surprising lack of interest in G5 review

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
john Clinch
Senior MemberPosts: 2,807
Like?
Re: True Improvement (excitement) vs Repackaging (no buzz)
In reply to 007peter, Feb 8, 2013

Defending G5 for having great LOW ISO, is as silly as defending a Point/Shoot camera having great low iso (they all do) What really matters here is HIGH ISO, and G3 is a step backward compare to G3.

  • DXO G3 vs G5
  • G3 Sports (Low-Light ISO) = 667
  • G5 Sports (Low-Light ISO) = 618

I've never seen a better example of some one miss using data, outside of politics of course. If you look at the iso graphs for the for the G5 and G3 they are basically identical. Its unlikely that DXO labs could differentiate a random G5 from a random G3 on these results. it is of course partly the fault of DXO mark for undermining all their hard work by not quoting a confidence or uncertainty measure on their results.

The G5 does  get a huge boost in low iso dynamic range

I find this thread sadly disapointing. Things like MFT will grow on great mid range cameras, not top end models. From what I've read this camera is well refined. A step closer to the ideal camera. It sounds like the AF is better than some of the new on chip PDAF cameras

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow