How about Olympus OM-D? Is it faster and with support for OpenGL?
Does quantitative imaging analysis means it will benchmark an image for noise and color saturation like DXOMark?
Could someone please see if it opens olympus OM-D raw files since Im not able to download it now. Thanks
After opening in raw therapee 4 I can say:
It is better than what is expected from this sensor size:
Iso 25600 from nikon d4 is slightly worse in DR than iso 6400 of OM-D (but with higher color saturation).
Nex5N is slightly ahead at iso 6400 but with less DR (almost equal shadows in OM-D but the OM-D has noticeable more highlight headroom) it has a little more color saturation too.
At base iso it has much better DR performance, and color saturation than Panasonic GX1 both in the shadows and in the highlights (at high iso its more or less a stop of difference adding shadows and highlights so iso 3200 in gx1 is like 6400 in OM-D).
It has +- the same DR as Canon 1D Mark IV at base iso.
It has the same shadow noise as panasonic gh-2 but with just a little better midtones and with much more headroom in highlights (half a stop at least)
there is detail in the rat untill at least iso 12800... isso 25600 has color noiseof the yellow/green kind... and it has banding of the largest pattern I have ever seen..
at iso 6400 its excellent since there is almost no color noise and there is plenty detail that would clean well at high iso blacks are blacks color saturation is very good... white balance doesn't shift.... blue channel noise is very well controlled until iso 6400
the best setting is noise filter low with sharpening at -1
Post some portraits wide open full body please
By the way I want a dpreview APP in Android:) with a good forum and good comparometer (at least with 2 cameras). Thanks.
If you go to olympus japan site you have there samples from iso 200 to iso 25800 :results at low resolution images: iso 25800 unsable; iso12800 really looked usable... and iso 6400 should really look like e-p3 iso 1600!!!!1 that would make iso 3200 very good which is ISO that takes you to f2.8 3200 and 1/60 (weddings) or f2.8 3200 1/500 (indoor sports)
The increased DR mode is probably the ability to see the tone curve. Sometimes we overexposure by 0.3 or underexpose by 0.3 so if you dial the tone curve to maximum higlight retention you could have a way to see if the raw files would support post processing in the hilights without the need to lift shadows so its great! It detects faces and focus on the near eye which is good for 45mm f1.8 lens.
Does anyone notices an improvement in noise reduction? instead of local edit can it have more noise reduction applied to shadows and less to highlights/midtones ? any improvement in color noise removal?
Marty4650: OK.... we can nitpick about this lens all we want. And there are plenty of good reasons to buy it or not buy it, based on your needs.
But... the real story here is that M4/3 has just given potential buyers one more reason to buy into M4/3 rather than NEX, NX, Nikon 1, or Pentax Q.
Lets look at the available native lenses for each format:
M4/3............26 AF lenses (9 primes, 15 zooms)NX.................9 AF lenses (5 primes, 4 zooms)NEX...............7 AF lenses (4 primes, 3 zooms)Pentax Q........5 AF lenses (4 prime, 1 zoom) 2 of which are "toy lenses"Nikon1 ..........4 AF lenses (1 prime, 3 zooms)
M4/3 is so far ahead of their competitors in lens availabilty that it's not even funny. Even if don't count the duplicate R and MSE versions, you still have a choice of around 22 AF lenses for M4/3.
check lenstip.com to see if the panasonic 45mm f2.8 OIS is a mediocre... it is outstanding... it could have a little better corners for a macro thats the only con
How about casio? wouldnt they have the money? its the only "big" camera manufacturer without rumors of a ILC.
is there any improvement in noise reduction from version 6?
colour noise absence was already one of the best in raw converters if not the best one... but luminance noise was not good (probably it was the demosaic or the way it eated to much detail to eliminate grain compared with lightroom 3... lets hope the new blur tool will get us this for those areas without detail where noise is most visible.
canon jpg is now the best one just look at iso 1600... by sensor size you can extrapolate that canon 1dx will have the same quality at 12800 that the canon has at iso 800!.. look in the shadows... thats the thing that matters for high iso... its just the best one and doesnt even have the bigger sensor of the compacts
Full area enlargement of AF area setting ---- is this the same as the PIP in panasonic g3 for manual focus?
the improvement in noise reduction is welcomed... if it is in raw it would be better (to get rid of the green tint at high iso) since grain is already acceptable...
I was worried with m43 performance! at low iso, only gh-2 have a slightly advantage at pixel level in chroma noise... but in luminance noise the v1 is actually a little better.
At high isos its true that m43 have more detail but they have coarser noise, colour blotches and blacks are noisier (although greys are the same between gh-2,g3 and v1).
As a m43 im waiting for a better sensor (if panasonic does black noise reduction and colour retention as well as nikon smoothed high iso raws then do it... i just want a setting that works great with lightroom 3 and it looks like panasonicds don't.
How is noise reduction at high iso compared with lightroom 3 ?
Please post some portraits with full body at f1.8 so that people can see how the background is blurred (to see if it is enough, which i think it isn't). For head and shoulders f2.8 is enough.
wainting for the mtf charts from dpreview:) but samples say the lens is sharp wide open...
it is important for m43 for video and for stills too
24mm is one of the universal focal lenghts (the other is 50mm) for aps-c FF and m43 so if it costs 250 euros and has good quality like the 95mm version it will sell well.... if somehow i bought i will buy it in sony A mount and convert to m43 when needed ;) since in ful frame 24mm f1.4 lenses are very expensive)