Olympus OM-D (EM-5) comparison samples are now.. (continued)

Started Mar 17, 2012 | Discussions
Tim in upstate NY
Tim in upstate NY Veteran Member • Posts: 7,120
Re: Confused reasoning...

Bilgy_no1 wrote:

The reasoning was as follows:

  • Olympus overstates ISO

  • As a result, it gives cleaner pictures at a stated ISO

  • This is cheating.

DPR debunk this allegation of cheating, by saying that lighting has been changed in the studio set-up, and that the lower light intensity being compensated by longer exposure shouldn't influence the noise test.

Instead of just accepting this, Raisted than says that longer exposure does influence noise; it gives more noise. I say, if that's the case, then instead of cheating, the Olympus is at a disadvantage compared to the others.

So, what the H3ll are we talking about? Maybe I am confused about who argues for what. But I am not confused about the logics of reasoning, unlike some others. I'm simply astonished at the amount of flack that DPR are getting on the m4/3 forum for publishing test shots of a m4/3 camera that make it look great.

. . . Well said Bilgy. And this thread has just about run it's course at least for most of us I'm thinking. The OP is apparently still trying to find some traction but he's infamous for never admitting defeat over at the Oly DSLR forum. Reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 Tim in upstate NY's gear list:Tim in upstate NY's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 +3 more
Haris Contributing Member • Posts: 511
Re: Olympus OM-D (EM-5) comparison samples are now.. (continued)

No they don't, reread the part about the ISO and get over it.

Why was the testing procedure completely correct untill now when one single camera from for some people "target" manufacturer appears to be pretty decent? Were they blind and dumb untill now or what? There goes the credibility down the drain.

bobn2 wrote:

If your test procedure was sound, then all cameras at the same ISO would be tested with the same exposure. Clearly they is not happening. So, you have a problem with your procedure.
--
Bob

mfbernstein Veteran Member • Posts: 6,518
Re: m43 forum is becoming a joke

Adventsam wrote:

People like Raist, Papillion, Louis et al are destroying this forum, I wish you would all clear out to a dedicated m43 Oly forum, seriously I do. None of you are sincere just a bunch of Oly Fanboys and people lilke Pap who love to be controversial.

Fortunately there are also tools like you, so it all balances out.

-- hide signature --

MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: You are welcome son

Raist3d wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

it's almost as bad as being a football referee and the people making the most noise on these tests are people who probably won't even buy the camera anyway!

I think the EM5 is fantastic- I have said that by now many times. I just love the concept of reality and using your brain. When I mentioned to dpreview that the E-3 does have fantastic writing card speeds with a Lexar Pro card instead of the San Disk they used in which they found "pedestrian writing speeds" I didn't see you making fun of me

Well I guess that if you addressed it to DPreview I wouldn't know much about that would I.

I mentioned it quite a few times at the Olympus DSLR forum. But again, I notice that, when it's things like that, people play big hypocrites with their memory and "Don't remember" or something. Yes, I am saying you are acting quite hypocritical.

Well no, I never saw it, it's that simple, so I'll have to take your word for it I guess.

You don't have to take my word. It's there on the links. Let me know if you want me to dig it up, I am in a bit of a hurry to meet someone for brunch.

It's just a bit surprising how many things like that "are not seen" if you now what I mean, but hey, I can take your explanation too on your word. I know we miss things sometimes

Ahh, you think we all hang on your every post, I see the problem now lol.

As for making fun of you, I think you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself, as usual.

No, actually what you are trying to do says far more about you (and not in a good way) that what you are trying to say about me. It says that you need to resort to an attempt at a personal attack instead of making a reasonable intelligent argument.

Well it wasn't a personal attack as such, just a bit of fun, which clearly you didn't get, but as I said, you bring it on yourself.

Ah yes, what you wrote is not an ad hominem attack in an argument. Because "fun" by an attempt of ridicule thrown is never is

If you think that was an "attack" I'm surprised you ever set foot outside of your front door lol.

I mean, particularly after the E-3 evidence I presented and you still say that! LOL. Honestly.

"Evidence"?, is that what it was lol.

Still, all the staff at DPR must be sleeping easy at night knowing you're here to question their methodology on all things Olympus at every opportunity. Interesting considering it's not exactly your brand of choice.

What makes you think it's not my brand of choice? LOL Once again, people like you think I am attached to brands. I like my Olympus lenses and as I mentioned, I think the EM5 is a fantastic camera. What I question I question when I see any questionable methodology - cameras be damned. I did it with the LX3.

Well it isn't your brand of choice is it, you use Pentax, the K-5 and the Q.

