Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: DXO Em-1

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    DXO Em-1

    Well - it's here.

    Pretty much exactly as I would have expected: the ISO performance takes a small hit by the addition of PD pixels, the DR and colour depth are a touch better. It doesn't score fantastically overall (though it is the best MFT so far) and fails to catch up with the better NEX cameras, as one might expect. And it is, predictably, miles off the M240.

    HOWEVER... of course it has IBIS and, in my experience so far, that means that it is often possible to keep shooting at lower ISO as the light drops than with much of the competition. Given that the colour depth and DR are only slightly (and in real world terms largely irrelevantly) worse than some of the cameras it competes with, one might reasonably argue that if the ISO performance is 'real world adjusted' as a result of the IBIS, it is worth a 78 rather than a 73. I also award it an extra five points on the basis that the forthcoming 12-40 F2.8 sounds like the only zoom on pretty much any system that is 'sharp enough' across the frame at all focal lengths to meet my needs. There's no point having amazing colour, DR and ISO performance if the lens is soft at the edges..,

    Consequently, love DXO though I do, I hereby award the EM-1 a total of 83 points. But then I deduct two points because Olympus have no idea how to configure an Auto ISO system so as to allow shutter speeds to drop appropriately to focal length in order to keep ISO low - so I have to jump through some weird hoops to make it work as it should.

    So that's an 81. Pretty nice!

    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    I ignore DXO entirely. I've never found their numerical ratings indicated anything that made any difference to what I want a camera to do. Just don't see the point of all their measurement and analysis ... I can see what the camera does with my own eyes far more clearly.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I ignore DXO entirely. I've never found their numerical ratings indicated anything that made any difference to what I want a camera to do. Just don't see the point of all their measurement and analysis ... I can see what the camera does with my own eyes far more clearly.

    G
    I do as well.

    It is a pity, the highly regarded (in some circles) focusnumerique also "mess up" things.

    For example: Test Sony A7R - Focus Numrique

    They were trying show how the A7R ranks in terms of noise. The whole thing turned out to be a great advertisement for the Leica M.

    Tim still remains an odd man out (I say it in the best possible way), in my opinion.

    This post, Tim, reminds me of a certain cuisine where they make use of Tabasco sauce and other bottled/canned goods for cooking (we were watching DVDs of "Chef", recently. )

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    what's Dxo?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    The result is neither impressive nor is it disappointing, but simply the expected. The sensor does not seem to support the hype around the camera. Maybe the next generation will.
    There is obviously a not too subtle difference between mft and aps-c sensors, still. I find the "it does not matter for most users and uses" or "in the real world" argument to explain away key IQ differences amusing.

  6. #6
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Ooo Vivek, you're SO RUDE

    Obviously when I want to cook for guests, I use the finest, freshest, most local and seasonal produce available - but my solitary vice of bottled ingredients is not a guilty one: I say it loud and proud - "I use MFT in public sometimes and I don't think it 'tastes' too bad... as long as you don't compare it to haute cuisine at the same sitting...'

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I do as well.

    It is a pity, the highly regarded (in some circles) focusnumerique also "mess up" things.

    For example: Test Sony A7R - Focus Numrique

    They were trying show how the A7R ranks in terms of noise. The whole thing turned out to be a great advertisement for the Leica M.

    Tim still remains an odd man out (I say it in the best possible way), in my opinion.

    This post, Tim, reminds me of a certain cuisine where they make use of Tabasco sauce and other bottled/canned goods for cooking (we were watching DVDs of "Chef", recently. )

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    The result is neither impressive nor is it disappointing, but simply the expected. The sensor does not seem to support the hype around the camera. Maybe the next generation will.
    There is obviously a not too subtle difference between mft and aps-c sensors, still. I find the "it does not matter for most users and uses" or "in the real world" argument to explain away key IQ differences amusing.
    The sensor (vis-a-vis some absurdly high expectation of vastly increased sensitivity, acutance, or whatever the IQ noodniks seem to be desperately looking for) is not a huge part of the "hype around the camera" for me.

    Ergonomics, responsiveness, improved capability with my existing FourThirds lenses, durability, consistency: These are what I am enthused about. Image quality was never even a moment's thought ... I knew that would be fine without even having to think about it.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: DXO Em-1

    I find DXO difficult to pronounce. I'll start using ADOX instead. Easy to pronounce. Goes better with my OM-2 as well. DXO never tested the OM-2, did they?

  9. #9
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    I never gave too much attention to DXO and I find their methods just absolutely nothing saying for real value of a photographic tool.

    For me the strength of the m43 system with EM1 lies in the overall availability of different lenses, the usual high quality of these lenses (at least the non budget ones) and if the EM1 is just as good as the EM5 that is more than enough. BUT - it is even better! So this is currently the dream system with the EM1!

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    I have to say that if I were to be asked to rank my stupidly large collection of cameras in terms of their 'native' IQ (i.e. a lens-independent assessment of their overall file quality) I think that I would come up with a relative order pretty much exactly the same as they way they appear at DXO. So, as I have written elsewhere, if you really understand what DXO does and doesn't aim to tell you, it can be an extremely useful way of telling, before you buy a camera, how good its IQ will be...
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: DXO Em-1

    I'm with you on this one Tim. DxO may not be a perfect reflection of real-life performance, but it does give us a relatively quantifiable method for trying to rank cameras by their abilities (most of which are subjective anyway). I am more interested because that now means they have E-M1 profiles for their excellent DxO Optics Pro application.

