Banhmi: DPR, I would definitely appreciate you doing more projector reviews, but a single projector review with no benchmark-able image data doesn't really help me much.
This is not a review, and DPR didn't write it. It's a press release from Epson.
Just curious. You've stated several times that "jpegs don't matter" or something along those lines. It is obvious to me that the jpegs from the E-M5 are much better than the jpegs from this camera. I encourage anybody to compare the jpegs from the D5200 to the E-M5, starting at base ISO.
There have been several threads in the past here where some pro shooters have weighed in and expressed their preference for jpegs. Not the kind of shooters who spend all day taking 3 landscape shots, but wedding shooters, for example, or sports shooters, or other types of documentary shooters, who take a lot of shots and don't have time to process raw.
I have no doubt that some wedding shooters, etc. prefer raw, but is it accurate for you to say that raw is all that matters, jpegs don't matter, etc.? That isn't my belief, and it isn't the belief of many professional shooters.
I agree that the differences between cameras that are shown by DxOMark and other testing sites, often don't translate into large differences in real world use. I certainly wouldn't buy a new camera solely on the basis of a sensor test.But a camera that has better noise performance and dynamic range typically gives you more leeway in post-processing, if that's your cup of tea.
And from a purely technological, as opposed to photographic/artistic, standpoint, it's interesting to measure, benchmark and analyze sensor performance, for those of us that are so inclined.
Obviously, I can't answer for someone else, but I think he meant that out-of-camera JPEGs don't matter if you want to compare the sensor performance of different cameras. I don't think he meant to imply that shooting JPEG could never be a valid option under any circumstances.
lensberg: I bet the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 would have achieved the best overall scores... thats probably the reason why DXO never got around to actually reviewing that particular camera...
DXO seems to fabricate a bunch of numbers and then allocate them accordingly... One would image they're the gospel of truth as far as sensor testing goes... At least most other camera review websites provide studio or real world samples to compare side by side whilst formulating a final score...
DxOMark don't fabricate their numbers, but they are based on analysis of the RAW files before demosaicing, i.e. before being converted to an RGB image (eg. JPEG or TIFF). That's why they don't provide any sample images.
And why on earth would they ignore a camera because they think it would achieve the best score? Why would they care which camera sits at the top of the list?
DxO make their sensor performance tests as part of the process of adding support for the cameras in DxO Optics Pro, and currently they don't support non-Bayer sensors.Of course, they could test the X-Pro1/X-E1, since they don't demosaic the files anyway, but it seems that they don't bother testing cameras, if they don't plan to add them to their RAW converter.
Simon97: I can see what a toy my Nikon J1 is compared to this camera resolution wise, although it is not much noisier at high ISOs.
Also, DxOMark analyzes the RAW file before demosaicing, whereas the "RAW images" you see in comparisons on DPR and other sites are, of course, JPEGs developed from RAW with default settings. These tell you as little (or much) about the capability of the sensor as the out-of-camera JPEGs do.If the comparison tool shows little difference between D5200 and J1 (which is arguable, depending on what you look for in the images), it only means that the default ACR settings give similar results.
Which is more relevant to the photographer, DxOs numbers or DPRs comparison images, really depends on how much post-processing you intend to do.
marike6: IQ looks fantastic. And if you go by DxOMark, the D5200 is using quite possibly the best performing crop sensor in the world right now. Who knew that Toshiba was so skilled as manufacturing sensors?
One thing is odd is when you switch to the K-5IIs in the Studio Test, it almost looks like ACR Chroma NR was left on, as at ISO 6400 it's dramatically cleaner than the D5200. Yet, on DxOMark the D5200 manages 1284 ISO score to the K-5IIs's 1208 ISO Low-Light (Sports) Score.
Anyway, wonderful IQ, and since I'm in need of a small DX body for my new 70-200 f4 VR, this camera definitely on my short list. Thanks guys.
