Previous news story    Next news story

New test scene beta begins with Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 samples

Aug 14, 2013 at 22:44:11 GMT
Print view Email

We've been working on a brand-new studio comparison scene for some time, and we've decided to give you a sneak peek, as a beta, using images from the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7. We'll be speaking more about this new scene (and the new interface that goes with it) very soon, but for now we wanted to let you have a look, try it, play around and tell us what you think.

We will, of course, be adding an increasingly large selection of existing models to the widget in the coming weeks, so that you can compare to older cameras, but we wanted to be able to show the GX7 results and invite feedback as early as possible.

This is a beta, so we're aware there may be some bugs at first (including rather slow loading, first time it's used). Please bear this in mind when responding. The best way of reporting an issue is via the feedback page.

New Features:

The two most obvious features should be the buttons at the top of each widget:

Lighting:

These buttons allow you to swap between a daylight simulation scene - which is the way our current scene is lit. This gives a good idea of how the camera will behave in good light. However, to give a clearer idea of how a camera might behave in the less-than-perfect conditions encountered in the real world, there is also low-light mode, partially illuminated using a tungsten bulb.

Image Size:

Another feature, aimed at making it easier to compare camera with different pixel counts, is 'Image Size' feature, that normalizes images down to an 'Print' size (7 or 8MP), and 'Web' size (~3MP), which puts all the cameras on a similar footing.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Add to: Login to add this item to your gear lists.
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Comments

Total comments: 1175
12345
BolleDuc
By BolleDuc (2 weeks ago)

Reviewers: Where do you see "the semi-auto Av and Tv modes" on this camera's control dial? Why would you use another brands nomenclature for a review of a Panasonic camera?

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (3 weeks ago)

For those who need to know more about the GX7 can also take a look at:

luminous-landscape.com

They have been using the camera for a while and have some interesting experience with it.

0 upvotes
BolleDuc
By BolleDuc (2 weeks ago)

I'd hesitate to call that a review. Sounds like a grumpy old guy who'd rather we stuck with simpler technologies & defines anyone who might be interested in anything else as having "morbid curiosity"! Pretentious codger, I say!

3 upvotes
fastprime
By fastprime (4 weeks ago)

OP: wondering if the Focus Peaking feature works through the EVF or limited to the LCD?

0 upvotes
Scottish Kev
By Scottish Kev (4 weeks ago)

Looks like the x100/x100s?

0 upvotes
Thomas Karlmann
By Thomas Karlmann (1 month ago)

Boo on the new studio scene! I really need to compare IQ of the GX7 with the Sony a99. Please fix!

4 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (1 month ago)

TOTALLY Agree!!!

0 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (4 weeks ago)

We are working to add older benchmark cameras, including the a99.

0 upvotes
achim k
By achim k (3 weeks ago)

I would prefer the old studio scene! Better relationship to real photography! I really don't like the new scene.

6 upvotes
cognisant
By cognisant (1 month ago)

Looks great. Does M-mode support autoISO?

0 upvotes
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (1 month ago)

Very much looking forward to replacing my GX1 with this. Mostly looking forward to beefier grip and low-profile EVF. The LVF2 on my GX1 makes it not fit all that well in my small bag. Really don't give a hoot about IQ comparisons, as GX1 is already plenty good enough for my 16"x24" landscape prints.

Would like to see faster frame rate (6-8fps) and 3-stop IBIS (for primes). Oh, and CAF that doesn't suck. Then I could begin to consider ditching my FF system.

0 upvotes
DMillier
By DMillier (1 month ago)

[Edited:]

The 5D image is larger than the others of course. People will still want to compare resolution at 100% with the usual misleading problems because the image sizes are not identical. It will be very interesting to see if the print simulation options make a difference most will understand. Good idea though.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

none of these shots were designed for comparison of image qualities, original or "print" mode, because DPReview don't have a definition of image quality when they designed these tests.

use of camera advertised ISO makes the comparison impossible (because it means different things on different cameras) and use of picture height makes it impossible to compare directly across different aspect ratios.

these are fundamental flaws though I agree that accurate exposure control means bloody effort and may be turned down for cost. the correction of PH can be done easily.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (2 months ago)

I'm so excited to see the new studio tool despite using gprs in a small island as intrnet connection. Anyway, I love the new Print size option and the flat DOF. It was a revelation. Like, in terms of noise and high ISO, the modern cameras came close to each other. Yet, in detail and noise, FF is still significantly better even at print size resolution. Can't wait to see the Nikon's, Ricoh GR, and RX1R .

