'this is NOT a good" should read as "this is NOT good".

Any way, I may try more when I'm in store again if I'm still interested in M3.

Thanks BarnET,

since my question, I've seen the capability expressed as 16fps7 which suggests 7 shots at that speed... it will be interesting to see how quickly the buffer clears after that, and what kind of burst speed can be sustained.

Anyhow, mine is on pre-order, so I expect to find out for myself in another week+

LV is a measure of the luminance of a *scene*, and this is what you do for your "Studio test scene".

EV is the exposure settings on the camera.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Its also due to the reach of Samsung. I stay in the second most populated country on earth and Samsung doesn't sell its cameras here for whatever reason.

And my friends who stay in the US tell me that at large electronic stores their cameras are mostly absent from shelves.

I see. I guess we'll have to wait for some future sci-fi tech to get closer to 100% efficiency.

They use gentle approach of sharpening in RAW editing using 100% strength, radius at 0.6 rather than at 1. More than 0.6 is too much and it might make it look artifact. 1" sensor is still 4 times smaller than APS-C which doesn't help at all. It is good for longer zoom but higher megapixel is no good.

Yup definitely Zodiac. Its market strategy.

You looked at JPG, I looked at RAW for a more direct comparison. I can if I insist, detect differences, yes. However, I am not sure these are beyond sample variation. Also, it is beyond me why people measure noise with their eyes rather than a calibrated measurement methodology.

Differences must be either striking or left to a good lab to be determined.

@Mike, in this case, I'll wait for DxO. In other cases I've done it myself, as documented in older blog articles. But I'm not that curious in this case that I cant wait.

My point was that a difference isn't obvious and that then it makes no sense to speculate about differences one can only measure.

falconeyes;

One thing I like DxO is that they test and use Measured-ISO for sensor performance.

In the other words, the results are not (always) accurate by using DPR's "Studio test scene comparison tools" comparing cameras as DPR uses Manufacture-said-ISO to comparing cameras as I pointed out early.

@TrojMacReady well it seems that the IV have BOTH more noise AND less details (or if you wish more smoothing). Had it been either it could be explained by a more or less aggressive NR.

@falconeyes Any 'objective' measuring algorithm is designed with the purpose of simulating the eyes perception...
The reason why I look at JPG, is that the coloured noise (not to be confused with colour noise) in the unhandled raw-files 'confuses' the eyes/brain so it is hard to fairly estimate how good or bad the information actually is before processing.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_2=panasonic_dmclx100&attr13_3=canon_g7x&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.0012182103610675996&y=1.0325142483415866

@TrojMacReady agree on that. (For the green not only at high ISO)

Have a look at the recently published PDF brochure here
http://www.docs.sony.com/reflib/docget.asp?manualid=1218203
Pointed to from here:
http://esupport.sony.com/perl/model-find.pl?mdl=DSC-RX100M4&DIRECTOR=HOME
It has some nice illustrations on the new sensor (can not attach images here...)

Richard Butler;

By using DxO's graphs, you can easily comparing sensors in RAW, and most importantly the results are acurate b/c they normalize "MFC claimed sensitivity/ISO" to "DxO measured sensitivity/ISO".

For the real-world usage, DxO also normalize the RAWs to 8MP for print mode.

So users can comparing sensors by using DxO's graphics in Screen or Print mode, I prefer Print mode for the reasons we all know.

"the results are acurate" should be read as "the results are accurate".

BTW, it is about *accurately* comparing sensors. DxO seems not using different PP settings for different sensors' RAWs, but DPR does as DPR takes RAW shots with EV=LV for different sensors/ISOs now.

Fully agreed, Jefftan ! I purchased GM1 a few weeks ago, and lenses 12-32mm/3,5-5,6 and 20mm/1,7 II. IQ seems to be better than with E-M1 ! The camera is small but ergonomics is large. The same high IQ than with my D7200. Essential.

Richard Butler;

Regarding to your "However, this is not what DxO shows", just checked DxO, and DxO stopped testing Fuji APSC sensor camera after X100.

As far as X100 goes, Fuji overstates ISO by almost one stop while D4 is less.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Fujifilm/FinePix-X100---Measurements

BTW, DRP does not have X100 lab test results, otherwise user can comparing X100 vs X-A1 (by using D4 as reference). By doing so, users will very much know how close between DPR vs DxO test results.

Mike FL - My point is that DxO doesn't show ISO accuracy. It's simply not something they test. The graphs you're looking at essentially show how the manufacturer chooses to expose its Raw files. ISO as it's stated on the camera is only concerns with JPEG brightness, so cameras can appear almost anywhere on those graphs and yet still give the correct JPEG brightness.

The interesting situation with Fujifilm is that their cameras appear to give JPEGs that are darker than you'd expect, when exposed to a given amount of light. This is what raises questions about ISO accuracy (though there are sub-sets of the ISO standard that essentially even allow this), but it's not what DxO is showing you.

Richard Butler;

For "The interesting situation with Fujifilm is that their cameras appear to give JPEGs that are darker than you'd expect", I assume that the D4 would be brighter even both camerae using same EV for the same lab lighting setup/LV.

Now, back to my OP which is for comparing two camera's performance in the REAL world *fairly* and *accurately*.

Here is my question to DPR/you, for the same lighting/LV (both X100 and D4 use same f-stop and same shutter speed), Does Fuji X100 need to use ISO higher than D4 to get same exposure/brightness for the image; RAW or JPEG?

From what I can remember of the X100, yes I'd expect it to require more exposure or greater ISO to achieve the same image brightness as most other cameras (though not a whole stop).

While what you ask for is entirely reasonable, a test that is fair, accurate and relevant is a lot harder than it sounds.

We changed our test protocol a while ago, from one that was fair and accurate to one that tries to be more relevant for Raw (it was slanted towards JPEG shooting and assumptions about the use of the camera's meter before). We'll be trying to mark the shots that pre-date this change as soon as we can.

Here's a question to ponder (at it relates to the thing DxO is showing): how do you assess the 'brightness' of a Raw file?

So our current protocol is: use the same lighting level for all but the highest ISO settings (sometimes the lack of fast enough shutter requires the lights to be reduced by 1 or 2EV - but it's an edge case).

JPEG: We display the image that most gives the correct image brightness (because the camera meter and human behaviour will tend to make this the result most people will get). Then report the shutter speed and aperture value.

Raw: We display the image shot at a chosen shutter speed and aperture combination, brightened or darkened to a standard brightness. This should show any real-world impact of any behind-the-scenes decisions the manf has made about ISO mapping.

Richard;

Just trying to clarify your RAW's lab test procedure that "brightened or darkened to a standard brightness" means PP (not adjust shutter speed and aperture combination)?

If so, what's the CONs by "adjust shutter speed and aperture combination... to a standard brightness" for any given ISO?

Yes, in PP.

I'm not sure I understand the second part of your question.

My question is for RAW test procedure/method.

For a given ISO, why not (trying to) adjust shutter speed and aperture combination "to a standard brightness"? By doing so, you can use (more less) the *same* approach/setup in PP.

All this is also futher complicated by the fact that different lenses tend to have different transmission for same f-stop and it's measured nowhere. Especially zooms at their tele end tend to have significantly worse T stop value as compared to primes. Here's a DxO measurement for two Canon EF lenses 24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. 24/2.8 has T-stop value of 2.8 and 24-70/2.8 goes between 2.9 at the wide end to 3.2 at the tele end. That's 0.4 stops just because zoom was used in testing.

Coupled with normalization in raw developing software this gives you potential 0.4 stops worse performance for some cameras in this example. I'm not an expert but I would stay well clear of zooms for this testing, no matter how good they may seem (though older cameras of the same manufacturer that were tested with primes have much sharper image across the frame).

In terms of "different transmission loss", there are two cases:

Case 1:
Camera with build in (zoom) lens, you can set them in a common FL, 50mm equivalent for example, then "different transmission loss" is not matter too much while you comparing two cameras.

Case 2:
Camera without build in lens, DPR normally uses *best* Prime lens with common FL, so Transmission loss:
1. are very much the same
2. can be found as you mentioned.

IMHO, "Different PP approach/setup for different camerae" causes more complication than "different transmission loss" in terms of comparing camera's sensor performance in REAL world.

Mike FL - that is essentially the way we work: as close as possible to 85mm equiv on cameras with built-in lenses. Prime lenses with roughly equivalent FL for ILCs.

The reason we don't use the Av/Tv that gives the correct brightness for Raws is that 'correct brightness' is a moving target, when it comes to Raw. We used to use the Raw that corresponded to the correct-brightness JPEG (again, based on the assumption of using the camera's meter and JPEG output as a guide for exposure).

However, while this can be argued to be a good choice in terms of relevance, it means that you can't compare Raw noise performance on a common basis, since some cameras will have received more or less light than others. This is why we now use fixed shutter speeds and aperture values.

Cough, samsung nx1, cough, with zoom at max tele, cough, older models with primes, cough. Nudge Nudge, wink wink ;)

Richard;

Personally I like the "Av/Tv that gives the correct brightness for Raws" better b/c users saw that Camera A inflates 1/2 stop more than Camera B for example.

I know DPR like to compare two camera by using MFC-said-ISO. It is fine as long as do not *wrongly* say "Camera A is half stop better than Camera B in ISO 3200" even the "Studio test scene comparison" DB shows it is.

In fact for the same LV/Av/Tv, Camera A needs half stop more ISO to get same results as camera B.

This is also the problem for other well known review sites. Other than DxO, they all use MFC-said-ISO, but DxO does not have "Studio test scene", otherwise DxO will be perfect.

DPR is a camera leading review site with highest web traffic, I thought it could do better than others for users who uses DPR for comparing cameras.

BTW: DPR used to test ISO accuracy, I do not know why stopped.

Otto K - some systems don't have the lenses we'd ideally choose. We tried a series of lenses with the Samsung NX1 and the zoom was the best performing one that we had access to at the time.

We hope not to have to use that zoom long-term.

There goes my hope of leaving 4 in different places. I guess I will have to go with three bodies and just one kit lens and carry the kit lens only. But where should I leave the bodies now?

@ttran88: YES

It is easily pocketable in a jacket pocket

You clearly have a broken NEX!

The problem with the GM1 - RX100 comparison is the kit lens. Don't get me wrong, I love my GM1, but it is almost always with the Oly 25/1.8, or some other Oly primes like the 45/1.8 or 17/1.8. These lenses make the GM1 non-pocketable. The kit lens with the GM1 makes it just pocketable, but with a fair difference in aperture compared with the RX100 III/IV.

In fact, I've been looking at the RX100 III and IV as possible alternatives for when I want a truly pocketable camera with wide aperture, decent stills and excellent video. Nothing at all against the GM1's photo and video quality, but to get a wide aperture lens it is simply not something you can slip into a pocket.

I know someone who used a Canon S95, and he later bought the Olympus E-M5 and Pana 12-35, and he also bought a RX100 (original). He has ended up using the RX100 almost all the time, despite the difference in image quality, because of its convenience and portability.

"You clearly have a broken NEX!"

Do you said this base on real experience? I have both camera and use both extensively during my last trip. I admit I don't do detail scientific comparison so only general impression

GM1 focuse faster, make less metering errors than NEX-5N(I suspect NEX takes longer to meter and I fire too fast) ,seem sharper (but I up the shaprness setting 1 level in color setting "standard")

and most important point is although MFT is supposedly behind NEX in noise for ISO 3200 but for practical use when I try to take a pic of something very dark at ISO 3200 in a temple, I can't hold my NEX still enough for blur free photo but not very difficult for GM1.

