The X-Factor of Fudging ISO

Started Jan 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Emacs23 Regular Member • Posts: 454
Re: The X-Factor of Fudging ISO

John Carson wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

Emacs23 wrote:

Funny that DPR points out the ISO discrepancy for the X-Pro1, but not for that very popular modern camera, the Olympus OMD. The OMD's "fudging" is documented at DxOMark.

It really seems to me as though there is no standard.

At least olymous didn't pretend on surpassing ff high iso performance and resolution

Do you have evidence that Fuji did that? Please point to a Fuji release that made the statement. I am not saying they didn't, but it is a strong claim against the company that should be backed up with proof, not just thrown out there to hang.

Or was it just reviewers who did that?

"Exceptional color rendition and image resolution
Fujifilm’s advanced X-Trans CMOS sensor is capable of delivering resolution that is superior to other APS-C sensors, and equal to even some full frame sensors found in popular DSLR cameras."

Not "surpassing", but "equal to". Still a big claim.

-- hide signature --

john carson

There is nothing there about ISO. Only resolution. And with a 16mp X-Trans without an AA filter I would have been even more emphatic and said "Resolution better then many FF sensors".

Better than some 12mp? Resolution isn't the strength of X-Trans and is lower than one of bayer of the same sensor density.

 Emacs23's gear list:Emacs23's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Leica Super-Elmar-M 18mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow