Jylppy: How shall this remind me of all the cry of "poor DR" in Canon sensors. Now the same writers try to explain how lossy RAW compression is "OK". Whatever, Sony makes interesting cameras. It seems nobody is perfect.
That's not the point. The point is there is technical glitch and its reasons can be whatever. And while Canon receives Spanish Inquisition, fanboys try to bend the reality and say "compression is kind of OK" instead of giving Sony the same Spanish Inquisition. Btw. Usually such an solutions have been developed for an reason (e.g I/O bottleneck on image processor or memory buses).
How shall this remind me of all the cry of "poor DR" in Canon sensors. Now the same writers try to explain how lossy RAW compression is "OK". Whatever, Sony makes interesting cameras. It seems nobody is perfect.
cesjr: Nothing against this lens or FF DSLR, but when people wonder why Fuji ILC here's exactly why. I'm not saying this lens and FF Canon offer nothing over an XT-1 and 23 mm. But if you want something higher quality on the lens front but don't want the huge size and cost of Canikon FF, Fuji is a very good option. Everything is a compromise in size and cost. And I just like the balance struck by Fuji between quality, size, and cost. It does offer something over Canikon - higher quality somewhat lower cost APS-C. Nobody else seems to be doing that. Not the M4/3 folks. Not Sony. Not Canikon.
Yes, Fuji has fantastic system for APS-C - only if they were to move to better (and bayer-array) sensors. Sony clearly got lot if wind to its sails with MILC Alphas. I would not discount Sony either.
With FF sensor one can choose "slower" lens for space/weight savings and still get the same amount of light to the sensor (~equal noise). It is definitely an interesting time to select a camera system.
Canon & Nikon have unbeatable lens selection and availability of 2nd glass. But yeah, those are old-fashioned DSLRs ;-)
Mike Ronesia: You people crack me up. It is truly funny to read many of these posts.
If you want to really compare how different the sensors are add the phase one to the chart and you will see just how silly trying to pick apart these subtle differences is. I understand that for most here this analysis is more of a hobby then photography, but get real and use the benchmark camera in your comparisons if you want to get to the truth.
Methodology looks good.
Jylppy: If someone remembers I have often posted (and still will) here comments supporting FF DSRL. So with that background I must say that the new Pana GX8 has impressive image quality. Really impressive. The high ISO is a challenge as usual for m43 sensors (GX8 @ ISO 1600 ~ 5D2 @ ISO 800), but still impressive.
But once Panasonic has realized that there is "minimum size" for a serious camera (vs. pocket camera) due to ergonomics, the benefits of m43 system vs. larger sensor Sony system are getting bit marginal, IMO. Yes, I understand how sensor size impacts on lens size, but I also understand that it impacts less on DoF-equivalent lens size. Just see how light-weight Canon 70-200/4L IS is.
Sony FE is still my favorite MILC system (not owning one) in case I choose to get 2nd camera.
Canon FF DSLR user.
Sure, 5DII sensor is not latest tech, but very fine sensor still. Bad is quite an extreme expression. Yes, Sony has better DR at ISOs 100-400, but that does not make 5DII sensor "bad".
obsolescence: DPR -- please, you can't just put up a camera test without stating the lens used. How obvious can that be? If I recall correctly, you previously did this test for the Olympus E-M5 MkII in the Hi Res capture mode with a lens that wasn't up to snuff, and later corrected it by using the 75mm lens. Maybe that lens wasn't available at the time, but in this case, the top performing Panasonic 42.5mm Noctricron lens IS available. IMO there's no excuse for not using that lens for this test. I really want to see what this camera can deliver with the best lens designed for it. Thank you for all you do.
Have you noticed how all the cameras are tested on latest top-of-the-line 85mm primes except Canon system is tested with 85/1.8 USM (non-L) from year 1992?
I was bit shocked first, until I checked from DxOMark how the 85/1.2L II is not any sharper :-(
However, Sigma 85mm/1.4 is sharper lens. DPR is already using Oly lenses for all m43 cameras already so why let Canon suffer from this gap in their lens portfolio?
Any way, Nikon 85/1.4 is still sharper:http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-85mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D750__241_795_322_795_388_975
D750 used since its 24 Mpx is same as in 5DIII
If someone remembers I have often posted (and still will) here comments supporting FF DSRL. So with that background I must say that the new Pana GX8 has impressive image quality. Really impressive. The high ISO is a challenge as usual for m43 sensors (GX8 @ ISO 1600 ~ 5D2 @ ISO 800), but still impressive.
goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!
