Just found the following on dpreview's own forum:
"(...) The difference is like having a good copy of a lens versus having a bad copy of a lens on the camera."
Seems like nice summary :)
I came across this article recently on PetaPixel, which in sort of wired and confused way seemed to suggest that C1 does a better job in rendering colors because it "understands" specific camera response, in other words it has build-in camera profiles. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it got me curios enough so that I decided to check it out myself during the weekend.
I have to admit that there is very substantial difference between images produced by C1 and LR. The difference is particularly surprising in two aspects: color/skin tone, and fine detail. The default rendering of skin tones is just miles away from LR. I really had to work hard to convince LR to give me similar results. The images from C1 are just so much more pleased to the eye, both on the screen and on prints.
I am with LR since v1.0 (2007) but seems like I'll just dump it. I guess you can try the C1 yourself and decide which you prefer. Its free for 30 days then 12 EUR/month. Final image counts...
If by any chance Sigma marketing is sweeping through forums in order to gather hints for product demands then I'd suggest next Prime Art lent to be 135mm/2 or maybe even /2.8
Any supporters? :)
I hope they will address the issue of 11bit (!) RAW recording with this FW release, as per http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
_P: I consider myself a long term and loyal Olympus customer. I starter with them back in 2005 with E-1 + 14-54 and 40-150/3.5-4.5 double kit. What a wonderful piece of photographic equipment! Especially the lenses. Then, to be honest, I could hardly find a candidate for upgrade… I got E-PL5 meanwhile for my wife and 25/1.4 and 75/1.8 primes for myself waiting for something like E-M1. Then, when it came out I was hoping to put my 14-54 back to work again…
Yes, I have to admit, it is quite liberating not to be forced to push ETTR to the limits at every shot and still have 2EV advantage in shadows which I can pool with literally no penalty up to ISO800.
Again, all those goodies for about the same money …
They are far apart enough to justify the decision.
I'd be happy to shoot MF to be honest, but for obvious reasons I am not. It will be perfect for landscapes actually. IQ and price are adequate in this case which is something we cannot say about E-M1 vs D610.
Can't recon though when I was saying something about convenience... or when I have opened some doors for that matter. I have just chosen less convenient system, bobbarber... And FYI, DR of a film is much less than digital sensor.
Well then, following this logic let's suggest SP-100EE for all wildlife shooters. They'll have 1200mm equivalent, smaller and lighter body and sensors are not that much apart? Are they? Only pixel peepers will complain...
FYI, some people are choosing a camera specifically for its IQ because they see the difference and it matters to them. Some don't but some do. Hence paying same for less or much less IQ is just not an option
So I have 7 20x30cm prints in front of me right now, all from E-PM5. Five are perfect, two are flat in highlights and very dense to black in shadows. Composition and subject are nailed on all. Thing is that those differences between sensors, which some pass over as meaningless, do exist and they do matter and we don't have to pixel peep: good print is enough.
We can now push the argument towards shooting technique but it will equally improve results from D610 as well. As a matter of fact you get less or much less IQ for the same money here in Europe. This is wrong.
This is how D610 looks like when pooling shadows by +4EV @ISO100:http://www.optyczne.pl/254.8-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D610_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html
and E-M1 for compare:http://www.optyczne.pl/245.8-Test_aparatu-Olympus_OM-D_E-M1_Zakres_tonalny.html
I have E-PM5 and D610 and can confirm the above. To me it is also pretty good definition of "far, far behind".
Thing is, here in Europe a camera with sensor 4 times bigger than the E-M1 one costs the same… You have to pay about 1300 GBP for E-M1, D610 and 6D. So as much as I love Oly lenses they will not pool shadows for me by 3 stops at ISO 400 with little to no penalty… At the end of the day the final photograph is what really matters, so I can hardy justify to pay the same for, unfortunately, much worst result. Despite of all the hopes m43 IQ is not negligibly close to D610. It is not even behind. It is far, far behind.
So now I have to deal with colors I don’t like (I’ll deal with them eventually though), big and mediocre/awful kit zoom, not too bad primes and bigger size and weight, but I will pay this price gladly, because final photograph is what really matters.
If I could have a word of advice for Olympus: don’t price yourselves into oblivion please. The industry needs you.
I consider myself a long term and loyal Olympus customer. I starter with them back in 2005 with E-1 + 14-54 and 40-150/3.5-4.5 double kit. What a wonderful piece of photographic equipment! Especially the lenses. Then, to be honest, I could hardly find a candidate for upgrade… I got E-PL5 meanwhile for my wife and 25/1.4 and 75/1.8 primes for myself waiting for something like E-M1. Then, when it came out I was hoping to put my 14-54 back to work again…
_P: On another matter: Fuji do not have any kind of sensor cleaning system build-in, do they?