@rob asnong"Because it is known that it is a Sony sensor outsourced by Sony to Toshiba in a long term relationship, probably because of capacity shortness due to the flood twintigjarig years ago."
Unless you're joking, got any sources for this? Known by who? Certainly not by Chipworks, who showed that the Toshiba sensor has a different pixel architecture than the Sony 24 Mp sensor, and has copper metallization as opposed to aluminium, which is used by Sony. The performance may be similar, but the tech is different.
Some people seemingly can't accept that there are other companies than Sony, that are capable of making great sensors. For years, Sony fanboys have refused to believe that not all Nikon sensors are Sony-made, and that some of them are in fact designed by Nikon and manufactured by Renesas. Why not look at the facts instead of spreading rumours? Chipworks have showed that Nikon now have four different sources of sensors: Renesas, Sony, Toshiba and Aptina (in Nikon 1).
itsastickup: Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
I don't quite get all the complaints about DoF, considering that this is hardly an ideal portrait lens. I've seen plenty of nice portraits with satisfactory subject isolation taken with m4/3 cameras at longer focal lengths.I don't get either, why so many confuse bokeh with DoF. You can't have more or less bokeh, only good or bad bokeh. It's a quality, not a quantity.
Expat Nomad: Wireless flash. I like. Unlike the XZ-2.Being Olympus, hopefully an underwater housing will also follow.
The XZ-2 has wireless flash too.
nosnoop: What takes you so long?There has been only one DSLR/Mirrorless REVIEW in the whole December/January; and only 4 DSLR/Mirrorless REVIEWs since September (5 months). At this rate, it would take you many more months just to finish the products announced at Photokina.
People would like to come here to look for information for their purchase decision. So a timely review is essential; a preview just doesn't cut it.
Your first preview was written 4 months ago. So you have 4 months to work on the NEX-6 and all we get is just an extended preview?
It doesn't matter when the camera was available for purchase. DPR, like many other professional review sites, review products that the manufacturers send them. They can only start working on a review if and when they receive a sample from the manufacturer.
And a full review require more than just a few quick test shots in a studio. You have to use the camera extensively in real life situations to get a feel for the UI and ergonomics, to try out all the features under different conditions, and to discover the little quirks that all cameras have.Of course, a lot of reviewers don't go into such detail, but their reviews are frankly not very useful. I'd rather wait a few months for a fuller review, to be honest. As long as the camera is still in production, the review is still relevant. Or are you only looking at models released within the last few weeks, when you're shopping for a new camera?
EDWARD ARTISTE: Someone mentioned a good question, and one that ive been wondering as well- why doesn't dp reivew buy equipment to test? Ive seen mentions of you guys have to wait for samples...
...while many samples await you at the rental shop and bh/adorama.
Just a question. Love the site, but yall have to see the pitchforks being raised....
Professional reviewers (not only of cameras, but books, CDs, video games etc.) usually don't buy or rent the products they're going to review. They review what the manufacturer/publisher sends them. If they don't receive a copy, they don't review it.
Timmbits: I see an admission that MFT can't quite compete with APSC,and the only reason they don't offer larger sensor cameras is marketing and the target market of the Panasonic brand: "Maybe we should have a premium model, maybe with bigger sensor. However, that takes engineering resources and you have to worry about price and the extra quality it will offer people - if we can sell 100,000 or 200,000, we will make it,' says Uematsu."
I've seen statements that X100 have sold more than 100k units, which is very impressive for a premium fixed FL compact, but far from going by the millions.
WhyNot: Interesting and somewhat discouraging... My understanding of what they are saying is that Panasonic is market driven – they don't want to introduce a product that isn't guaranteed sales of 100K units; the camera market is complex and they don't fully understand it; they have problems communicating the benefits of their product in some markets. ….... Now, I do own some of their products and while I like most conceptually sometimes using them can be trying. … My take is that Panasonic, Sony and Samsung are all very innovative electronics companies trying to act like Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus in the still camera business – it's going to take time and persistence and some mistakes. .... Personally I'm trying hard to like mFT but may still migrate back to Canikon.
