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.)
TOM SKY: Micro 4/3 Format has become well established via Olympus and Panasonic wide range of products. Regardless of the amazing beneffit of the portable format I personaly believe Olympus would win greater audience with adding Full Frame Camera confirming its truly professional approach and over all status of real player in the photo market. Expanding the range with full frame option not only would spin the interest of the legendary Zuiko lenses devoted fans and reawaken the spirit but would also offer greater quality options for studio and landscape artists.
Do everybody want a larger sensor than 4/3s? I dont! The so called FF cameras are just a camera with a arbitary sensor size. Cameras that needs mirrors to work will soon be a rareity. In the meantime I can do with an updated E-5 with a new sensor, wi-fi built in and 5 way IBIS to use on my fine ZD lenses.
tlinn: Excuse me if this is an obvious question but does a 4/3 sensor really lose two stops worth of DOF compared to a so-called full frame sensor? So it would take an f/2 lens on a 4/3 sensor to achieve roughly the same look as a full frame f/4? I knew there would be a reduction in low light IQ due to smaller pixel size but I never thought about the effect on DOF when migrating to a smaller camera.
That depends how you look at it! In many (most?) cases the extra DOF is in fact a bonus. Razor thin DOF can make it hard to get a picture in focus.
I could do quite a bit of PP in my Olympus E-5. Art Filters, cropping, multiexposures and different settings. All from RAW files.... According to the rules?
SammyToronto: This lens roadmap validates my decision of going with the m4/3 system over the NEX system when I was looking to buy a mirrorless camera last year. I had to choose between the NEX's superior sensors and m4/3 superior lens quality/collection and I decided the latter was more important (the m4/3 12/16mp sensors are plenty good enough for me, especially with the fast, quality reasonably-priced glass available). I returned the nex-5n and bought an e-pm1 + a panny 20mm lens and couldn't be happier.
I was planning to revisit the NEX system again when Sony release fast, quality, pancake primes, but that will apparently have to wait for some time yet.
Just set noice reduction and saturation to their max settings and Im sure your panasonic GF-3 can give you the same quality output! :-)
It may look better in real life, but looking at the pictures it do not looks like quality. I get a strong reminder of my 1969 Kodak Instamatic!
Richard Murdey: So this will be a GX-1 camera (feature-wise) with "OM" branding? Oh, great...
+ faster AF+ weather protection+ built in EVF+ Oly JPG engine+ better styiling...and maybe we even can use our old 4/3 lenses in a reasonable way!
So yes, its GREAT!
rocklobster: Some more samples at imaging resource - night time street images that are nothing special. Agressive noise reduction in use here not unlike higer end compacts - G12, LX5 etc. These and aother samples I have seen dont seem to be up to the level of M4/3.
Some looks at photos, while othe reads noice specs.
David Naylor: For those who still believe that you can have too many pixels: davidnaylor.org/blog/2010/04/the-myth-of-the-megapixel-myth/
I have been reading your page.All the mathematics there are useless because forget that the picture should be viewed by a human, and our "eye resoulution" combined with a normal viewing distance are way below 10 mpx for any print size. What you end up with are infleted files. But you can of course always crop yourself a new picture in corner of your 24mpix photo. Good luck!