I use my Olympus equipment too. Maybe you missed these too (you see, it's when people keep missing stuff consistently that I wonder):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40737164
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40737164
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40664007
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40667905

Besides as said, I don't have attachment to particular brands, even if it's the tool that I chose at the moment for my photography.

Marvellous, it's not hard to see why I missed them lol.

So it seems strange that you spend most of your time ignoring any "issues" with those cameras and concentrating on Olympus.

Actually if you look around I have and do point issues with the other cameras. That the K-5 is such a fantastic camera to begin with is another matter. And also note that I also think the EM5 is a fantastic camera- just like with the E-5 and now even more so with the EM5, the issue is with the claims done on it by some people- not with the camera itself.

Well as the camera hasn't been released yet I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Please learn to discern between those two, because that distinction is important.

Ah I see, you're the review Police lol.

Here I clearly talk about issues I find with the K-5, and this was pretty recent- just like those pictures. I did also when I first got it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=40810004

So you are making things up.

Making what up? I said you shoot with the K-5, which you do, calm down son lol.

Not that I have much hope this explanation will sink in. I mean if after mentioned the E-3 example all you can do is "stick to your ad-hominem guns" there doesn't seem there's much I can do.

Well there is one thing you could do I guess, talk about cameras you actually use and not spend all your time hypothesising about cameras you don't, that's what most people around here do.

I do what I think is fair to do, not what you think I should do. I did use the E-5 contrary to what people say. I see people talking about the EM5 and they don't have it, I don't see how I should apply your suggestion to myself if you don't mention it to them.

Yes, they don't have it but they have an opinion on it, same as yourself then. But let me guess, you're right and their wrong, wash rinse repeat the Ricardo way ;).

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

-- hide signature --

It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: m43 forum is becoming a joke

Adventsam wrote:

People like Raist, Papillion, Louis et al are destroying this forum, I wish you would all clear out to a dedicated m43 Oly forum, seriously I do. None of you are sincere just a bunch of Oly Fanboys and people lilke Pap who love to be controversial.

Dpr, about time this forum was dubmed down a bit. What other forum has more than 12 bodies and as much glass as you can shake a stick at, its becoming a pathetic place.

I think mfbernstein answered that one for me
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,111
And moreover

Raist3d wrote:

A camera that requires ISO 3200 to do the same shot an ISO 2000 camera would require, would certainly push its ISO need higher and thus image quality would potentially suffer more. If what you are saying by the last paragraph is that then people need to make sure to verify the ISO testing along with this other test, honestly, how many people you see doing that? All they are doing is doing a straight forward ISO matching/setting and saying "hey, this camera does bad" , "Hey, this camera does better than… as good as…"

Since we have only the 'ISO series' not the full review, we don't have access to how the EM-5 meter tested in the ISO test. Moreover we don't know what the ISO test actually tests or how it does it. It is on that test that any comparability at all depends.
--
Bob

Brian Mosley Forum Pro • Posts: 20,709
Why all the agonizing?

bobn2 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

A camera that requires ISO 3200 to do the same shot an ISO 2000 camera would require, would certainly push its ISO need higher and thus image quality would potentially suffer more. If what you are saying by the last paragraph is that then people need to make sure to verify the ISO testing along with this other test, honestly, how many people you see doing that? All they are doing is doing a straight forward ISO matching/setting and saying "hey, this camera does bad" , "Hey, this camera does better than… as good as…"

Since we have only the 'ISO series' not the full review, we don't have access to how the EM-5 meter tested in the ISO test. Moreover we don't know what the ISO test actually tests or how it does it. It is on that test that any comparability at all depends.

dpreview took the trouble to post their sample images up front, prior to the full test and the camera even being available to purchase... why are you so worried? just wait for the full review and you'll have the ISO test results too.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

 Brian Mosley's gear list:Brian Mosley's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
goosel
goosel Senior Member • Posts: 1,873
WRONG

Andy Westlake wrote:

Shutter speeds have absolutely minimal impact on noise. If you shoot the same scene at ISO100 1/125sec F16 and ISO100 1/2000sec F4 you really won't see any difference in the noise. To me this is so self evident from everyday shooting I'm actually quite surprised to find myself typing it here. Then again, I did spend several years of my life testing lenses, so I guess have a bit more experience of this than most.

it hurts to read 'stuff' like this.

Random Photon Noise increases with shorter shutter speeds. Light consists of RANDOM photons. Exposure time integrates the randomly received photons.

Please read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise and read more then the first sentence.

amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: Confused reasoning...

Tim in upstate NY wrote:

Bilgy_no1 wrote:

The reasoning was as follows:

  • Olympus overstates ISO

  • As a result, it gives cleaner pictures at a stated ISO

  • This is cheating.

DPR debunk this allegation of cheating, by saying that lighting has been changed in the studio set-up, and that the lower light intensity being compensated by longer exposure shouldn't influence the noise test.

Instead of just accepting this, Raisted than says that longer exposure does influence noise; it gives more noise. I say, if that's the case, then instead of cheating, the Olympus is at a disadvantage compared to the others.

So, what the H3ll are we talking about? Maybe I am confused about who argues for what. But I am not confused about the logics of reasoning, unlike some others. I'm simply astonished at the amount of flack that DPR are getting on the m4/3 forum for publishing test shots of a m4/3 camera that make it look great.

. . . Well said Bilgy. And this thread has just about run it's course at least for most of us I'm thinking. The OP is apparently still trying to find some traction but he's infamous for never admitting defeat over at the Oly DSLR forum. Reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Frankly, this has gone a bit too far. A scientific theory, we should all know, should not only be simple and elegant, but also applicable.

As digital wizardy develops it is less and less so. Small sensors show they can control noise more and more like FF ones. So people cry foul & treason. What does it matter if the next ISO stop ias as clean as the former? For the E-M5 it is certainly so up to 1600 ISO, perhaps even 3200.

Moreover we know that DxO meaasures the sensors from the white point, whereas many makers from their chosen greypoint, so who is right, when most don't use the same standards?

DxO is really used as a weapon to silence dissenters but it is the less applicable standard to real world cameras.

Therefore my criteria is only to observe noise: if it gets better in a camera by two stops, it will be better than one stop difference of exposure, and if it gets better by one stop, it will still be more than 1/3 different exposure.

That I take is what has happened with the O-M5, so that the old smearing system towars Oly doesn't work anymore.

Persevering in this therefore is more akin to a misplaced superiority complex, than to reality. In the end we are not dealing with gear anymore, but with mental cases.

Am.

-- hide signature --
Andrew Westlake Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
Sorry, Bob, but you've made a critical mistake

OK, I'm not going to reply to this in detail becuase you've made one assumption that's critically wrong:

bobn2 wrote:

We test ISO, essentially according to the SOS method, and present the results in every review.

You are testing meter calibration there. Different thing from sensor response.

This is incorrect. We're not tesing meter calibration - the camera's metering isn't involved in our ISO testing at all. Instead, we set the lighting up to a critically-controlled level (to within 1/10 EV) using a calibrated external lightmeter, then shoot the test camera in manual exposure and look at the JPEG output brightness of a specific grey target. We also double-check against a couple of recently-tested cameras to ensure consistency across reviews, and periodically check our calibrated photographic light meter (which reads in EV) against an independent scientific lightmeter (that measures in Lux, so is a bit tedious to use as a matter of course). We literally don't look at camera's meter at all during this process.

Just to pre-empt what would be the smart next question, all of our tests use the same lighting type as the ISO test, i.e. daylight-balanced fluorescent.

We don't actually do metering calibration tests as a matter of course, as cameras tend to behave themselves reasonably well in spot or partial modes, but maybe we should do them more often. However we did do one for the Sony NEX-5 as it meters so oddly hot, so you can see what it looks like here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/12

Seriously, you don't have a monopoly on understanding camera testing. And as far as I'm aware you've bever been into our studios, so you don't actually know what we do and what confounding factors can be in place while we're testing.

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

 Andrew Westlake's gear list:Andrew Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus Stylus Verve S Olympus XZ-2 iHS Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,111
Re: Why all the agonizing?

Brian Mosley wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

A camera that requires ISO 3200 to do the same shot an ISO 2000 camera would require, would certainly push its ISO need higher and thus image quality would potentially suffer more. If what you are saying by the last paragraph is that then people need to make sure to verify the ISO testing along with this other test, honestly, how many people you see doing that? All they are doing is doing a straight forward ISO matching/setting and saying "hey, this camera does bad" , "Hey, this camera does better than… as good as…"

Since we have only the 'ISO series' not the full review, we don't have access to how the EM-5 meter tested in the ISO test. Moreover we don't know what the ISO test actually tests or how it does it. It is on that test that any comparability at all depends.

dpreview took the trouble to post their sample images up front, prior to the full test and the camera even being available to purchase... why are you so worried? just wait for the full review and you'll have the ISO test results too.

I'm not 'worried' at all. As Ricardo points out though, you can't make any comparison without them, and in fact you can't with them.
--
Bob

Gianluca101 Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Why all the agonizing?

