Reading mode: Light Dark

Chasseur d'images has tested the E-M5 : best mft ever !

Go to last post
Maybe I should add that phase detect systems currently work better for sports, but may not in the near future.

The mirror will definitely go at some point.

I think you are right about the size though, it the can pick up tracking speed.
 
Hmm, I had an occasion to compare the effective IQ in A4 size prints between my GH2 and a friends 5DMKII. In that print size, you could hardly see any difference derived from sensor IQ. What mattered more where the differences caused by the each sensor 's characteristics, leading to different DOF.

What mattered more were the lens characteristics and presumably focusing accuracy. Overall the m4/3 images had better edge to edge sharpness even though Canon L glass was used. Also the greater depth of field of m4/3 was helpful in a lot situations when capturing landscapes.

I am confident that the presumed advantage of the FF cameras would even hardly visible in A2 size prints.
rrr_hhh said:
stimmer said:
5 stars or not, it seems as if they always try to diminish the quality of the camera by saying it's almost on par with 'consumer' cameras. I say rubbish, it's obviously on par with the 7D, D300s type of cameras at this point, and really better in a lot of ways.

And only good image quality at ISO 1600? Not true, colors hold well even at ISO 6400, and 3200 is great.

But all that being said I don't know what they are really looking at so who knows.
Click to expand...
Well English isn't my mother language. I tried to translate as best as I could. The general gist of the review is that they liked the camera. For an mft camera it is the best they have ever seen and the best IQ they ever saw in a 4/3 sensor. What more do you want ?

MFT can't offer the same perfomances as a FF or as a top of the line APSC sensor. They apparently printed pictures and this is their main way of judging IQ. Personnally I find that if I can print a picture up to A3 and it looks like as good as an APSC picture up to ISO 800 this is very good. If I can print up to 1600 ISO and it is almost as good as an APSC sensor all the best. But this is not a FF.

Concerning the word consumer camera, I thought this was the best translation of "popular SLRs" or the most used SLRs used by the general public. May be that there is a pejorative sense to the word consumer camera of which I wasn't aware.

What they said is that the camera was on parr with entry level DSLRs, I imagine that to be on parr with a Canon 600D or the like.

The E-M5 isn't a pro camera, the results aren't on parr with that. The review is as positive as it can be for a camera of that class.

--
rrr_hhh
Click to expand...
--
Thomas
 
Is Chasseur d'images available online? I would like to read the review, but all I can find is a forum at their web site...
 
The CH2 is a two years old camera. The Olympus should be better may be not much but better.
Leo, which was over $1,200 and now the lowest by Panasonic Direct $599 :-)

Do not buy all the garbage by fans. Both cameras are noise in comparison to APS-C, however the new Olympus should be little better (as G3, which has better sensor than GH2)
Leo
 
I actually posted some pictures. Show me some visual proof of what you are saying here.

The EM5 is destroying the D300s and 7D in the samples I showed. Sharper, cleaner, all the way up to ISO 6400.

You're just spreading the large sensor is better legend that is not really true.

Diminishing returns are here.
 
stimmer said:
I actually posted some pictures. Show me some visual proof of what you are saying here.

The EM5 is destroying the D300s and 7D in the samples I showed. Sharper, cleaner, all the way up to ISO 6400.

You're just spreading the large sensor is better legend that is not really true.

Diminishing returns are here.
Click to expand...
Get real…..your posts are working in opposite way…. many just ignore them.
 
DOF is a lens property not a sensor property. The sensor size makes no difference to DOF for any given lens. A 35mm lens of f1.4 records the same DOF on a FF sensor as it does on a m43 sensor with an appropriate adapter. The field of view does change, and if both are printed to an A4 size (meaning x2 for the M43) the viewing distance should be changed accordingly. If the FF image is printed to A3 and the M43 to A4 the viewing distance would be the same. That is, the ideal, viewing distance, but no one seems to bother with that anymore as web size and print size are used as required irrespective of ideal distance.
 
ln real terms it can do everything a DSLR can do. However that statement does require qualification. Lets say as a qualification, a DSLR in its price bracket and maybe even 22 -25% above.

There are of course models that it cannot compare with and it makes no ambition or claim of doing so.

The difference is most DSLR owners think they have this class of DSLR, they don't, only a few do, and those may even have a M43 or V1 as a walk about camera.

M43 can also match and usually surpass DSLRs in terms of kit lenses (the good ones mostly don't have kit lenses) and can use almost any brand of legacy lens that has manual control options.
It is most definitely a match for ANY DSLR in terms of portability and weight.
 
Reviews don't take long. The politics and the PC and Management ensuring anybody who pays does not get upset are the time takers.

Anyway, eyes look at pictures not probes and measures. There is plenty to see of all cameras abilities, without resorting to the replacing of pictures with charts. Which in most instances show no relationship with real use, and what the eye sees.

What the eye sees is all that matters.
 
Noisy compared to APSC?
Wishing something to be true does not make a thing true.

The reality is the top m43 can do anything a DSLR in its price bracket can do (and 20-25% above) and is easier to handle and weighs far far less, also so much smaller. The top M43 cameras are every bit as good as DSLRs that are owned by the majority of owners and have considerable advantages.

Yes, an APSC DSLR might do something the M43 won't but there will be other APSC DSLRs that don't either.

It is totally misleading to talk about some of the great output from the top APSC DSLRs and pretend they all have the same capability, I have news for you, they don,t.
 
JimsPC said:
Noisy compared to APSC?
Wishing something to be true does not make a thing true.

The reality is the top m43 can do anything a DSLR in its price bracket can do (and 20-25% above) and is easier to handle and weighs far far less, also so much smaller.
Click to expand...
In the same price bracket you have the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5, Canon 60D and Sony A77. And 20-25 % above you have the Nikon D300S and Canon 7D. All of these are probably better for action shooting. But of course much bigger and heavier.
JimsPC said:
Yes, an APSC DSLR might do something the M43 won't but there will be other APSC DSLRs that don't either.

It is totally misleading to talk about some of the great output from the top APSC DSLRs and pretend they all have the same capability, I have news for you, they don,t.
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
pegasus1457 said:
Is Chasseur d'images available online? I would like to read the review, but all I can find is a forum at their web site...
Click to expand...
Frelwa earlier in this thread posted this link :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41289741

But I think it will only buy you the paper issue. I don't think that they put their stuff online.

Also, I have summarized mst of what they said. Contrary to their usual reviews, this is shorter and doesn't show much samples. For nstance when they speak of the comparison between prints at different ISO, they are not offering any test pictures. I think that this review was astily written. They were too busy testing the big ones (d800, D4 and 5D3 and Fuji X1 pro).

Si IMO, not worth buying it only for that review, unless you fall upon it in a kiosk.

--
rrr_hhh
 
of course magazines are always looking for creative ideas to sell their ware

but frankly, "best m43" doesn't quite cut it for me

the world is not exactly limited to m43 - there are other mirrorless cameras out there, typically APS-C based which tend to deliver better IQ though their AF performance has been lower. And then there are DSLRs which although an obsolete technology do still delver good performance because of the long history of the thing.

so what is of more relevance, to me at least, is how the E-M5's IQ compares to that of comparably priced mirrorless or DSLR cameras - my guess is that it is inferior. And how the general performance compares - my guess is that its AF performance is stunning, that its continuous shooting is inferior to a DSLR, and that overall performance is very good.
 
Read the whole post, they explain why they think it is the best. .
antoineb said:
of course magazines are always looking for creative ideas to sell their ware

but frankly, "best m43" doesn't quite cut it for me

the world is not exactly limited to m43 - there are other mirrorless cameras out there, typically APS-C based which tend to deliver better IQ though their AF performance has been lower. And then there are DSLRs which although an obsolete technology do still delver good performance because of the long history of the thing.

so what is of more relevance, to me at least, is how the E-M5's IQ compares to that of comparably priced mirrorless or DSLR cameras - my guess is that it is inferior. And how the general performance compares - my guess is that its AF performance is stunning, that its continuous shooting is inferior to a DSLR, and that overall performance is very good.
Click to expand...
--
rrr_hhh
 
Need to read the review. The Image Hunter Chasseur dÍmage are a reliable source of information and I love their style (my French is trop faible but I understand what they have to say). Thanks for letting us know about this (p)review!

Theo
 
......
PerL said:
In the same price bracket you have the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5, Canon 60D and Sony A77. And 20-25 % above you have the Nikon D300S and Canon 7D. All of these are probably better for action shooting. But of course much bigger and heavier.
Click to expand...
It is very overpriced, however not for long. Several cameras hold their value because they represent it. Small sensor in addition to noise presents lesser resolution on the final image. If the lens resolve 50 lp/mm on a lager FF sensor then it would be less on APS-C (half frame) and even less on 4/3 sensor. However, with good lens crisp 13x19 is possible. Most people end results are smaller sizes and screens.

I have got GH2 with a kit lens - almost the same sensor. Even at the half price of the new Olympus it is also overpriced. The image is noisy but can be cleaned and printed as 11x14, However, ti would be very good for projector and TV presentation even at high ISO.

People should take it easy and buy any they like and can afford.... the next "best camera" is around the corner :-)
 
PerL said:
In the same price bracket you have the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5, Canon 60D and Sony A77. And 20-25 % above you have the Nikon D300S and Canon 7D. All of these are probably better for action shooting. But of course much bigger and heavier.
Click to expand...
The Achilles heal of the m4/3rds at this current point in time for action shooting is the lack of available CDAF fast zoom glass. This is also what is something I most desire to be rectified soon and preferably by Oly as CDAF versions of their HG and SHG 4/3rds glass would be a real shot in the arm for m4/3's format.

It is also what prevents me from committing to the system fully as I sit on the side lines with a couple primes wanting to know either is Oly going to bring out a Digital 4/3rds to support their great glass with great PDAF or are they instead going to develop the lens range for m4/3rds.

So frustrating.

As for 4/3drs sensor size and printing, I have had no issues printing A2 with images from my old E-P1 but then I am not trying to view them with my face stuck to the stock they are printed on. As a professional printer and Graphic Designer, I find it sad how many in photography seem to think everything printed must be viewed from 5cm away. For some, taking a step or 2 back from the printed image can allow for much better appreciation. Especially if you are like me and slightly long sighted :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top