Search the Community

I've been testing the M264 against the SL and while I think both are great, I've noticed something strange about the ISO on the M264. If you shoot side-by-side tests, with matching shutter speed and aperture, you have to set the M264 a whole stop higher on the ISO to get the same result as the SL. I find the SL matches my light meter and other cameras, while the M264 requires a whole extra stop. I'm not talking about how to expose the files relative to the M264's meter, or underexposing to protect highlights etc - you can do all that with whichever ISO you set. I'm talking about the way the M264's ISO is set up, which appears to be adrift by a stop. In the real world, this means that to compare the noise of the M264 vs the SL, you have to compare the M264 at 400 to the SL at 200. Or the M264 at 12500 to the SL at 6400. Which undermines some of the alleged noise advantage of the M264, doesn't it? Still, the tones are lovely, but it strikes me as a strange anomaly. In the attached pictures (sorry they're boring, they're just exposure tests), the Elvis magazine shots were both taken at 1/125th and f2 on the same lens, but the SL shot was set at 200 ISO, while the M264 was set at 400 ISO. I've put the info in the file names - hopefully you can see these. In the attached pictures of the tube train floor, both were shot at 1/60th at f2. The SL shot is the wider one (35mm lens) with the foot in shot, and was set at 200ISO. The tighter shot was on the M264 set at 400ISO (50mm lens). In both cases the lighting was consistent. These are JPEGs straight from the camera, just compressed in Preview and iPhoto to be postable here. I haven't checked the RAW files, but I don't see why they'd be different (other than being in colour on the SL of course). Thoughts?