Low rated m43 lenses

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,389
I happened to look at DXOmark and all m43 lenses have very low ratings, down in the 70's for the best ones.

Why is that? Are they including the sensor in the measurements, and not using an optical bench?
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
m43 lenses rate low primarily because of their low "sharpness" values. DXO has a fucked up way of measuring sharpness, where they base it on the resolution from a camera, which inherently is a disadvantage to m43 which only has a 20MP sensor.

For example, if you put the 25 PRO on an E-M1 II, it may resolve 15MP worth of resolution. If you put the shitty Nikon 50/1.4 on a D850, it may resolve 22MP worth of resolution. So even though the 25 PRO resolves 75% of the camera's sensor (vs. 50% for the Nikon), the Nikon is rated as being "sharper" because if resolves more MP.

It's a crock of shit really. I don't take the "high level" DXO values for anything. However, if you dive down in to the some more of the detailed tests (like looking at the sharpness heat map), there is some useful information they provide. But their overall summary scores? Pretty much worthless IMO.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,734
Location
Boston
Agree with Ian re: cross-platform. However, the measures are useful within the same system, though make sure you are comparing the same MP body (DXO lets you choose the results of the lens on different bodies)
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
Both LensTip and OpticalLimits (formerly Photozone) tends to be a better objective indicator of lens performance.

LensTip reports resolution values in terms of lp/mm, which you can scale by multiplying by the crop factor (i.e. M4/3 lenses need values that are 2x as high as FF, and APS-C needs values that are 1.5x as high as FF to provide equal resolving power).

OpticalLimits reports values in terms of lw/ph, which already has the sensor size factored in, so those numbers are more comparable.

DXOMark has a proprietary bizarro-world methodology, and has largely inconsistent results that don't tend to jibe with reality in a number of situations (as @tkbslc pointed out). And because none of the data they report is able to be repeated or validated using conventional 3rd party tools (as LensTip and OpticalLimits use), I tend to rate it as less useful for comparison purposes.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,028
Location
Los Angeles, USA
DXO Mark sucks for lens ratings. Lens Rentals and Optical Limits are more objective. I'd only look at DXO for sensor ratings, but even then their methodology is still a bit biased towards high megapixel sensors. They still haven't even figured out a way to measure Fuji X-Trans!
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
258
Real Name
Mike Peters
Lens Tip, Optical Limits, Lens Rentals (when they do testing) and ePhotozine do a good job at objective measurements. Also, look here at what we all can do in the real world. The image sample threads and review threads are usually a good place to see for yourself.
 

cdmicha

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
212
Location
Arkansas
Real Name
Chris
I'm with the others regarding DXO- some useful information could be had, but misleading scoring and too many cameras/lenses I care about missing from their reviews give me pause. It can be handy to compare different lenses on the same camera, or different cameras using the same lens, but for me that's about it.

It would be great if it worked as promised, a cross platform and cross lens scoring metric, but in reality it just doesn't work.

I personally use Imaging Resource and Optical Limits for gear information.
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,389
it appears that edge sharpness generally sux on m43 lenses, even higher end ones (Leica) - less so for telephotos

the sensor size and associated need to have the rear element close to the sensor may be the issue here
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
it appears that edge sharpness generally sux on m43 lenses, even higher end ones (Leica) - less so for telephotos
The irony, is that the exact opposite is true.

Edge sharpness is really very good on many M4/3 lenses, especially zooms.

At least if you are used to comparing to FF lenses.
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,389
Yes, I compared m43 to FF (Nikon) on the sites above, esp. the German one.


... not that sharpness etc. are the real issue compared to light and composition
 

Bidkev

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,862
Location
Brisbane Australia from Blackpool UK 25yrs ago
Also, look here at what we all can do in the real world. The image sample threads and review threads are usually a good place to see for yourself.
Fully agree. I take absolutely no notice of anything other than "real world reviews" IOW, what a lens produces via the average use of/by the "average punter". I follow threads such as "native lens sample image showcase" and groups related to a specific lens on platforms such as flickr. It would be much more helpful to others IMHO, if some of the excellent images posted in threads on this forum were also X posted to the lens sample threads. The "native lens sample image showcase" was where I did most of my research when switching to m43.

lp/mm and lw/ph mean nothing to me. An analogy would be that I simply want to get pissed on my favourite craft beer and have absolutely no interest in finding out the ingredients and how it's brewed :)
 

relic

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
1,308
Location
North Carolina, USA
... It would be much more helpful to others IMHO, if some of the excellent images posted in threads on this forum were also X posted to the lens sample threads. The "native lens sample image showcase" was where I did most of my research when switching to m43.
I feel that I am the weakest link in the chain, in other words I don't think that I can do the lenses full justice, which is why I don't post in the native lens showcase, as any shortcomings are likely to be mine, not the lens's. But I agree that I do study the posts in those threads when I want to decide on a lens in addition to reading the reviews. The only mft lens that I wasn't very happy with (and I can't put my finger on the reason-- I just wasn't enthused by the images I got-- could've been my fault) was the Olympus 12-50mm.
 

Mack

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
1,151
I also like Imaging Resources for their reviews and testing. I bought the 45mm f/1.2 PRO and it is stellar for sharpness. They awarded it a "Lens of Distinction, Best Portrait Prime for 2017" ( Best Prime Lenses of 2017 ).

Some of the FF 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses, Nikon and Canon respectively, are really bad on the IR website in comparison.
 

Giiba

Something to someone somewhere
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
1,446
Location
New Westminster, BC
In fairness to DXO they themselves state that their methodology doesn't produce cross-system comparability. But they do give you a good idea how lenses in a system compare.

What makes their overall number so wacky is that they literally factor in all of their data, meaning things like image quality at f/22 is weighted in to the total in some way. This is part of why the 15/1.7 scores higher than the 17/1.8, for example, it only stops down to f/16 meaning there isn't a guaranteed soft image weighted in. Other sites don't judge sharpness based on tiny aperture settings... :doh:
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom