ampguy
Veteran
I think the Fuji FX70EXR will be better than all of these. Sure it has a tiny sensor, but it optimizes the sensor mode selectively for:
a. resolution
b. dynamic range
c. low-light performance
d. film mode (like Velvia) color saturation level
minimizing the compromises of existing 4/3 and mirror-less APS plasticy solutions.
All other sensor/systems have to pick one, and will generally suck at the other modes.
Did the Samsung NX reviewer ever consider that the Samsung 30mm lens did not equal his Olympus lens?
Both of my kids took better images of Kinakuji temple, one used a 5+ year old Canon, the other a 3-4 year old Fuji.
This guy doesn't need 4/3 or APS, he needs to read the manual of a p&s and as Roger Hicks would say "overshoot" e.g. take 20 shots, then pick the best one for a non-moving image.
a. resolution
b. dynamic range
c. low-light performance
d. film mode (like Velvia) color saturation level
minimizing the compromises of existing 4/3 and mirror-less APS plasticy solutions.
All other sensor/systems have to pick one, and will generally suck at the other modes.
Did the Samsung NX reviewer ever consider that the Samsung 30mm lens did not equal his Olympus lens?
Both of my kids took better images of Kinakuji temple, one used a 5+ year old Canon, the other a 3-4 year old Fuji.
This guy doesn't need 4/3 or APS, he needs to read the manual of a p&s and as Roger Hicks would say "overshoot" e.g. take 20 shots, then pick the best one for a non-moving image.
Z
zeezea
Guest
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Sooooo tired of people parlaying incremental technical differences into cosmic shifts in image quality. With more or less similar imaging systems (e.g., NEX/EP-L1/NX10), what matters is whether the UI and lenses available let you take the pictures you want to take.
This should not be a difficult concept.
This should not be a difficult concept.
Last edited by a moderator:
semilog... same with film then no?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Yup. Find a setup that works for you and use it as well as you can. If you want really big changes in IQ you don't go from HP5 to TMAX; you go from 35mm to 120.
antiquark
Derek Ross
This thread reminds me of a move I once saw... "The Neverending Story." 
gavinlg
Veteran
gavinlg
Veteran
They don't measure lens performance, the don't measure ergonomics, they don't measure user interface, they don't measure build quality, and their results/methodology is questionable in regards to their data anyway. There's plenty of data on there that does NOT correlate to real life - for instance them saying the d200 has more dynamic range than a 5d. I can guarantee you through experience that this is not the case.
Even if their data was a good measure on image quality, I'd pick the camera with better lenses, better UI, better ergonomics over the camera with slightly better IQ.
It's exactly the reason why people still use cameras like the GRD III - because it has brilliant ergos, UI, controls, fantastic lens. The IQ is just "good enough". Photographers like Daido Moriyama have made their career off their cameras being "good enough", because it complements his shooting style.
None of these things can be measured by dxo, which is why it's a lame method of evaluating cameras.
gavinlg
Veteran
Note that I don't actually care if you were to formulate your own opinions on gear, but to go around making such strong points on which cameras are good and which are bad based nearly solely off that data is just silly.
Last edited by a moderator:
gavinlg
Veteran
nex 3 by dcwatchimpress:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20100601_371489.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20100601_371489.html
NickTrop
Veteran
Olympus EP-2
Pros (top three)
- Small, inspiring* design
- Mirrorless design allows smaller optics, smaller body
- Very compact lens designs
*(LOL... huh?)
Cons (selected)
- Short battery life (especially compared to an SLR)
- No built-in flash
(@fdigital, here's your ergonomics):
- New accessory port devices hijack flash hot shoe, and don't daisy-chain -- so accessories can't be used
- External viewfinder is fairly bulky, doesn't lock in place when mounted
- Shallow handgrip means single-handed shooting is uncomfortable for those with large hands
- Awkward button placement (especially for accessory EVF button) makes single-handed shooting awkward for those with small hands
- Menu system is clumsy and occasionally counterintuitive
|
- Although slightly faster than P1, lenses are still very slow to focus relative to SLRs and competing designs from Panasonic. New firmware should improve this, but we don't yet know by how much.
