Dynamic Range on Olympus vs Sony cameras for birds in flight

ByDMcA
Sony vs OM dynamic range wildlife zooms — schematic illustrating how sensor DR and lens speed interact to determine real-world image quality

If you would rather head straight to a concise summary, the TL;DR is at the foot of the page — or jump directly to the FAQ.

In other articles I have compared focus accuracy and noise between the Sony A9 and Olympus EM1x cameras. This time I’ll look at Dynamic Range on Olympus vs Sony, specifically when photographing birds in flight (BIF).

TL;DR
  • A9 has 1–2 stops more dynamic range than EM1x at base ISO (100). At ISO 3200+, the gap shrinks to 0.5 stop—negligible for BIF.
  • At practical BIF ISOs (3200–6400), both systems clip shadows and highlights identically in difficult lighting.
  • EM1x’s wider depth of field and superior IBIS (5-stop vs no IBIS on A9) often recover more useable frames, offsetting DR disadvantage.
  • Post-processing: both cameras have enough DR for shadow recovery on backlit sequences; highlight recovery favours neither system.
  • For BIF, dynamic range is 4th-order priority after focus accuracy, AF reliability, and frame rate.

Back to the article.

Frequently asked questions

Why does dynamic range matter less at high ISO?

At base ISO 100, A9’s sensor with ~14 stops DR is significantly ahead of EM1x’s ~11 stops. At ISO 3200, thermal noise floor rises and both systems converge to ~9–10 stops. At ISO 6400 (typical BIF), measured DR drops to ~8 stops on both cameras. The advantage is marginal.

Do bird images typically use bright exposures where DR matters?

No. BIF shooting favours fast shutter (1/2500s+) and tight exposures to avoid overexposure. Highlights are rarely recovered—they’re clipped intentionally to preserve the bird silhouette. Shadow recovery (lifting underexposed areas) matters more than highlight recovery, and both systems perform equally here.

How does IBIS offset lower DR?

EM1x’s 5-stop IBIS allows shooting at lower shutter speeds without blur. Lower shutter speed = better AF tracking and higher success rate overall. That translates to more useable frames per session, compensating for any DR loss on individual images.

Which dynamic range scenario is most common in BIF?

Backlit subjects (e.g., sunrise, sunset, cloud backdrop). Shadows need lifting; highlights are already blown. A9’s 1–2 stop advantage helps here—but only if the photographer exposed for the bird. In practice, most BIF frames are slightly underexposed for safety, and shadow lifting happens in post on both systems equally.

Should DR be a deciding factor between EM1x and A9?

No. Focus accuracy, AF reliability, and burst buffer are more important. A9 is faster and has a larger buffer. EM1x has unique ProCapture. Choose based on those—DR is similar enough at BIF ISOs that it won’t affect the outcome.

Back to the article.

Similar Posts

  • Noise on Olympus vs Sony cameras for birds in flight

    ByDMcA

    The EM1x’s sensor has 0.5–1 stop higher read noise than the Sony A9, but system-level noise — accounting for lens speed, IBIS, and in-camera processing — is within 0.5 stops at the ISOs relevant to birds-in-flight shooting. The comparison most people make is unfair: they compare the A9 with a fast prime against the EM1x with a matched prime, where the Sony gathers more light per pixel, and then attribute the cleaner result entirely to sensor size.

  • Why I prefer Olympus 4/3 to Sony full frame for Birds in Flight

    ByDMcA

    The conventional argument against Olympus for birds in flight is sensor noise — but the 1.3-stop sensor disadvantage is cancelled by the 1.3–2-stop lens speed advantage of the OM pro telephoto lenses over the Sony 200-600mm at equivalent focal lengths. Focus accuracy testing confirmed this: in challenging afternoon sessions requiring instant acquisition on erratically moving birds, the EM1x matched or outperformed every Sony system tested, and the OM system’s substantially lower inertia made the difference in shots requiring rapid tracking.

  • Multi-lens speed and noise comparison of EM1x to Sony A9

    ByDMcA

    Matching the EM1x and A9 at equivalent subject magnification and aperture — rather than at the same focal length and ISO, which is the comparison most reviewers use — shows the two systems within 0.5 stops of each other at ISO 3200. The perceived noise advantage of Sony full-frame is largely an artefact of unfair comparison conditions that favour the larger sensor by ignoring how much more light the smaller-sensor OM lenses gather per pixel.

  • OM5 custom settings explained

    ByDMcA

    The OM-5 has only one ‘hard’ custom setting on the mode dial (C), with three additional ‘soft’ settings (C2–C4) that can be recalled from buttons but are lost as soon as you press the Menu button — a behaviour that initially baffled me. The practical solution is to store landscape/base settings in C so they can always be recalled as a clean baseline, and use C2–C4 for specialist genres with the understanding that pressing Menu exits them.

  • Depth of field for birds in flight – good or bad?

    ByDMcA

    Micro Four Thirds gives 4x the depth of field of a full-frame camera at equivalent subject magnification and aperture — which is an advantage for birds in flight because a wider depth of field is more tolerant of the small autofocus errors that are inevitable when tracking a rapidly moving subject. Full-frame’s shallower depth of field amplifies those same autofocus errors, producing more shots where the camera is close to focus but not critically sharp.

  • OM and Sony wildlife zooms – lens handling

    ByDMcA

    The rotational inertia index for the Sony 400-800mm is 3.2 times higher than for the OM 50-200mm f2.8 without its tripod collar, which translates directly into how hard each lens is to swing when tracking a fast-moving bird. Neither Sony zoom has a focus preset function, and the Sony 400-800mm’s minimum focus distance of 350cm makes close subjects impractical; the OM 50-200mm with MC20 focuses to 78cm and delivers 2:1 FFE macro capability.