One more thing, DPR please include a Sigma Merrill camera and other print size options such as 15MP and 20MP.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Red G8R
By Red G8R (2 months ago)

For me the most impressive thing here is the Sony RX100 II. It stands up well against the others despite the smallest sensor.

0 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (2 months ago)

Anyone know the specifics of silent mode (beyond what's already been written above) Specifically, I'd lke to know if the silent mode produces higher resolutioin images than the silent mode on my GH2. The GH2 can shoot 4MP in 4:3 ratio but only in the SH burst mode - 2-40 shots per burst. It is truely silent.

1 upvote
rsongusa
By rsongusa (1 month ago)

I, too, would like to know the specifics of the silent mode. Can I shoot RAW in silent mode?

0 upvotes
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (3 weeks ago)

The electronic shutter shoots full resolution RAW images. The only limitation when compared to the mechanical shutter is that it can't be used above ISO3200 and for exposures of longer than 1 second.

0 upvotes
Julio Tegner
By Julio Tegner (2 months ago)

The test shots show it comparable to the Pen E-P5 and NEX-6.

But why did they make a $1000 camera body with no audio in? That alone makes it a loser unless you have no intention of shooting video with decent sound.

0 upvotes
JJ Rodin
By JJ Rodin (2 months ago)

Where are the new "higher resolution" test sites that old studio scene had ? The old lady with the small vertical skiggly lines (needed 16mp or beyond to resolve) & details of face, the male head, the fine detail in feathers, etc ?

The skin tones tests are good addition, but need some/MORE resolution test sites!!!!!!

No specific Dynamic range areas as well !!

Needs Improving quite a bit IMO !!!

2 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (2 months ago)

Man....the GX7 is completely on par with the NEX6 at all iso's and a TAD bit ahead of the EP-5 at 6400 and 12800.

Thats pretty dam impressive!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

basically the analog ISO of 4/3" won't go beyond 800 or 1600. higher ISOs are numerically amplified and noise reduction may be applied differently.

0 upvotes
Andy Turner
By Andy Turner (2 months ago)

Do we have any idea on when the full review is likely to appear on DPReview? Thanks

4 upvotes
Misa
By Misa (2 months ago)

To me it looks much more like a direct translation drom Lumix L1 to Micro Four/Third and I think is very good, I wish I could buy one right now :)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

looks the designer of L1 is not fired.

1 upvote
lxcellent
By lxcellent (2 months ago)

This is an ugly camera. I know that you should not judge a book by its cover, but why not make it look more like the classic rangefinder like they did in the LX1. Shoot. Follow Fuji's lead on this.

...and yes, the way a tool looks DOES make a difference!

0 upvotes
JeffreyG
By JeffreyG (2 months ago)

Have you seen the camera yet? Personally, I think it looks very similar to the Fujifilm X series cameras.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

> Fujifilm X series cameras.

which are ugly.

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (2 months ago)

well that's totally subjective, personally I think this is the best looking camera out there

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

there are (subconscious) objective reasons behind subjective judgements, like what we call sexy has much to do with reproductive capability even you always take contraceptives.

those who think retro camera designs are good have their reasonings rooted in misknowledge/misunderstanding.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chj
By chj (2 months ago)

um, so liking which camera will boost my reproductive capability the most?

6 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (2 months ago)

yabokkie, it's time put down those evolutionary psychology books...

0 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (2 months ago)

What happened to DPreview's "Block user" functionality?

There's little point in coming here if trolls (lxcellent, in this case) can't be blocked.

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (2 months ago)

I agree there should be a function to block messages. If not there's always the tedious way of starving them for attention.

0 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (2 months ago)

Looks great to me, except the eyecup bulge....but if it feels anything like the GX1, which is by far the most comfortable mirrorless I ever held, it will be a great shooting camera and perfect for those us with large hands who can't safely grip many of OLY's offerings while climbing up a small cliff to grab a shot of some birds nest or baby mammals!

