Noise and DR roundup for Sony A9 and EM1x

ByDMcA
Noise and DR roundup for Sony A9 and EM1x

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.

Many Olympus owners cannot accept that the noise and DR (dynamic range) of an EM1x camera can often be comparable to an A9. It seems to run counter to their own direct experience with their cameras. In this post I want to show how their experience and my data can both be correct.

TL;DR
  • EM1x and A9 noise performance are comparable at equivalent focal length and aperture—not sensor size, but lens speed and design that matter for real-world SNR.
  • A9 has 1–2 stops more dynamic range at base ISO, but that gap shrinks to near-parity at ISO 3200+, where BIF shooting occurs.
  • Why Olympus owners see worse noise: they’re often comparing to full-frame owners using faster lenses (300mm f/2.8 vs Olympus 100mm f/2)—not equivalent systems.
  • When systems are matched for reach and aperture, EM1x beats or matches A9 in noise due to superior lens design and 5-stop IBIS.
  • For birds in flight, noise is manageable on both systems; focus accuracy and AF reliability matter more than sensor specs.

Back to the article.

Frequently asked questions

How can the EM1x match the A9 in noise if it has a smaller sensor?

Signal-to-noise ratio depends on photons collected per pixel, not sensor size. EM1x 100mm f/2 collects more light per pixel than A9 300mm f/4 at 2× magnification. Add 5-stop IBIS (allowing faster shutter speeds), and the EM1x often wins on real-world SNR.

Do the DR differences matter for birds in flight?

At base ISO (where A9 has 1–2 stop advantage), you rarely shoot BIF. At ISO 3200–6400, the DR gap is negligible. Highlight recovery matters more than shadow detail in BIF work—both systems handle this equally.

Why do full-frame owners say their images look cleaner?

They’re usually comparing A9 (300mm f/2.8) to EM1x (100mm f/2). The Sony lens is actually faster equivalent and collects more light. That advantage has nothing to do with sensor size—it’s lens design. At matched apertures, the EM1x frequently looks cleaner.

What’s the practical impact of EM1x vs A9 noise for portfolio work?

Negligible in output at 24-megapixel print size. A9’s output has slightly less visible banding in extreme shadows. EM1x’s detail retention is superior due to in-camera processing. Both require denoising at ISO 6400+; results are comparable after DxO or Topaz.

Should I choose between them based on noise specs alone?

No. Choose based on: (1) AF performance (EM1x cross-type wins), (2) system weight (EM1x wins), (3) lens ecosystem (Sony has more options), (4) budget. Noise is comparable enough that it shouldn’t be a tiebreaker.

Back to the article.

Similar Posts

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • APSC vs Olympus noise and dynamic range -which is best?

    ByDMcA

    Full-frame cameras used in APSC crop mode lose their full-frame noise advantage entirely — the cropped area has the same noise characteristics as a native APS-C sensor, which is identical to the Olympus cameras. Since the OM system’s faster lenses cancel out the remaining sensor noise difference in direct comparisons at matched apertures and focal lengths, the noise case for choosing full-frame over Olympus for birds in flight effectively disappears.

  • EM1x update on firmware 2 bird AF operation and settings

    ByDMcA

    Four custom presets covering stationary birds with Bird AI, takeoffs and landings with ProCapture L, fast head-on subjects with CAF sensitivity -2, and general fast BIF with CAF sensitivity 0 give the EM1x the flexibility to handle every scenario I encounter without entering the menu between shots. The function lever in position 1 with exposure compensation on the rear dial is the most important single setup choice for consistently exposed BIF shots.

  • 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.