43 Rumors

Leaving technicalities about photons aside, in practical terms it’s more correct to say that 12-35 f/2.8 in 4/3 is equivalent to 24-70 f/5.6 in Full Frame. Usually when taking a picture you care about shutter speed and DoF. So for example, if you’re taking an indoor shot of people sitting at some table, you might [...]

The images at dpreview forum comparing DR vs. the GH2 are quite interesting. They show again how good the sensor in the EM-5 is regarding noise and DR. Quite an amazing step forward from anything 4/3s.

DxO mark tests just the sensor’s raw performance, while Optyczne tests all aspects of the camera. The points are the sum of all the categories they test, from build quality to image quality (noise, DR, JPEG engine), menus, flash, autofocus, features, white balance, resolution, operational performance, etc…

And one review more at: http://www.optyczne.pl/index.php?test=aparat&test_ap=178 In summary, the E-M5 gets 60 points, while the G3 and NEX-5n get 51 each (also 51 points gets the Samsung NX200, and 52 points the E-P3). So it’s more in the league of DSLRs, like the Canon 60D (59.5 points), the Sony A77 (61), The Pentax K-5 (61.5), [...]

Olympus said something like: “It’s true that in the past we’ve used sensors from Panasonic, but in the case of this one (in the E-M5) we cannot disclose who made it. We can only say it’s a completely new one that hasn’t been used in any other camera”.

Yes, it looks so bad that it seems to be out of focus… However, these images are taken by expert reviewers with over 10 years of experience. Wouldn’t it be strange that they didn’t know how to focus in the first place, and even after seeing the images they didn’t double check? This is what [...]

So there goes a “just for fun” kind of comparison: – On top, the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M Asph, at f/1.4 on a Leica M9. – On the bottom the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica DG SUMMILUX, at f/1.4 on an Olympus E-P1 http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1840/leicavsleica.jpg (Note that the crops are from near the center, not from [...]

My opinion is that both cameras shown above share the same basic sensor technology. I believe that both sensors are made by Toshiba. The X PRO 1 might have that new color filter array, but after seeing the samples at imaging-resource.com I’m not convinced it’s much good. The resolution is about average for a 16 [...]

Sensor efficiency (size/performance) of the E-M5 is as good as the Nikon D4. And both make the Sony 16MP sensor outdated (yes, the one used in the D7000, NEX-5n, K5, etc…). That is pretty incredible, so I don’t think that anyone can complain about the sensor anymore. The Fuji X pro should be in the [...]

Are you speaking about the images from this test or in general? Because in the images in this test I see no aliasing in the X-Pro 1. And actually Fuji has created this new color filter array to prevent aliasing and moire. And to me it does look quite better than the OM-D, though it’s [...]

Apparently they changed the lighting setup recently and they use a dimmer one now. That explains the difference in exposure.

However, if you compare to a recently tested camera (for example, the Panasonic GX1), you will see that exposure matches exactly.

No, they use the 50mm f/2 macro lens from 4/3 via adapter (at the bottom right of the crops there is an icon where you can mouse-over to see the lens used and other info).

But don’t forget that K5 does noise reduction in raw from ISO 3200 (otherwise it has the same sensor as NEX-5n, D5100, D7000,…)

Exactly, good that someone explained this correctly.

No one is cheating. Each manufacturer tunes this to get the best performance, but the ISO speed in user terms is correct in all of them, no matter what DxO measures.

This is just a technical thing that is not relevant for end users. When you shoot at ISO 200, you’ll surely get a correct exposure for that ISO value (that is, same shutter speed at same aperture as you would get in a Panasonic -or any other- camera at the same nominal ISO – bearing [...]

For some reason, Panasonic’s compacts have always produced better JPEGs than their m4/3s cameras. I always wondered why.

>Interesting comparison, I would love to see it based on RAW’s though. DPReview has the studio shots of both of them in raw format. The difference in raw is also quite big, especially at high ISO in the dark areas. >Contrary to what you wrote, Canon’s JPEG engine is really bad compared to other competitors [...]

Just to prove what I said, here’s a crop from the bottom-left of the pictures from Focus Numerique (dark area with an old camera). G3 vs. E-M5 vs. NEX-5n. All processed from raw in Raw Therapee, no NR applied. All at ISO 3200 with matching exposure (f/5.6, 1/125).

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/7263/testiso2.jpg

The images at focus-numerique were front-focused (only the red car in the botton right looks sharp). I’m sorry that this wrong test made people think that the sensor is the same as the G3 or worse. Really, the E-M5 images (raw) were MUCH better in the shadows than the G3 (also raw). And shadows have [...]

Focus error. EM-5 is front focused which makes most of the image look soft and with poor detail.