- Aperture-priority AE didn't do well in our low-light test, though the camera could have chosen slower shutter speeds and done fine
- Very low dynamic range scores in JPEG images
EP-2 vs D5000 @ 1600
D5000
Oly EP-2
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP2/EP2A.HTM
Now - I will be intellectually honest. The guy, in comparing three photos states, "the Olympus E-P2 virtually eliminates the advantage that APS-C has had over Four Thirds." To which I would say, look at the pictures he posted, I don't know what pictures he's looking at... I would say these images are more in line with these ratings:
DxO- Oly EP-2, D5000
Sensor: 55.6/72
Color Depth: 21.5/22.7
Dynamic Range: 10.4/12.5
ISO: 505/868
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Olympus/(brand2)/Nikon
So, the positive review of the EP-2 here cites what I would categorize as cuteness ("inspiring" though that cuteness may be) as the "Pros" of this camera (cough...$1000 point-n-shoot that's too big to fit in your pocket...). However, I am in agreement with this assessment:
"Maybe Olympus has some better, more compact, more functional version of a Micro Four-Thirds camera around the corner - but it might be better to wait for now. The E-P1, as currently configured, looks too expensive and inflexible to be an "intermediate" camera (compare the DMC-G1, other Four-Thirds cameras, and things like the Nikon D40x) and neither functional nor small enough to be a compact for serious photographers."
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/e-p1.html
And I think these criticisms apply, as well, to the EP-2.
What can I say? We agree to disagree? 4/3rd's is a racket - substantially higher price over compact DSLRs, with a smaller less expensive to produce sensor... you can keep'em. (I think there are much better options out there for a grand...) And if you like them, please do... Besides I already declared myself the winner of this debate many posts ago. This is all extraneous. Why do you persist? (In fact, why do I persist? Last post on the matter...)
Pros (top three)
- Small, inspiring* design
- Mirrorless design allows smaller optics, smaller body
- Very compact lens designs
*(LOL... huh?)
Cons (selected)
- Short battery life (especially compared to an SLR)
- No built-in flash
(@fdigital, here's your ergonomics):
- New accessory port devices hijack flash hot shoe, and don't daisy-chain -- so accessories can't be used
- External viewfinder is fairly bulky, doesn't lock in place when mounted
- Shallow handgrip means single-handed shooting is uncomfortable for those with large hands
- Awkward button placement (especially for accessory EVF button) makes single-handed shooting awkward for those with small hands
- Menu system is clumsy and occasionally counterintuitive
|
- Although slightly faster than P1, lenses are still very slow to focus relative to SLRs and competing designs from Panasonic. New firmware should improve this, but we don't yet know by how much.
- Aperture-priority AE didn't do well in our low-light test, though the camera could have chosen slower shutter speeds and done fine
- Very low dynamic range scores in JPEG images
EP-2 vs D5000 @ 1600
D5000
Oly EP-2
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP2/EP2A.HTM
Now - I will be intellectually honest. The guy, in comparing three photos states, "the Olympus E-P2 virtually eliminates the advantage that APS-C has had over Four Thirds." To which I would say, look at the pictures he posted, I don't know what pictures he's looking at... I would say these images are more in line with these ratings:
DxO- Oly EP-2, D5000
Sensor: 55.6/72
Color Depth: 21.5/22.7
Dynamic Range: 10.4/12.5
ISO: 505/868
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Olympus/(brand2)/Nikon
So, the positive review of the EP-2 here cites what I would categorize as cuteness ("inspiring" though that cuteness may be) as the "Pros" of this camera (cough...$1000 point-n-shoot that's too big to fit in your pocket...). However, I am in agreement with this assessment:
"Maybe Olympus has some better, more compact, more functional version of a Micro Four-Thirds camera around the corner - but it might be better to wait for now. The E-P1, as currently configured, looks too expensive and inflexible to be an "intermediate" camera (compare the DMC-G1, other Four-Thirds cameras, and things like the Nikon D40x) and neither functional nor small enough to be a compact for serious photographers."
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/e-p1.html
And I think these criticisms apply, as well, to the EP-2.
What can I say? We agree to disagree? 4/3rd's is a racket - substantially higher price over compact DSLRs, with a smaller less expensive to produce sensor... you can keep'em. (I think there are much better options out there for a grand...) And if you like them, please do... Besides I already declared myself the winner of this debate many posts ago. This is all extraneous. Why do you persist? (In fact, why do I persist? Last post on the matter...)
Last edited:
ethics_gradient
Well-known
Why do I have a feeling it won't be?
NickTrop
Veteran
johnny9fingers
Well-known
While all this was going on, rumors about the NEX7 are starting to leak out. Said to be announced this fall, geared more to the enthusiast... It would be nice to see a digital Hexar AF...... one can only dream.....
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Can we go back to taking pictures now?
igi
Well-known
why would I want to believe in a picture some Jabroni posted online?
NickTrop
Veteran
Here's another article from Luminous Landscapes.
"I've never been a fan of the Four Thirds format. When it first was introduced I complained on these pages that it was a step in the wrong direction...The raison d'etre for 4/3 was to make cameras smaller, and though the first models were somewhat smaller than their 1.5X and 1.6X competitors, it wasn't long before Canon, Nikon and others started producing DSLRs that challenged what Olympus (primarily) was trying to do with the new format...it wasn't without its problems, or its detractors. I looked at it the EP-1 when it first came out, but went away disappointed. So much so that I decided not to review it, because I really couldn't find much to say that wouldn't have sounded like I was out to get Olympus...Briefly – I found the autofocus to be primitive, the rear LCD too low-res, and the menu system confusing. I also just don't find a camera without an eye-level viewfinder to be usable..Doing serious photography with a camera at arms length just isn't my thing. Oh yes, and no built-in flash...
The article was an overall positive review of the Panasonic GF1, that concludes as follows:
"In the final analysis what we come down to is that the GF1 is likely the best of breed at the moment, but not a panacea for someone looking for a semi-pocketable large sensor camera."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/gf1.shtml
So what about the GF1 - here's some snippets of an honest thoughtful user review on Amazon:
Not the holy grail - not yet, November 15, 2009
- Overall image quality came below my expectations - for a sensor close to APS-C in size. It's head and shoulders above a compact camera, but for $900, you can get much better IQ from an entry level or mid level DSLR, especially above ISO 200.
- Low light performance is at the level of APS-C sensor a generation or two ago (think Nikon D40, not Nikon D90). This is particularly problematic in the shadows - with significant noise visible at relatively low ISOs - e.g. ISO400. The noise is also of the worst type - chrominance as opposed to luminance.
- So, what does this all mean? If you are looking for a small camera to carry around - either get one of the fixed lens packages from Sigma, Leica, etc. or wait until Olympus perfects the autofocus on the EP series. If you are looking for a travel camera - go for an entry level or mid level DSLR - the size and weight difference is not that great and the difference in flexibility and image quality is well worth the tradeoff.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1275839949&sr=8-1
Bottom line? As illustrated by professional testing, professional reviews, and user reviews
the 4/3 cameras are not the "holy grail". There's no "innovation" regarding the sensors on 4/3 cameras - they're just smaller. Because they're smaller, they're simply "not as good" as larger APS-C sensors. Meanwhile, DSLR makers shrunk their camera sizes down and with a nice prime, the size difference doesn't buy you anything. 4/3 cost more than entry-mid-level DSLRs - and I don't know why since I assume that a smaller sensor is less expensive to produce, and they do away with mirror assembly and a built-in flash on a lot of models. Actually, I do know why... higher margins for the camera makers. That's fine - they're certainly entitled to a profit, but I won't bite.
What likely will be "the holy grail"? EVILS - like the Samsung NX + a nice line of fixed lenses, especially a fast pancake-sized 50mm equiv. I was excited about that one when I first read about it - and its price was right. Unfortunately, that camera, imo, had a few too many vices upon further investigation, so I went with a compact DSLR with a fixed fast lens. Give it a year or two, maybe the next Samsung or whatever, and somebody will get it right. Until then, compact DSLRs give you the best bang for the buck all things considered - imo. 4/3? Right out. You can keep them.
"I've never been a fan of the Four Thirds format. When it first was introduced I complained on these pages that it was a step in the wrong direction...The raison d'etre for 4/3 was to make cameras smaller, and though the first models were somewhat smaller than their 1.5X and 1.6X competitors, it wasn't long before Canon, Nikon and others started producing DSLRs that challenged what Olympus (primarily) was trying to do with the new format...it wasn't without its problems, or its detractors. I looked at it the EP-1 when it first came out, but went away disappointed. So much so that I decided not to review it, because I really couldn't find much to say that wouldn't have sounded like I was out to get Olympus...Briefly – I found the autofocus to be primitive, the rear LCD too low-res, and the menu system confusing. I also just don't find a camera without an eye-level viewfinder to be usable..Doing serious photography with a camera at arms length just isn't my thing. Oh yes, and no built-in flash...
