"Sony does have one in their line-up."
One what? A 20mp MFT sensor? What camera(s) is it used in?

Sure, 5DII sensor is not latest tech, but very fine sensor still. Bad is quite an extreme expression. Yes, Sony has better DR at ISOs 100-400, but that does not make 5DII sensor "bad".

All things are relative.
Compare the 5d mk2 vs the D700 back in the day and it did a very good job.

Compare it vs a D810 and it will not fare well.

My point is DPR has the phase one listed as the benchmark and it is for a reason. Most of these other cameras are very close when you add the phase one to the scale. I know that takes the fun out of pixel peeping, but when half the people say this one is better and others say that one is better, they must all be pretty close.

FYI http://www.senscore.org/

Have you noticed how all the cameras are tested on latest top-of-the-line 85mm primes except Canon system is tested with 85/1.8 USM (non-L) from year 1992?

I was bit shocked first, until I checked from DxOMark how the 85/1.2L II is not any sharper :-(

However, Sigma 85mm/1.4 is sharper lens. DPR is already using Oly lenses for all m43 cameras already so why let Canon suffer from this gap in their lens portfolio?

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-85mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__241_795_270_795_322_795

Any way, Nikon 85/1.4 is still sharper:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-85mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D750__241_795_322_795_388_975

D750 used since its 24 Mpx is same as in 5DIII

It's so franciful to imagine much better SNR performance than 16MP M43 at present, especially viewing them on pixel level.
A 20MP MFT camera means 32MP APS-C ones which is still non-existent in terms of pixel density.

Though IMX109 get a higher ISO score on DXO.com than NM34230, I don't find much differences when I use both GX7 & EPL6...

Lassoni .. ok "Hater"!

Free Jazz.. DXO is a hoax!!

@Lassoni ..
if you are such a dxo beleiver .. GH4 is top scorrer on 4/3 sensor
EMD-5m2 comes second.. now read your OP!

but i was replying to jazz comment . which was about sensors ..
for lenses i preffer reading slrgear.com

GH4 doesn't really compare with oly's sensors.
?

Em1/GH4 had panasonic sensor and better than Em5 sensor on DR/Color bit ,see on DXOMARK.

Unfortunately, Canon is not the gold standard of APS-C world. I'm not sure they even best Pentax. That said, it's not much of a big deal that they have moved close to Canon performance, but it is somewhat of a bragging right for M43 in general. Still cannot quite match the Canon line of lenses.

Yes, there isn't any prgoression.
Anyway 20 MP is close to recent aps-c resolutions, so it's not bad if you keep in mind mft's smaller sensor.
But I think mft segment shouldn't chase aps-c resolution until they reach the same IQ (actually it needs better sensor to compensate the smaller size)

"I'm not sure they even best Pentax."
They don't. Pentax uses Sony sensors which perform equally to Nikon Apsc bodies.

Pentax use the best aps-c sensors available. There's no class leaders any more, just Canon the class follower.

It's not class leading in high ISO shooting
Just check the DPreview studio scene and compare it yourself.
Then Dxo is gives it an ISO score of 1082 vs 1333 for the Nikon D7200 and 1216 for the Pentax K3.

This is quoted from the 7d mk2 review here on DPreview.
"it doesn't show any improvement over the 70D, and consistently comes up a little short of one of the best APS-C low light cameras out there: the Nikon D7100."

@Jostian You're missing the point like so many others do. The Canon is GOOD in isolation and in the scheme of things but the Sony sensors are GOODER.

Don't confuse a market monopoly with evidence of superiority. Canon established their dominance in those fields when they DID have the best cameras, it's not necessarily true now.

No denying that in the period 2002-2009 They had the best camera's. In 2010 things started to change

So current Pro photographers are willingly using inferior equipment... interesting. And for the record, I never said Canon was the best, but please, carry on.

They are willing to use acceptable equipment that can make use of their significant investment of lenses and accesoires.

But Sony is giving them a hard thought with the A7rII. Since it can use their lenses too.

All I did was compare the results of the GX8 to the 7D MkII, I NEVER said the 7D MkII is the best etc... dont blame me for your assumptions. And to BarnET, was Nikon not around as well, I dont see Pro's running around with D7100 etc... and yet they have had a few lenses and accessories over the years. But yes the Sony ARII though FF is a superb piece of kit, absolutely agree.

to fatdeeman, so, Pro photographers are a bunch of dimwits, just using canon cos they have a few more lenses, what about NIkon, last I checked they have a few lenses to, but dont see Pro's running around with D7000/D7100's etc.

You don't see pro's using Nikon?

http://www.klongdigital.com/images_webboard3/id_39907_2.jpg

http://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2011/9/12/1315821712113/A-bank-of-press-photograp-007.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=517f4cc4efe76952a06dfc63c6a3316a

guess those black lenses don't stand out that much.

A sensor twice the size having the same pixel count and both are not BSI(Sony started doing that from the RX100mk2)

So that would be just in line with my expectations

I have hoped that 3 years of sensor evolution could make the difference bigger.

