Chris62 wrote:
Ysarex wrote:
Nor are your comments welcome in the way you present them. In the thread that shows the DX0 test results for the EX2 you jumped in with just this comment, "Ex2 is a poor camera." Yet the test results presented showed the EX2 comparing well. You didn't offer any argument for why you don't agree with DX0 you just took what feels like a cheap shot to the rest of us. Your comment was not well seen.
In this thread you start with, "EX2f is poor camera."
Then you say, "Only the center is ok, but sharpness out of the center it is a tragedy." Those of use who own and use the camera know for a fact that your statement is false and we can prove it. We have proven it and yet you persist.
Maybe there is a language problem as you are not a native English speaker. But the word tragedy is pretty superlative. The lens on the EX2 is a zoom lens. Center sharpness is excellent. Edge sharpness is excellent and corner sharpness is very good. I HAVE PROOF:
EX2 photo
The photo is full-frame without cropping and lightly sharpened. I don't see anything tragic there, and so yes, your comment is not well seen.
You do not own an EX2. You haven't used an EX2. I use an EX2 and so I have hard photographic evidence. If you want to claim that the EX2 lens sharpness out of the center is a tragedy please present hard photographic evidence.
Hmm - strong words.
OK maybe I explain something.
I apologize I used so strong words. In general word "poor" I used, was in the context for RAW preprocessing issue - I hate if the RAW is so strong preprocessed denosing and geometrical distortion correction sometimes is better to have in original form.
JPGs OK they can be full processed but user should have the chois turn it on ot off.
But RAW IMO should be as raw as possible to allow user decide what kind of postprocessing to use.
In this context EX2 is poor.
We've been through this before. The EX2 raw files are not preprocessed in the camera for geometrical distortion. The EX2 does apply hardware noise suppression which shows up in the raw files but only at ISO 800 and above.
At ISO 80, 100, 200 and 400 the EX2's raw files are as raw as possible.
Many people, myself included, know better than to try and use any small sensor camera at ISO values above 400. Personally I have never set the EX2 to an ISO above 200.
Samsung made a decision to include hardware noise suppression in the camera for HIGH ISO VALUES ONLY. Some people consider that a positive feature.
ISO values of 800 and above were extreme back when we used film and although a modern large sensor and vastly more expensive camera like my 5DmkII can pull off those extreme ISO values now, they are still extreme.
Samsung makes a decision (albeit controversial) to try and improve the performance of the camera in extreme conditions only and that warrants rating the camera poor!? In this post and the post showing the DX0 test results you didn't qualify your comment with the context that the EX2 incorporates hardware noise suppression for high ISO values. You just flat out said the camera is poor.
Your comment was not well seen.
I consider your complaint about the EX2's noise suppression at high ISO values to be trivial at best and inconsequential for photographers. If you're a photographer who is committed to best possible IQ through raw capture then you're not going to use a small sensor camera like the EX2 at high ISO under any circumstance. If you are using the EX2 at a high ISO it's probably for an unimportant snapshot in which case the noise suppression isn't an issue.
Again your comment is not well seen.
The second problem is the quality of the concrete copy.
Your post gave me an impuls to examine some things more and I have conclusion that Camera EX2F - A differs form EX2-B - I hope what I mean.
And for this we have proof -> look on dpreview test scene comparison where EX2 picture is tragic out of the center yes this is riaght word for this case and then look on imaging resource where EX2F another copy produces much sharper pictures.
Below links for EX2F and LX7 RAW's comparison but remark here - it is still not raw in that meaning - those images are also a little preprocessed.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-ex2f/samsung-ex2fA.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-ex2f/FULLRES/EX2FhVFAWB.HTM
So in this situation I have to apologize once again for my strong comments, but it is also good thing from this discution-> we have another conlusion for future camera users -
So back when the camera was first released you found a review that showed the lens performance was poor.
Now that the camera has been in production for a year we KNOW THAT WAS AN ANOMALY. We have current and ample evidence that the EX2 lens performs very well and considering that it's a zoom lens and given the cost, it's performance is excellent. With current evidence in place you need to bring your comments up to date. To harp back to a year old anomalous result that is well refuted by current data again has me saying, your comment is not well seen.
if you decide to buy EX2 chceck what copy you get because they can differ each other sometimes it can be big difference.
So, it can be that copies I chcecked before buying the camera where as they where - poor EX2 and very good LX7 and I decided to buy LX7.
OK. You are glad from EX2 I'm from LX7 we are both happy and this is the most important.
The good point is that in such discutions we can get some knowledge.
Greetings.
I think the LX7 is a great camera. I'm familiar with it as some of my students have it and I recommend it frequently.
Joe