    The name "DxOmark" was inspired by "PCMark" and "3Dmark" benchmarking tools for computers. Both of those have often been accused of not reflecting real-world performance, but they are certainly beloved by PC review sites. They are also very capable of beating the crap out of your PC, so you can at least get an idea of how your system will behave under unusually heavy loads.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    DXo: it is what it is. Can be used well or abused. If you have to spend cash and you are undecided between two options because they both look good, a DXo look for a sensor performance can solve the deal breaker.

    Or helps to understand where your tool falls in the universe of sensor IQ and if you need more of something, where to look for.

    The problem is - at least for the EM5/EM1/m43rds and the like is the constant lie propagated in many places that it is just as best APS-C in terms of image quality. Many may say that's not what they are looking at but that sure is one of the first things that is looked at by reviews, etc.

    The truth is pretty simple- everything else equal the EM1 will not perform as good as a Sony APS-C sensor. I mean, Sony makes both sensors, you don't think they are just going to give a m4/3rds sensor something new or anything.

    And the part that should be seen is that, hey! That's fine! The current m4/3rds sensor is pretty good and more than good enough for a wide range of work. People should just pick according to need and preferences, no need to try to be soothing you are not or put down something you have a bit less off etc.

    There was a point where both Olympus and Panasonic where clearly left behind in sensor tech but they finally are at the place relative to the same technologies more or less for their sensor size.

    It's all tradeoffs. Pick smaller and less IQ (but still good) or higher IQ and a bit bigger (APS-C) or ultimate high IQ and bigger (FF, but less than medium format).

    I would just look at DXo mostly as a guidance of what to expect more or less when using the equipment and even different models in the same format. For example- it's good to know that the sensor in the EM5/EM1 is that much better than the old E-5 sensor, for someone using 4/3rds and looking for a real upgrade.

    And of course, if you pick something up, you like it and you are doing and getting what you want, then it really doesn't matter.

    - Ricardo
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Hi Ricardo
    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post

    The problem is - at least for the EM5/EM1/m43rds and the like is the constant lie propagated in many places that it is just as best APS-C in terms of image quality. Many may say that's not what they are looking at but that sure is one of the first things that is looked at by reviews, etc.
    Actually - it seems to me that the constant lie is that there IS much difference between APS-C and 43 - at least, if you're satisfied with the 4:3 aspect ratio.

    They are usually compared in terms of sensor area, but IMHO the best reality check is to compare the pixel pitch:

    Nikon D7100 (best APS-C): 3.9
    Olympus E-M1 (best 43): 3.7

    Nikon D610: 5.9



    That's 5% difference between APS-c and 43 - honestly - that doesn't mean that the image quality cannot be as good. The difference between APS-C and full frame is where it really matters.

    The reduction from 24mp to 16mp is mostly taken up by the width of the sensor.

    Just this guy you know

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Ricardo


    Actually - it seems to me that the constant lie is that there IS much difference between APS-C and 43 - at least, if you're satisfied with the 4:3 aspect ratio.
    Sorry I can't quite agree. Since the EM5 I see lots of reviews saying it's just like the same. Same with previous (look at Robin and a few others).

    They are usually compared in terms of sensor area, but IMHO the best reality check is to compare the pixel pitch:

    Nikon D7100 (best APS-C): 3.9
    Olympus E-M1 (best 43): 3.7

    Nikon D610: 5.9
    The surface area is about 38% more for APS-C vs m4/3rds. That is a significant difference. That's like one stop and the tests do corroborate this. Open up a K-5 file - 16 MP and compare vs the EM1. The K-5 sensor has deeper shadows, tonality, DR. True used 14-bit RAW. You hardly even get a clear noiseless sky at ISO 200 to begin with.

    By the way your quote of the pixel pitch vs the D7100 is completely misleading- the D7100 has 24 MP, not 16MP. What this means is that you can downsample the D7100 for an effective cleaner image to match the 16MP. A more valid comparison would be 16MP D7000:


    4.78m

    That's a (4.78-3.7)/3.7 * 100 = 29% difference, not 5% difference. Sorry but that's to me significant.


    That's 5% difference between APS-c and 43 - honestly - that doesn't mean that the image quality cannot be as good.
    Yes, it necessarily means it won't be everything else equal, because it' snot 5%, it's about more about 1/3rd.

    The difference between APS-C and full frame is where it really matters.
    I can't agree- I say it depends. To me a full stop DR/ISO is a notable difference.

    The reduction from 24mp to 16mp is mostly taken up by the width of the sensor.
    Look at the pixel pitch I mentioned above. When you have 24 MP the downsampling quality is proportional to that increase. And remember it's not just ISO, but tonality (14 bit) , DR, and color sensitivity.

    Given the K-5/D7000 are 16MP, I think the comparison vs the EM1 is more than valid and there is indeed a notable difference between m4/3rds and K-5/D7000. The later clearly have deeper shadows, higher ISO performance, etc.

    Now, if this makes no difference to your photography and what you want to get out of the camera that's entirely another matter.
    As you know I am using a Q7 for a lot of my photography and for a lot of the subjects I do the sensor is not making a major difference in the quality images from a photographic point of view that I am getting for this kind of work. That doesn't mean I am going to think it's just the same as say a Sony 1'' sensor.

    - Ricardo

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DXO Em-1

    HI Ricardo
    you can argue this around and around - I'm not getting into a Pi$$ing match with a porcupine (not to suggest you're a porcupine ).

    There are lots of different ways of cutting this particular cake, I could start talking about vertical linear comparisons being more relevant than area, but honestly. it won't get either of us anywhere.

    What bugs me is that the classic sensor size comparisons (showing the top right) very much mitigate against 4:3 sensors (which is of course relevant if you're going to cut your images down to 3:2, but not if you aren't).

    I'm not arguing against the DxO sensor scores (82 for K5 II vs 73 for the E-M1) I'm certainly not denying the extra stop of dynamic range either . . . although, as Tim points out, the excellent IS on the Olympus will often give you that stop back. . . but I'm not very convinced that it's very significant - I have to say that the number of times I run out of dynamic range with the E-M1 are few and far between. . . . . . . on the other hand I never found one decent zoom to go with the Pentax (and that IS significant). . . . and if I'm going to shoot primes then I'll take the full biscuit and go full frame.

    I was just disputing your statement that it is a "constant lie propagated in many places".

    Nobody is denying that the sensor on 43 is smaller - just that it doesn't have a significant effect on image quality (I think dPreview just said that). Significant being the operative word here I think.

    There are lots of factors that go to make up good image quality. As sensors get better and better, sensor size becomes less and less of a key factor (IMHO of course)

    All the best

    Just this guy you know

  16. #16
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    There are lots of factors that go to make up good image quality. As sensors get better and better, sensor size becomes less and less of a key factor (IMHO of course)

    All the best
    Hi Jono, Just a thought, meant as a sidenote.

    I am often struck by the sorta academic discussions, Nyquist, Raleigh, pixel pitch, you name it, that can be found on many fora concerning technological aspects. - German fora in particular are a flippin pest in that regard! You would think that most of them would be able to engineer and market a much better IQ260 / A7r / D800 / Em-1 etc., if only they could do as they wish! -

    IMHO, Image quality got better and better in spades over the past decade, down to the point that some DSLR can stand up to MF quality from not so long ago costing an arm and a leg.

    In a way, the Magnum CEO nailed it for me in an interview with the Britiish Journal of Photography, explaining their move towards a subscription model, when he stated, "The photography world has changed, everyone is a photographer today!"

    To my simplistic understanding, in my world, the question is simple. Does current technology give me the quality I want in a print, and at what cost. To be honest, thinking back not so long ago, I was amazed what quality I was able to pull from a Olympus E-1 file in print.

    Ah well, sorry for ranting, back to my chinati
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Ricardo
    you can argue this around and around - I'm not getting into a Pi$$ing match with a porcupine (not to suggest you're a porcupine ).

    There are lots of different ways of cutting this particular cake, I could start talking about vertical linear comparisons being more relevant than area, but honestly. it won't get either of us anywhere.
    Oh come on now :-) You are the one who brought up the photo site size ;-) What I posted is not an opinion but a fact. There's nothing wrong to have the discussion ;-) What I said is pretty straight forward. Color sensitivity/richness/DR/ISO are all a difference here. Whether that difference makes a difference to you as a photographer is a different thing. Hey, like I said, I am shooting a Q7!

    What bugs me is that the classic sensor size comparisons (showing the top right) very much mitigate against 4:3 sensors (which is of course relevant if you're going to cut your images down to 3:2, but not if you aren't).
    Well again, it all depends, as I said. Keep in mind 3:2 is full frame and there's clearly a vast photographic history supporting that kind of ratio/format. I actually prefer a 4:3 ration more overall, unless I am going for a more cinematic feel.

    I'm not arguing against the DxO sensor scores (82 for K5 II vs 73 for the E-M1) I'm certainly not denying the extra stop of dynamic range either . . . although, as Tim points out, the excellent IS on the Olympus will often give you that stop back. . . but I'm not very convinced that it's very significant -
    First the DXo overall score is kind of meaningless, what is interesting is to see the individual areas and match those accordingly to the photography you do.

    There's also IBIS or IS in other systems too. While the Olympus IS is great, it doesn't make the other IS useless. The K-5 under comparison has actually as you know body IBIS and was actually the first to even compensate for tilt.

    I have to say that the number of times I run out of dynamic range with the E-M1 are few and far between. . . . . . . on the other hand I never found one decent zoom to go with the Pentax (and that IS significant). . . . and if I'm going to shoot primes then I'll take the full biscuit and go full frame.
    Well again, as I said, it's up to each personal needs. For you that works and that's great.

    I was just disputing your statement that it is a "constant lie propagated in many places".
    See below :-)

    Nobody is denying that the sensor on 43 is smaller - just that it doesn't have a significant effect on image quality (I think dPreview just said that). Significant being the operative word here I think.
    Thanks for proving my point above :-) Yes, dpreview said that. Robin Wong says it's just as good as best APS-C. You see Kurt saying that dpreview said exactly that and he misquoted dpreview. Dpreview also says Xtrans Fuji is clearly above the EM1 performance, but nobody mentions that.

    People could see this for themselves. Of course, significant here is going to be something that varies per photographer, it's up to each photographer.

    There are lots of factors that go to make up good image quality. As sensors get better and better, sensor size becomes less and less of a key factor (IMHO of course)
    All the best
    Certainly but I see a convenient line drawn very often. Why stop at m4/3rds? Why not say 1'' Sony/Nikon 1 is more than good enough? As I mentioned I totally agree m4/3rds can be more than good enough for a wide range of photography. That's different from say that the difference is so minimal as to be just like APS-C. Which is what is being said often. Yes, 1 stop is quite significant- to me. But to someone else it may not be.

    - Ricardo
    Last edited by raist3d; 1st November 2013 at 16:59.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    To my simplistic understanding, in my world, the question is simple. Does current technology give me the quality I want in a print, and at what cost.
    And this is pretty much one of the main points I have been saying all along. The problem I point out is that I see a lot of the 4/3rds, m/43rds owner going on pretending it's just as good as best APS-C or so close there's no difference, in what seems to me an attempt to convince themselves it's ok to shoot that format or something.

    What I say is another way of what you said, accepting the format, the quality it gives you and cost and moving on. They all have tradeoffs.

    - Ricardo

    PS: I understand what you say about technical discussion but not everyone doing technical discussions are on equal terms. Some of us actually do get out and create photographs instead of trying to tell companies how to design better sensors :-)

    I invite you to take a look at some of my more recent work in the "Fun with Pentax Q7" thread, over in the Pentax forum.

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Oh come on now :-) You are the one who brought up the photo site size ;-) What I posted is not an opinion but a fact.
    No no, Ricardo - you started this with the 'lie' word - these are all opinions (both yours and mine), and different constructions on matters of scale - enough said I think.

    . . . . and 'better' is such a complicated concept

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    No no, Ricardo - you started this with the 'lie' word - these are all opinions (both yours and mine), and different constructions on matters of scale - enough said I think.

    . . . . and 'better' is such a complicated concept
    This was my claim:

    ...the like is the constant lie propagated in many places that it is just as best APS-C in terms of image quality.
    I stand by it. I can make the list if you want.

    Notice I didn't say all places. I elaborated that this tendency seems to have gone up a bit and some blogs that should know better are saying it. I also completely agree that this does not mean you can't get excellent image quality in that format, and that it's up to one preferences. I even provided further elaboration of that by the reminder that I shoot with a Q7 a lot.

    There's nothing complicated in Better DR/ISO/Gradation/color sensitivity - it is pretty factual, not an opinion. Whether the camera system, or the ergonomics appeal more to you (said in general) is another matter (I bring up the Q7 example again).

    The whole photo site thing you brought up was was clearly off :-) And hey, cool but you did bring it up. Nothing wrong with owning to it ;-)



    Cheers,

    - Ricardo

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    This was my claim:

    Well, and that was what I was disagreeing with, and if you're talking of people like Ming Thein, then I know who's opinions I value

    So let's change the subject slightly - The Q7 is obviously an interesting camera - the only reason I'm not going there is because I have to carry a bag anyway, so either an M or an E-M1 are simple to carry about.

    I actually feel that APS-c is Dooooomed (it'll fall between the stool of smaller lenses (43) and that of smaller DOF (FF)) we shall see (this is an opinion, not a fact).

    Just this guy you know

  22. #22
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    I dont think DxO is a bad thing, but I can remember plenty of times when its been used to batter the 43rds format by individuals on a mission to destroy it.

    and I dont buy the 'bigger sensor is always better argument' it isnt. No camera is a panacea, they all have points for and against.

    As an example, it was popular with 'theorists' to drag out D800 'king of' DxO specs to derail positive perceptions about M5. Until it was pointed out that its noise performance and DR metrics are actually in arrears to M5 when put into the equivalence context.

    Further examples encounter the usefulness of some lenses. In my own occupation good ultra wides are not so easy to find, yet I have the trio of 7-14, 9-18, and 11-22 that can all shoot very well at f/4.5. I dont know many lenses that compare with that and still provide an expansive DoF.

    On a more positive note Nikons 14-24 fits well, as does the very enviable MF Canon TS17, but they still need to run f/9 to compare in DoF, and that is so much harder on flash equipment and batteries because they get outside the ideal exposure window. They can both raise the ISO but they still cant drag the shutter as well as stabilised Olympus, so they have to shoot off a tripod to match my shooting window.

    There are a lot of very good choices out there for the present, and considerable support for a number of shooting propositions. What is important for those of us within this system are the further advances in equipment; within that there are a number of prospects to look forward to. Theres a lot of APSC with little to look forward to as cheap FF takes up the advanced options previously held by APSC.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    I dont think DxO is a bad thing, but I can remember plenty of times when its been used to batter the 43rds format by individuals on a mission to destroy it.

    and I dont buy the 'bigger sensor is always better argument' it isnt. No camera is a panacea, they all have points for and against.

    . . . .snip

    There are a lot of very good choices out there for the present, and considerable support for a number of shooting propositions. What is important for those of us within this system are the further advances in equipment; within that there are a number of prospects to look forward to. Theres a lot of APSC with little to look forward to as cheap FF takes up the advanced options previously held by APSC.
    Excellent Riley - why couldn't I put it that well!

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Short story - if you liked the E-M5, you'll like the E-M1 (or vice versa). 18 months later, basically the same image quality at the RAW level.

    I'm still waiting for a usable ISO 6400. That's the point where I can finally declare victory and go home (e.g. stop looking forward to the next generation of m4/3).

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Well, and that was what I was disagreeing with, and if you're talking of people like Ming Thein, then I know who's opinions I value
    I don't believe I have said Ming Thein. :-) But you are certainly more than empowered to value anyone's opinion.

    You also clearly disagreed with the sensor photo site site, and provided what you thought was evidence to it, to support your claim, as part of why my claim was wrong.

    When the very logic and evidence you proposed to use did not work out (and nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter to owning to it and moving on- there should be absolutely no shame in that), you just changed the subject/approach/criteria ignoring that. That suggests an approach that invites thinking, clinging to previous thought no matter what.

    We can just agree to disagree at that point.

    So let's change the subject slightly - The Q7 is obviously an interesting camera - the only reason I'm not going there is because I have to carry a bag anyway, so either an M or an E-M1 are simple to carry about.
    Cool. For my needs I can have a carry bag too but (i) I still find that cumbersome (ii) the Q7 makes me more invisible on the streets with a leaf shutter and size (iii) the Q7 handles surprisingly well, (iv) I can fit the entire lens system of it in my coat pockets and (v) the Q7 does better, much better than people think, as a canvas of light.

    I actually feel that APS-c is Dooooomed (it'll fall between the stool of smaller lenses (43) and that of smaller DOF (FF)) we shall see (this is an opinion, not a fact).
    That's fine. I have seen similar reasons to think m4/3rds is doomed but more in a twist were APS-C comes down too fast while FF does not come down as fast while the 1'' sensors move up.

    What I think is as long as the price differentiation exist, all formats will continue. Even say a Nikon 1 format, with the P&S cameras gone.

    - Ricardo

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    I dont think DxO is a bad thing, but I can remember plenty of times when its been used to batter the 43rds format by individuals on a mission to destroy it.
    Who? I saw many times individuals simply trying to state a truth being told they were trying to do exactly that simply because they didn't agree with some claims or propositions within the system. I would imagine there would be a couple as there exist for everything.

    I certainly believe that you didn't see DxO in good light- at least before given previous conversations.

    and I dont buy the 'bigger sensor is always better argument' it isnt. No camera is a panacea, they all have points for and against.

    As an example, it was popular with 'theorists' to drag out D800 'king of' DxO specs to derail positive perceptions about M5. Until it was pointed out that its noise performance and DR metrics are actually in arrears to M5 when put into the equivalence context.
    Actually the D800 still does have better DR, ISO and color depth. That hasn't changed at all. I am not sure if I saw the so called evidence of the equivalent shooting you mention, but I did see one claim with imaging resources raws and the claim was flawed due to several reasons:

    1 - It ignored the fact the D800 has more megapixels, so even in the event the EM1 sensor edged per pixel the D800 slightly at higher ISO, downsampling a D800 3x+MP to 16 will more than make up for any difference.
    2 - It ignored other sensor aspects as DR, color sensitivity
    3 - It finally ignored that the comparison had to resort to an equivalence- to m4/3rds in order for the em1 to even be compared at all in terms of sensor performance.
    4 - that then there's no equivalent comparison at all in native FF (i.e. Fast lenses using the sensor at the same ISO then with shorter DOF).

    Basically FF gives you the choice there by stopping down while in m4/3rds you don't have the choice back when opening up.

    Does this really matter to all photographers? No. All systems have tradeoffs. I recognize the D800 has one of the best sensor image quality out there, yet I would not buy nor carry one even if I had cash to burn.

    Further examples encounter the usefulness of some lenses. In my own occupation good ultra wides are not so easy to find, yet I have the trio of 7-14, 9-18, and 11-22 that can all shoot very well at f/4.5. I dont know many lenses that compare with that and still provide an expansive DoF.
    A bit misleading since the lens comparison with what you can do goes both ways. It certainly depends what each photographer is looking for.

    On a more positive note Nikons 14-24 fits well, as does the very enviable MF Canon TS17, but they still need to run f/9 to compare in DoF, and that is so much harder on flash equipment and batteries because they get outside the ideal exposure window. They can both raise the ISO but they still cant drag the shutter as well as stabilised Olympus, so they have to shoot off a tripod to match my shooting window.
    They can raise the iso and in doing so, match. Olympus will have in some situations an advantage as you mention with the IBIS (not that the other system have horrible IBIS options- they do have reasonably good ones too). But there's also other advantages to shooting it FF, so pros and cons.

    There are a lot of very good choices out there for the present, and considerable support for a number of shooting propositions. What is important for those of us within this system are the further advances in equipment; within that there are a number of prospects to look forward to. Theres a lot of APSC with little to look forward to as cheap FF takes up the advanced options previously held by APSC.
    That's a hard claim to make given the advances happening in APS-C. Both systems are moving forward with a plurality of options.

    - Ricardo

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by dhazeghi View Post
    Short story - if you liked the E-M5, you'll like the E-M1 (or vice versa). 18 months later, basically the same image quality at the RAW level.
    Sure seems that way ;-) I am actually happy to see Olympus moving forward with the EM-5 vs what was the E-3/E-5 design by committee (the words of at least two big review sites).

    I'm still waiting for a usable ISO 6400. That's the point where I can finally declare victory and go home (e.g. stop looking forward to the next generation of m4/3).
    I do not know what specifically your ISO 6400 needs are but I am inclined to think the ISO 6400 on the EM1 is reasonable for a wide range of uses, even if not does not match APS-C (or I shall say everything but Canon APS-C :-) ).

    - Ricardo

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Oooh, 15 posts of troll-bashing. Nothing like martial arts for breakfast. Batter away, boys.

    scott
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Who? I saw many times individuals simply trying to state a truth being told they were trying to do exactly that simply because they didn't agree with some claims or propositions within the system. I would imagine there would be a couple as there exist for everything.

    I certainly believe that you didn't see DxO in good light- at least before given previous conversations.
    In the beginning the context of those previous discussions was based on your incorrect assertions that Olympus were cheating their ISO.
    The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.
    Around that time you were using DxO noise data based on their interpretation of ISO.

    Also back when M5 was released prior to the release of the long coming DxO data you assured everyone that your take on M5 was that the sensor was no better than GX1. I argued against that and predicted a 12.4 stop DR, as it happened when the data was released DxO measured it as 12.3. If I was asked, I would say you seem to have a penchant for trashing Olympus in particular masked with faint praise.

    At the end of the day its a simple proposition, I just dont think DxO always matches reality, but then really what does. So I am happy to take the case whenever it appears. Take the case of 6D vs M1. On the 'equivalent basis m1 flattens 6D, but in reality 6D is one of the cleanest performing FF out there, certainly more than a shake better than D800. Yet D800 was pronounced the king of DxO, so go figure..

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Actually the D800 still does have better DR, ISO and color depth. That hasn't changed at all. I am not sure if I saw the so called evidence of the equivalent shooting you mention, but I did see one claim with imaging resources raws and the claim was flawed due to several reasons:

    1 - It ignored the fact the D800 has more megapixels, so even in the event the EM1 sensor edged per pixel the D800 slightly at higher ISO, downsampling a D800 3x+MP to 16 will more than make up for any difference.
    2 - It ignored other sensor aspects as DR, color sensitivity
    3 - It finally ignored that the comparison had to resort to an equivalence- to m4/3rds in order for the em1 to even be compared at all in terms of sensor performance.
    4 - that then there's no equivalent comparison at all in native FF (i.e. Fast lenses using the sensor at the same ISO then with shorter DOF).
    again this is only true when one disregards equivalent settings but this is common. People like to have this both ways, they like to say the higher ISO is cleaner, and they have the benefit of lower ISO DR. If they ever operated both a m43rds and a FF body they would realise a few things, that raising ISO to hold shutter speed is a common issue and generally negates any performance advantage while retaining operational disadvantages. FF can go shallower, but I can run slower with any lens. Some FF has resolution advantages, OTOH web and print resolutions are crushed by the medium but FF still carry a burden with edges and corners

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Basically FF gives you the choice there by stopping down while in m4/3rds you don't have the choice back when opening up.
    of all the FF SLRs D800 is the diffraction monster. Even Nikon material shows the thing is in trouble due to softening at f/11 and that users are better off with better quality lenses, they even provide a list. Stopping down is one thing it can do, but at a severe penalty. This isnt to say there arent better value FF propositions out there, but then for some reason DxO nuts always seem to drag D800 out as proof of their assertions. Yet here it is in all its 'equivalent' glory.

    shifted those 2 stops east, whos right on sensor performance of these two cameras?
    The actual target D800 should match is the grey plot on its right, it falls well short of that, i.e. it is 'behind' the curve


    I didnt buy M1 based on assumptions like these, I bought it to advance m43 kit I already operate and to continue using 43rds lenses. I picked pretty early that review sites were using poor RAW conversions so kept examining jpegs at mid/high ISO for detail and heavy NR effects and found myself happy with the ISO 1600 regime.

    Along the way Ive had a few surprises that made me realise how far cameras have come and what the practical and operational divides actually are.
    For the most part they are not what people think, and certainly not what is argued about.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d
    Does this really matter to all photographers? No. All systems have tradeoffs. I recognize the D800 has one of the best sensor image quality out there, yet I would not buy nor carry one even if I had cash to burn.

    A bit misleading since the lens comparison with what you can do goes both ways. It certainly depends what each photographer is looking for.

    They can raise the iso and in doing so, match. Olympus will have in some situations an advantage as you mention with the IBIS (not that the other system have horrible IBIS options- they do have reasonably good ones too). But there's also other advantages to shooting it FF, so pros and cons.

    That's a hard claim to make given the advances happening in APS-C. Both systems are moving forward with a plurality of options.

    IMO C&N are rolling out of APSC for all but base options. Sony have recognised this and have been quick to adjust. If not the next generation then the generation after, mirrorless will obliterate any perceived advantage of SLR formats irrespective of size.

    Mirrorless and processing are the future.
    Last edited by Riley; 4th November 2013 at 21:55. Reason: additions
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    This was my claim:

    I stand by it. I can make the list if you want.

    ** snip **

    - Ricardo
    While you're standing by that claim, you may find it interesting to see comparisons of shots from the cameras in question.

    That difference between the best m4/3 and the 7100 is, in real terms, rather insignificant.

    Olympus E-M1 Review - Overview

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    In the beginning the context of those previous discussions was based on your incorrect assertions that Olympus were cheating their ISO.
    Can you please quote where I said Olympus was cheating in their ISO? Where did I say such thing?

    The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.
    Around that time you were using DxO noise data based on their interpretation of ISO.

    Let's start from the beginning here because I am not sure what the beginning is. I started to look at DXo way WAY before this. And examination of what I did with the e-620 pre-dates this post.

    Also back when M5 was released prior to the release of the long coming DxO data you assured everyone that your take on M5 was that the sensor was no better than GX1. I argued against that and predicted a 12.4 stop DR, as it happened when the data was released DxO measured it as 12.3. If I was asked, I would say you seem to have a penchant for trashing Olympus in particular masked with faint praise.
    That is a big mischaracterization of what I have historically done and as such a complete half truth. You keep bringing this up and I am glad you do because it proves a major point- I was very wrong about the DR about the E-M5, but I also fully admitted it, corrected myself when the evidence (still pre-dxo) was presented in RAW files which I examined with draw. If anything that just proves more than anything that I am interested in truth, not in making things up- which was very often the case in other situations where the "camera doing better or as good as" didn't come true (particularly the E-5).

    None of the people that were trying to correct me came pretty much with virtually any more valid arguments than when the same story happened with the E-5 or even previous camera. And that includes you. So yes, this time I was wrong, while the people who would usually blindly expect a great performance for anything new Olympus, were more (most) by chance right than wrong. That still doesn't mean they were logical at all in it.

