Well, I never expressed an opinion that the Olympus PRO lenses aren't intended for professional use, so we agree on that one. I see no reason to question the 'pro' label in this case, which I think the OP was trying to do.
JeremiahL: Is it just me, or are the full size images incredibly noisy? I have a several year old Fujifilm X-Pro, and get less noisy pics. And the images in the D810 sample gallery blow this out of the water at comparable ISOs.
I know they're huge images and can be resized, but what's the point if they *have* to be resized due to noise?
I'm a little disappointed because I've been waiting for this camera to come out so I can decide between it and the D810. At this point it's looking like not much of a decision :-/
If you're going to compare the cameras' contributions to image noise, then it's best if there is as little variation in photon shot noise as possible between the images. A complete control of both exposure and of the intensity and colour of ambient light, is still the best way to reach conclusive results.
"Anything that is being used to generate income is "professional" - at least by my definition."
Yes, but as a marketing term, 'professional' means that the product is specifically targeted at professional users, usually because it has been developed to meet their special needs and requirements. There is no implication that consumer products can't also be used to generate an income.
Sirandar: I would suggest removing the word test from these types of articles.
The wasn't any testing I could see.
A better word would be "field experience"
To 'test' something doesn't necessarily mean to put something through a scientific test, it can also mean just trying something out, as in taking a car for a test drive.
Edgar_in_Indy: So Panasonic lens firmware can be updated from the camera? That's kind of cool. Do a lot of other camera makers allow users to update their lens firmware that way?
I think that the lenses for all mirrorless systems are updated that way.
dko22: a huge improvement, thanks. The previous interface drove me crazy so I spent as little time as possible looking at samples. That will certainly change now! Raw originals will be greatly welcomed as, like many others, I've had to mostly look elsewhere for them up till now.
Isn't the point of downloading original raw files, that you can process them to your own taste, using your own workflow?
ProfHankD: For rugged use, I have an Olympus Stylus 1030 SW and an Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860 (as well as a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2). The Olympus cameras are really robust and excellent in features; for example, the TG-860 has a flip LCD and 21mm equivalent wide. However, IQ has always been weak compared to regular compacts (I use a lot of Canon PowerShots with CHDK giving me raw access).
Raw gives a bit of a second chance to rescue images, and I think that's great, but IS THE RAW HERE REALLY RAW? Most compacts have lenses with a wider view angle than advertised and bad distortion, but I don't see that in the supposedly uncorrected raw images here. In the studio comparison, you don't seem to have corrected CA for the raws; did you correct cropping and distortion or does the camera deliver a "partially cooked" raw?
Elsewhere in this thread someone wrote that ACR automatically applies distortion correction, with no option to turn it off.
Top Dog Imaging: The sample photos are inconclusive. I wish I were young and had a fun job like the kids from Washington. Through their eyes, we've seen their buddies, significant others, the Space Needle, the Cascades, hiking trips, pub and coffee shop scenes, random street views, sunset/sunrise snaps, random nighttime photos, etc. It would be much more helpful if pro photographers were asked to take the "sample gallery" photos. I am unable to form an opinion about the A7-II.
"Why on earth anybody REQUIREs a tool of this caliber for taking pedestrian snapshots (pictures at the corner pub, coffee shop, pets, and family), is a mystery. The only explanations are: 1) conspicuous consumption; 2) gear lust; 3) idiotic delusions of grandeur."
Well, how many people actually buy what they require, no more, no less? Most people buy what they desire, and can afford, for any number of reasons.
"The notion that the total amount of light in the scene has an influence on noise performance has scant basis in reality."
Not the amount of light in the scene, but the amount of light hitting the sensor, which is also dependent on exposure.
"A simple experiments demonstrates this: Take 2 shots. For the second shot, cut the amount of light in the scene in half, but double the exposure. So long as you are dealing with exposures comfortably under 1 second, there will be no difference in the noise levels between the two shots. The reason is that the sensor sees the same amount of light in both cases and every noise source, except dark current noise, will be identical between the two shots."
This is basically what I said, that the sensors must receive the same amount of light, so you likely misunderstood my point.And as Rishi explained above, the best way to ensure that the sensors do receive the same amount of light, is to take pictures in a controlled studio environment.
Anastigmat: When a camera maker is selling a small number of cameras, it is easy to have a 25% increase in sales volume. A profit of $8.8 million is way better than a loss of even $1, but it is nothing to write home about. Companies that make nothing, such as internet web sites, earn a lot more profit in some cases. Bad news for Olympus is that the world is moving towards full frame cameras. Affordable ff cameras will be the next hot market segment, but Olympus won't be part of it. I wonder how many cameras with 4/3 sensors Olympus can sell if a FF DSLR costs about the same or even less than Olympus cameras.
"That's why a (Chinese) company registered in the US to make the MFT camera by using/buying the name from Kodak"
This is incorrect. JK Imaging, the licensee of the Kodak brand, is an American company, founded by an American. And while the manufacturing is outsourced to Asia Optical in Taiwan, that doesn't mean that JK Imaging is a Chinese company.
However, they did hold a couple of press conferences in China, likely because that's their intended main market.
"and then also provide raw files for people to explore to see how much things can be pushed, etc."
Yes, but you still couldn't use them to compare noise performance between cameras, for the simple reason that real-world photos are never shot in completely controlled light.
As Rishi has explained elsewhere, it's not as simple as just comparing pictures taken at the same ISO setting, because noise depends on the exposure, among other things. The sensors must have received the same amount of light to make a noise comparison meaningful. This is why DPR offers the studio comparison pictures.
Don Sata: There is no way the cover photo (sun through forest sky) could have been achieved in a single shot with another sensor than a Sony, the wide DR allows to preserve highlights and recover decent shadows.
It's the design of the sensor that's important, not the fabrication facilities. And if I remember correctly, Chipworks has shown that the Toshiba and Sony 24 MP sensors have different architecture, and that the former uses copper while the latter uses aluminum. So not the same design at all, even if they might be manufactured in the same factory.
Nick - Photography: 'It's not the camera it's the photographer who takes a good picture'
I'm sure that many photographers would agree that a good picture is mainly characterised by an interesting subject and composition. That doesn't mean that you can't be interested in the technical capabilities of the tools you use.
"Sample galleries are not for comparing noise levels across cameras."
That's what Rishi said. Now, surely noise isn't the only thing that interests you in a photo? Surely there are other aspects of a photo that these sample galleries are meant to convey?
thx1138: Wow that Batis lens is quite ordinary. Not a single sharp image. You certainly wouldn't want this to be a true indication of what to expect from the camera. I was hoping to be wowed by the landscape shots but instead you got entry level all-in-one zoom level quality. Having said that some of the images are very nice from the point of view of the photographer.
Drawing conclusions about lens sharpness from images viewed in a web browser isn't unproblematic. I see no reason to doubt Rishi's statement that the Batis is very sharp.
Jim Evidon: Can a new 20 MP Leica X Vario be far behind?
I wonder if Panasonic will allow Olympus to either use or license this new sensor? Any claimed deficits in performance are likely the result of firmware rather than sensor design and are likely to be be ironed out with firmware updates.
As to advantages of 20 MP over the very fine 16MP sensors in both Panasonic and Olympus cameras, I have long ago found the upper usable limits in the 16 MP image cropping and the new 20 MP sensor should allow these limits to be stretched; a definite advantage.
But in terms of high ISO noise, neither MFT sensor can hold a candle to the FujiX Pro-1 or the XT series, which is to be expected from the larger Fuji APSC sensor.
Disclaimer: I own the Olympus E-5M and the Fuji XPro-1 as well as the Leica M9P (CCD sensor) which blows the other sensors away in resolution, but fails in noise comparisons to the others above ISO 1000 or so.
Panasonic very likely uses the new Sony sensor that was announced earlier this year, and Sony is probably happy to sell it to any company that wants it.
Not sure why Leica would use it, though, since all of the X series models so far have used APS-C sensors. And Sony does make a 20 MP APS-C sensor too, so Leica is more likely to use that one.
Francis Carver: Finally, at long last, something real and innovative and all-around cutting edge and affordable. Unlike, for instance, the overpriced retro junk Canon seems to be bringing out and/or threatening us with.
Kudos to Fujifilm for the X-T1 INFRARED. Hopefully the UV/IR portions of the spectrum will be recorded in the videos also, not only in stills.
It's not THAT innovative, considering that Fuji already did the same thing several years ago, first with the S3 Pro UVIR, and then with the IS-1 and the IS Pro.
ecka84: Actually, 4.5-108mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 25-600mm f/16.
Yes, but it's not a lie because the f-number is wrong, it's a lie because the focal lengths are wrong. The front of the lens states 1:2.8/4.5-108, which is entirely correct.
FF equivalency isn't helpful to all those who aren't familiar with that format. It's better to state the physical FL, and then explain how that relates to angle of view on the particular format in question.
phazelag: Another Olympus in a Casio body.
The Casio EX-10 and EX-100 share the exact same sensor and lens specs with the Olympus XZ-2 and Stylus 1, respectively, although the processors are likely not the same. The Pentax MX-1 also likely used the same sensor/lens combination as the XZ-2.
It's not at all certain that the lenses are made by Olympus. All three companies could very well have sourced it from some third-party manufacturer, such as Asia Optical. Who knows?
Cheng Bao: What's the last time that dpr reviewed a casio camera?
Casio doesn't sell cameras in North America anymore. Perhaps that explains the absence of reviews on most American review sites.