Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by jyc860923, Dec 12, 2013.
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. I have heard it said that DXO's lens tests are a bit suspect.
It might be due to the mechanical shutter shock, but it should not be that bad. Dpreview didn't even mention it though it was in EP5 review. You can check the lenstip resolution tests from their Polish site:
It looks like they used the e-shutter for sensor results in their test, then it is close to G6/EP5 (they say ep5 might have weaker AA filter):
Here is the resolution difference btw shutters:
Difference is more in wider apertures. I never paid attention before, but it looks like e-shutter helps. So far I used full time e-shutter w/ gx7.
Does the GX7 have an AA filter?
Yes, GX7 has AA filter as far as I know. The other parameter is the IBIS. If it was on during testing assuming they use tripods...
Here is the EM1 resolution test in comparison to GX7 & GH3:
In this case GH3 has a different resolution line... I don't know what is the accuracy of their tests...
My understanding is that the EM1 doesn't, so this is going to have an influence if you're measurement is 'sharpness'.
Besides, when you ask if the GX7 is 'that bad', actually how much of a difference is '5P-Mpix'?
I have an EE degree and have studied basic signal processing; usually an AA filter is considered mandatory, certainly not a bad thing!
Even with my E-M5 (which has a weak filter), I get moiré patterns from aliasing occasionally - quite distracting and un-correctable. The real foolproof solution is to increase sampling rate (i.e. more megapixels), but that has obvious limitations due to photocell size...
I personally dislike the trend of removing AA filters completely. I'd rather have lower detail than unavoidable moiré! Something like Pentax(?) configurable sensor shift AA solution seems better (especially given that with have sensor shift mechanisms for IS already).
well, i dont think you wanna have a contest on how many rather have max resolution all the time vs random moire. that debate started and ended with the m8. now i'm not trying to convince you. i think we have enough choices to do what we want. i just dont want anyone trying to convince me otherwise, and advanced degrees have little to do with this debate. i dont have an EE degree, but i do have a JD and have done advanced post-graduate work. is it ok that i dont like AA filters? i want as much resolution as possible and i'll fix or ignore the occassional miore issue. i had a gxr m mount for a long time and i never came across a moire issue, but every day enjoyed the incredible detail i was getting out of a sensor not wrapped in a condom.
factually, i do not think the gx7 has an AA filter, and i will look around to find out.
EDIT: it appears on a cursory google search, that before the camera came out, there was an absolute consensus over a score of sites that the gx7 didnt have an AA filter. interestingly, subsequent to it actually coming out, i cant find anything that addresses the issue.
DXO results have so little relationship to the real world it boggles the mind they still have any credibility at all.
I am with u on this . Always take their conclusions with a pinch of salt. Moreover I would never buy a camera based on DXO score or recommendations . This forums is the largest platform for any kind of info on MFT shooters with real photographers and real world samples .
1) sharpness isn't the be all and end all of photography unless you are a pro fashion, landscape, product photographer... look at the history of photography... most of the great iconic images are not 'sharp'.
2) numbers on a chart don't equate to real life experience... in real life bad camera holding, poor shutter speed selection, moving subjects and high iso will all level the playing field
3) DXO have a site not for your benefit....but for theirs... they sell software. As a marketing ploy they have invented this stupid score system to drive people to their site and work on the idea that if you are stupid enough to believe their 'scores' then you might buy their software
Unless you have eliminated every other variable apart from the lens and your pictures are still not sharp enough for you and your audience... then maybe .. and only maybe take heed of DXO
yes there are lenses that are sharper than others... the way you tell these? if there are two lenses at the same focal length.... then the more expensive one (assuming we are talking a difference measured in 100's of dollars) will be sharper/faster/better
Okay, after some investigation I'm convinced :beer: it seems like you can correct it.
What's that I see under the bridge?
Panasonic improved the micro lens on chip for better low light performance, is it possible that a sharpness degradation happens because of this?
Their conclusion certainly doesn't match my experience. I went from a GH3, which they test just slightly below the EM1 to the GX7 and I have found it, if anything, sharper than the GH3. Their numbers are out to lunch, either a dud camera or bad test. Balance out there test will all the other tests that have been performed and you will find that the EM1 is slightly sharper but not by any "stand out" amount.
I'm with you too. I find myself baffled by their ratings as often as I agree with them (based on my own experience).
DXO forget about it !!!!!!!
I agree it must be a dud. I've seen many reviews of the GX7, GH3 and most if not all claim the GX7 to have better sharpness. DxO must have gotten a bad unit?
Or they did a dud test. Is that so unimaginable?
Or they're just that unreliable.
Separate names with a comma.