    In the meant time I have at times admitted when I have been incorrect. I can't say the same for you. Since imagine you are human well.. .but ok, let's focus on other things.

    At the end of the day its a simple proposition, I just dont think DxO always matches reality, but then really what does. So I am happy to take the case whenever it appears. Take the case of 6D vs M1. On the 'equivalent basis m1 flattens 6D, but in reality 6D is one of the cleanest performing FF out there, certainly more than a shake better than D800. Yet D800 was pronounced the king of DxO, so go figure..
    I have to say in general DXo has corroborated with what I have found with all the cameras I have had the use of. So I cannot agree with you though that doesn't mean Dxo is going to be perfect. But yes, I do not think the EM1 sensor will put with the D800.

    again this is only true when one disregards equivalent settings but this is common. People like to have this both ways, they like to say the higher ISO is cleaner, and they have the benefit of lower ISO DR.
    No, with even with the equivalence, I see the resolution difference is being disregarded. This would more than make up for any other lingering differences. Of course the FF will give you the other option not available in m4/3rds. But like I said- pros and cons. m4/3rds is far lighter, I would certainly pick m43/rds for my personal use over FF.

    If they ever operated both a m43rds and a FF body they would realise a few things, that raising ISO to hold shutter speed is a common issue and generally negates any performance advantage while retaining operational disadvantages. FF can go shallower, but I can run slower with any lens. Some FF has resolution advantages, OTOH web and print resolutions are crushed by the medium but FF still carry a burden with edges and corners
    Not sure if you refer to the lens performances but that depends on the lens. It's not like m4/3rds as a standard performs like good old 4/3rds.


    of all the FF SLRs D800 is the diffraction monster. Even Nikon material shows the thing is in trouble due to softening at f/11 and that users are better off with better quality lenses, they even provide a list. Stopping down is one thing it can do, but at a severe penalty. This isnt to say there arent better value FF propositions out there, but then for some reason DxO nuts always seem to drag D800 out as proof of their assertions. Yet here it is in all its 'equivalent' glory.
    Even with the diffraction you still have more resolution to downsample from.

    shifted those 2 stops east, whos right on sensor performance of these two cameras?
    The actual target D800 should match is the grey plot on its right, it falls well short of that, i.e. it is 'behind' the curve


    For the case of the two stops in the DR case, yes, I think you made a good case. That's of course only if you shoot with the same DOF. For many shots separating just 1 stop DOF things aren't that clear, let alone in the other categories and let alone if you do not need to shoot 2 stops closer. And not to be misleading: yes, the D800 will still beat the Em1 hands down at shooting a landscape in a high contrast situation, so the DR advantage in a lot of shots is still quite real.

    I didnt buy M1 based on assumptions like these, I bought it to advance m43 kit I already operate and to continue using 43rds lenses. I picked pretty early that review sites were using poor RAW conversions so kept examining jpegs at mid/high ISO for detail and heavy NR effects and found myself happy with the ISO 1600 regime.
    Certainly one has to buy according to needs and wants, but I was never against that point. My point is what seems to be this "complex" if you will of some to prove at all costs that 4/3rds, m4/3rds is just as good as APS-C or even FF. There are tradeoffs for every single one of them. Like I said, I would never buy myself a D800 or carry one even if I had the cash. That doesn't mean I need to think for example that the K-5 or Fuji matches it.

    So, you can say what you want *now that finally* there's a reasonably good sensor in m4/3rds with the advent of the Em-5 and Panasonic's GX7's, but the whole of this conversation in its context dates back to a time when that was not even the case (and it's not even now,t here are still tradeoffs but the balance is pretty reasonable, imho). IN the days of the E-5 many things were said that were simply not true, that camera was quite lacking vs competitors at the time it came out in the sensor department.

    Along the way Ive had a few surprises that made me realise how far cameras have come and what the practical and operational divides actually are.
    For the most part they are not what people think, and certainly not what is argued about.

    IMO C&N are rolling out of APSC for all but base options. Sony have recognised this and have been quick to adjust. If not the next generation then the generation after, mirrorless will obliterate any perceived advantage of SLR formats irrespective of size.

    Mirrorless and processing are the future.
    Well, but there are ASPC mirror less and FF mirror less. If your proposition is that mirror less cameras are the future, yes, I can most likely agree with that. That's a different point though.

    - Ricardo

  32. #32
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: DXO Em-1

    OK, I'm going word blind at this point. Can we all move on please? This isn't dpreview.

    Thank you Ricardo, Riley with respect to you both.

    Brian
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Member Craftysnapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    Oooh, 15 posts of troll-bashing. Nothing like martial arts for breakfast. Batter away, boys.

    scott
    I could not agree more Scott

    This reminds me of my film day when the tec heads who could not take a decent image to save there lives spent all there time photographing test charts and arguing one lens was better than another when in the real world the differences were not to be seen in the largest prints (does anybody print large now).

    Once at a international exhibition where I had a 20x16 b&W print excepted two guys were looking at it when one said to the other that must have been a expensive lens used to get that quality (the type of 35mm camera used did not make a difference in those days}.

    I could not resist butting in and telling them it was mine and had been taken with a Cosina 135mm f2.8 lens that I had brought second hand for 15 and they quiclky moved on chuntering to there selves.

    Nice to see nothing has changed in my 30 year of photography just that there is more of it with the invention of the internet.

    By the way just like Ricardo who used to use as E-400 and changed to Pentax, I also changed from a E-30 (Panasonic 12mp sensor) to to a Pentax K-30 for better image quality.

    But then I brought a MTF system E-PL5 as a carry around camera and ran both systems side by side for nearly twelve months, but here is the thing when comparing images I was consistantly getting better quality with the mtf system than the Pentax one, so for me it was a no brainer a lighter system with equal or better image quality so I sold my Pentex system and brought a E-M5.

    Now this decision was made on real world use of both camera systems side by side not test charts, DXO ratings or sensor size and pixel pitch but what I was seeing on my monitor and prints, and for me real world is where it counts not if its APC-S or MFT which I could not give a monkeys about.
    Regards Paul. One day I hope to be the person my dog thinks I am.
    My Photo Galleries
    My Flickr Photostream

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by Craftysnapper View Post
    I could not agree more Scott

    This reminds me of my film day when the tec heads who could not take a decent image to save there lives spent all there time photographing test charts and arguing one lens was better than another when in the real world the differences were not to be seen in the largest prints (does anybody print large now).

    Once at a international exhibition where I had a 20x16 b&W print excepted two guys were looking at it when one said to the other that must have been a expensive lens used to get that quality (the type of 35mm camera used did not make a difference in those days}.

    I could not resist butting in and telling them it was mine and had been taken with a Cosina 135mm f2.8 lens that I had brought second hand for 15 and they quiclky moved on chuntering to there selves.

    Nice to see nothing has changed in my 30 year of photography just that there is more of it with the invention of the internet.

    By the way just like Ricardo who used to use as E-400 and changed to Pentax, I also changed from a E-30 (Panasonic 12mp sensor) to to a Pentax K-30 for better image quality.

    But then I brought a MTF system E-PL5 as a carry around camera and ran both systems side by side for nearly twelve months, but here is the thing when comparing images I was consistantly getting better quality with the mtf system than the Pentax one, so for me it was a no brainer a lighter system with equal or better image quality so I sold my Pentex system and brought a E-M5.

    Now this decision was made on real world use of both camera systems side by side not test charts, DXO ratings or sensor size and pixel pitch but what I was seeing on my monitor and prints, and for me real world is where it counts not if its APC-S or MFT which I could not give a monkeys about.

    Since apparently if I am one of those "...tec heads who could not take a decent image to save there lives spent all there time photographing test charts and arguing..." - did I get that right? please by all means correct me on that one, - one may think from what you wrote that I would never touch a Q with a ten foot pole yet that's what I am using for a lot of my work.

    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/48549-fun-q7.html

    I already mentioned that all systems have their tradeoffs and it all depends what you are trying to do and what you want. *shrugs*

    Ah yes, you couldn't care less about this discussion, but you had to post some condescending opinion on it all right? But no worries, I know you know oh so much better. ;-)

    - Ricardo

  35. #35
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Ricardo,

    This is getting very boring, you are beating a dead horse. Why don't you keep that for the DPreview forums ? No need to import these endless arguments here.

    Ok, you own a Pentax K something and a Pentax Q (which I would never want to buy) and perhaps a D800 (?), so why do you need to come here and tell us that our cameras have crappy sensors, or at least not the last state of the art sensor ? Use the cameras you own/want and let us enjoy ours in peace. Why all this flood of negativity ?
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    I
    When the very logic and evidence you proposed to use did not work out (and nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter to owning to it and moving on- there should be absolutely no shame in that), you just changed the subject/approach/criteria ignoring that.
    I changed the subject because I didn't want to carry on with a pointless argument - is all.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    Ricardo,

    This is getting very boring, you are beating a dead horse. Why don't you keep that for the DPreview forums ? No need to import these endless arguments here.

    Ok, you own a Pentax K something and a Pentax Q (which I would never want to buy) and perhaps a D800 (?), so why do you need to come here and tell us that our cameras have crappy sensors, or at least not the last state of the art sensor ? Use the cameras you own/want and let us enjoy ours in peace. Why all this flood of negativity ?
    Sorry but you don't get to ask me a question like "so when are you going to stop beating your wife?" There was a Dxo discussion. It seems that when there is a discussion and someone presents arguments people may not want to hear, or when someone wants to discuss and finds the truth about say AF in a new model (I saw you were in that discussion too, at least following it), then this person is portrayed as "the bad guy."

    I am really sorry I see you playing that game. Also, do you feel obligated and compelled any thread even when he discussion is boring or sounds "negative?" Why follow a thread or discussion of no interest to you?

    Please point out where exactly I said "your camera has a crappy sensor." (in private if you will so we can stop the thread now). I never said such thing in this discussion of the EM1/EM5 sensor. If all you want to do when trying to have a reasonable discussion is just read what you want to hear, then I don't know what to tell you.

    I actually stopped when Brian kindly asked it, because he was nice about it and quite frankly like you, I was getting bored with the ongoing discussion. But then I see a condescending comment and felt the need to reply to it- as I also feel the need now to set the record straight with you now.

    As for what I own, I own more 4/3rds equipment (still) than anything else. No, I don't own a D800. And I made it very clear above that I would never buy one.

    You will note that the discussion was about Dxo and what it meant, and why a camera with different sensor sizes does different yield of DR, ISO, tones, color sensitivity. I even gave the example of the Q as an example that I am not just following a high Dxo score to pick a camera.

    Note who introduced what subjects, and what it was replied with. Please read more carefully before attributing me with things that I am not quite responsible for.

    - Ricardo

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    rayyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DXO Em-1

    Tea? Anyone?.
    koffee & kamera
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: DXO Em-1

    OK, please please please.
    This is not in the spirit of this forum.
    Those who cannot follow our rules of decorum will be asked to take their flames elsewhere.
    thanks
    -bob
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •