>>3552307>>3552460Check this out: Not only is the Olympus shutter speed one stop slower, and not only did they use an $1800 lens on the Sony vs. a $230 lens on the Olympus, but it also says the Sony was "brightness corrected" and the Olympus was "exposure corrected." This means they UNDEREXPOSED the Olympus by one stop of shutter speed and then brought it up in post using the EXPOSURE slider, which brings up EVERYTHING. On the Sony, they OVEREXPOSED relative to the Olympus and then used BRIGHTNESS adjustments to bring down the highlights.
So, what's the significance of this? Well, it makes the Olympus look, at best, 1.5 stops more noisy, since you have the additional noise of shooting one stop slower in shutter speed, PLUS they brought up the ENTIRE exposure, making the shadow noise look half a stop stop worse for the actual exposure they dialed in.
Meanwhile on the Sony side, they exposed to the right to get the lest possible noise in the shadows and then brought the highlights down using brightness adjustments. This makes the Sony look half a stop better than the Olympus just from that alone.
So:
>Olympus: underexpose and bring up the shadows to maximize noise, use a $230 piece of glass to maximize softness and aberrations>Sony: ETTR and bring down the highlights to minimize noise, use an $1800 piece of glass to minimize softness and aberrationsIt's actually worse than just mere fraud, it's maliciously designed to make Micro Four Thirds look far, far worse than it actually is relative to full frame.
