Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Gyroscope, Apr 30, 2012.
Hot off the press ....
Looks awesome. Most interesting note? Better Dynamic Range than the NEX-7 (equal in highlights, better in shadows with the normal tone curves on both cameras). If you select the widest DR range tone curve for each camera, the E-M5 has MUCH wider DR than the NEX-7 or NEX-5N. With that wide DR curve, the E-M5 is even surpassing the D7000 in dynamic range (though a little worse at the standard tone curve). Surprising. Trusted DR numbers were about the only thing I was waiting for...now to figure out what to do about this camera....what can I sell, and how much do I want the GH2's better video? (I don't shoot much video, but I do love having the option for really high quality video when I want it).
Great review. The E-M5 is really proving how capable small cameras can be. The conclusion mentioning the only way to notice any real difference in image quality was to shoot full frame was pretty interesting.
Thanks for that.
The review supplements the Manual, it contains stuff I could not find in the Manual.
Have to keep an eye out for....We'll be publishing a short article about how to get the best from the E-M5, at some point in the next week.
After the whole management scandal, Olympus really needed a success like this.
I didn't need to read DP Review to know that the cam in my hand is great! But thanks!
Just finished a quick read of the review and shall go back later for more careful reading.
But I spend a bit of time in the image comparison tool and must say I'm impressed and perplexed at the same time!
All the discussion below is about IQ, nothing else:
For starters, I only compared RAW and it's the absolute only thing that concerns me. YMMV but, personally, I don't give a damn about out of camera JPEGs, sorry. My photos will be processed anyway, so having nice JPEGs is more of a convenience in a hurry, nothing more.
I pixel peeped extensively, comparing RAW output for the OM-D vs a Canon APS-C camera (they all have comparable performance), the Fuji X100 and, just for kicks, the Canon G1X, which has a comparable sized sensor. I looked up results up to ISO 1600, which is the most useable range, IMO.
I don't know how much lens selection or the algorithms used for conversion play a part in the result. What I found, and you can find out yourselves very easily, is this:
1) The OM-D competes directly, and, in most cases surpases Canon APS-C for contrast, detail and chroma noise. Detail in the shadows, especially, is very good and it handles highlights quite nicely.
2) The G1X lags behind in almost every comparison. Don't know how much this is because of the fixed lens quality. For 95% of photos, perhaps it would be perfect, but for the 5% of difficult cases it does not cut it. This is interesting because of one fact: it seems Canon is planning in using this same sensor in their EVIL cameras after all (source: Canonrumors, CanonWatch, etc).
3) The surprise was from the Fuji sensor. The Fuji was a clear winner in any case IMHO. At first I thought something was wrong, and I was comparing a lower ISO for the X100. It is almost one stop better from everything else in that comparison, for noise and contrast. Again, this will result in a 2% difference at best, for 99% of the photos taken. IMO, it shows one thing: Fuji knows how to make sensors. They were involved in the 4/3 initiative at some point; I can't imagine what will happen if they decide at some point to enter the m4/3 arena...
All in all, the OM-D seems to deliver in it's promise: it's definitely a great camera. From my point of view, I see it being my next m4/3 purchase, although I have to see what Panasonic has to say about that in a few months.
The best thing about this camera is that all my Panasonic primes can be attached to it
Keep in mind that the DPReview studio comparison samples for the G1X are a waste of space. They try to explain why in the G1X review here, but I'm still yet to see any evidence of it in real world shooting. The G1X actually has one of the sharper zoom lenses I've used. Amongst Canon zoom lenses it is sharper than the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 and similar to the EF 24-105mm f4L. If Canon goes mirrorless the sensor won't be the problem. Crappy autofocus is the technical challenge that they need to overcome.
Ok. Super nice, can't wait to see one in the flesh.
WHY, OH WHY do we europeans get to pay MORE than americans for the same camera ?
EU: €1099.99 (Body only)
EU: €1299.99 (with M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3)
US: $999.99 (Body only)
US: $1099.99 (with M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6)
US: $1299.99 (with M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3)
UK: £1149.99 (with M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3)
Last I looked, €1099 was $1450, and for that, we don't even get the basic kit zoom thrown in. €1299 are $1710, for the full weather sealed kit, we're paying over $400 more for the same thing. The difference is even worse for our UK friends.
And don't tell me there are shipping costs, last I looked distance between China and the US were about the same as between China and Europe.
I'm fed up of those split pricing strategies.
End of rant.
Does it have to do with something like differences in taxes or the general cost of doing business in Europe? I have no idea, but I would assume there's some rationale to the pricing other than "we'll charge more just because we can". It's the same with Nikon, etc....from what I've seen here on discussion forums.
I see, thank you! Agreed, the challenge would be AF speed and accuracy, and we still have to see about the lens selection; it won't be easy.
I agree with most of what you wrote.
As a X100 owner (and former but soon to be owner again of the XP1), no big surprise on the X100's image quality. But the biggest surprise was when, just for kicks, I decided to put the D700 (not D7000) into the mix. The X100 doesn't give up very much at all to the D700!
In any event, I can't wait to get the OMD!
Hi.. Put a proposal on this forum for ur fellow countrymen .Pool ur money and one of u goes to USA for 2 days ,picks up 5 OMDs and comes back .
Yes, they've given the others a big head start. I don't know if their first effort will be up to the standard of the E-M5. BTW, the G1X's AF accuracy is very good, it's the speed that is very bad.
I was thinking of picking Canon G1X for my wife and daughter as they get frustrated with my prime lenses . I think u are quite happy and satisfied with Canon G1X and thats quite good. JBHI FI was ready to sell it for AUD699 a week back .I think I will pick it soon .
for their DR testing, they're talking about gradation settings. But does that not mean they're actually giving us the DR of the sensor + JPEG engine as opposed to the actual DR of the sensor itself?
I want to know how many stops (above and below) of data is in the RAW that I can work with (as needed), not how many stops of data it's processing engine would have put into the generated JPEG based on gradation setting.
I don't doubt there's a modicum of reality, but that doesn't totally account for the difference. Sad reality is us Europeans have been milked for so long we don't even react anymore. I remember we used to joke about the 'computing dollar' in France, back when we still had our national currency. That computing dollar was twice as expensive as the change value. Same goes for cameras. We're so used to overpricing we just wave it as unavoidable.
If I remove VAT from the full kit, it still costs circa €1100 instead of €1300, that is $1450. We're still overpaying a whole $150 that are unjustified.
Note that they're using JPEGs for their DR tests. I suppose that's fine as far as it goes, but it says very little about the underlying malleability of the images, as anybody looking for maximum DR should be shooting RAW in the first place.
Is there any metric that gives some indication of the underlying malleability of the RAW? Is this something dpreview, dxo or the others even test?
Separate names with a comma.