Why did Nikon include the basically unusable high ISO settings?
Equvivalent Aperture must me the most stupid concept I ever saw. Exposure are the same at the same f/stop for whatever format. I do understand that you are talking about total light collected, but that take for granted that the sensors are equvivlaently effective. (And often the smaler the more effective.)
I got After Shot 2 Pro for free with my purchase of PSP 8. If I can get close to the same results, LR 6 may soon be history for me...
TorsteinH: That BSI sensor would be nice in a new Olympus EM1 II ...
An existing camera! :-) And a better sensor than in the current EM-1 and still a great selection of great lenses.
That BSI sensor would be nice in a new Olympus EM1 II ...
Laszlo13: Strange that there are different interpretations of the images. To me - detail and tonal range seems improved at base ISO (200) over EM5-II. It falls somewhere between the EM5-II and A6000. Both RAW and JPEG. At higher ISOs, i.e. 1600, the GX8 does show more color noise than the E-M5II, slightly, but with still greater detail. I always find Fuji to lack detail, both RAW and JPEG, in every single comparison, including this one. Yes it's got clean images, up the ISO scale, but show less detail and tonal range.
Anyway, to me, the sensor while improved is not a huge improvement at base ISO, and minimal at high ISO (if any).
Strange that Fuji dont even manage in camera JPGs with more detail as far as I can see.
Nope, you got it the wrong way! The demosaicing of Fujis sensor becasue og the pixel pattern is like adding quite a bit of chroma noice reduction to normal sensor. To me it's often easy to spot a Fuji photo with its unatural plastic look.
Fuji lose detail because of their unique sensor
PhotoKhan: First off all, a big thanks to LensRental and DPR for making and publicizing this.
LensRental is probably one of the few outfits out there that, by its own nature, have the ability to test extensive series of a same lens but it is a blessing to us all that they actually opt to engage in things like this. They are certainly becoming a reference.
Secondly, from a Canon user's perspective, this confirms what I've been noticing.
Not only has Canon turned into a manufacturer that simply "does not know" how to make less than stellar optics nowadays but they seem to also have taken their market's pulse and have now cracked QA in lenses, the less than optimal standard of which had historically led to problems in older offers.
The 24-105 f/4 L IS was the last Canon lens I remember having to "sample pick" from and this seems to show why.
Thank you, both LR and DPR, for the very informative piece.
According to the test Canon indeed know how to make lenses: " But we did see that new Canon lenses seem to be doing much better. When you sort the table above, it's clear that there are several new Canon designs at the top of the consistency scores."
Impressive, fine sharpnes and fine relaxed bokeh
Great and interesting color documentation of a time log gone!
Taking old slides into this century can be a long and hard process. I have worked through my 30 + + years old slides with a relatively modern slides scanner, and the result was just OK. Technically I wonder, is it not simpler to just project them on a screen and simply take a picture with your D800 or whatever modern digital camera you prefer?
TorsteinH: Strange, but to me the files, both RAW and JPG looks like they have a heavy noise reduction done. Faces looks like they are made of plastic! The loss of detail is obvious compared to Nikon 7100 or Olympus OMD E-M5. (Just select RAW and compare the files here at DPR) So how this camera can get a high score for image quality is hard to understand.
I am quite sure this has more to do with the x-trans technology than RAW developer.
Strange, but to me the files, both RAW and JPG looks like they have a heavy noise reduction done. Faces looks like they are made of plastic! The loss of detail is obvious compared to Nikon 7100 or Olympus OMD E-M5. (Just select RAW and compare the files here at DPR) So how this camera can get a high score for image quality is hard to understand.
I'm sure this contest could have had thousands of entries, we have all made that sunset shot....
Mirrorless Crusader: DPR there is a flaw in your scoring system in that you don't seem to account for size, weight, or portability at all. For example, this camera and the E-M1 are listed in the same category (mid-range ILC/DSLR), but looking at the individual categories, you haven't factored in anywhere how much smaller, lighter, and more travel friendly the E-M5 and its corresponding lens options are compared to the 70D. This is a huge thing for many people to consider when choosing a camera, and again, you put these two in the same category, so it is totally unfair not to factor this into your score, especially the value score. You say the E-M1 is equal to or better than the 70D at everything except video, but that it is a far worse value. The fact is that a lot of the E-M1's value comes from its portability compared to a DSLR and I think you are failing to consider that in your scores.
You have obviously not used the new mrrorless cameras. If you had done so you would have known that the camera body is less than half the equation. The camera needs a object called lens....
Gold award for a camera with slow focus that takes close to 1 sec to focus and then a seond delay until next shoot. But maybee I'm missing something...?
High ISO looks pretty good compared to my E-M5! Impressive!
Why convert to DNG? ( Iee that this is discussed in this tread already.)