xz-1 corner and edge detail outstanding?

When I look at the studio scene comparison review page, it seems like the XZ-1 is capturing more detail in the corners than just about every other camera, more than some high-end DSLRs. Is this just the effect of sharpening or is the lens that sharp? Specifically look at the black lines in the middle of the hour marks on the watch face in the lower right corner. Also look at the text on the page at middle-bottom of the scene.

It's tough to say too much because there isn't much detail anywhere in the extreme corners of the test shot, but to me the XZ-1 looks quite good. I think you get a tiny bit more detail out of the Canon s95, but the olympus jpg processing is more appealing. I'd say the LX5 is just a little behind these two. What I'm really suprized about is just how terrible the samsung TL500 looks...I had heard good things and expected better.

Switching over to the raw comparison, the olympus gives the sharpest results. This is a better representation of what the respective lens/sensor combinations are capable of at their best. Look at the brush on the left side of the frame, the woman's face on the right, the text and the watch on the bottom. I think it's benefiting from oly's approach to light filters. I'm suprised then that the canon jpeg engine does a better job than I would have expected in retaining detail.

Overall, very good by oly! Honestly, a little disapointed in the default jpeg settings on this camera, that is usually their forte. The jpeg on my e-pl1 is really beyond reproach.

Maybe DPReview can start adding a little detail in the extreme corners of their test shots for those who care to see the performance there?

Consider the fact the TL500 was shot at f/2.6 versus f/4.5 for the XZ-1, S95, and LX5.

Despite the obvious disadvantage the TL500 was subjected to, I'd put it slightly ahead of the LX5 and even the S95. The LX5 is quite obviously blurred and the S95 looks like it could use more sharpening.

The XZ-1's image is impressively sharp though, with rich, saturated blues that really make it more appealing than the baby blue of ... say ... the LX5 .

rpm40 said:

What I'm really suprized about is just how terrible the samsung TL500 looks...I had heard good things and expected better.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider

If you compare the XZ-1 images to m43 or even FX DSLRs, keep in mind that DPreview used f4.5 for the XZ-1 test shot which gives about as much depth of field as f22 on an FX or f11 on a m43 camera. The test shots on FX, however are usually done at f9, those for m43 at f6.3.

So the effects of different depth of field surely come into the equation once you start comparing results from different sensor sizes.

frigoa said:

When I look at the studio scene comparison review page, it seems like the XZ-1 is capturing more detail in the corners than just about every other camera, more than some high-end DSLRs. Is this just the effect of sharpening or is the lens that sharp? Specifically look at the black lines in the middle of the hour marks on the watch face in the lower right corner. Also look at the text on the page at middle-bottom of the scene.

Click to expand...

brunobarolo said:

If you compare the XZ-1 images to m43 or even FX DSLRs, keep in mind that DPreview used f4.5 for the XZ-1 test shot which gives about as much depth of field as f22 on an FX or f11 on a m43 camera. The test shots on FX, however are usually done at f9, those for m43 at f6.3.

So the effects of different depth of field surely come into the equation once you start comparing results from different sensor sizes.

Click to expand...

But if you go much above F8 on e.g. a Canon 50D, defraction sets in. F22 will indeed distort your image and reduce resolution on any modern DSLR, so using F22 would not be an idea to "beat" the XZ-1 lens

--
My album at: http://www.objective.no/gostemp

That's why PReview uses f9 for FX or f6.3 for m43

Geir Ove said:

brunobarolo said:

If you compare the XZ-1 images to m43 or even FX DSLRs, keep in mind that DPreview used f4.5 for the XZ-1 test shot which gives about as much depth of field as f22 on an FX or f11 on a m43 camera. The test shots on FX, however are usually done at f9, those for m43 at f6.3.

So the effects of different depth of field surely come into the equation once you start comparing results from different sensor sizes.

Click to expand...

But if you go much above F8 on e.g. a Canon 50D, defraction sets in. F22 will indeed distort your image and reduce resolution on any modern DSLR, so using F22 would not be an idea to "beat" the XZ-1 lens

--
My album at: http://www.objective.no/gostemp

Click to expand...

frigoa said:

When I look at the studio scene comparison review page, it seems like the XZ-1 is capturing more detail in the corners than just about every other camera, more than some high-end DSLRs. Is this just the effect of sharpening or is the lens that sharp? Specifically look at the black lines in the middle of the hour marks on the watch face in the lower right corner. Also look at the text on the page at middle-bottom of the scene.

Click to expand...

There was a similar thread about a week ago on Open Talk http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=37653377 ) where someone asked about these black lines. My two replies from that thread:

1) "It´s explained right above: "The image quality at ISO 100 is really impressive, with the camera capturing great levels of detail and then applying a fair amount of sharpening to make it really jump out. Fine low-constrast detail isn't a strength but generally the XZ-1 puts in a very impressive performance."
So the black lines are fine detail the other ones can´t capture."

2) "What else I could imagine is that it might make a difference that the cameras didn´t look at the watch from 100% exactly the same position, so maybe these slightly different positions give different degrees of reflection from the white marks, making the black bars partially or completely invisible in some cases.

The only other idea that comes to my mind is different noise reduction algorithms.

Maybe if the black bar is not showing completely (for whatever reason), but just little parts and dots of it, the camera maybe sees these black dots as noise and gets rid of them when applying auto noise filtering, while the Oly algorithms try to keep more of the fine detail. Keeping fine detail seems to be Oly´s credo for 2011, E-5 and maybe this one, too."

René