Surprising Canon EOS RP vs Olympus E-M5 III comparison test

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 14,739
Re: show us some images
1

Donald B wrote:

57even wrote:

Donald B wrote:

You have all lost the plot. show us some images in the middle of the day taken with both cameras. These graphs and charts are all just a con my marketing companies.

The charts are produced independently by Bill Claff, not by manufacturers. I have never seen a chart for DR from any manufacturer.

There is no chance in the world a sensor 1/4 size can come even close. Video ? go shoot some video and you will fall off your chair at the difference between sensor size.

The technology employed by the sensor is at least as important as its size. Canon's previous gen sensors didn't use low noise on-chip ADCs, hence the high read noise in the shadows.

The R5 and R6 now use the same tech that Sony introduced in 2010, so the DR is a lot better. Comparable to Sony sensors.

The problem Im seeing with the DR tests is that you never see whats in the middle only the extremes based on guessing noise quality,

Do you know what dynamic range is?

I would like to see actual real life shadowed colour reproduction scales ,that will sort out these desktop tests graphs. These test sites are as bad as audio tests on the net. i bought my daughter a really nice fender acoustic guitar amp during the week. while i was in the shop the sales person said look this one its much better than the fender, i said plug a mic and guitar in and prove it, well he did and the fender amp absolutely was so far ahead in audio quality it wasnt even close. these sales and marketing people have no idea.

Don

I have no idea how this is relevant. No-one here cares what you buy, and problems with the RP and 6D are hardly a secret.

-- hide signature --

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 17,118
Re: show us some images
1

57even wrote:

Donald B wrote:

57even wrote:

Donald B wrote:

You have all lost the plot. show us some images in the middle of the day taken with both cameras. These graphs and charts are all just a con my marketing companies.

The charts are produced independently by Bill Claff, not by manufacturers. I have never seen a chart for DR from any manufacturer.

There is no chance in the world a sensor 1/4 size can come even close. Video ? go shoot some video and you will fall off your chair at the difference between sensor size.

The technology employed by the sensor is at least as important as its size. Canon's previous gen sensors didn't use low noise on-chip ADCs, hence the high read noise in the shadows.

The R5 and R6 now use the same tech that Sony introduced in 2010, so the DR is a lot better. Comparable to Sony sensors.

The problem Im seeing with the DR tests is that you never see whats in the middle only the extremes based on guessing noise quality,

Do you know what dynamic range is?

I would like to see actual real life shadowed colour reproduction scales ,that will sort out these desktop tests graphs. These test sites are as bad as audio tests on the net. i bought my daughter a really nice fender acoustic guitar amp during the week. while i was in the shop the sales person said look this one its much better than the fender, i said plug a mic and guitar in and prove it, well he did and the fender amp absolutely was so far ahead in audio quality it wasnt even close. these sales and marketing people have no idea.

Don

I have no idea how this is relevant. No-one here cares what you buy, and problems with the RP and 6D are hardly a secret.

Its relevant, Do Your Own Tests with both these cameras instead of relying on the internet.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 2,760
Re: show us some images
1

Donald B wrote:

57even wrote:

Donald B wrote:

You have all lost the plot. show us some images in the middle of the day taken with both cameras. These graphs and charts are all just a con my marketing companies.

The charts are produced independently by Bill Claff, not by manufacturers. I have never seen a chart for DR from any manufacturer.

There is no chance in the world a sensor 1/4 size can come even close. Video ? go shoot some video and you will fall off your chair at the difference between sensor size.

The technology employed by the sensor is at least as important as its size. Canon's previous gen sensors didn't use low noise on-chip ADCs, hence the high read noise in the shadows.

The R5 and R6 now use the same tech that Sony introduced in 2010, so the DR is a lot better. Comparable to Sony sensors.

The problem Im seeing with the DR tests is that you never see whats in the middle only the extremes based on guessing noise quality, I would like to see actual real life shadowed colour reproduction scales ,that will sort out these desktop tests graphs.

Funny you should say that, the worst ILCs I've seen for holding colour and image quality at low exposure values were your beloved m4/3. Not surprising that they took short cuts to compete with the bigger sensors.  Now they use Sony sensors they don't cheat as much but it also means they are just inferior versions of big Sony sensors because they're a quarter of the size unfortunately.

These test sites are as bad as audio tests on the net. i bought my daughter a really nice fender acoustic guitar amp during the week. while i was in the shop the sales person said look this one its much better than the fender, i said plug a mic and guitar in and prove it, well he did and the fender amp absolutely was so far ahead in audio quality it wasnt even close. these sales and marketing people have no idea.

Don

Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 17,118
Re: show us some images

threw the lens wrote:

Donald B wrote:

57even wrote:

Donald B wrote:

You have all lost the plot. show us some images in the middle of the day taken with both cameras. These graphs and charts are all just a con my marketing companies.

The charts are produced independently by Bill Claff, not by manufacturers. I have never seen a chart for DR from any manufacturer.

There is no chance in the world a sensor 1/4 size can come even close. Video ? go shoot some video and you will fall off your chair at the difference between sensor size.

The technology employed by the sensor is at least as important as its size. Canon's previous gen sensors didn't use low noise on-chip ADCs, hence the high read noise in the shadows.

The R5 and R6 now use the same tech that Sony introduced in 2010, so the DR is a lot better. Comparable to Sony sensors.

The problem Im seeing with the DR tests is that you never see whats in the middle only the extremes based on guessing noise quality, I would like to see actual real life shadowed colour reproduction scales ,that will sort out these desktop tests graphs.

Funny you should say that, the worst ILCs I've seen for holding colour and image quality at low exposure values were your beloved m4/3. Not surprising that they took short cuts to compete with the bigger sensors. Now they use Sony sensors they don't cheat as much but it also means they are just inferior versions of big Sony sensors because they're a quarter of the size unfortunately.

+1, I dont think its the total sensor size either ,but the pixel size , because the crop mode on the sony still holds the exact colour at pixel level. even cropped to 1/4 the size its still retains colour. the smaller pixel cant capture the colour in the first place.

These test sites are as bad as audio tests on the net. i bought my daughter a really nice fender acoustic guitar amp during the week. while i was in the shop the sales person said look this one its much better than the fender, i said plug a mic and guitar in and prove it, well he did and the fender amp absolutely was so far ahead in audio quality it wasnt even close. these sales and marketing people have no idea.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

57even Forum Pro • Posts: 14,739
Re: show us some images
2

Donald B wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

Donald B wrote:

57even wrote:

Donald B wrote:

You have all lost the plot. show us some images in the middle of the day taken with both cameras. These graphs and charts are all just a con my marketing companies.

The charts are produced independently by Bill Claff, not by manufacturers. I have never seen a chart for DR from any manufacturer.

There is no chance in the world a sensor 1/4 size can come even close. Video ? go shoot some video and you will fall off your chair at the difference between sensor size.

The technology employed by the sensor is at least as important as its size. Canon's previous gen sensors didn't use low noise on-chip ADCs, hence the high read noise in the shadows.

The R5 and R6 now use the same tech that Sony introduced in 2010, so the DR is a lot better. Comparable to Sony sensors.

The problem Im seeing with the DR tests is that you never see whats in the middle only the extremes based on guessing noise quality, I would like to see actual real life shadowed colour reproduction scales ,that will sort out these desktop tests graphs.

Funny you should say that, the worst ILCs I've seen for holding colour and image quality at low exposure values were your beloved m4/3. Not surprising that they took short cuts to compete with the bigger sensors. Now they use Sony sensors they don't cheat as much but it also means they are just inferior versions of big Sony sensors because they're a quarter of the size unfortunately.

+1, I dont think its the total sensor size either ,but the pixel size , because the crop mode on the sony still holds the exact colour at pixel level. even cropped to 1/4 the size its still retains colour. the smaller pixel cant capture the colour in the first place.

You are talking about signal to noise ratio not dynamic range, in which case its total sensor area that matters. This is shown by the ISO tests in the first half of the video where the RP clearly wins.

But DR is not related to mid-tone SNR, it's the ratio between signal at saturation and the minimum signal threshold. This is mostly dependent on sensor technology.

RP uses old tech with high readout noise, so DR is poor.

So, perhaps you need to get your definitions straight.

-- hide signature --

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
Ruairi
Ruairi Senior Member • Posts: 1,096
Re: Picking Cherries

The E-M5iii tree seems to have a pretty favourable yield on it.  Which OP did not mention, to keep things on point - price and DR being core points.

-- hide signature --
 Ruairi's gear list:Ruairi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Olympus E-M1 III Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +14 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads