New DxOmark test results for the E-PL2 and XZ-1!
And here it comes the next DxOmark test that will put the world up side down. Confess, you didn’t expect that the Panasonic LX5 RAW quality to perform so much better than the Olympus XZ-1 (which uses the same sensor!). Click here to see the XZ-1 vs LX5 comparison at DxOmark. I am surprised and you?
DxOmark also tested the new Olympus E-PL2. In that case results are on par with the GF2 and the older E-PL1 (Click here to see the DxO results). The only real change is that the E-PL2 has a sensible better ISO performance.
Olympus XZ-1 direct shop links: Amazon US, Adorama, BHphoto, Amazon DE, Amazon UK, Amazon FR
E-PL2 direct shop links: Amazon US, Adorama, BHphoto, Amazon DE, Amazon FR
Share
Recent comments
Comment from cL: Again, a disclaimer first. What I own i...- Comment from cL: Actually that's better than not doing re...
Comment from Zaph: So as an S95 owner do you find the XZ-1 ...
Comment from wei: This is like rating the spark plugs of a...
GreyOwl
2 years ago |Admin, I’m as surprised as you are, and somewhat baffled as well.
IMHO
2 years ago |OLYMPUS HAS JUMPED THE SHARK A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG TIME AGO
(CIRCA: ABOLITION OF THEIR CAMEDIA SERIES LONG TIME AGO)
MORE POWER TO PANNY WHO HAS SURPASSED THEM NOW IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS
JUST WATCH, THIS NEW STUNTED ‘DARLING’ BY OLY WONT EVEN HAVE FINISHED BEING A NEWBORN IN OLYMPUS CORPS’S EYES, WHEN PANNY WILL ALREADY HAVE THEIR LX6/7 NEARING POST PRODUCTION
F U OLYMPUS YOU LET ME DOWN A LONG TIME AGO, I LEARNED MY LESSON AND MOVE ON ONLY YOUR VINTAGE PIECES STAY IN MY STABLE
George
2 years ago |Every camera that Oly released in the last 2 years are nails to their coffin
Dummy00001
2 years ago |I’ve lost count of all the cameras they have released. Should be lots of coffins.
Eric
2 years ago |Uh, what? So the XZ1 is a complete failure due to a DxO score? Are you serious? You’d have to be the biggest gear nerd in the world to decide based on that. As a photographer the lens on the XZ1 matters more to me then some silly sensor test.
Here’s an idea, instead of looking at a bar chart to decide if a camera is up to your “standards” why not just browse photos taken with it on Flickr and decide for yourself by looking at actual photos? Looking at photos is not only more fun, doing so also helps you learn and grow as a photographer.
Vlad
2 years ago |Don’t know about the XZ1, but compare the m43 to what’s going on lately in the APS-C sensor world. Go see the DR in those Flickr photos.
Eric
2 years ago |I have; I browse photos on there almost every single day. My conclusion is m4/3′s is good enough for my needs as soon as Oly/Panny release a high end body. That said, obviously I’d prefer APS-C or full frame, but 4/3′s IQ is good enough for 95% of people I’d wager. If someone makes a high-end APS-C mirrorless camera then I’ll be interested in it for sure, but if it’s not weather sealed and built as tough as Olympus’ upcoming pro m4/3′s body surely will be, then I won’t be interested even if it does have better IQ.
cL
2 years ago |Sony A33 and A55 are sort of like APS-C mirrorless (not mirrorless obviously) but better performance than NEX series.
Yes, real world performance is more important. Sensor isn’t everything. If the lens is crap, it doesn’t matter how good your sensor is. Everything must work as a unit.
You can buy a FF and use a kit lens, and see if you can get anything useful out of it.
marilyn
2 years ago |i go with Eric the lens is the best part of the XZ1 not the sensor… zuiko is one of the most expensive glass… in the field of medicine units..
napalm
2 years ago |Given this is their first “advanced compact” I’d say they did pretty well. I might wait for XZ-2/3 though. The S90 also had some quirks that’s why they released the S95 very quickly. the LX1 and 2 were just precursors to the LX3 which what made the LX series a classic.
Mr Hipsta
2 years ago |Bit of a disappointment; far behind Panasonic LX5 and Canon S95… Of course DxO Mark only test the sensor, not the camera, but I had high expections for the XZ1.
panasonic
2 years ago |I think dxO test much better for the scoring. i saw Dpreview rated E5 (wat a famous ppl like camera) for 72% and far behind 60D, GH2 and some cheapy DC.
for this test, both camera are suck
hehe
Miroslav
2 years ago |Don’t want to put Olympus down, but it seems to me that with E-PL2 they just renamed ISO100 to ISO200, ISO200 to ISO400 and at the top ISO3200 to ISO6400 and instantly got better results. Is there any benchmark to test if a manufacturer’s ISO value is a real one, the same the others have? Am I right to doubt them?
Maley
2 years ago |Yes, DXO measures the real iso values, so u can “trust” them.
dCap
2 years ago |ISO is supposed to be a ‘standard’ … something repeatable. back in ye olde days if you labelled film as ISO 125 or 64 then that is what it was supposed to be. This standard, this measure of calibration is why some dSLRs have something like ISO 100-3200 plus Hi1 and Hi2 and Low80 or something like that terminology. they cannot call it ISO 6400 since it dies not meet the standard (basically it’s an underexposed 3200 shot that has been pumped to give you the impression and expsoure settings of ISO 6400). it’s a bit crap to see that the ISO on some digital cameras is a lie … they should not be allowed to call it ‘ISO’.
in reality does the test value matter? the e-5 is still the best camera Oly have made … the XZ-1 is still the most exciting pocket camera option and you can bet that a lot of LX5 fans will wish they had an XZ1 or potentially new LX5 customers may be drawn to the XZ1 … at the cash desk in the camera shop you’ll buy either the Lx5, the xz1 or the g12 depending on which one fits your needs more. people will jump on the reviews if it matches their hopes and expectations, and poo poo them if they say the opposite (see the e5 review reaction)
dCap
2 years ago |PS I’d still rather have an XZ1 than an LX5 for the aperture range and the way the aperture is altered around e lens (very much like the shutter speed on an OM1) … but then I am Olympus bias
Boss
2 years ago |I don’t base my opinions on Dxo mark scores, but I have been saying on here that the LX5 is better in image quality than the ZX-1. I have the LX5 and every sample I look at of the ZX-1, IMHO, seems to be just slightly lower in quality than the LX5 – maybe it is the Leica lens. That said, I still have an Olympus EPL2 on order, as I love Olympus, I just think the LX5 is a more mature, better executed camera.
The LX5 is so ergonomic (for me), that I can even put the FL-36R flash on it and hold it with one hand. But the ZX-1, without the hand grip, would probably not be as easy to hold, plus all the controls on the LX5 are just perfect.
cL
2 years ago |Actually that’s correct. If you know your 4/3 enough, you know the real base ISO for 4/3 is ISO 200 and should use it as if it’s ISO 100.
It’s not about the spec. It’s about how you use it and how the entire camera work as a whole. Like Eric, yes, I would like to have a FF (APS-C…, honestly, its advantage isn’t enough “for me” to shell out extra money when compared to 4/3), but it all depends on your needs. Know what you want is the most important part.
If you want detail and sharpness, obviously 4/3 is for you. If you need DoF, get a FF or larger. I know this is a simplified answer, and each brand has its unique advantage, so buy your camera accordingly. Don’t buy the wrong item and get all brown nosed. I think everyone knows I don’t like Canon, but under certain circumstances, I would recommend it over 4/3. It all depends on your needs. My need is detail and sharpness, and Canon doesn’t deliver on that end, but it delivers fast AF.
XZ-1 is a point and shoot. And for a point and shoot, it’s really great, if you have seen its sample photos. I haven’t used a LX5 yet, but like I said, if it’s just like LX3′s lens, then it’ll be full of chromatic aberration. It’s lens’ fault, not sensor’s. DxO tests sensors only (and only hardware performance). It’s a very specialized test.
mahler
2 years ago |This result simply tells that small sensors would come close to large sensors is wishfull thinking (and a marketing trick Olympus plays with us). So apparantly the XZ-1 is no small alternative for the bigger m4/3 camera, regardless what marketing wants us to believe.
m4/3 is about the best compromise so far, small size and still good enough(!) image quality up to higher ISO.
One league above, the dpreview results for the E-5 reflects the same truth: the E-5 does not fit into today’s market scheme: for its price, size, and weight the E-5 does not offer enough. 4/3 is dead end, m4/3 the sweet spot.
Olympus should concentrate on the development of the m4/3 system and should recognize that m4/3 is more than this single minded PEN concept. They should follow Panasonic, providing more than one body concept, instead of playing on the PEN mythos forever.
dCap
2 years ago |agree … I would like to see an Olympus version of the G1 form factor
WakeUp
2 years ago |Wake up. This test shows only that Canon and Panasonic use a significant amount of noise reduction on their RAW files. That’s the reason why the RAW comparison photos @ dpreview show a lack of detail (S95 and LX5 compared to the XZ-1). The problem is that DXO does not properly take into account RESOLUTION.
Archer
2 years ago |In theory, they do. In practice, as near as I can tell, they don’t take into account real images, focusing instead on minutiae that are irrelevant to real world usage.
The only real test of a camera is as a whole system. No one makes images using only a sensor.
Vincent A.
2 years ago |My sensor is better than yours ! and my car goes faster … and my wife makes better pancakes …
Are you guys interested in owning a great sensor or a camera which takes good pictures ?
There is exactly the same discussion on Hi-Fi forums. Many people study benchmarks and facts instead of listening to music.
Daemonius
2 years ago |And thanks to these guys, we can pick what suits our needs best.
So, let them beat each other with sensors. 
jack
2 years ago |Forget the unnoticeable differences in P/S cameras…
I like pancakes; can I have your wife?
Daemonius
2 years ago |Not suprised, Panasonic is able to squeeze more from their sensors than company which they sells sensors to? Wierd it is in case of Sony, which constantly lacks ability to squeeze their sensors to their maximum performace. But I guess it just makes them better profit.
Though, overall difference isnt too much and XZ-1 can do various stuff that LX5 cant. Longer zoom, ability to use VF for Pen series (which is very good). Maybe XZ1 has slightly less impressive sensor, but rest of that camera is probably better than LX5.
cL
2 years ago |Anybody knows who made the CCD sensors inside Panny and Olympus’s point and shoots?
Panny makes LiveMOS for 4/3, but I’m not entirely sure they also make CCD sensors….
Petar
2 years ago |As someone said, its about, and just about sensor. Consumer is interested in final result – picture.
E-5 is also bellow lot of models, but IQ much above.
So its about processing knowledge, and Olympus know-how is far beyond others.
cL
2 years ago |If you have seen Olympus website about their manufacturing plant, you know they hire skilled workers who actually have a passion for their work. That’s how they squeeze the best performance out of a sensor they don’t make, make lenses the company decides to sell for cheap price despite of its craftsmanship. Because they actually care about what they do, not just some factory workers. They tinker with their products until they’re perfected. This is not a company culture where shareholders’ profit is its top priority.
I think we all have used some products that have high specs and they never really work as well as they promised. My LG phone died on me. It was a great phone on specs and lots of features, but reception was never really good and it broke in one year….
Per
2 years ago |What à DXO test says is less relevant compared to evaluating images from the camera! DXO measures are just figures and the methodology can be questioned. Th real benchmark is looking at prints. If you just look on computer screen, you will not se any difference
Vincent A.
2 years ago |That’s exactly want I wanted to say !
Use the camera, see the pictures and decide !
panasonic
2 years ago |Will be nice if admin able to get dxo software co-founder or the CEO to explain on this based on Per statement. otherwise it could consider dxo benchmark with no purpose
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |I think that something people seem to either discount or ignore. A camera’s software has a big effect on final Performance and image quality. Today’s digital cameras are portable computers, the mechanical and optical elements are not as crucial today.
Panasonic is a huge company with decades of software development experience in audio, video, clouding, etc.. Olympus simply cannot match Panasonic in that regard.
Getting twisted up over esoteric test results is pointless and given the pro-Olympus bias around here, kind of amusing.
If you like the camera and the results, what difference do test results have. Will the test results force users to suddenly sell all their Oly photo gear?
cL
2 years ago |If this group is representation of what the real world is like, then yes, some people may actually read the result on paper and sell all their gears and switch camp, totally ignoring their personal opinion and judgment on a product they do own, and in favor of something they don’t own. Some people are more insecure than others.
spam
2 years ago |You can of course question any methodology, but DxO is the most scientific one, and the one that eliminates as many other factors as possible. But as it’s a sensor measurement it won’t say anything about the final image. It does however say something about the potential of the data which comes off the sensor, and that’s pretty relevant.
Zaph
2 years ago |It’s interesting how far ahead the S95 seems compared to the other two on DXOMark. 47 vs 34 for the XZ-1. And they aren’t cheating the ISO ratings like the other two.
S95 ISO400 = 402
S95 ISO1600 = 1591
XZ-1 ISO400 = 339
XZ-1 ISO1600 = 1391
LX5 ISO400 = 316
LX5 ISO1600 = 1164
Panasonic basically just make s**t up as they go.
Zaph
2 years ago |Please note – I said *seems*, not is. I only mean in the DXOMark ratings, not the actual camera use.
wife
2 years ago |would you rather make up sh*t and win or be a nice guy and lose?
Zaph
2 years ago |I’d rather the dial set the thing I was setting to what it said it was setting it to. Don’t you expect the camera to use ISO800 when the set it’s ISO dial to 800?
cL
2 years ago |I don’t know about others, but I’d rather be a nice guy and lose. I’ve lived on this earth long enough knowing what win and lose mean…. They mean nothing.
Ganec
2 years ago |> And they aren’t cheating the ISO
But they are cheating on exposure (it is lighter).
Note: Using lower ISO {and later digital exposure increase} preserves highlights and colors are richer.
Tripp
2 years ago |Yet another proof about the credibility of DxO, or lack thereof. They lack consistency even when testing the same sensors. Happened before, will happen again.
sderdiarian
2 years ago |Agree completely, after some initial interest I stopped looking at their site a quite some time ago.
Ganec
2 years ago |DxO is good .. but only when you know how to interpret the results.
Many people (mostly Canon people, because his machine is not the best) don’t understand how these results may be possible => then they always tell that it is wrong.
Note: don’t look only for numbers, look also for graphs
Ganec
2 years ago |XZ1 has lower score, because his lower ISO is 100 and LX5 has 80 (also “real” ISO is lower). Similar situation was also for GH2 vs GH1 (there were not big differences on similar ISO).
Maybe it does not look so significant but for the final score it is…
Interesting for E-PL2 is his “Low-light” score (573), which is highest value for Olympus & for all m43 cameras using the same senzor (it means except GH).
cL
2 years ago |If it’s a fair test, then all of the scores should be normalized, not test one camera with ISO 80, another with ISO 100 and another with ISO 200. If that’s the case, then the test is flawed.
Ganec
2 years ago |No. The test is good as it is.
If you can use lower ISO settings (with all benefits: colors, DR, noise), your pictures may be better. Of course on lowest ISO, but for some it is the most used setting…
cL
2 years ago |On a camera that uses Panny’s LiveMOS sensor, you cannot use anything below ISO 200 without sacrificing DR. It’s a weird quirk. Probably anything below 200 was put there so they don’t look bad when compared with competitors (and some people insist on shooting ISO 100, despite 4/3 is a completely different format, so ISO 200 is the real ISO 100, and ISO 100 is a tweaked ISO 200). I avoid it at all cost, unless something comes up that tells me the lighting condition is okay for it. Highlight clipping or color banding is not something you can easily fix with software.
Yes, I love my E-620, enough to know what it cannot do, so I won’t have shots that give me headaches (I visited wrotniak.net BEFORE I bought my E-620, so I know which settings to use that can give you best end result). I usually fix my ISO at 200. I also set Auto ISO cap between 200-800, so when I do use Auto ISO, the camera won’t choose any ISO that requires me to do more post-processing than I typically willing to do (less processes = less noise = sharper images).
The most used setting for me is…. IS button (and of course, mirror lock up + remote shutter on, as you usually do them together). I switch between tripod and handheld a lot.
John Krumm
2 years ago |We all know that it just doesn’t matter how the photographs a camera makes actually look. If only the best cameras embedded their dxo scores into the exif and printed scores on the back of prints then people would know their value. It’s not really fair that low scoring cameras sometimes fool people into believing their cameras make nice photos. Perhaps the consumer protection agency could get all the lower scoring cameras banned.
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |ROFLMMFAO!
Marky
2 years ago |I bought my XZ-1 this afternoon.
Can’t wait to take it for a spin soon. I am not worried about a point here or there on scores. I will not own both cameras and therefore not concerned about which is slightly better by a hairs breath
mark lohnes
2 years ago |I don’t trust DXO.
They may have nice software, but too many folks place too much stock into what DXO says and put down cameras and camera companys simply because they rate they way they do.
The proof lies in the hands of the satisfied photog’s and in the images, not the “measurbating” experts. We can make the numbers say whatever we want if we twist them enough, to few folks seem to understand this fact.
Jan Francois
2 years ago |To me, these numbers seem to conflict with evidence provided elsewhere, namely the RAW studio scene comparison at DPreview. When I look at the cameras at ISO 800, I see equal detail from the XZ-1 and less softening which I prefer. Also, I’m surprised by those who think the s95 is clearly ahead, since when I examine the above Raw results, the XZ-1 appears to be equal to or better at least up to ISO 800. ISO 1600 is not under consideration for obvious reasons. And this is when looking at the center area. When we get near the edges I see the XZ-1 pull clearly away from the other three cameras in the comparison, with the S95 coming in second.
cL
2 years ago |Those who thinks S95 is clearly ahead are looking at JPEG result. Which it IS ahead. But when you look at RAW result, it’s not. Both LX5 and XZ-1 are not slouch, but Canon’s JPEG engines are so process-happy, the mediocre RAW quality ends up to be useful quality.
But since I’m not the kind of person who likes that very processed look (I actually turned down noise reduction when I post-process), XZ-1 clearly wins as it retains a lot of details without over sharpening (which introduces artifacts. If you pixel peep, then Canon is not for you. It looks sharp but not at pixel level (all the post-processing artifacts do show up). For 4×6 prints or even 8×10 prints, it’s not a problem, so Canon photos can show up nicely (actually all three cameras’ photos will print beautifully). Like I said it all depends on your needs. They’re point and shoots…! Do you expect Nikon D3x quality on a $500 point and shoot?
Zaph
2 years ago |A lot depends on the demosaicing used with the S90/95 RAWs. They aren’t great in Bibble for example, but Aperture does really well with them.
cL
2 years ago |And definition of looking great is subjective also…. I am willing to have more noise, if the end result would be sharper. Some people just the opposite (you won’t see me shoot a lot of HDRs, since that requires a lot of noise reduction in post-processing that could kill all sort of nuances in a photo). I also prefer neutral color and some people like super saturated color, which I find to be unrealistic (I shoot nature with natural light that captures the very specific mood of the time, so accurate color reproduction, not necessarily vibrant color unless that was the condition, is mission critical).
cL
2 years ago |Oh, I forgot to mention. I have not used Aperture nor Bibble, so I can’t comment on it, but Lightroom’s RAW processing is okay, but to get the sharpest images out of your Olympus camera, you need to use Olympus Master. It does a little bit of sharpening (which I am ambivalent about it…, as software sharpening may introduce some moire patterns if you go overboard with it…) and it corrects optical defect properly (it is Olympus’s own software/lens combo after all). Not to mention Olympus Master retains Olympus color which you may miss when you shoot RAW. But Lightroom is easier to use and is more powerful… (but its default RAW output is dull looking).
K. Tran
2 years ago |This makes absolutely no sense. My Nikon P6000 has a higher score than the XZ-1, and there’s really no comparison at ISO 800-1600…
Pascual
2 years ago |I do not understand the difference between the XZ-1 and the LX5, assuming that carry the same sensor.
I think the XZ-1 had a sort of neutral density filter to shoot f: 1.8 in bright light, the same is silly, but do not be that dxomark made their measurements in the XZ-1 with that filter enabled?
cL
2 years ago |Just a quickie. Choose a camera system as if you are choosing your spouse. Some people want a beautiful/handsome wife/husband. Some want rich spouses. Some want someone who love them. Some want someone who spend time with them and listen to them. Depends on what you think it’s best for you (and don’t make hasty decision), choose one and stick to it. Or else you’d always feel “what if I marry another person instead” and feel sorry for yourself always…. Not a happy life if you ask me. Learn how to use your camera and work around the issues it has (every brand has their own issue, okay?) and you’d come out ahead.
By the way, there are photo competitions where people shoot with toy cameras like Holga or Diana. What’s DxO scores on those cameras?
WT21
2 years ago |Am I reading the same scores???
The Oly is .4 EV behind, and 1/6 of a stop in ISO behind. In color bit depth, the Panny is 4% better. Comparing these two to an m43 camera, they are essentially equal.
I think the bigger question is, is there a future for these “enthusiast” tiny-chipped cameras or not. Wringing hands over gnats between them is silly.
bilgy_no1
2 years ago |DXO uses a very strange scoring scale imo. The fact that they don’t show what they’ve measured means that all we have to go by is their graphs and numerical scores.
People who believe that this is scientific are misguided. Disclosure of the research data is part of the scientific method, and absent in the case of DXOmark.
I do think that DPReview and Imaging Resource provide a better basis for making ones own assessment of a camera’s capabilities. While I do not always agree with their assessment of a photo, or choice of wording, being able to see, download and work with their test material means that I can at least judge for myself.
Besides all that, the DPR team made a very thorough analysis of the XZ-1. They do note that the XZ-1′s files are a touch noisier than the S95′s or Nikon P7000′s, but also that the results from this camera are fantastic.
chris
2 years ago |are there only retarded people here?
look at the dpreview comparison of the xz-1 and lx5.. the xz-1 samples at any iso settings are so much better.
retards.. unbelievable
Boss
2 years ago |The Leica optics of the LX5 help to produce better results.
For MFT, Oly is better, but in this class, the LX5 dominates.
Believe that db.
Stig
2 years ago |Just because it has the name Leica on the lens does not mean it is automatically superior. There is a Leica lens on my Panasonic Tz1 and I don’t think much of it. Lot’s of chromatic aberration and very low contrast at the tele end. All my Zuikos are far better. Looking at the Dpreview sample photos, I can not see why you think the LX5 lens is superior.
cL
2 years ago |Because lots of people don’t believe in their own eyes nor what they think…. DPReview often shows one thing and then the conclusion says another thing (it is Amazon owned, afterall, so it has commercial interests). I would say read the whole review, look at photo samples and judge the result for yourself is the second best thing to do. Best thing, of course, is handling the actual item.
Zaph
2 years ago |I want to buy a XZ-1. I’d love to have 2.5 on the long end vs 4.9 that I have now, and I also just like buying stuff. That said, I haven’t seen a single photo from the XZ-1 that has made me go “Wow, I must have that camera”. Not one.
Zaph
2 years ago |And if you *have* seen one that has made the XZ-1 a must have for you, can you point us to it?
Boris
2 years ago |Exactly!
.
But I have a bigger problem
Since I got the LX3 2 years ago I have NOT seen a compact to replace it though I’ve been looking around all the time!
panasonic
2 years ago |Hmm… now i understand.
If you want overall review covered cost, performance, UI, IQ, then read more Dpreview, others freelane blog like Bloom, Hogan, etc.
If you just want to know which sensor the best, read DXO result
If you not sure the first two options, then you may go to store grab oneto test it out.
Correct?
cL
2 years ago |I’m not sure you’re sincerely or it is a mockery, but I would suggest use the gear before judge something is the best way to go. DxO tests sensor and hardware. Always read more than one reviews, and always read reviews with critical eyes.
It takes a long time to realize why Olympus gears are sensible in design, and that can take several months. Most of its quality are not quantitative so they won’t look good on paper and highly subjective, so it’s not something you could write in a review. Another poster in DPReview forum says Olympus camera is an acquired taste, which I guess summarizes it very nicely.
“Why so many people defend E-5?” Somebody asked there. Probably people who used it knows others judged it unfairly with only what they read on paper. If someone unfairly judged you, or someone you love dearly, you’d defend them, too. Just hope this will make everything clear.
One professor mentioned why he decided to teach using Olympus cameras. He said something like these camera made students think how to shoot better photos, instead rely on the camera to do everything. That supposed means Olympus users as a group are better photographers because of that, instead of using our DSLRs as if they’re point and shooters.
I also read an argument about whether professional sport photographers use flash or high ISO. In reality, professionals don’t use flashes. But some people kept arguing for it and even gave examples from YouTube…. I remember when I studied photography, the professor found it amusing people actually turn on their flash in sport events. Even the most powerful flash cannot travel that far, so all those flashes go off are done by amateurs, she said. But those who argued pros do use flashes for sport events argued very self-righteously and even try to put down those who do know their stuff….
panasonic
2 years ago |I am a sincere boy
Is true, pro always emphasize to test camera before bought. I feel its true when friend asking me about what camera suppose to buy. I feel sometime not everyone have same taste, this will be the best way to ask them to try before buy
But seriously, myself yet to follow so. The camera shop at Penang not really have the demo unit -suspected they sold it due to shortage stock. So, my way is reading rumor, bloom-hogan-dpreview-etc review, watch youtube/vimeo for video samples, and read you guys comment and then decide and buy. so call my screw up way
cL
2 years ago |Actually that’s better than not doing research and bought something you don’t want.
Simon
2 years ago |Photography is more than comparing pure data. Example? I happily trade in the LX5′s (ooooverwhelming) 4% advantage in color depth for Oly’s outstanding jpeg color reproduction!
cL
2 years ago |Again, a disclaimer first. What I own is a LX3 not LX5, but LX3 color is very blue…. So even if it has color depth advantage, off color renders any of that advantage irrelevant.
juavel
2 years ago |No words, just go here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusxz1/page10.asp
set ISO 200 and move the selection around the frame.
Catastrophile
2 years ago |many here disagreed with me when i said that a panasonic-made sensor for the XZ1 was a bad idea (before the announcement, when rumors appeared that Olympus will use a Panasonic- not Sony-made sensor), bad idea because the dynamic range, color depth and ISO are all better for the Sony sensor compare the LX3/5 to G11/12/P7000/EX1 and now it turns out that olympus didn’t even get a sensor as good as the LX5, not only does the XZ1 sensor lack the multi-aspect design of the LX3/LX5 sensors but also it is inferior to LX5 in all DxO measurements and to LX3 in all but the ISO measurement. a most slavishly POOR Olympus :’(
Michael
2 years ago |Good point. And for the MFT: The mystery is why Olympus doesn’t use best sensors that Panasonic can offer – multi-aspect ones? Maybe Olympus is saving the GH2 sensor for their high-end MFT camera, or they don’t have access to it. Since 4/3 sensors are produced only by Panasonic, there are not other options like APS-C world has. Kodak or any sensor maker seems to be out of the 4/3′s business. But Olympus is doing maximum to sensors the have, that is for sure.
Ganec
2 years ago |> why Olympus doesn’t use best sensors that Panasonic can offer – multi-aspect ones?
it was discussed long before: for example this chip is bigger => Oly then have to redesign its image stabilization and bodies size
I am looking forward to the E-P3 chip…
)
(it should be big surprise if this chip will be from Kodak
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |The multi-aspect sensor is such a great and logical idea, maybe Panasonic decided to keep it for themselves. I know I would.
I think Oly may be more interested in paying homage to their cameras from 30 years ago with cute retro design than pushing the envelope in the way Panasonic can and does. Although, Panasonic being such a huge company, they probably have a lot more breathing room, economically speaking that Oly ever will. Maybe that’s why Oly is forced to play it safe.
notnamed
2 years ago |Except if you look at the graphs that the curves are extremely clsoe, except between measured and stated ISO.
David Gay
2 years ago |Ding – we have a winner! And furthermore, if you look carefully, you can immediately see that the main reason for the LX-5′s higher score is that it offers a lower lowest ISO setting (80 vs 100 setting, 67 vs 81 measured) than the XZ-1. That lower ISO setting translates into a higher maximum dynamic range, and hence a higher score (read the blurb about how the scores are defined, and the rationale).
wei
2 years ago |This is like rating the spark plugs of a car but not the overall vehicle. One component alone does not make this a better camera. I have both the S95 (according to DXOmark to have the best performance) and the ZX-1. Both are fantastic cameras, but I do find the XZ-1 much more versatile in the dark. In fact the xz-1 shoots at a much lower ISO setting in the same lighting and produces a sharper image at auto ISO. Perhaps the anti shake in the olympus is much better?? We should look at the overall package and not jump to any conclusions.
Zaph
2 years ago |So as an S95 owner do you find the XZ-1 a worthy upgrade? I suppose it’s a bit early to really tell with the lack of RAW support in the major packages for the XZ-1.