Therefore GM1 has better real life low light performance because of better image stabilization(or easier hand holding due to lower weight)

One more practical concern is if you shoot Jpeg, they have very different interpretation of green color, depend on your preference you may not like either one

The value of fast lens and hence RX100 superiourity over Panasonic GM1 is not true for a lot of people.
1. for daytime landscape photo you need small aperture for more DOF
2. in real low light situation, GM1 is still very good at ISO 3200 and can easily handheld to 1/10 second which will cover almost all reasonable shooting condition
On paper a fast lens is better than slow lens but for most people in most used shooting condition, is that really true? I said no.

If I'm not worried about whether a camera can fit in my pocket, the GM1 is super. The GM1 and a few small primes make a very versatile kit. Of course, that would cost more than a III, but perhaps about as much as a IV if you buy the right primes secondhand.

"If I'm not worried about whether a camera can fit in my pocket, the GM1 is super. The GM1 and a few small primes make a very versatile kit. Of course, that would cost more than a III, but perhaps about as much as a IV if you buy the right primes secondhand."

Yes, and then you're swapping lenses instead of just zooming and firing away. I have nothing against the GM1, but it simply doesn't meet the needs I have for the kind of pictures I expect to take with a pocket zoom. When I want to get serious (or as serious as I can get), I have my D7000.

The GM1 lacks a viewfinder. Something very important for many people shooting in bright light. And neither does the LCD tilt.

And lets not forget the GM1 doesn't shoot 4k video and its default lens is very slow compared to the RX100. Of course the GM1 will have better IQ if you switch to a prime but the RX100 is more about being the best compromise in terms of IQ, convenience and size.

"F1.8-2.8 vs F3.5-5.6 in short compare Sony at ISO 400 vs the Panasonic at ISO 1600."

I understand your point. It really depend on your use. For me a mostly daytime landscape photographer. I use low ISO and prefer more not less DOF (smaller aperture)

Which camera is better is obvious. May not be the same for other types of photographers

"if you can keep the shutter speed below 1/500th. above that the electronic shutter limits the dynamic range."

Why? Please explain. Thanks

Does the Japan GM1 have an English menu? I can't read Japanese so it won't be fun trying to google translate everything in the menu? Is the power voltage the same here in the U.S.? I don't want to plug it in the wall and it fries. Does it come in pink? I mean the body color does it come in pink? I think that alone will beat the RX100 series. Can you do selfies with the GM1? I think that feature will come handy when you have a pink camera. Does the GM1 have soft face filters? Or any filters found in Instagram or Samsung phones?

I don't know whether the japanese version has english settings. That is important. Power voltage doesn't matter. You can easily get a charger in the US for Panasonic batteries. I charged my european camera just fine in the US with nothing but a wallsocket adapter.

Always check your charger if it supports the different voltage obviously. It comes in Red which looks very classy for women.

You can do selfies. Just use your phone to compose with remote shooting by the app.

Who cares it has soft face filter. Checkout the cute desert mode!

Thanks for the response, but if I use the remote app to do a selfie I get confused. Do I look at the phone's screen and smile or my pink GM1? It will also mean I have to now carry two selfie sticks with me. Pls help I don't want to spend $1000 for the new RX100 I would rather buy a GM1 for $380 but I don't know if I should smile at the phone and the remote app or the GM1?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-OGICwFBtk
problem solved. on the GM-5

No way on the gm-1 unfortunately.

Thanks BarnET. For the same money as the new RX100 I was going to buy one kit lens and 4 bodies. So I could leave them in different places and never need to carry a camera again. But if I can't do selfies with out getting confused it's a no sale for me.

"Does the Japan GM1 have an English menu? "

Yes, very easy. I don't understand Japanese too. When you start the camera it is in Japanese (which should be expected) but can easily change to English menu

@jennyhappy2. What evidence do you have to support your statement that the 'demand isn't there'? I for one moved from the RX100 to the G7X thanks to the touch screen and better zoom range; plus the fact I didn't need an evf on what really is a pocket camera. Complications with the lens? I get better images from the canon than I did from the Sony. Your statement is incorrect then ... Some people don't want or need an evf ... Especially at £'ssss more!

@chadley chad To be fair though, I do find the lens a bit soft at 100mm, but I would hardly call that a "complication". It's every bit as sharp as the Sony at comparable focal lengths though.

The point of my post was over the price of RX100m4: 1149€, and has become debate between RX100m4 and G7X?????
Yes, RX100m4 has better spec's of G7X (if you really need them, and it all depends on the user), but for 650€ more? That's 2 times the price of G7X + an extra 150€ just for the fun of it. It is like selling a Scoda for the price of a Ferrari.

the strenghts lie somewhere else

it doesn't look any better to me, IQ-wise.
The claim was - besides increased speed - "more space for the light sensitive portion of each pixel" which should have given an increased IQ, at least at high ISOs.

I have a MK 2, I have never thought if only it had slow mo facility,
If only start up was quicker! all the time,if only it had better grip, control layout, frequently, also for me the better lens and VF on the MK3 aren't that compelling

What this new sensor really needs is a different camera to make it a mini stills and video powerhouse with capabilities that are more easily exploitable

I didn't compare them based on name, I compared them because I know that the X100S and T are not substantially improved over the X100. (IQ wise)

As for Brendon, I didn't feel the need to type an essay explaining my purchase point by point, but I don't need those features as I have a D750 for all the heavy lifting and I'm not going to pay 3-4 times the price for an RX100 just for that zoom and better video. I only use my Fuji for casual outings so 720P/30 and its compact size are adequate.

So while I had been considering an RX100 camera, for me the much better choice was a used X100, I don't need an 'all around camera' in this case as I have the D750, low light performance is more important for me with a compact because of that. (I'll take the Fuji to restaurants, pubs, etc with friends)

Had I needed one camera to rule them all with a tiny form factor then of course it'd be the RX100 III/IV.

^^ Well you didn't feel the need but look at the response your post got ! :P

And no the X100S and X100T have a 16 MP X-Trans sensor while your X100 has a 12.3 Bayer sensor. Both of them are very very different and a substantial improvement. I had the X100 sensor in my old A700 and while it was good then it was no match to my newer 16 MP sensor that the X100S and X100T improve upon.

I know it uses the Bayer but if you look online you'll find plenty of people stating they prefer the way the Bayer sensor handled noise and detail over the X100S and X100T.

If you look at the comparison tool of the X100 (available in the X100 review) against the X100S, you can see more detail in the RAW files at high ISO, though grain/noise is more evident as a result.

So I think calling the X-Trans sensor a substantial improvement is not really true, it's just a different rendering. To be honest I'm a bit surprised at how much more detail the X100 shows over the X100S, it's almost like Fuji are applying aggressive noise reduction even in RAW.

http://imgur.com/mgtyTps

I'd rather have the noisier initial RAW files and have the option of sacrificing detail by adding noise reduction than being immediately stuck with RAW files that look like they have already had some NR put on them!

That's mostly due to adobe demosaic of x-trans files.
Use photoninja and you will get a completely different result. This time with more noise and detail

Again you don't have a clue.

There's no shortage of people saying they prefer the images from the X100. Deal with it and don't dismiss me as 'not having a clue'.

Good day, no desire to respond further to someone who jumps to insults.

Not so sure about that...

You may wait the price reduction until the birth of RX100 mkV.

RX100 III at discount from the price of $798...

Do tell....

The tool looks pretty good. I'm going to start using it more. The RX100 IV high iso looks not so good though - 2 stops behind 7d2 and 3 stops behind 6d in raw. No thanks for the $

"lens considerations" - though use of lens is a consideration for sharpness. The old 50 f1.4 isn't the best on high mpxl

Rishi Sanyal;

Regarding to "we always give cameras the same exact exposure and amount of light.", does DPR's testers apply any and/or different Exposure compensation for some of the cameras?