Oh, sorry. I din reply about the photo because it was not relevant to the discussion about light loss or light not captured well at the sensor.
To answer the question, the photo is metered perfectly by the iESP. The club was as dark as the photo shows. It is a "what u see is what u get" result. As perfect as it can be. I dun think I even adjusted the exposure on the PC. My point of showing the photo is that the humble EPL1 can take photos like this in a virtually dark situation in a club. So I dun understand why people are so fixated on low light and have to get large sensor camera to capture the limited light available and use large aperture fast lenses.
As for whether the photo can tell me anything about light loss....not directly. This is because this photo's exposure is based on the exposure settings set by the camera on-board algorithms. So it will not directly tell u anything about light not well captured by the sensor or light loss. Perhaps, if u extrapolated it, you MAY be able to work out how much light loss there is. But the caveat is that the ISO numbers must be comparable. What the article is suggesting is that some manufacturers ISO 100 is not really 100, but maybe 200 for example. So how well exposed the photo is is not an indication of how much light is lost. Photo exposure is based on camera exposure settings.
Telecentricity is about how well the sensor captures the light. If a system is more telecentric, it just means that more light will be better captured. It also means that colours - different light wavelengths - will also be better captured by the digital sensor. It may also imply that light waves are also captured more accurately because the sensor will be less affected by indirect light waves. The converse of this means that the sensor only picks up direct light waves, which is what you want. What all these means is that the image will have better colours and better image rendition, and sharper too. For people who like how the Olympus photos and colours look, this may be one of the reasons for it, in addition, to the lens, and the JPEG engine.
Just think about it? When Olympus abandoned OM when they moved into digital, they had a clean slate to work with. Size of the digital sensor could have been anything. It could have been 135 FF size, or bigger, or smaller. But yet, from that clean slate, they choose the 4/3 format which turned out to be a smaller sensor than the 135 mm size. These are a bunch of scientists and engineers who worked out all these based on their knowledge of physics. And they are not just engineers, because they really understand also, what photography is. And neither are they marketing people, because if u had allowed the marketing brain to take over, they would have produced a sensor that is way bigger...as I said, it is easier to market something that is bigger or larger. And Olympus, to me, is a company focused on the art of photography, by actually working out the science behind it, so that we as consumers, have the tools which allow us to take more photos.
To put it more succinctly, Olympus allows me to spend more time taking photographs, spend more time with the camera. If u want to take photos, but spend more time behind the PC, u can shoot other brands. What do I mean by this, well, for example, SSWF. No SSWF, u may have to spend more time in PP to remove dust spots from your photos. Less than optimal JPEG engine, u need to shoot RAW and then process yourself for better colours. Addition of RAW in workflow, takes up significant time and resources. For me, I realized that I have virtually no workflow to speak off. The only things that I do, IF I DO IT, is perhaps some cropping and exposure adjustment. Cropping is because of my poor composition or lack of attention to background, and exposure adjustment because of operator using wrong exposure settings. A lot of people do not realize this 100% FOV that Olympus gives us. This means that if I compose properly, the images do not need to be cropped routinely. If u have a camera that has a 98% FOV, u will find subject isolation is difficult to achieve without performing routine cropping. I could go on but I hope the point is made.
All the innovations that Olympus have developed, is obviously very scientific and very technical. But they all work in the background. As consumers, we do not need to really understand the physics. Just pick up the camear and start shooting. But if u understand some basic concept of why your tool is like this, its strengths etc, u can leverage and perhaps take better photos.
To answer the question, the photo is metered perfectly by the iESP. The club was as dark as the photo shows. It is a "what u see is what u get" result. As perfect as it can be. I dun think I even adjusted the exposure on the PC. My point of showing the photo is that the humble EPL1 can take photos like this in a virtually dark situation in a club. So I dun understand why people are so fixated on low light and have to get large sensor camera to capture the limited light available and use large aperture fast lenses.
As for whether the photo can tell me anything about light loss....not directly. This is because this photo's exposure is based on the exposure settings set by the camera on-board algorithms. So it will not directly tell u anything about light not well captured by the sensor or light loss. Perhaps, if u extrapolated it, you MAY be able to work out how much light loss there is. But the caveat is that the ISO numbers must be comparable. What the article is suggesting is that some manufacturers ISO 100 is not really 100, but maybe 200 for example. So how well exposed the photo is is not an indication of how much light is lost. Photo exposure is based on camera exposure settings.
Telecentricity is about how well the sensor captures the light. If a system is more telecentric, it just means that more light will be better captured. It also means that colours - different light wavelengths - will also be better captured by the digital sensor. It may also imply that light waves are also captured more accurately because the sensor will be less affected by indirect light waves. The converse of this means that the sensor only picks up direct light waves, which is what you want. What all these means is that the image will have better colours and better image rendition, and sharper too. For people who like how the Olympus photos and colours look, this may be one of the reasons for it, in addition, to the lens, and the JPEG engine.
Just think about it? When Olympus abandoned OM when they moved into digital, they had a clean slate to work with. Size of the digital sensor could have been anything. It could have been 135 FF size, or bigger, or smaller. But yet, from that clean slate, they choose the 4/3 format which turned out to be a smaller sensor than the 135 mm size. These are a bunch of scientists and engineers who worked out all these based on their knowledge of physics. And they are not just engineers, because they really understand also, what photography is. And neither are they marketing people, because if u had allowed the marketing brain to take over, they would have produced a sensor that is way bigger...as I said, it is easier to market something that is bigger or larger. And Olympus, to me, is a company focused on the art of photography, by actually working out the science behind it, so that we as consumers, have the tools which allow us to take more photos.
To put it more succinctly, Olympus allows me to spend more time taking photographs, spend more time with the camera. If u want to take photos, but spend more time behind the PC, u can shoot other brands. What do I mean by this, well, for example, SSWF. No SSWF, u may have to spend more time in PP to remove dust spots from your photos. Less than optimal JPEG engine, u need to shoot RAW and then process yourself for better colours. Addition of RAW in workflow, takes up significant time and resources. For me, I realized that I have virtually no workflow to speak off. The only things that I do, IF I DO IT, is perhaps some cropping and exposure adjustment. Cropping is because of my poor composition or lack of attention to background, and exposure adjustment because of operator using wrong exposure settings. A lot of people do not realize this 100% FOV that Olympus gives us. This means that if I compose properly, the images do not need to be cropped routinely. If u have a camera that has a 98% FOV, u will find subject isolation is difficult to achieve without performing routine cropping. I could go on but I hope the point is made.
All the innovations that Olympus have developed, is obviously very scientific and very technical. But they all work in the background. As consumers, we do not need to really understand the physics. Just pick up the camear and start shooting. But if u understand some basic concept of why your tool is like this, its strengths etc, u can leverage and perhaps take better photos.