I always think m43 is about portability.........
At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...
@brumd, I have to add that you changed your argument during the course of discussion. What you and Trk said was were not conflicting, but somehow the argument continued.
Trk made very valid point by saying how the new GX8 has similar size and price to Sony a7 II with kit lens, but Sony has better IQ. And most importantly Sony system has headroom for better IQ thanks to its bigger sensor size.
What I believe Trk meant with "softness" was this:
The best m43 standard zoom on the best m43 body cannot get anywhere near FF system's IQ - I chose Canon 1Dx due its _low_ MPx count - cheaper higher Mpx models would have given even better results.
And yes, I know you agreed on this in the end ;-)
Hi Brumd, I agree fully what you say now. I might have made a mistake by not reading the whole troll-flood-thread through but picked few parts of it.
"People that choose MFT cameras and lenses KNOW that FF cameras can deliver higher IQ.People that buy pick-up trucks KNOW that race cars have a higher max speed. Yet, they choose a pickup truck because they have different priorities."
I agree fully on this. It is all about compromises and different people have different priorities.
It is not that FF system has the ultimate IQ - it does not. Medium formats eat the best FF systems for breakfast and professional fixed-mount special purpose imaging systems even those.
And I would like to take more photos, but life situation does not allow me to invest too much time on photography (especially editing) at the moment.
@Brumd, sorry I do share my photos here in DPReview. Not that I am shamed of those, but since I have no interest of doing so.
I think we were discussing the technical aspects of different camera systems. People have taken fantastic photos with very low quality gear through the history of photography, but that is diversion of the camera system image quality topic.
Fair point what comes to this "Dark"/"bright" lens topic. Those terms are synonyms for aperture numbers so 1/2.8f = 1/2.8f = 1/2.8f, it is just the post sensor gain that is used to adjust the brightness so that ISO matches across cameras (thus extra noise in small sensor systems).
My criticism to Brumd was about his multiple incorrect posts about "softness". The fact is that m43 systems are "soft", it's the optics that limit the performance. Just check the facts.
Interestingly, Oly E-510 with the kit lens you mentioned happens to be my very first DSLR. I was so disappointed to its IQ. I sold it, got Canon 5D + 50mm/1.4f + 1/2.8f L zooms and learned my lessons of how sensor / optics size matters. I have never looked back on m43. So please, do not come to lecture me about m43 IQ. I know how good it is, and it is not good enough for me.
While I think bit smaller 2nd camera would be nice, I think Sony's FE system has the best compromises (size/IQ).
You are wrong. Just go and check your self how equivalent FF and m43 systems perform in DxO Mark to get numerical data on the IQ difference of the systems (=camera + lens). FF systems provide far higher sharpness, so therefore you can say m43 system is "soft" (=opposite for "sharp").
So stop trolling and learn yourself.
Looks nice camera, but it is ... bigger? I thought small size was the "advantage" of m43 cameras? Or could it be that photographers want tools that fit into their hands ;-) Interesting camera in any case.
dynaxx: I know the DPR journalists are constrained by matters commercial but I fail to see how you can discuss this topic without at least acknowledging that the two biggest camera companies have chosen not to take a promising new camera format seriously.
It is the backdrop in front of which, this photographic drama is being played out. But for this, 600 odd passionate comments would not have appeared ( sorry, it is not your jaunty journalese, Richard).
I am sure you have an opinion as to why they have pretty much ignored MILC for so long it is impossible for them to change course ( 5 years for a decent set of lenses for a new mount ? ). Some say, it is the same mantra the cigarette manufacturers used ; "we are giving them what they want".
But aren't we are looking for leaders not followers in a business driven by technology ? Imagine the hoo-ha if Ford / Toyota had said they are sticking with internal combustion and not making electric motors.
I read few years ago a very interesting article about future of DSRL, written from technology trends (read "mirrorless") and optics perspective (sorry, could not find the link). The author's point was that mechanics and optics develop very slow vs. computation, silicon etc. And how Canon/Nikon would likely drop mirror & pentaprism from their FF DSLRs, but keep mount & flange distance the same. Big reason behind this line of thought was optics (and reuse of existing lens portoflio). The author argued that the old 35mm DLSR flange distance is very optimal for FF sensor. I see such a system clearly focusing on high-end where as Canikon crop formats would go to size-optimized mirrorless route.
Well, Sony is clearly playing other plan and some early signals show (e.g. 90mm macro) show how short flange distance does not prevent great optics.
