→
09/25 10:22, , 16F
09/25 10:22, 16F
推
09/25 10:24, , 17F
09/25 10:24, 17F
→
09/25 10:25, , 18F
09/25 10:25, 18F
→
09/25 10:26, , 19F
09/25 10:26, 19F
→
09/25 10:26, , 20F
09/25 10:26, 20F
推
09/25 10:46, , 21F
09/25 10:46, 21F
推
09/25 10:52, , 22F
09/25 10:52, 22F
→
09/25 11:02, , 23F
09/25 11:02, 23F
推
09/25 11:07, , 24F
09/25 11:07, 24F
推
09/25 11:07, , 25F
09/25 11:07, 25F
→
09/25 11:28, , 26F
09/25 11:28, 26F
→
09/25 11:31, , 27F
09/25 11:31, 27F
推
09/25 11:47, , 28F
09/25 11:47, 28F
→
09/25 11:48, , 29F
09/25 11:48, 29F
推
09/25 11:50, , 30F
09/25 11:50, 30F
→
09/25 11:52, , 31F
09/25 11:52, 31F
→
09/25 11:55, , 32F
09/25 11:55, 32F
推
09/25 12:04, , 33F
09/25 12:04, 33F
推
09/25 12:10, , 34F
09/25 12:10, 34F
推
09/25 12:21, , 35F
09/25 12:21, 35F
推
09/25 12:21, , 36F
09/25 12:21, 36F
→
09/25 12:32, , 37F
09/25 12:32, 37F
→
09/25 12:33, , 38F
09/25 12:33, 38F
→
09/25 12:43, , 39F
09/25 12:43, 39F
推
09/25 12:58, , 40F
09/25 12:58, 40F
推
09/25 13:33, , 41F
09/25 13:33, 41F
→
09/25 13:35, , 42F
09/25 13:35, 42F
→
09/25 13:37, , 43F
09/25 13:37, 43F
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容:
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 3 篇):