differences in cameras compared on dpreview

[pellicle]

Hi

I was just reading the review on the new E620 and when it came to comparing it with the G1 I wondered about the images I was seeing ... so I thought I would hark back to their test on the G1 and sure enough the samples they posted there was a difference. Their new version of the sample image from the G1 seems softer than I remembered from their first G1 test ...


From left to right this is (from their site)
E620 vs G1 (taken for that review)

620 vs G1 old review

G1 vs G1

it would be nice if they were able to produce more consistent renditions from one camera ... its almost as if they were ever so slightly not wanting to make the 620 seem less than equal to the G1

 

[slosync]

Hi

I was just reading the review on the new E620 and when it came to comparing it with the G1 I wondered about the images I was seeing ... so I thought I would hark back to their test on the G1 and sure enough the samples they posted there was a difference. Their new version of the sample image from the G1 seems softer than I remembered from their first G1 test ...


it would be nice if they were able to produce more consistent renditions from one camera ... its almost as if they were ever so slightly not wanting to make the 620 seem less than equal to the G1

I noticed that they included RAW comparisons in the E-620 review where in the G1 review they didn't. Could that be the reason for the softer look?

Cheers,
Don

 

[pellicle]

dunno

but I think that camera makers no longer like less costly cameras producing better images than more costly ones.

once it was about lens and film with the camera being a system nexus device, now with the camera being integral to capture and none of the Oly cameras having the sorts of performance of a 1DmkIII in AF speed or sensor size I suspect there is some pressure from makers to create differentiation.

I think that's why the EP-1 is not seen as a threat to the other members of the Oly lineup ... no viewfinder and screen only makes a number of types of professional use difficult.

Panasonic can make the G1 as they don't have a competitor in their range

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I noticed that they included RAW comparisons in the E-620 review where in the G1 review they didn't. Could that be the reason for the softer look?

Cheers,
Don

Going to tell you a little secret , never trust ANY review when they use in -camera jpegs PERIOD. Every camera on the planet has different algorithms and different processing of jpegs built in. If one camera says plus 1 sharpening it has no bearing on another brand that has 1 Plus sharpening. They will never be equal and any test with in -camera jpegs is absolute garbage to compare against anything else PERIOD. Get the raws and process them yourself is the only way and if your lucky the camera you may be comparing it too can use the same raw processing software , this way you can see exactly what they are doing on a more level playing field. Also use the same lens which these tests never do. They are supposed to be testing the sensor not the lens that is on each body. Just more of a curve ball when testing these camera's. They are fun to look at and ONLY use it as a clue.

 

[Terry]

Guy,
I think they've come a long way in their reviews and there is a tremendous amount of good information that they provide. They compare jpeg engines, because that is all some people will use, they compare RAW and for the Oly 620 review they went a step further and compared the files done with ACR and C1. In addition, they have a sample gallery where you can download both jpeg and raw files, work with them print them etc. Of all the sites, they seem to do the most in depth thorough job on reviews. Worth having a look at how they've progressed there is an incredible amount of info there.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I think they've come a long way in their reviews and there is a tremendous amount of good information that they provide. They compare jpeg engines, because that is all some people will use,

I agree ... I think that they are quite good, and certainly among the best review sites.

also, I cited the RAW test results if recall correctly

 

[Vivek]

If I had seen the image samples from the G1, I would have never bothered to buy one (even the Nikon D40x is better). It is the utility/functions of the G1 and the m4/3rds platform that was attractive to me and still is despite the image quality.

PS: I endorse Guy's post. I don't care about the online reviews.

 

[pellicle]

Hi Guy

Get the raws and process them yourself is the only way and if your lucky the camera you may be comparing it too can use the same raw processing software , this way you can see exactly what they are doing on a more level playing field.

I agree ... which is why I use dcraw (with the same command line parameters) for all image comparisons on my blog

but still ... with out access to cameras to play with, one is at the mercy of the integrity of other testers ... its the same with academic research.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Glad they have come a long way and not saying they don't give you some clue about a camera but without raws you just cannot critically compare. Personally and many folks know i test from time to time and have in the past and the secret to it is level the field get it down to the sensor only. They still are not using the same lens and that plays a role. I totally understand we do not always get access to these camera's or the raw files. What bugs me is folks use these tests as Gospel and not just a clue to the puzzle of how they really perform in real world use. The info to read in these is the features because they do go pretty in -depth on that.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

They still are not using the same lens and that plays a role.

definitely, that has been something that I observed as significant (and was well known) when testing film. However in those days film was film, and if you bought a slab or roll of stock you could count on consistency there (assuming processing was under control) and you could see lens vs lens.

Until recently digital has made that difficult but I think that micro4/3rds has made it possible again. I can put an array of lenses on my G1 which I couldn't easily put onto my EOS (although I could mount Zuiko OM lenses on it ;-)

not sure what my point is at this point because we seem to be on the same page ... perhaps its just clearing up unstated conceptions?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I know I may have been hard on them but I am a stickler on doing these test myself. I want to be absolutely dead on when I do them without question marks added to how I did them. But that is me and what I do, can't expect others to work like I do either. So sorry if I offended anyone but I when I see flaws I turn the page. Folks ask me buying questions on a daily basis and I am always honest to a fault. I just don't pull punches on tests or photography.

 

[Don Libby]

Personally I don't like and nor trust Jpegs for the simple reason that the camera is making all the decisions on how the image should be taken. Yeah I know I can open a Jpeg in CS4 Bridge and do "limited" processing it nevertheless is not the same as an image taken in RAW. We've got a little point-n-shoot and the main reason I brought it was I could continue to shoot RAW which I do about 99% of the time.

I think you could probably take two identical cameras shooting the same identical image both set on Jpeg and get two slightly different images. I think the difference is based on the slightly different manufacturing tolerances whereas a RAW image will be closer.

Just my 2¢ worth this morning.

Don

I'm not a Jpeg snob. However I do want the maximum amount of information I can get when taking a photograph, if something comes along that trumps RAW format I'd be all of that like butter on a baked potato.

 

[trisberg]

What I have noticed with some of their test shots is that the plane of focus varied between tests of different cameras which makes it hard to make comparisons. It can give you an idea of what to expect but shouldn't be the final word.

-Thomas