All commercial companies are market driven; they aren't doing charity work. The difference between companies is in their analysis of the market, and what they think will sell.
Timmbits: They want to use larger sensors, but not mirrorless...are they forgetting that their entire lineup is mirrorless? Seems rather vague to me, and if he means that Casio wants to introduce non-mirrorless (ie: with mirror), that seems like regression to me, because the extra mechanics increase costs, and complexity, in a product that they state is supposed to be simple for the non technical user.
"Mirrorless" is short for "mirrorless interchangeable lens camera". This shouldn't cause any confusion nowadays, since the word is widely used in that way. There's no need to refer to compacts as mirrorless, since they all lack a mirror.
brunobarolo: With a one stop improvement, Panasonic may finally bring their sensors to the level where Sony sensors are today. Nice :-)
@Emacs23D3200 and D5200 have different sensors, interestingly enough. According to Chipworks, D5200 has a Toshiba 5105 sensor, whereas D3200 has a Nikon NC81369R sensor (manufactured by Renesas.)In other words, none of the Nikon 24 Mp cameras have the Sony IMX096AQL sensor from A77/NEX-7! And the three sensors have different architecture, meaning that it's not just a case of "rebranded" Sony sensors. For example, Toshiba uses copper metallization, whereas the other two use aluminium. Similar performance doesn't necessarily imply the same technology or manufacturer.
Here's the Chipworks teardown of D5200:http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2013/01/08/inside-the-nikon-d5200-dslr-toshiba-found/
sportyaccordy: 4/3 and Micro 4/3... man people love to be ripped off. APS-C prices for down to less than 1/2 the sensor area and no added portability. I will never understand it
Judging from the output of the latest generation m4/3 cameras (E-M5/E-PL5/E-PM2/GH3), they really aren't that far behind, and they're arguably on par with Canon APS-C.As long as m4/3 doesn't lose market share dramatically, I don't think Oly or Pana will abandon the system. There are obviously lots of people who think the IQ is good enough for them.
thx1138: Sorry Mt Terada, there is NO life left in the antediluvian 1/2.33" sensor. It's way past it's used by date, so let's stop propping it up. 1/1.7" should be the new 1/2.33" and 1" should be the new 1/1.7".
"there is NO life left in the antediluvian 1/2.33" sensor."
Tell that to Sony and the other companies that manufacture those sensors, presumably because they think there's still a market for them.
It's not less than half the sensor area. It's about 60% of APS-C (68% of Canon APS-C). You could have made your point without spreading misinformation.
They haven't had four months to work on the NEX-6. A preview is based on a pre-production sample, whereas the actual review process is based on a production unit, and can't begin until the manufacturer provides DPR with one.These extended previews don't delay the reviews; DPR are able to publish them because they're actually working on the review.
CameraLabTester: Sensor sizes and mirrorless fancies are not what concerns us, Mr. Toshi Terada.
Just stay TRUE to your lens mount and you will once again become legend.
Unlike Canon which, once again, introduced ANOTHER mount of confusion with the M-mount, (they abandon lens mounts like gusto...) Olympus should stay true.
Why on earth would Olympus abandon m4/3 anytime soon? And switch to NEX? Is that grounded in anything other than wishful thinking or homespun market analysis?Olympus still have a larger market share in mirrorless than Sony, at least in their home market Japan, and m4/3 is so far a success story. And with the renewed interest in Olympus that followed the introduction of the OM-D line, what would be the point of abandoning the system?
pepelegal: "reducing the focal length without changing the entrance pupil increases the F-number. So, adding the speed booster to a 50mm F1.4 lens turns it into a 35.5mm F1.0"
F1.4 to F1.0 in photographic parlance may be an increase, but numerically it is still a decrease. DPR should be more careful with the wording, to avoid confusing us readers who speak plain English
@cyberstudioYes, N=f/D, which may also be written as D=f/N. Therefore, one should write F/1.4 and not F1.4.