Andy Westlake, do you have planned to compare camera's (maybe last mirrorless) in a new lightining ambient with same condition for evaluating if we have to compare e-m5 a stop higher than nex-7 for example?

You have said than nex-7 is more sensitive by 1/3 ev and e-m5 is less sensitive by 1/3ev, but also other camera's have the same exposure parameters in comparometer than e-m5.... This is a huge difference for me..

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,111
Re: Sorry, Bob, but you've made a critical mistake

Andy Westlake wrote:

OK, I'm not going to reply to this in detail becuase you've made one assumption that's critically wrong:

bobn2 wrote:

We test ISO, essentially according to the SOS method, and present the results in every review.

You are testing meter calibration there. Different thing from sensor response.

This is incorrect. We're not tesing meter calibration - the camera's metering isn't involved in our ISO testing at all.

Instead, we set the lighting up to a critically-controlled level (to within 1/10 EV) using a calibrated external lightmeter, then shoot the test camera in manual exposure and look at the JPEG output brightness of a specific grey target. We also double-check against a couple of recently-tested cameras to ensure consistency across reviews, and periodically check our calibrated photographic light meter (which reads in EV) against an independent scientific lightmeter (that measures in Lux, so is a bit tedious to use as a matter of course). We literally don't look at camera's meter at all during this process.

So, now you have a mapping from some known grey. When you 'look at the JPEG output brightness of a specific grey target' what do you do with it? How do you derive the ISO figure from that JPEG value?

Just to pre-empt what would be the smart next question, all of our tests use the same lighting type as the ISO test, i.e. daylight-balanced fluorescent.

We don't actually do metering calibration tests as a matter of course, as cameras tend to behave themselves reasonably well in spot or partial modes, but maybe we should do them more often. However we did do one for the Sony NEX-5 as it meters so oddly hot, so you can see what it looks like here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/12
Seriously, you don't have a monopoly on understanding camera testing.

Did I ever suggest that I did?

And as far as I'm aware you've bever been into our studios, so you don't actually know what we do and what confounding factors can be in place while we're testing.

OK, Andy, but that raises a different issue. It requires threads such as this to draw out your test protocols. Other sites publish theres, and I thought that DPR did, but when I followed the link, it appeared to be broken. Without you publishing the protocols, no-one can make a judgement as to how accurate the results are?

However, the fact seems to remain that you photograph the same scene with usually the same lighting ('critically-controlled level') at the same ISO settings and get very different exposures for different cameras. How does that happen?
--
Bob

stimmer Veteran Member • Posts: 5,198
Bob, don't push it or they might ban you..

It would be easier than continually having to explain themselves.

Why do they owe you anything? Just because you think the EM5 sucks or Olympus isn't your favorite brand doesn't mean they should have to slave away to keep proving things to you.

They do an exceptionally good job on here, probably the top review site in the world on this stuff. Just because the results make you feel inadequate doesn't make them wrong.

Let the men do their job and move on. If you don't like the results then go to another site where you agree with their methodologies more.

Maybe DXO has a forum you can attend.

Andrew Westlake Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
Sigh

bobn2 wrote:

However, the fact seems to remain that you photograph the same scene with usually the same lighting ('critically-controlled level') at the same ISO settings and get very different exposures for different cameras. How does that happen?

The ISO testing uses critically-controlled lighting. Once you know the results of the that, nothing else needs to be shot under 'critically' controlled lighting (i.e. to a fraction of an EV) , it just needs to be shot to a controlled output brightness. Then, by the very definition of ISO, it doesn't matter whether the light level is slightly different and you compensate by changing the shutter speed - if the grey patches are rendered at the correct output brightness, you've got the same exposure.

Put simply, you can adjust the shutter speed to compensate any changes in the lighting, just as you do all the time when taking photographs. This means you can compensate for how the lights can drift slightly over time (for various reasons); alternatively you can allow, for example, other lights of the same type to be switched on in the studio at the same time, perhaps to shoot a resolution test chart. It simply doesn't matter if they shift the light level in the studio comparison setup by 1/3 stop. This in turn means we can make better use of studio time and get testing done more quickly.

To pre-empt the smart next question, yes we do know what the various tonality-tweaking controls are called, and we do turn them off first. This despite the fact that it's not even strictly necessary - Canon ALO doesn't do much unless it sees a face, and the various Apical-equipped brands (Nikon, Olympus, Sony) don't tend to respond to the limited DR of our test scenes. Panasonic iDynamic doesn't really seem to respond to anything .

So, just to reiterate - the studio comparison shots are not ISO tests - they've not necessarily run under strictly-controlled lighting, for entirely pragmatic reasons. We've also recently changed the entire lighting setup to one that's sensibly dimmable, which means we don't run out of shutter speeds when testing cameras that can run at ISO 102800, and therefore don't have to mess around with ND gels over the lights. This has changed the base light level - and it simply doesn't matter given how our testing regime works.

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

 Andrew Westlake's gear list:Andrew Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus Stylus Verve S Olympus XZ-2 iHS Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,111
Re: Bob, don't push it or they might ban you..

stimmer wrote:

It would be easier than continually having to explain themselves.

It's happened before, but I don't think (or at least I hope) that they don't work like that any more.

Why do they owe you anything? Just because you think the EM5 sucks or Olympus isn't your favorite brand doesn't mean they should have to slave away to keep proving things to you.

They don't owe me anything at all, but as reputable journalists they rather have a duty to their readership to explain themselves. And, BTW, I don't think that the E-M5 sucks, and as brands go, I have quite a soft spot for Olympus (as opposed to a hard on for it, which some other seem to have).

They do an exceptionally good job on here, probably the top review site in the world on this stuff.

If that's the case, they can hardly be worried about explaining how they are the best, can they?

Just because the results make you feel inadequate doesn't make them wrong.

Your premise is false, and my feelings of adequacy or otherwise has no effect on their correctness.

Let the men do their job and move on.

I'm not stopping them doing their job. In fact constructive criticism usually helps people to do a better job.

If you don't like the results then go to another site where you agree with their methodologies more.

If you don't like me being on this site, why don't you go to another site where I am not? Sauce for the goose, and so on.

Maybe DXO has a forum you can attend.

No. Besides, it is unlikely to have the fanboys and other misinformers for me to put right, ins't it.
--
Bob

Bilgy_no1
Bilgy_no1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: Confused reasoning...

Tim in upstate NY wrote:

Bilgy_no1 wrote:

The reasoning was as follows:

  • Olympus overstates ISO

  • As a result, it gives cleaner pictures at a stated ISO

  • This is cheating.

DPR debunk this allegation of cheating, by saying that lighting has been changed in the studio set-up, and that the lower light intensity being compensated by longer exposure shouldn't influence the noise test.

Instead of just accepting this, Raisted than says that longer exposure does influence noise; it gives more noise. I say, if that's the case, then instead of cheating, the Olympus is at a disadvantage compared to the others.

So, what the H3ll are we talking about? Maybe I am confused about who argues for what. But I am not confused about the logics of reasoning, unlike some others. I'm simply astonished at the amount of flack that DPR are getting on the m4/3 forum for publishing test shots of a m4/3 camera that make it look great.

. . . Well said Bilgy. And this thread has just about run it's course at least for most of us I'm thinking. The OP is apparently still trying to find some traction but he's infamous for never admitting defeat over at the Oly DSLR forum. Reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Yeah... can you imagine this is actually the second thread to run up to 150-limit???

Monty Python: They had a very noisy kind of humour, but very funny nonetheless!

cmorse Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Re: Sorry, Bob, but you've made a critical mistake

bobn2 wrote:

However, the fact seems to remain that you photograph the same scene with usually the same lighting ('critically-controlled level') at the same ISO settings and get very different exposures for different cameras. How does that happen?
--
Bob

You aren't reading what he said at all, are you? They don't publish the images from the iso accuracy test, just state the results. Its a completely different test from the iso noise test that you are looking at the images from. The big reason for different shutter speeds in those images is entire lighting set up for the iso noise test just recently changed but also as they noted in one of the many other threads about this the light level changes depending on the time of day the testing is done.

 cmorse's gear list:cmorse's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +4 more
exdeejjjaaaa
exdeejjjaaaa Veteran Member • Posts: 8,263
Re: Bob, don't push it or they might ban you..

bobn2 wrote:

Maybe DXO has a forum you can attend.

No.

http://forum.dxomark.com/

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Phase One Capture One Pro +25 more
stimmer Veteran Member • Posts: 5,198
Okay, that was pretty funny...

Soft spot for Olympus...:)

I don't care if you are on here. It makes things interesting.

I am a fan of Olympus, but I certainly would have been honest with my appraisals of their equipment over the years. They definitely had their shortcomings, but they also had their strengths as well.

From what I've used and going to this it's a remarkable leap in performance. Niggling about small testing differences is just a distraction from that fact.

Olympus did a great job here, and frankly it's good for the industry if Olympus is a player. They do a lot of cool things and are a little bit different. That's always a good thing.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads