Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by Manu-4Vendetta, Mar 18, 2014.
Very difficult to read or grasp what he is on about.
"the GX7 files start to look noisy very quickly after leaving the lowest ISO setting of 125. And yes the files are better than m4/3 previously produced, but neither Panasonic or Sony who have made m4/3 sensors have come up with some magic formula that puts them on a par with the best APS-C sensors." (c)
I'm not getting his point about contemporary mu43 sensors being noisy above ISO 125. I easily shoot portraits (where fine details really matter) with ISO up to 1600 with rather clean images (yes, ISO 1600 produces modest noise, but it doesn't eat up the details and only makes the image look a bit grainy). I've made large prints of this shots and it simply looks clean! And this was ISO1600. This review looks like an ad for X-E2. Not objective at all.
I've followed Davids blog for a couple of years (he posts on this forum occasionally) and the thing that gets me is that he manages to take great pictures regardless of system (even his film scans look great). I take it as another indication that its the photographer and not the camera that really makes the difference. At the end of the day he uses what works best for him and thats all that really matters
I think many lack confidence in their choice. Why always the apologetic or denying posts about m4/3?
It is a great system alright with great lenses, but it's a fact that the small sensor is noisy even at base ISO, and it starts to intrude as soon as 800. not talking about high frequency edges. Detail is fine. But large uniformly coloured areas are quite noisy once you leave base ISO. Are the pictures bad photographs because of it? Not at all! Are the files clean? Not at all!
Everything depends on what one wants to do with the files.
David has the idea that Panasonic is skewing it's ISO numbers in it's favour all arse about. Overstating ISO sensitivities (ISO inflation) is when a camera reports a higher sensitivity than the sensor is actually recording at which means that it's wonderfully clean ISO 1600 images were actually exposed at a lower sensitivity and needed to use a correspondingly longer shutter speed than you would expect. What David is describing on the GX7 is actually ISO deflation, where the camera is reporting ISO 800 but is actually exposing at a higher sensitivity. This is definitely NOT in their favour to do so because people will naturally compare image noise from cameras at equal reported ISOs.
Yes I thought he was horribly confused when describing his made-up "Panasonic ISO discrepancy". Sure, the DxOmark test of the GX7 showed ISO is out by about 1/3 stop, so yes it's imperfect, but the two big Olympus's are out by twice as much. And the Canon 70D and 6D are out by exactly the same as the GX7 -- so how is it a 'Panasonic' thing? It's as big a deal as you make it out to be. In his case, enormous. In my case, not worth mentioning.
As for base ISO noise, why should that be? Why do people waste space on such points? (Oh, that's right: the internet). As far as I can see from DxOmark data, the GX7 noise levels are about 0.5 stops higher than a Canon 70D at all ISOs. This is a major problem?
And as for his claims of fuji high ISO superiority, he seems to ignore or not be aware of how fuji processes their 'raw' files to reduce high-ISO noise. So he is not comparing true sensor performance on a like for like basis.
Adding all together and looking across his post as a whole, he's just biased and exaggerating things. Pity.
I read this blog now and then, and he has been a big fan and frequent user of m43. If I remember correctly, he has been pretty positive about the GX7 and has had quite a few favorable posts about it. That being said, he does seem to be one of those people who gets all warm and fuzzy about Fuji cameras, and I'm not surprised that the Fuji sensor looks better when pixel peeping. Its likely ASP-C sensors will always be better at 100%... but pixel peeping isn't real world use.
He posted this recently. Seems fair to me. He is upfront about his Fuji bias, and likes both cameras very much:
I lightly read his post, and found nothing to complain about. He clearly stated that the conclusions were his own opinion. Much of what he expresses, I have found to be true (to my eye). Some, I have not been privy to, as I have not used some of the equipment mentioned. He like both cameras well enough, to actually buy, and continue using them. If you disagree with the conclusions, that is your opinion. But to cast aspersion on him for his opinion, or writing style, is to make it personal. And, it has no benefit. And, by the way, I don't care whether the ISO number is "off" from some standard. I only care if the camera can output an acceptable image for my purpose. If it doesn't, it has to go.
Fortunately, no one is casting aspersions on me. :smile: That would be so ironic.
The problem is Fuji also lies on ISO and fudges details out to get their smooth look. It's like applying -20 clarity and -20 sharpness on all your files. To properly sharpen a X-Trans files takes an unusual and large amount that introduces false details.
I don't have to apply clarity and sharpness to my files, so I guess I'm doing something wrong?
I'm more envious of all the nice toys he plays with!
Is ISO the new MHz?
Why? Because he buys and sell more gear than you?
Well, I'm personally convinced by this thread:
There's too little difference (in any way that matters in the real world) between u43 and APS-C. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, and I'm not going to criticise David for his thoughts. For me, u43 delivers more than adequate IQ and I'm very happy with the overall system - lenses, bodies, accessories, software support etc. It's not perfect, but then nothing is.
bottom line both are so close who cares ! its the user not the gear at this point
I use these two shots a lot one is D600 one is Em5 even seen printed at 20 inch short side there is no difference ! you can't see one is better than the other just the angle and framing is different
even pixel peeping the framing having dif subject size makes it impossible to tell the difference
im a fuji fan. loved their film cams, still use an xpan. i think the x100 is iconic. recently i very much wanted to turn my gear over to the xp1 because i love the analogue controls. i had a FF rx1 and m4/3 epl5 to compare to the xp1, with the plan of trading everything i had for the new xp1. in comparing to FF, imo fuji was blown away. at every iso, in every light. no contest, easy to see.
when i then compared results to m4/3, honestly, i could see no difference pixel peeping as hard as i tried up to about 3200 in low light, where fuji started to slightly, and i mean slightly, started pulling away. i saw a half to full stop difference from 32-6400. nothing meaningful til then.
i understand this is pretty subjective, but i honestly dont know what this guy and others are seeing that i, a confirmed unabashed pixel peeper and fuji fan do not, as hard as i try. so my personal conclusion is that something else is at play. now that something else could be that my eyes stink and i dont know what im seeing. but maybe not.
also M4/3 and APS-C is much closer to each other than APS-C is to FF so if you really want quality go FF or Med Format ?
I still have and shoot FF want to get away but still nice to have but the difference is becoming less and less IMHO its almost to a point where one can't tell and the only time you can is under certain situations again high ISO low light where FF like the D4 will beat the fuji or Oly by a stop maybe two ? but 1 to 1.5 stops for sure and that really is not that huge considering all things anymore
I like cars and SUVs and trucks would be nice to have 3 of each small mid and large of each thing
I love cameras all cameras fuji Oly nikon canon its never about the single file or pixels the camera puts out its about the whole package together and how it works and how it feels in hand etc..
Separate names with a comma.