Just a thought.
Jylppy: The future is mirrorless, that's clear. But let's not confuse all the parameters.
Sensor size: You pick and choose from m43 to FF based on your preferences on system size vs. image quality. The lack of mirror in MILC is not gonna make the lenses any smaller. It is the sensor size and required (FF-equiv) aperture that dictates the size of lenses.
Mirror vs Mirrorless: The latter architecture offers massive opportunities - mostly thanks to computational imaging: EVF Zebras, WYSIWYG, fast fps, lack of mirror shake. However, not even the very best EVF are nowhere near the best OVFs (e.g. Nikon D810) and this can be a major issue for a photographer - based on his preferences. For me the differences is massive.
I find the Sony's system most promising (since I prefer FF sensor and dislike Fuji's sensors) and with their improving lens portfolio it is getting ever better. However, still only Canon and Nikon offer ~24-105/4f IS lenses - Sony's 1/4f zoom is only 24-70mm.
No, not all those flaws of EVF are fixable - at least in foreseeable tech roadmaps. I recommend googling "Light-Field-Displays" to get the concept. Human eye register also the depth of the incoming light arrays and focuses on different depths naturally. But with EVF the depth is flat / zero. This is again a matter of preference, but it creates very different feeling behind camera.
Another issue is light emitting nature of displays; just compare the reading experience of Kindle Paperwhite vs. iPads to get the point. Paperwhites are superb for the eye.
And then Dynamic Range. Human eye has massive dynamic range while EVFs "burn" even in completely normal scenarios.
But again, some people prefer the programmable goodies EVF can provide over these visual characteristics. And EVFs will get better (120Hz, lower latency, higher res, higher contrast / DR). Those will improve and the number of OVF fans will get fewer and fewer per tech generation.
Well, I have seen those latest FullHD EVF display modules (likely the same module than in Sony A7 R II ) and at least that pre-production sample did not convince me. But let's see the final product.
This is all about personal preferences, but for me the difference is between flat, light emitting display vs. "light-field-view" of Optical VF (i.e. gives the depth view). EVF have low DR, they lack natural depth view, and the lag (compared to optics / human eye). But as said, this is matter of personal preference - not factual right or wrong. If you are happy with EVF, that's great, but do not assume others having differing opinion have not made conscious, informed judgment.
Looks good, but that much sharper vs Nikon D810. Might be a lens issue also. Chroma noise pumps up a lot after ISO 1600 :-( It will be interesting to see how far will Sony get with A7R II.
When debating on these technology shifts it is good to focus on trends rather than current status.
Sensor development is the same for both except innovations around on-image-sensor-PDAF will shift balance for MILC. The best sensor manufacturers - Sony and Samsung are in MILC camp.
The development of mechanics is slow and expensive. The mechanical shutters and mirrors will continue to shake and limit DSLR FPS speeds where as better electrical shutters and sensor read-out speeds will play for MILC.
EVFs get better (Full HD, 2K) but will remain flat emitting displays vs. the optical "light-field view" of OVFs. It might take some time before EVFs meet the requirements of OVF-fans, but other EVF-features might turn the balance for EVF (i.e. MILC).
Processing speed will continue to increase and chips will be able to better algorithms - this plays especially for MILC since those can better utilize computational imaging.
In short, the trends play for MILC.
- A Canon FF DSLR user
cm71td: It's funny how people tend to turn everything into a contest, and root for a technology in the same way they would a sport's franchise. Then they come to DP Review and want to debate their chosen technology, and take it as a personal insult if someone prefers something different.
Whether it's "mirrorless vs DSLR", or "micro 4/3rds vs full frame", or "Canon vs. Nikon", someone is always willing to defend their chosen technology or brand to the death, and insult all others. They then root for the demise of the other technology. Very strange.
Why is it a contest? Isn't it great to have choices from a variety of technologies? Just pick the best tool for your needs and move on. Oh, and if someone happens to not share your preference of camera, don't take it personally.
@Tedolf The Single-minded-MILC-defender,
I agree - almost. Sensor size discussion boils down on DoF profile vs preference on system size/weight. However, it does not mean that Telephoto/portrait shooters should go for crop sensor. It depends how much DoF separation / bokeh they want and that back to physical size of aperture. You just cannot get 1/1.4f FF-equiv lenses on m43, for example.
MILC - DSLR choise boils down to many factors - EVF vs OVF for example. Battery life for some, existing investment for others.