Dynamic Range on Olympus vs Sony cameras for birds in flight

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

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

    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.

  • Sony A9 vs Olympus E-M1x focus accuracy tests

    Over four days at the Hawk Conservancy Trust testing the Sony A9 and EM1x side by side, the A9 led in the morning focus-lock sessions (72% vs 61%) but the EM1x led in the afternoon focus-acquisition sessions (45% vs 39%). The overall averages were nearly identical — 51% EM1x, 49% A9 — but the EM1x achieved this with 600mm reach while the A9 was effectively capped at 600mm; with the 1.4TC at 900mm f9, the Sony hit only 34%.

  • OM and Sony wildlife zooms – lens handling

    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.

  • Sony a6400 for birds in flight

    Over 3,441 shots across seven sessions at Andover and Richmond Park, the Sony a6400 averaged 35% focus accuracy for birds in flight despite trying every published autofocus setup recommendation. The ergonomics made a difficult situation worse: a tiny viewfinder aperture that requires near-squinting to use, a stiff rear control dial, intrusive exposure zebras that obscure the subject, and no proper battery grip available from Sony or third parties.

  • Sony 200-600 zoom: 4 cameras, two lenses

    Across four Sony cameras and two copies of the 200-600mm lens, the pattern was consistent: the A7R4 produced 100% out-of-focus shots at Gigrin Farm and 97% out-of-focus at Andover with a replacement lens, while the A9 and A6400 performed better but still fell well short of the Olympus system in demanding conditions. The same autofocus failures appear across all four cameras with both lens copies, ruling out user error or a single defective unit.

  • AF for birds in flight with the Sony A9 and the 200-600 zoom

    The Sony A9’s PDAF array is linear — it detects vertical contrast well but struggles with horizontal contrast like a bird in profile, unlike the Olympus EM-series cameras which use cross-type sensors that detect any pattern orientation equally. This structural limitation, combined with the 200-600mm’s single focus motor and 2.1kg weight, explains why the A9 hit only 39% accuracy in the demanding afternoon session at the Hawk Conservancy Trust against the EM1x’s 45%.