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (1 month ago)

while alot of people probably love the EVF, I don't like the eyecup bulge either, I'm hoping it can be detached.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (1 week ago)

I like an "Ugly" camera, doesn't draw attention. Besides, I look though it, not at it. Others will have to suffer.

0 upvotes
pgphoto_ca
By pgphoto_ca (2 months ago)

For me, the E-P5 has a slight better ISO over the GX7 at 800 ISO. approx 1/2 stop diff.

Image quality is prime for me. I just hope Panasonic will improve a bit the ISO before they release the GX7...

go go go Pana !

0 upvotes
OngNikon
By OngNikon (2 months ago)

And you had detected the difference. And it is going to be game changer for you!!

2 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (2 months ago)

From the test images on Imaging Resource, The P5 seems to have a little better resolution and sharpness, at low iso, or perhaps less anti-aliasing or NR than the GX7, side by side (but that could be lens based or some setting. I was looking at eyelashes on the mannequin, so not sure if that is relevant, since the leaves on the trees on outdoor house shots look identical, perhaps a lighting response?

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (2 months ago)

Where's the robot? How can I choose a new camera without it's little metal smile?

5 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (2 months ago)

I do miss the drawing of the old lady drawing!!!!!! SO MUCH easier to see the definition and detail between different cameras or evaporating with increasing ISO!

Miss also the box with the coloured stuff inside!!!
Those should stay for sure!!!

One very welcome thing is the colourful circle target!!!! :D

3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (2 months ago)

People seem to really care about 'their' test chart. :)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

when DPReview don't?

0 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (2 months ago)

For me it is more about having more cameras [aka reviews] that I'm to use for comparative purposes. . . How does one compare the GX7 with the Oly OM-D EM 5? This change virtually means starting from square one and has little meaning until the 'bank' of tests has enough history for comparative purposes. It also renders the previous bank of test useless to use for comparison with the new cameras with the new studio comparison.

Some things are best left along, especially if it is 'not broken'

4 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

@kzmike:
the EP5 is the same sensor - it is right there in the choices

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
ThePartaker
By ThePartaker (2 months ago)

What strikes me about these tests is how well the RX100 II holds up as it only has a 1" sensor and is truly pocket-able. It looks just about usable up to 1600 - will you be doing a full review of it soon? What do others think?

3 upvotes
chj
By chj (2 months ago)

The RX100 II's high ISO shots do hold up very well. Hopefully the low light autofocus speed and accuracy are also good.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
chj
By chj (1 month ago)

unfortunately, accd'g to what I've read, low light AF is still not great on the RX100 II

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (2 months ago)

Pocket lint has a review with raw and jpeg samples. Their conclusion is E-P-5 wins on IQ but G7 wins on package because the Pen5 does not have the built in EVF so adding a finder adds a lot to the package cost.Auto focus speed both cameras are blazing fast. Personally I will wait till the next versions of XE-1 and Nex6 come out as I like 16MP APS-C sensors.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (2 months ago)

Pocket lint has nothing to substantiate their claims. IT is only to their eyes it is so, if I am correct. So it doesn't mean too much to me. Others, with their eyes have said the opposite. Those who did noise test etc in general say that they performequally with a slight advantage to the GX7 at higher ISO (really high ISO that is).

Also we need to see how well Dynamic range etc performs which we cannot assess here. Maay be EP5 etc indeed have clearly better Dynamic range and is the better sensor.

The best Panasonic sensor ever when it comes to DR, the GH1 scores 11,6 eV. G6 scored 11,5 btw. So I think a score of 12 to 12,5 is what we can expect. With the changes they made they should be able to get close to that.

GH1 scored 772 Low Light ISO. 895 ISO was the score of EP5. If this is the best Pana sensor ever, it should be possible to come close to that.

But okey...I'll await DxO.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

Pentax use Sony sensors to "out perform" Sony cameras by a good deal. obviously Oly failed to do the same.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (2 months ago)

AF speed comment is very interesting!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

though 70D is only the first budget DSLR with an old DIGIC processor, the dual-pixel AF is at least better than A99 (impression).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chj
By chj (2 months ago)

From the DPR photos, the high iso is very close, the ep5 may have the edge. Good to hear that the autofocus is fast. Hopefully it works as well in low light and with 4.3 fps tracking as claimed.

0 upvotes
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (3 weeks ago)

Yes, I think their reviews are worth about what the name suggest "Pocket Lint" and not one furball more.

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (2 months ago)

One slight problem I see is that all of these elements are made from synthetic dies and materials. While they are colorful, they are no what nature offers in terms of color. Yet the majority of subjects we photograph are nature and of course people (natural skin). A printed photo of a person is a very reduced representation of what real human skin is like in terms of colors, shades, how light gets broken, absorbed and reflected to create it's unique look.

Of course I'm aware it's impossible to have a real person be part of a test scene that has to be 100% constant over years. OTOH I know from owning about 20 different digital cameras over the years that some cameras produce wonderful looking photos from artificial colored scenes, they do poorly when it comes to resolving very fine differences in colors and shades which is key for natural looking scenes, especially when it comes to portraits (and landscapes).

Again, I don't really have a solution, but something to think about.

6 upvotes
lester11
By lester11 (2 months ago)

The Paul Smith watch told me everything I wanted to know (for my particular taste in snaps). How the letters were sharpened (or not), how the dial ticks were resolved (or not), how the particular glittery blue of the face was smeared (or not), how the second hand suffered aliasing (or not), how the glass reflections affected the render. Every time I saw a better rendering, I bought the camera and dumped the previous (smile) or lived with the difference 'cos it was smaller than the bank balance... Can you not tuck it into a blank space somewhere, please?

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (2 months ago)

No, because this scene is so much larger than the old one, the watch would be tiny. It won't look anything like the last scene. Just look at the Queen of hearts in previous scene and compare how much smaller the cards look in this scene.

1 upvote
Tan68
By Tan68 (2 months ago)

It is a bit more like a resolution chart... Will any deviation of resolution in the corners create distracting arguments.. if these differences might be due to different lenses...? I know the same lens in different mount is used but they are still physically different lenses and may have some different characteristics...

The different lighting levels is a good idea and I know there are dark swatches, but I might miss the little box of shaded puffy balls and/or thread. [well, the parsley in the corners does do just as well so the friendly looking puffs are gone..]

Resizing the images to match at ~8MP is a good addition. It should help some people understand if the 24MP APS-C sensors really are noisier than 16MP...

This change offers more than the last change. Still, I hate to see the robot and batteries go. I remember him from my first digital camera purchase... Maybe add a picture of the robot somewhere. Just for a little fun and to retain touch with the old :^)

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

it's more than a simple sharp black-white resolution target, for which software can make good guess and generate artificial image that may match the target well.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (2 months ago)

I have compared the exposes of GX7, NEX6 and EP5. In lowlightmode there is not difference. bar two small exceptions out of 21 (7 shots per cam from ISO 100 to 25600 times 3) they all use the exact same shutterspeed.

In Daylight mode somehting is different. From ISO 200 to ISO 3200 the NEX uses 1/3 less shutterspeed, so 1/3 of astop. compared to the others.
ISO6400 Oly falls behind it seems. It is 1/2 a stop slower. Shutterspeed is 0,0004 s instead of 0,0003 on the other two.

The strange thing is that ISO12800 and ISO25600, the EP5 uses the exact same shutterspeed. Where GX7 goes down to half the shutterspeed, as can be expected when you move up 1 stop. To makeit clear, the Oly file at ISo 12800 has 2,5 times longer exposure than the GX7. The Sony stick to ISO 0,00025 s which is logical. It is 1/4000s its max shutterspeed. when we go up to ISO 25600 both Panny and Oly use the same shutterspeed. Strange but it means that Oly again uses 2,5 times more time GX7.

Explanation?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

you may have assumed that all were shot at exactly the same lighting which may not be true.

actually in a well controlled test, lighting should be adjusted carefully to compensate slight differences among shutter speeds and aperture sizes (less than 1/3 stops of normal control).

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (2 months ago)

I surely do assume that all things are kept equal. If you want to compare, you have to. If you want to show how good an individual cam can perform, you should not.

I am convinced dpreview ekpt everything the same.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I only want the exposure on the sensor be the same.

for GX7 vs NEX-6,
many say their image qualities look the same.
let's assume everything the same except shutter speed, then
NEX-6 got 0.32 stops underexposed and 0.17 stops smaller area (11.1%) because a flaw in the test.

so NEX-6 is 0.49 stops better than GX7, while the area ratio suggests that NEX-6 gets 0.70 stops more light.
then per unit area (mm2) performance of GX7 is better.
(assume both of them cook raw data the same, too)

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

so if Pana had made an APS-C sensor for Sony,
it would have beaten NEX-6 by 0.2 stops.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (2 months ago)

? I think we'll need to await throrough testing to say anythign about total IQ.

1 upvote
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (2 months ago)

@Jorginho - Did you also check the f-stop? DPR usually uses f/6.3 on mFT and f/8 on APS-C. If that's the case here too, then Nex-6 gets 2/3 stop less exposure if the shutter speed and lighting is the same.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (2 months ago)

Yes of course. Look here to see the result in a table I made. All were at f5.6.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51998946

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (2 months ago)

@Yabokkie....What you seem to forget is that the NEX6 files also are smaller than the GX7 EP5 files. Everything is smaller in them by a clearly visible amount. This means that noise will appears smaller and finer too. When you make them th same size, the noise of the NEX6 will becoem a bit more visible..

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

there may be other reasons.

one is although they are both 16MP sensors, DPReview uses a smaller portion of a 3:2 sensor for the main part of the scene within a 4:3 frame. what left over (left and right of the 3:2 sensor) are mostly empty with some simple figures.

this is a fatal flaw that DPReview are determined to have.

btw, I'm not saying the two are the same. I only wanted to say how we could interpret and what we might get from these tests, and one of the considerations is exposure variation as you pointed out.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

also from the sensor point of view, we better test at the same shutter speeds, though a 1/3 stop difference won't make visible difference.

0 upvotes
Joemuma
By Joemuma (2 months ago)

We are always looking at the shadowy box with thread spools. It shows the low light performance of the sensors and makes it easily comparable as the noise reduction of the cameras are removing the details. You yourself used this for the "Image quality test" in the A99 review. - Would miss this box! (you too?)

0 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (2 months ago)

The problem is that to evenly-light a large, flat target like this, the light has to be fairly straight-on, so the box we built didn't end up with much shadow.

0 upvotes
scotbot
By scotbot (2 months ago)

Excellent, especially for lens reviews.

0 upvotes
dscottsatx
By dscottsatx (2 months ago)

This new studio test would be a lot better if it wasn't so shallow.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (2 months ago)

The fact it is so shallow is what makes it so good. Testing is meant to be done on shallow test charts in the first place.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

> is what makes it so good

the depth of field is not so bad an issue.
actually it may well be welcome if seen from another angle.

my understanding is that we need a flat target because of
f-number and focusing problems.

in ideal, if f/5.6 is used for 4/3", f/7.1 should be used for APS-C and f/11 for 35mm format but that's not what we get. then we give up and look for a flat target.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fcna72
By fcna72 (2 months ago)

How can I download full size JPG of the scene other than ISO 125? Whatever the ISO setting selected (and visiable), the downloaded file is the ISO125 P1030034. Is this intended (and what am I doing wrong) or a bug?

0 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (2 months ago)

That would be a bug - we'll look into it.

0 upvotes
fcna72
By fcna72 (2 months ago)

Thanks Richard

0 upvotes
fcna72
By fcna72 (2 months ago)

PS: issue seems to be related to firefox browser. Working fine with IE

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

a fundamental bug the tool has, or the test procedure has, is that it fits the scene to image height which make it impossible to compare sensors of different aspect ratios.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
108
By 108 (2 months ago)

I must say this rx100 second is impressive. Not bigger than a s95, would fit in the belt bag and ever ready . Photography at its simplest.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
108
By 108 (2 months ago)

In the low light comparison with gx7, ep5, nex6 and rx100II, all in auto wb except not specified for the rx, , ep5 jpegs come constantly much too warm/yellowish and too saturated. Main reason I don't go over to Pana is the Oly jpeg engine/colors etc....so much for it. I have this kind of problem with E620, but to that extent..and I don't shoot raw, and don't like Lightroom

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

Probably "keep warm color" is ON.

0 upvotes
108
By 108 (2 months ago)

thanks

0 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (2 months ago)

I think you miss an area with shadows that can show the resolution and dynamic range like the box of colorful fluff and threads.

Also, I really wonder, do you shoot at the same aperture? What distance? How do you make sure everything is in the dof.

2 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (2 months ago)

Where's the 1000 drachma bill? Grexit has happened and you put it back in circulation?

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (2 months ago)

some feedback:

1. incandescent lighting needs to get a lot more even
2. little gear icons (showing camera settings) are only present for 2 leftmost magnified samples. Two samples on the right don't show their settings...
3. I wish there were a few bright, colorful objects in primary colors (RGB/CMY, but not flat) to show effects of channel clipping

finally, everything is shot with the maximum aperture?? makes no sense

1 upvote
HelloToe
By HelloToe (2 months ago)

1. The whole point of the low-light shot is that it's NOT even. Some of us take pictures outside of perfectly lit studios, you know. That's why objects are repeated, so you can compare how they look in direct light vs. shadow. If anything, I'd say it needs to be darker, and more from the side so that objects cast shadows on each other.

2. For me, the gear icon is only missing for the RX100. They said they're planning to add more settings info in the future, though.

3. Check the paint tubes? There's definitely a real shortage of 'color with details/texture', though. You've got those nice patches of greenery, but for any other colors, all you've got to go on for texture & details is the thread.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
goblin
By goblin (2 months ago)

Older test scene was good enough, and most of all - had all the old non CaNikon cameras which you guys will never reshoot on the new one. This new scene is a break.

Couldn't the new light simulations be added to the existing scene ? And where are my bottles !!! :D

0 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (2 months ago)

The old scene was too small - we had to shoot too close up, which ended up mis-representing cameras such as the RX100. Its 3D nature also meant we had to stop the lenses down beyond their sharpest point - the new chart fixes both of these problems.

There are plenty of non-Canon or Nikon products in the re-shoot list.

3 upvotes
goblin
By goblin (2 months ago)

Thanks

0 upvotes
David25
By David25 (2 months ago)

Please please add back the blue watch, some cameras could resolve the black hour marks and some could not!

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

they got some spirals in different colors,
may be not enough?

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (2 months ago)

If you put the blue watch in this scene, in all likelihood *none* of them would be able to resolve the details of the watch. Remember that this new scene is much larger (like 6 feet across), and shot from farther away.

2 upvotes
petr marek
By petr marek (2 months ago)

Comparsion with older cameras is crucial. Older test scene was good enough, I think better (especially shaded things in box) and not so flat.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (2 months ago)

"Older test scene was good enough"

No, it wasn't. That's why it was replaced.

The older scene was too small, requiring the cameras to be too close to the scene. That introduced focusing and DOF issues.

Another problem was that some lenses (like RX100 lens) didn't perform optimally as not all lenses are optimized for close focusing performance. That meant the older scene was not representative of real world performance.

RX100 easily out resolves cameras like XZ2 in real life performance, but the older scene wouldn't tell you that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
R Butler
By R Butler (2 months ago)

@ET2 - exactly.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (2 months ago)

Also "shaded things in box" has now been replaced by a fully darkened scene if you press that lightbulb. Showing all kinds of different shadow levels and detail. :)

0 upvotes
Eric Glam
By Eric Glam (2 months ago)

Comparing the RAW files very closely (ISO 3200, ISO 6400), it looks to me like the NEX-6 and GX7 have exactly the same IQ.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

(1) we don't know if advertised ISO value means the same thing on different cameras (this is one of reasons why E-M5 looks so good at the same ISO, the real ISO is lower and exposure more).

(2) we cannot compare cameras of different aspect ratios using this tool, even at the same exposure.

the tool favorites 4:3 sensors, that you get lower image quality for 3:2, and even lower for 16:9 of the same sensor area.

Comment edited 8 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Boissez
By Boissez (2 months ago)

The functionality (lightning toggle/image resizing) is brilliant! However I would like the scene to have some more color in it - especially colored textures/fabrics as it can really punish poor de-bayering and heavy-handed NR.

2 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (2 months ago)

I agree the "Test Scene" is too dull. Hope you guys are taking into consideration the ability to capture the maximum dynamic range, colors, B&Ws possible in a controlled environment and the Test Scene pics are chosen accordingly. Honestly the Photo of Photos (Faces) is very dull and compromised already....DPR please rethink your Beta before finalizing as hundreds of Cameras' fate is based on what scene you use for critical reviews

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

besides what you say, I hope DPReview could understand what is picture height (and before that, what is image quality).

0 upvotes
Individual11
By Individual11 (2 months ago)

It's a real test of 'change management' making this fundamental of a change. I join those who have said that they have come to rely on the old test scene - resolving "Paul Smith" on the watch is one of the things I look for. But change is not always a bad thing. Clearly this new scene reflects the improvements in cameras since that first scene was designed. So what I would keep (or replicate): the watch face for the detail of the lettering and material (and moderate contrast) of the "Paul Smith," I agree that blonde is better than brown hair, several textured fabrics: carpet, white loose wool, the yarn or torn carpet (earth tones, left of center), the pom-poms without glittery sheen, playing card (a ubiquitous object), paperclips (agree with others) & the robot cuz he's simultaniously cool & cute. Most importantly, how are you to deal with the backlog? Will you continue to shoot both scenes thru transition period? And BTW, where did you get the honey balsamic?

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (2 months ago)

If you want to test text resolving there's some very tiny text just above the centre of the chart in various combinations of black, white and grey.

0 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (2 months ago)

I have to agree the robot should remain. For the new test format, I recommended a picture of him tucked in somewhere. Maybe a little frivolous. Should be a bit of whimsey in there, though.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (2 months ago)

it be great if you could add a few more cameras that will be important comparisons for some time like the nikon d800

0 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (2 months ago)

We are currently working through a backlog of cameras including the D800 and we'll be adding them along with upcoming cameras.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

to my eyes, GX7 doesn't have better noise than Pana's previous sensor in E-M5, though Oly may cook raw files more than Pana.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (2 months ago)

E-M5 uses a Sony sensor.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

Oly did mention Sony but what part of the sensor was made by Sony if any?

the sensor got Pana brand Live MOS,
the sensor got Pana technology of fast readout for CDAF,
the sensor performs similar to Pana cameras.

maybe Pana made the chip and Sony made on-chip micro-lens? only my wild guess.

be careful about anything told by Pana or Oly. their whole business is based on cheating.

* adding to my original post, ISO cheating may also contributed a lot that the ISO difference may go directly as the performance difference.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (2 months ago)

Guess you have no clue what you are talking about..."whole business based on cheating" - what the hell that is supposed to mean?!!

5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Someone in the m4/3 forum sent an E-PM2 to Chipworks for analysis. The final report haven't been published, but they did say that the markings on the sensor were consistent with a Sony chip.

Live MOS is in fact an Olympus trademark, which may not imply a specific sensor maker.
As for the readout speed, Sony would have made a sensor that meets their customers' demands, possibly (but not necessarily) using Panasonic tech.
The sensor performs noticeably better than previous m4/3 sensors, and is in fact on par with Sony APS-C, if one takes the smaller size into consideration.

Panasonic and Olympus don't base their businesses on cheating, at least not more than any of their competitors. Care to elaborate on that? I know that you talk alot about "F-stop cheating" and "ISO cheating", but that really is a misleading way to put it.

5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Regarding "ISO cheating", you should read these two articles:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Pushed-ISO-Let-s-make-it-clear

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I don't know the truth, only I see no evidence and a lot of contradictions to call it Sony, some more reasons,

volume is too small for a dedicated sensor for Oly only,
Sony's own NEX focus much slower,
Sony's own NEX actually perform "worse" (ISO cheated),
Oly said it vaguely in an unusual way (they meant to cheat).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Well, I don't know the truth either, of course, but I see no reason to doubt that it's a Sony sensor. Especially given that Olympus and Sony have stated that they will exchange technology, now that Sony has invested heavily in Olympus.
As to the volume, Olympus use the sensor in their entire m4/3 line-up, and Panasonic most likely use the same sensor in GH3.
But as long as we don't know for sure, your guess is as good as mine. We'll have to wait for the results from Chipworks.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

sorry I don't have the imagination to think Pana throwout their sensors for Sony whom Nikon is turning away from.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Panasonic still use their own sensors in some cameras, so they haven't "gone Sony" completely. Canon make their own sensors, but they also have used Sony sensors in some compact cameras.
Sure, the GH3 is their "flagship" model, but I see no problem with Panasonic using a Sony sensor in it. There is some evidence suggesting Olympus use a Sony sensor, and since GH3 has practically identical image quality in raw, it's most likely the same sensor.

And just because Nikon use sensors from Toshiba and Aptina, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have turned away from Sony completely. Nikon also designs their own sensors, which are manufactured by Renesas, and they have done so for many years, so they've never used exclusively Sony sensors.

We simply don't know the reasoning behind the choice of sensor maker; there could be both technological and business-related factors influencing the choice of one source over another. That goes for all camera components, by the way, not just the sensor.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

> We simply don't know the reasoning behind the choice of sensor

don't blame others,
that you don't have reasoning behind your own dreaming.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (2 months ago)

My opinion is that test scene needs one bigger object with decent amount of details. Like Baileys bottle in the old scene.

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (2 months ago)

Also not sure why we need three different black & tan bottles. Couldn't find any other colors?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

it could be changed totally

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (2 months ago)

If it's not already being planned, it would be nice to have the four zoomed-in boxes beside the big full-scene view, instead of below it. I'm pretty sure most of us are on widescreen monitors at this point, why not take advantage of the space?

It might also be a good idea to have all four zoomed boxes on a single horizontal line, rather than in a 2x2 grid. A lot of monitors are weak in their vertical viewing angles, making things lighter or darker depending on whether the image is at the top or bottom of the screen.

2 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (2 months ago)

Your idea to have all four thumbnails in a row might make it hard to have the full scene view to the side.

However if there is a choice of:
- full scene to side and 4x4 thumbnails beside it, or
- full scene above/below with one row of thumbnails
I vote for one row of thumbnails.

I think you are correct about most people having wide screens. But some people don't like to view the browser full screen. I dislike sites that force me to view full screen and/or read crazy wide blocks of text.

So, I vote for full scene above and one row below. Not everyone has IPS.

0 upvotes
Sudo Nimh
By Sudo Nimh (2 months ago)

I don't like photos of photos! Okay, I guess you're trying to show skin tones, but the test is limited by the reproduction of the original photo. Please concentrate on real objects. Your old test scene was good, and I liked imaging-resource's scene, with crayons and bottles and thread, even better. You need more color in this scene, and not just a particular shade of green.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

we want flat targets.

1 upvote
Timbukto
By Timbukto (2 months ago)

Imaging-resource's red mosaic fabric is a very good one due to difficulties with red channel reproduction. However as for everything else keep in mind the resolution of a photo shot at a distance must be higher than the resolution of a crayon label and cardboard box! Only points of detail for them would be settled dust and frayed edges of cardboard!

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (2 months ago)

Would have to agree 100%. . . retaining what you suggest is good since most all know/have viewed or have those items for comparison purposes.

0 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (2 months ago)

Love the dim light high iso option. That is meaningful data.

6 upvotes
Mikhail Tal
By Mikhail Tal (2 months ago)

Sad to say but now I am actually looking forward to the OM-D E-M1 already because it has on-sensor PDAF so I can actually photograph moving subjects without losing focus. Plus it will have 5-axis IBIS, weather sealing, and the always amazing Oly jpeg engine, and maybe another surprise or two. That said the GX7 is still an amazing camera that puts most DSLRs to shame.

0 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy
By IchiroCameraGuy (2 months ago)

Puts most DSLRs to shame in video and compact size but other areas....

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (2 months ago)

Are you suggesting that the test targets need to be moving and in a rainstorm???? Now THAT'S funny!!! bravo!!!! Finally someone with a sense of humor!!!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

it'll be interesting if Oly becomes the second to make a 70D-like PDAF camera.

> always amazing Oly jpeg engine
very bad taste

0 upvotes
Mikhail Tal
By Mikhail Tal (2 months ago)

If I have very bad taste, how would you describe your own taste, grotesque?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I'm not interested in the taste of a specific individual.
I'm only talking about cameras from a user's point of view.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy
By IchiroCameraGuy (2 months ago)

Bravo for dim lighting version - much, much more realistic

3 upvotes
Total comments: 1175
12345