Adrian Van: Nice to know that DXO did very well in this review from DPreview especially next to Lightroom. Most wedding photographers I talk to, use Adobe Lightroom and I have been using DXO for 4 years.For image quality DXO Pro 8 according to this review had the winners in certain image quality categories or tied.1. TWO-WAY TIE: Capture One Pro 7 and DxO Optics Pro 8 consistently provide natural, pleasing skin tones (from Portrait tests, may depend on camera though)2. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings.3. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 offers crisp default settings and superior results in the image corners. (default sharpening test, with lens / camera modules)4.WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8, with some manual adjustments produces very good high ISO detail while retaining more color data than the competition. (noise reduction test)Lightroom certainly did better in some tests as did Capture One, but I really like my DXO and its smart interface.
I was just having fun with it. I guess I was posting a bit too late at night - didn't realize I'd strike some nerves (sorry about that).
I knew my comments wouldn't apply to anyone who'd actually read this article on DPR.
My point was simply that some (I shouldn't have said "many") people act like it's a simple formula, rather than a serious craft. I find it annoying that a few seem to act as if all that's needed is a couple of Canons or Nikons, 2 zoom lenses, LR and a few plug-ins. No research or thought required. There are many options, and I'd like to know that the photographer at least considered them.
I think those who responded mostly agree with me. I was simply posting based on my observation that some wedding photographers keep passing the word on to one another to simply "use LR," with many never questioning the advice.
Many wedding photographers act like nothing else even exits - I bet quite a few of them literally believe that LR (or maybe LR and Aperture) is the only option out there! Heck, some of them don't even know there's such a thing as MF cameras, since Nikon and Canon don't make one!
EDIT: My mistake regarding MF cameras, I forgot - everyone who bought a Nikon D800 believes they already have one!
DStudio: The conclusions are a bit confounding. Why suggest equivalency when there are clear differences?
Of course each product has value and has its own strong points. But it doesn't take much effort to see that Capture 1 is pulling out amazing results that the others can't achieve. DXO is second, and LR is far behind. C1 is taking the exact same image and giving it better color, impact, and detail! This isn't surprising, as it aligns with other comparison reviews on the web.
LR has clear advantages in 3rd party support and list price, but let's not pretend its fundamental image processing abilities are equivalent!
@Revenant - interesting review. How ironic that he chose a sports photo, a category where the choice is often between doing minimal processing and none (because JPEGs need to be sent in on a strict timeframe).
Nevertheless, he managed to also produce a washed-out, flat, non-dimensional photo - as if this is the price of using LR.
I amazes me how people can be so undiscriminating, becoming almost giddy as they jump at the chance to do "a lot of work" with their preferred product to produce a mediocre result.
@plasnu - you're kidding, right?
Start at the begining, looking at the Default Color Rendering. LR is too washed out, and DXO is too dark. Then move to the skin tones - same thing. C1 gives you pleasing skin tones and colors without going one way or the other. Different cameras, same result. By rendering colors so well it gives more dimensionality to the images. Then look at the moire test, and tell me which one does a better job of rendering the singer's face, and the colors on his wrist band, and so on. Or the white fence toward the top of the crop from the Nikon D800E shot we've seen before. Only C1 delineates each of the horizontal lines, while maintaining a vivid white color. And if you keep looking you'll find more examples.
The conclusions are a bit confounding. Why suggest equivalency when there are clear differences?
slncezgsi: While this upgrade does make the tripod thinner when collapsed, it would not allow to flip the legs 180 deg. up (around the bullhead) to make the tripod shorter. Because of this feature my Feisol Tournament fits in carry-on luggage.
Also the platform on the top will get smaller (what may or may not be a disadvantage).
Do you mean the ball head? Or the mount it attaches to?
You just unscrew the ball head and take it off. And the mount for it adds less than 1" in height, so either way I think it's of little consequence.
RStyga: Stability improvements.. bug fixes. Apparently the contrast adjustment is secondary, although some users might find it important if shooting in strong daylight.
@LetsDoTheStapler - Don't be too hard on Pentax for what happened during the Hoya years. Ricoh is running the company quite differently. This year we'll find out how well Ricoh is really doing. By next January we should be able to make a more accurate assessment and appropriate comments about how well they're running the business - good or bad. Since product development cycles tend to take 18-24 months we'll just have to wait a bit longer until things have settled in.
Hoya could tear something down in a day, but it takes a long time for Ricoh to build it back up.
bcalkins: Well, I'm glad I downloaded the RAW and took a look. I can't see any problems with the LR 4.2 processing of the Fuji file - compared to the MFT camera I'm familiar with I'd say the files out of the Fuji look great, though the difference is not huge. The samples above really don't do the Fuji or ACR justice... Posting default ACR is an OK starting point for a comparison, but it certainly doesn't come close to showing the capabilities of that combination. I'd get the impression you are better off with jpgs and should avoid ACR from these samples above, which is not close to the reality. Not impressed with this article - using defaults gives you some ground to claim you don't have a bias, but misses the whole point of what cameras can do photographically. Is C1 better just because the defaults suit this camera better than ACR? Hardly...
@Robert Eckerlin - I too believe it's very important that LR and CS6 give good support of the X-Trans sensor. It's just that I have little confidence they will actually put the effort in.
According to the other posts here it appears that both Apple and Adobe have shown a great deal of apathy toward this sensor. It's as if Adobe engineers only wanted to make it good enough for their supervisor to allow them to check it off their checklist.
People who are excited about photography understand how great this sensor is, and they want to get the most out of it.
olypan: Maybe this piece is more about amazon getting too much heat from Canikon. There was a lot of excitement when the X100 launched which is being repeated with Xtrans and the new models. Seems like a desperate attempt to focus attention on an apparent negative.
@Robert Eckerlin - All Phase One employees I've met are very passionate about their work. I think that's how they manage to meet or exceed Adobe's technical performance in so many areas.
Yes, you're correct that the products need to be judged largely on the final result they can produce. But out of the box results count for A LOT. If I have a large number of photos to convert, I want to know that I can get very good results without making any adjustments. Then I can adjust any critical photos if I have time.
C1 doesn't "just happen" to have defaults that better suit this camera. Phase One makes a specific, targeted effort to produce quality camera profiles and good defaults for all the cameras they support. And why not? Their engine (especially the new one in v7) is very impressive, so why not let everyone take advantage of it with their own camera?
Although the LR4/CS6 engine is much improved, Adobe still seems to have the attitude that "we'll let the end-user do all the work."
joel avery: Yes!
OS X is already doing the 2x scaling needed (to be able to see the menus at a normal size) because of the MacBook Retina models. It's possible a "hacked" OS X would do the same here. But Apple won't endorse this tablet, so it won't become "a Mac" unless Apple produces one.
What would happen is Windows would be given a similar "2x"-like scaling capability before this goes on sale.
Mescalamba: Why would anyone buy this?
@miles green - agreed. I have never used the hot shoe or purchased the EVF for my XZ-1. The former is unnecessary on this level of camera, and the latter is too expensive (how can I spend $250 on an EVF when I only spent $400 on the camera? Not a good value proposition).
If this camera matches the performance of the XZ-2, then it isn't behind the times at all. There's even a chance Pentax eked a little more out of the sensor, just as they do with their DSLRs. While I doubt they spent a lot of time or money on the development, Pentax engineering is quite good at optimizing performance where they want to.
Rocky ID Olympian: Olympus E-M5 has:- great IBIS- just the right size- touch tilting screen. If only it has swivel like E-3/E-5- Live Time/BULB (cant believe not mentioned yet). Groundbreaking technology for long exposures- one key success is the new Sony sensor. It nullified the gap between 4/3 size and APSC. OM-D would never be as popular with Old 12 MP Pana sensor that Olympus was "forced to use liked it or not" for years.- the availability of m4/3 lens is just right in 2012. just only this year we have a wide selection of HQ prime lenses, and the 2 f2.8 zooms from Panasonic.- the classic look is the icing on top.
Timing is just right for Olympus.
I've been an Oly user for quiet some time, and I have accepted the compromises of (m)4/3. Some image quality for portability. Its just this time the sacrificed IQ is the smallest ever, since I used Oly cameras! I guess this is why FF and APSC users tempted to use OM-D as their daily camera or even ditched their bigger cameras all the way.
Yes, but did he invent the internet?
The Olympus OM-D is merely m4/3 finally reaching its potential.
Fujifilm X-Pro 1, Nikon D800E, and Sony RX1 are changing the direction of the industry, as will be clear next year.
harry cannoli: I have to admit I'm a little bummed that the LX7 failed to stand out in any meaningful way, despite the fact that I'm a hardcore DSLR shooter who adores this little camera. Sheesh, I am a fanboy.
I suppose the big sensor in the Sony means so much more than the beautiful, super-fast, pin sharp lens in the LX7?
The lens makes the magic, the sensor records the magic made by the lens. The Sony sensor does an absolutely fantastic job of recording images created by it's plain vanilla lens. Of course the magic created by the lens is a personal judgement, but that Panny lens stands out, heads and shoulders above the pack. How can I see this and the respected, highly competent reviewers barely acknowledge the outstanding flavor of that Panny lens?
Oh, never mind. I'm a fanboy :(
Thank you Richard for getting this done. Good job.
The lens is the reason I bought the XZ-1 18 months ago, and it's the reason I'd consider the XZ-2 and LX7 if I were buying today.
Because of its other class-leading characteristics I think it's fair to put the Sony in the top 3 as well, but I still prioritize the lens.
As impressive as the LX7 lens is, keep in mind that the XZ-2 has less variance in the maximum aperture, yet does so over a wider zoom range. Because of this the XZ-2 should be less than 1/3 stop slower than the Panasonic's at equivalent focal lengths, and about equal at 90mm.
I think one of the more interesting points is that the K-5 II output is different from the K-5, and I think I like it better.
I happen to have purchased the K-5 IIs to complement my K-5.
It's clear that the K-5 IIs is a trade-off. It gives a more 3D effect than I see with the other cameras. For example, the needle going into the X on top of the playing card looks like I could reach out and grab it on the IIs. I even see it out-doing the D800E in some respects, like this one. But the D800E has the obvious MP advantages and handles moire better when a scene is viewed at equivalent size.
At other places, like feathers, they almost pixelate too much - that is, like the "jaggies," which is exactly what an AA-filter adjusts.
Fortunately moire hasn't been an issue for me in real-life shooting. But it will happen.
Overall I think the K-5 IIs has been a good choice for me. It certainly allows resolution that differentiates my better lenses from the rest, and gives me new capabilities.
Combatmedic870: Compare the LX7 vs the XZ-1.....The XZ-1 looks better in low iso and its almost draw in high iso(the XZ-1 has more color noise @ iso 800 and 1600, but retains more detail.) The LX7 output is VERY much so like the XZ-1(except in the low iso's and colors.(the oly is more punchy and saturated)) That is NOT a bad thing at all. The XZ-1's raw output is very very good(a little noisy, but very sharp).
ISO1600 does seem to be more useable vs the XZ-1 though, due to the lack of color noise. The use of iso 1600 and 1.4 would be some pretty low light.
So you can now shoot 1080p video...but since they had to switch to cmos sensors vs CCD. There is more noise in the lower iso's...Lens sharpness and speed is the only real gain(which is a REALLY good thing), unless your a video shooter
If you were just getting into buying a camera like this and wanted a wide angle shooter. This is going to be your best choice out of the bunch.
If my XZ-1 died, I would buy this. Very nice job Panny!
Today, if my XZ-1 died, I'd get the LX7 too. But when the XZ-2 comes out, I'm not so sure ... .
Renzokuken: dpreview seems to be on a decline these days.
first critiques were aplenty for iPhone reviews, followed by the integration of dxO's very debatable database into their lens review, and now...
using photo prints in a camera test scene.
I find all these critiques/feedback as valid. I hope dpreview can take all these comments positively and do consider modifying a few decisions.
#1Photos prints fade overtime#2camera used to capture the photo in the prints has its own version and method of rendering color, does not give accurate color impression to viewers#3 print quality might affect camera test, a blurred line can be both be due to bad print quality or the camera used to take the test scene itself
please use lesser photo prints
Come on people. If you're too dumb to recognize that the color in a test-scene photo isn't a direct representation of the camera's native color rendering, then you deserve to be confused.
ginsbu: Any plans for a mobile-optimized version?
As is more common now, please make sure it's clear that the user is on the mobile version of the site, and make it easy to switch back.
Also, please make the site suited to some popular tablets - at least the iPad. Whether this means the using mobile site may depend on your layout. If it does mean using the mobile site, perhaps the regular site should still be the default for tablets.
Impressive performance - I guess DxOMark isn't lying. In High ISO performance it appears to be less than one stop away from the D4 and D3S - especially based on the RAW studio samples.