It's mildly amusing that you have been obsessed with skin tones for the past five years of forum life here on DPR. As I know you probably have owned 100 cameras during this time I'd like to know where on the list this camera ranks? And, which camera is the best for rendering skins in the most natural way to your eyes?
Moving on, "large obsese camera" sounds a lot like camera bullying to me.

I agree with the skin tones when it comes to jpeg shooting. Lips especially take on a strange lavender hue. Panasonic jpeg processing has had issues with yellow, tan, and pink for long time. Happens to be a major part of many skin complexions lol. Basic/fundamental things like this and shutter shock shouldn't appear on expensive cameras for multiple generations. No excuses.

Their video processing has better quality showing the capabilities are there but the photo rendering engineer team is poor - to say it politely.

`RUBBISH` ya `FOOL`!!!!!

photo perzon Thats `RUBBISH` ya `FOOL`!!!

@photobeans

Go into a shop and check out the weight and size od D5500 plus a 35 1.8 DX.

I want something that's portable and pay this price? I will simply get a RX100M4.

and what if you want other lenses? like something wide, long and a macro too? m43 lens choice is not limited to 35mm 1.8dx equivalent. Another point is usability and features, there is far more to a camera than simply IQ.

Oleg Vinokurov

Plenty of other Nikon lens that are very light, including the 50 1.4, and if IQ is not important and not your first priority yet you will to spend 1.2K, there is something wrong......

I will give you that GX8 has the best menu system, I also know D5500 lacks 4K but if I want that there is LX100.

Yes you can say "GX8 has good usability, changeable lens, small, build 4K .....etc" That is justifying a camera's existence by saying what it can do. The question is how many people actually need these at this price point and willing to sacrifice IQ? I don't see many!!

GX8 is not about MFT, GX8 is nonsensical camera because it is more expensive than full frame, yet wight of kit is similar

a7 II + 28-70 - £1459, weight: 894g
GX8 + 12-35 - £1799, weight: 792g

Cut GX8 price half and we can talk about nice camera.

@Trk
Here are you again ... Please avoid these comparisons you stated 100+ times. It is the first time you admit GX8 is a nice camera. Can we draw the conclusion - the quality of GX8 is getting better as the price is getting lower ? At what price will GX8 surpass the quanilty of A7 II ?

does the A7II shoot 4k video.
Does it have that huge buffer depth
0.77x magnification viewfinder or a touchscreen?

It's non sensicle if you want fullframe dof and image quality
It is sensible if you want one of best camera's for both stills and video.

GX8 has huge crop factor in 4k, the biggest of Panasonic MFT 4K cameras, useless 4K. Take a look at review http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_GX8/

a7 II has 0.71 viewfinder magnification so not big difference vs 0.77

If you care about touch screen, not image quality and you do not care about your money go for GX8, others that care about image quality and wants cheaper will buy full frame camera.

@Trk
Excellent point. I was about to buy an MFT camera a couple of years ago, when Sony suddenly announced A7 just before Christmas that year. Since then Sony is churning out cameras with more and more brilliant features, from the affordable A7 up to the class leading A7Rii. I found my A7 camera small enough, it's a myth about the size advantage of MFT. A7 cameras rule.

Please do not compare the Sony 28-70mm with Pana 12-35mm, Pana is an excellent professional lens whereas Sony is... well.. mediocre at best.
And GX8 is miles ahead when it comes to usability, specs, ergonomics etc.. The only area where A7 is better is the sensor and it's a fact. On the other hand, you will find excellent photos from m4/3 system on the web and nobody asks "why did you not use FF?".
But yes, GX8 price needs to go down a little bit.

ozturert, in fact Sony kit lens 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 is better than Panasonic premium lens 12-35mm F2.8.
It is because if you compare these lenses, you must take sensor size into account. Then Panasonic lens compares to 24-70mm F5.6 so it is worse than Sony lens, it is only wider.

MFT is also soft system. It is just before you presented by dpreview comparison scene. Just compare GX8 vs a7 II, you will se that full frame yields superior sharpness. Also consult dxomark measurements. All this information is before you, yet you ignore it.

GX8 represents soft and noisy images, yet the price is more than full frame. Price should be half of what is is now. It should cost the same as NX500, i.e. in EU 600eur including some basic lens. For 600Eur it would be nice camera, but it costs 1200Eur body only. This is ripping of customers.

since it's a F2.8 vs a F5.6 lens makes sure you increase the ISO of the Sony by 2 stops to compensate.

By then the noise is actually better on the Panasonic camera. Elimating the noise will yield similar soft images.

Now if you use a lens on the Sony with an equal or 1 stop difference in aperture. In that case i have to agree that it will produce higher quality images.

Saying it should cost the same as the NX500 is ignorant.
The NX500 may have a great sensor no denying that but it misses so much that the Gx8 offers that it's impossible to sum that up with the 400 characters i have left.

TRK, lens quality has nothing to do with sensor size. Panasonic is a 12-35mm f2.8 lens, not 24-70mm f5.6.
Have you actually used these lenses? I have both, and I'd take GX8 and 12-35mm anytime vs A7 + 28-70mm.
Then again, A7's have sensor advantage only which can be mostly (not always though) compensated by good technique and good lenses (such as 12-35mm).

TRK is only talking DOF and we go into the typical lens discussion.....

The 12-35 2.8 is no doubt a remarkable lens given what it can do and its size. One would only hope Panasonic put that kind of tech and innovation in their sensor. Having said that, it is effectively a 24-70 5.6 lens with a 2.8 light gathering capability in terms of 35mm FOV.

I would actually compare the GX8+1235 to A7 + 2470:
Price: at worse the same if not the A7 is cheaper.
DOF: A7 is one up as it is F4
Light: GX8 sure does not have a 1stop advantage over GX8 especially after 1600. (I am looking at the sensor R&D of panny again...) So at worse they are equal if not the GX8 lose out.

Like I said GX8 has all the gadget...4K, FPS, portability etc.. but it doesn't justify that price tag. If I really have to go M43, I would have pick EM-1 over this, and of course will be silly not to pick A7+2470 over this. Or D5500 plus the three Nikon F1.8S and still have case for a speedlite.

Now that's a well formed opinion Sam.

But then others may have already bought m43 lenses. And put more value onto those gadgets. For instance none of the camera's you mentioned shoot 4k video. Which is a big and expensive features requiring a very fast processor.

If you put more emphasize on image quality and depth of field. While also wanting a small system. Then yes a Apsc based mirrorless or the A7 series are better options.

This is also why i semi-moved toward Fuji X-mount myself.
But i am keeping my Panasonic gear for video recording.

Around here in DPR sometimes you have to leave yourself some wiggle room!

Fuji gain detail becouse of their unique sensor which is one of only 2 that have a 16mp without an AA filter (the other is the K5IIS)

The problem is adobe camera Raw which doesn't get the demosaicing process right. Which is what DPreview uses for this test.

Nope, you got it the wrong way!
The demosaicing of Fujis sensor becasue og the pixel pattern is like adding quite a bit of chroma noice reduction to normal sensor. To me it's often easy to spot a Fuji photo with its unatural plastic look.

chroma noise is a difference in brightness of colours which is a amplified by magnifying a weak signal(high ISO)

This has nothing to do with a different more complicated colour array.

The problem lies in how you turn those pixels into a final image. Which is done pretty well with the Fuji processor or photoninja. But done poorly by Adobe camera RAW

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of the catching up argument.

20 MP M43 means 32 MP APS-C...

The X-T1 does horribly in all these studio tests... instead of noise, it just smears detail giving your photos that nice impressionistic painting look. I'd like to believe Fuji's sensor can do better than this when properly processed because, the results on DPR look terrible.

Nope, Fuji RAW files aren't RAW at all. That's the lie they have been trying to sell to all of us. I had an E2 and a T1 which I quickly sold once I discovered the washed RAW files. I am very happy now with my Olympus. It's in a different league. Here is the proof:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yitl76j5oc48sr4/m5ii_1600.jpg?dl=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2h1n3oik98yhmy9/T1_1600.jpg?dl=1

The A6000 in the other hand does extremely well. Also had it but I was extremely disappointed by the quality of the optics available.

IMHO, you can't beat the Olympus MFT cameras for size and performance.

I still don't understand why people think Fuji does well in the DPR studio scene. There is clearly a huge sacrifice in detail to retain low noise levels... even in RAW output.

EM5 II looks softer than GX8 in comp mode. However still GX8 is very soft it has softer image than GM1 in comp mode.

And also Sony A7 II is in comparison very sharp. Consider following:

a7 II + 28-70 - £1459, weight: 894g
GX8 + 12-35 - £1799, weight: 792g

So actually GX8 is more expensive than full frame, GX8 is very soft and is one and more stops worse than full frame. Also GX8 is worse for enthusiasts as demonstrated in pcworld review where reviewer achieved a lot of blurred images due to aggressive shutter shocks GX8 still has and which were not fixed from GX7 design.
Also GX8 has very slow readout so in eshutter there is a lot of jello. Compare it with Sony RX100 IV which has improvement in this area.

All this means that price of GX8 should be cut half.

To my eye the Olympus looks better, especially at higher Iso, above 1600, and viewing the brush and the fern.

@trk lol, comparing the Panasonic 12-35 to the 28-70 kit lens of the Sony? Really?

Panasonic 12-35 is darker than Sony kit and sharpness of Sony kit yields sharper images on full frame.

MFT is very soft system with dark expensive lenses. GX8 is more expensive than full frame, yet it is one or more stops worse (with the most expensive MFT lenses) .

You know this, so you bought Sony a7S, why to waste hard earned money on cameras with tiny sensors and bad lenses which are more expensive than full frame.

You have also Sony 28-70, so what is your experience with that lens? Is it soft? Is it heavy? Is it expensive?

Sony is f/3.5-5.6 whereas Panasonic is equivalent to constant to F5.6 therefore we can say that Panasonic is darker.
Other questions?