steve_hoge: Does anyone think the GH4 and GX7 are sharing the same sensor?
> the Oly 45mm 1.8
There is strong evidence that there is a relatively high sample variation with the lens. It is a cheap lens, after all. For studio shots, scrutinized under 100% and more, it is probably not the best option. It is rather sad that DPR has replaced with it the venerable Oly 2.0/50mm SHG lens....
Panasonic officially said at release of the GH4 that it has the same sensor as the GX7, but it is tuned for more DR, rather than high ISO performance.
sneakyracer: From all the samples posted I see that M43 still has a long way to go in terms of still image resolution and noise performance. Even at low iso the images posted from the Gh4 are still quite noisy in the shadows.
So. Do you often put your subjects into the shadows? Or you simply underexpose out of principle?
mais51: Now you know why you have to pay $15 for a movie ticket. Wonder how many layers of diamond elements in that lens.
I was only giving an example. 1000 is a nice number to do multiplication with.
"Wonder how many layers of diamond elements in that lens."
Say Canon is planning to sell total of about 1000 of the lenses. $78K*1K = $78M budget seems to be about the right size for R&D, manufacturing and support costs spread over, say, period of 10 years.
People routinely forget that niche products are priced differently from the mass products.
Boss of Sony: I'm deciding between this and the EF 50mm f1.8. What would you recommend?
Definitely the 50mm.
The widest aperture of the lens is about f/4.6 - and that on the puny tiny Super35 sensor! (And with TC it would be even worse.)
What was the Canon thinking!!!
Jogger: If something is worth taking a photo of, then use a real camera. This seems more like a client engagement - PR tool than real photography.
I'm not sure about pro photography specifically, but in business in general, lion share of "work" is precisely the "PR" and "client engagement". (And then the paper work. And only then, as the third, is the actual real work we are paid to do.)
Jogger: Is it necessary to have the same corner-test pattern at each corner?? Wouldnt one be enough.
> Wouldnt one be enough.
Probably not, because I suspect the patterns are used for verifying the camera alignment with the scene.
Well, pretty much all as expected. All would do fine for the casual shooting scenarios.
Otherwise, I'm still conflicted on the size of the LX100's lens size - and still wait for the LX8 announcement. I hope it would have the Sony 1" sensor, making it near perfect portable camera: the better IQ of Sonys with better handling of Pannys.
Hex144: The LX100's colors are so muted, even in RAW. Is there a way to "crank 'em up" a bit, in-camera, for raw and jpeg?
Pana typically doesn't "boost" images by default, erring on side of precise detail/color reproduction.
Those who see the images as "muted" and "bleak" should switch from the "Standard" to the "Vivid" image mode.
Buena Vista: Damn! I really wanted to like one of the pocketable cameras. I'm tired of lugging around even my relatively compact Samsung NX300. But I've just spent 20 minutes comparing point after point on the "studio" format for the three new cameras and my existing camera, and none of the new cameras is consistently equal to or better than the Samsung. That makes sense of course. An APS-C sensor is much larger and, all things being equal, gathers more light, and therefore, produces a more detailed image, which is principally what I observed. IMHO the Canon consistently produced the least detailed images, and the Sony images were the best of the three new cameras more often than not. But I'm not sure I'm ready to give up the inherently better IQ of the APS-C sensor camera for the convenience of a smaller, fixed lens camera. As I said - damn!
Hey DP! Let's get the new Panasonic DM5 in the "studio!" Maybe a 4/3 camera will measure up better than these three newbies.
> Let's get the new Panasonic DM5 in the "studio!"
I assume you mean "GM5". It has the same sensor as the GM1 - probably with the few usual tweaks. But otherwise they would display almost identical performance.
> As I said - damn!
Absolute performance often is an useless metric. Just open the folder with your images, and check what high ISO you actually need. It's not like Samsungs are the low-light monsters...
TheWhiteDog: REALLY! DPReview is doing a major disservice here. Who would buy an a5100 and use it with a $1000 prime lens in a mount that is not even native to it. I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of a5100 purchasers will only ever use the kit lens that comes with it- and that is how it should be tested. I understand you want to show what the sensor is capable of but that has no basis in the reality of how the camera will be used.So throwing that out of the mix, I like the Canon least, its lens performance has compromised the sensor, I guess getting an extra 30mm on the telephoto end compared to the RX100Mk3 has had an effect on IQ. As for the SONY vs the LX100, the SONY has more detail(expected with the extra pixels) but the LX100 has much lower noise, especially at higher ISOs(again, expected). If choosing, I like the LX100 best, it is an "all arounder". Great job, Panny but the SONY is no slouch. Love the Panny's controls far more though(no PASM dial needed)!
"As a general principle, studio photography with interchangeable lens cameras is intended to show the potential of the camera's sensor."
And yet you moved m43 tests from SHG 50mm to the cheapo 45mm lens....
historianx: Hmm looks like panasonic saw the success of the Fuji X line and copied the top panel layout for shutter speed and ec dial....interesting camera....
> and copied the top panel layout for shutter speed and ec dial....
It's Fuji who has copied Pana.
Check the Panasonic LC1 camera - from year *2004*.
IR posted first images of their LX100 studio test. Looks reassuring.
regis3: LX100 - Let Panasonic sell a tele converter of 1.3 or 1.4 (or even 2.0) and we're good.
Well, looking at the IQ presented here, I do not think the images have quality to space on the TC/WA converters. :(
ThePhilips: IQ was compromised. So much is clear. No room for cropping or PP in those JPEGs.
Still, the images from normal looking distances look pretty good. There is definitely some Leica magic dust in that lens.
"Barely" is better than nothing.
If one has the excess of resolution, one can easily PP JPEGs too, and downscale them afterwards to hide the PP artifacts.
IQ was compromised. So much is clear. No room for cropping or PP in those JPEGs.
marc petzold: For 500-600 $ the LX100 would be a steal...if the price would come down that way in 1-2 years. Hey Guys, i know DPR is a gear review site, and i do suffer myself sometimes from G.A.S. - but what about pictures? I still have fun & enjoy my D90, for instance. Be happy with what you've got - and get your gear out - don't pixelpeep always, that eats up the fun of photography.
@cainn24, of course you do. It is in the *first* sentence of your comment.
If that was a $500 camera, I bet you wouldn't have even bothered to compare it to DP2 or D800.
As I said, fixed lens cameras are only for those who can appreciate what the whole package can offer.
"Why spend $900 on a camera if you don't care about what things look like at 100%?"
The value of the package as a whole? AND I'm not pixel-peeper?
Plus, you forget that you complain about the MSRP, comparing it to the street prices of the currently available gear. Or you have already forgotten the MSRP of the RX100?
crinosil: What's missing from the LX100 and frankly all of the super compacts is water and dust resistance... You would think that given that the lens doesn't come off they could engineer this in....especially in a $900 camera.... but without this, I'm sticking to the EM1... yes its bigger, but at least I can bring it with me in the rain and mud while I'm hiking without worrying about bricking it....
@jhinkey, I actually have thought about it before mentioning the smartphones.
The thing is, there are lots of weather resistant cameras, even with more buttons than the LX100.
Even lenses. Previously, for example, it was said that expandable zooms can't be made weather sealed - yet that was done too already.