Here is an official Fuji sample from X-T1: http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_fujifilmproducts/samples/ff_x_t1_009_07.JPG
Pretty dirty ...
my fault, sorry ...
On another matter: Fuji do not have any kind of sensor cleaning system build-in, do they?
Question for Fuji owners: there was a huge problem with RAW processing software, that's inducing Adobe, which - in short - wasn't able to refine fine details. The only one doing a decent job was Photo Ninja. How is the situation with this regard now?
Anyway, what a beautiful / terrible times!D610: 1329 GBPE-m1: 1300 GBPA7: 1230 GBPX-t1: 1059 GBP6D: 1350 GBP
I'm on the market to upgrade from E-1. Got E-PL5 for my wife already and its fine for casual use, but I don't like it for landscapes very much, so I will not like E-m1. Now, taking into account that it cost THE SAME as D610, some serious question have to be asked... I would consider myself mad if i'd choose E-m1 over D610 for landscapes and low light work, though on the other hand Nikon is terrible with manual focusing over VF. So if FUJI RAWs can now be processed into something decent to wonderful that may be just the perfect compromise. Also seems best option for MF lenses with those different kinds of MF support in it.
KingOfAtlantis: is the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4.0 Lens that comes with it good for landscapes or would it be better to get just the body and buy a different lens?
Stuck between this and the EM-1 for first camera. Definitely want to be outside in nature with whichever I choose.
I doubt E-m1 is the best choice for landscape. I personally don't like my E-m5 for that: have trouble with pooling shadows and highlights. Taking into account that D610 costs THE SAME as E-m1 than Oly starts looking just ridiculous ...
russbarnes: Who knows how many firmware updates it will take to get this release right....Buy in a year for a functional device?
Some people get wobble because A7 is being compared with DSLRs. Well, it has one of only handful of sensors capable of delivering high end results as far as IQ is concerned. Who cares if it has a mirror in front of it or not?
So let’s compare it with E-M1 in terms of everything else except IQ itself: ergonomics, lens lineup etc. What’s to compare???
Now, what would most people love, would be the E-M1 body/ergonomics/one-third-of-the-lens-choice-would-suffice with A7(r) sensor in it. THAT would have been a hit and a real blow into CaNikon duopoly!In such case those wobbly people would be first ones to put it in a pole position with D800 and D5m3.
Anyone reporting his/hers amazement coming from personal A7 usage exclusively focuses on the IQ, ignoring obvious design faults. This is good enough indication for me to respect review findings. DPR has a duty to report and elaborate on every area where A7 excels and disgracefully fails. That’s what they did, and should be respected for.
zink: The review is not as bad as some say, but the reviewers compare this camera not in its own class. It is a mirrorless camera after all. They should compare the A7 with the top class mirroless camera's like the Fuji X-Pro 1, the Oly OM-D and the NEX-7. Maybe even throw the Leica M9 in the ring. But when it comes to image quality, they compare it with heavy FF SLR beasts that are not in the same category (not mirrorless) and price class. If you take that in account, I think the A7 deserves better than a silver award.
Depends on the point of view and priorities. The way I see it: it is a FF in the first place, then and only then it is a mirrorless. So I do appreciate the way the review was conducted. To be honest, if IQ is an absolute priority than E-M1 does not stand a chance and you have to focuse exclusively on and both Sonys on the mirrorless side. Those on the other hand are just first attempts. The second, third or even later incarnation will be OK. Just like E-M5 was the first mature m43 camera from Olympus...
AlpCns2: Quite a few people here are bashing the review as "overly critical" and "unfair", and more of that kind of language. Personally I think DPR is doing a great job exposing the (doubtlessly many) strengths of this camera, as well as the weaknesses.
It seems many disagree about the JPEG engine. To be fair to DPR, I have heard the same from several other users. It might (or might not) be a bug in the firmware which can be easily solved. Nevertheless, the JPEG performance is below par at the moment.
It is excellent -actually completely professional- that DPR finds and points out such issues. It's not a (simplistic) matter of "Sony bashing", because that is utter and complete nonsense. When the D600 had some flaws, it was pointed out as well. Same with other brands.
Come on people. Many here claim to be professionals, or pretend to be. Let's act professional then, too.
I don't know... Mixed emotions... Simply stunning sensor with just about perfect pixel count. This is huge advantage maybe even justifying initial price point. But at the same time it also is just a tool and as such it ether can be a transparent and non-disturbing executor of my photographic ideas (wasn't it advertised as such?) or a pain in the neck... How exactly am I suppose to change exposure compensation keeping Nikon Df with 70-200/2.8 hand held while still looking through the viewfinder? Should I higher an assistant to address that strange need?