The article was an overall positive review of the Panasonic GF1, that concludes as follows:
"In the final analysis what we come down to is that the GF1 is likely the best of breed at the moment, but not a panacea for someone looking for a semi-pocketable large sensor camera."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/gf1.shtml
So what about the GF1 - here's some snippets of an honest thoughtful user review on Amazon:
Not the holy grail - not yet, November 15, 2009
- Overall image quality came below my expectations - for a sensor close to APS-C in size. It's head and shoulders above a compact camera, but for $900, you can get much better IQ from an entry level or mid level DSLR, especially above ISO 200.
- Low light performance is at the level of APS-C sensor a generation or two ago (think Nikon D40, not Nikon D90). This is particularly problematic in the shadows - with significant noise visible at relatively low ISOs - e.g. ISO400. The noise is also of the worst type - chrominance as opposed to luminance.
- So, what does this all mean? If you are looking for a small camera to carry around - either get one of the fixed lens packages from Sigma, Leica, etc. or wait until Olympus perfects the autofocus on the EP series. If you are looking for a travel camera - go for an entry level or mid level DSLR - the size and weight difference is not that great and the difference in flexibility and image quality is well worth the tradeoff.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1275839949&sr=8-1
Bottom line? As illustrated by professional testing, professional reviews, and user reviews
the 4/3 cameras are not the "holy grail". There's no "innovation" regarding the sensors on 4/3 cameras - they're just smaller. Because they're smaller, they're simply "not as good" as larger APS-C sensors. Meanwhile, DSLR makers shrunk their camera sizes down and with a nice prime, the size difference doesn't buy you anything. 4/3 cost more than entry-mid-level DSLRs - and I don't know why since I assume that a smaller sensor is less expensive to produce, and they do away with mirror assembly and a built-in flash on a lot of models. Actually, I do know why... higher margins for the camera makers. That's fine - they're certainly entitled to a profit, but I won't bite.
What likely will be "the holy grail"? EVILS - like the Samsung NX + a nice line of fixed lenses, especially a fast pancake-sized 50mm equiv. I was excited about that one when I first read about it - and its price was right. Unfortunately, that camera, imo, had a few too many vices upon further investigation, so I went with a compact DSLR with a fixed fast lens. Give it a year or two, maybe the next Samsung or whatever, and somebody will get it right. Until then, compact DSLRs give you the best bang for the buck all things considered - imo. 4/3? Right out. You can keep them.
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
Someone give me a silver bullet, this thread won't die!
I've been looking for a P&S for the wife... it seems that the 4/3 cameras combine the disadvantages of point-and-shoots with the disadvantages of SLRs. It's like 4/3 is stuck in the trough in the optimization curve.
That being said, rumor has it that Nikon is working on a EVIL camera with a 17mm image circle (smaller than 4/3). One of their patents is for a 50/1.4 (equivalent) lens which is only 6cm in length!
When Nikon enters the EVIL arena, they will show everyone how to do it right!
I've been looking for a P&S for the wife... it seems that the 4/3 cameras combine the disadvantages of point-and-shoots with the disadvantages of SLRs. It's like 4/3 is stuck in the trough in the optimization curve.
That being said, rumor has it that Nikon is working on a EVIL camera with a 17mm image circle (smaller than 4/3). One of their patents is for a 50/1.4 (equivalent) lens which is only 6cm in length!
When Nikon enters the EVIL arena, they will show everyone how to do it right!
antiquark
Derek Ross
DPReview has a full blown review of the NEX3 and NEX5:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/
Mazurka
Well-known
That being said, rumor has it that Nikon is working on a EVIL camera with a 17mm image circle (smaller than 4/3). One of their patents is for a 50/1.4 (equivalent) lens which is only 6cm in length!
When Nikon enters the EVIL arena, they will show everyone how to do it right!
... and with the correct dimensions unlike the above!