rocklobster
Lives in
Melbourne, Australia
Works as a
Computer consultant
Joined on
Dec 19, 2006
|
Comments
 |  |
| Fascia walkie talkie building London by ian herridge from Abstract Architecture | Global Reach by cjf2 from Battleship |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
2464FeatureWhat is equivalence?
Some great images there but seeing a lot of graininess (albeit fine - in ISO125 images and even in JPEGs straight out of the camera
rocklobster: Why would you pay more than a GX7 for this camera - for the convenience of the two dials on the top? Am I missing something here? What else does it offer? Size advantage? - it is no smaller than the GX7 with 12-32 lens albeit a slight telephoto advantage.
Cheers
The penny dropped after I had written the original post and was talking to a friend - yes the fast lens does count for something if you are satified with the zoom range which for most people is most of the time.
Why would you pay more than a GX7 for this camera - for the convenience of the two dials on the top? Am I missing something here? What else does it offer? Size advantage? - it is no smaller than the GX7 with 12-32 lens albeit a slight telephoto advantage.
Cheers
MV Atlanta: I am having trouble with E-M10 noise levels. Majority of the wonderful sample images in online reviews seem to be RAW based. Default JPEG noise is unacceptable above ISO800 for portraits. Both my 5 year old D300 and athe new Sony a6000 have much lower noise and significantly better dynamic range. I tried RAW and got fairly good results but do not have time for processing - this is for taking pictures of our kids to be uploaded to facebook and shared with family.
I use kit lens with 45mm 1.8 on its way. Still the lens should help with sharpness (I have problems with as well - mostly due to inaccurate focusing) but not with the noise.
I tinkered with noise reduction settings without much success. Even at ISO600 there is way more noise than one would expect. Any suggestions on settings? I know everything is relative but I am comparing it head to head with Nikon D5200 and Sony a6000 under the same settings and there is something wrong with the Olympus. Thanks.
Try turning the sharpness down as the default setting for all recent Olympus E-Px and E-Mx models accentuates any noise.
Tord S Eriksson: Sounds like a camera to love, in most circumstances, except in low light situations!
I have a D600, and a V1, while my wife has a E-M5, this E-M1 sounds like a perfect complement!
Sadly the low light performance is only perceived because of the smaller sensor. The sensor is only about 33% smaller in area than an APS-C sensor. Just look at those ISO 6400 images and tell me that I am wrong.
Cheers
whawha: These are really exciting cameras. Too bad the available lenses are so big and expensive, Sony really needs to get their act together with the lenses because they have a potential game changer here.
An affordable 35 or 40mm pancake would be perfect for those bodies.
Great job Sony but do we really want such a small body with large FF lenses?
Cheers
mitch72: nice features, way to expensive for a small sensor, retro design? looks like a mini dslr , or like a small jar .
FACT - m4/3 sensor is approx 33% smaller in area than an APS-C sensor or just slightly more than 1/2 a stop. Not significant really when you consider that there are other factors that contribute to noise on the final image. Small price to pay for much smaller kit. EM-5 looks to be brilliant value now but EM-1 price will come down.
Cheers
PhotoKhan: ISO noise performance is far from impressive, right from direct observation.
I don't think I've seen such a poor ISO 200 performance from a $1250+ camera in a long time.
Also, why are so many photos in the samples gallery significantly underexposed?
Curiously, low light image P9161521 at ISO1600 is surprisingly noisy, albeit quite detailed, whereas other shots at ISO6400 are surprisingly clean and well processed. Perhaps this is the "fault" of the NR processor rather than the sensor. Overall I am very impressed by the image quality however.
Cheers
Like the Pentax K-01, which suffered poor sales, another Marc Newson design which is seemingly too "fat" and may be awkward to handle. It will sell though because of the brand name.
Cheers
Good to see some pics from my home town (city) Melbourne, Australia.
cheers
Good to see some pics from my home town (city) Melbourne, Australia.
cheers
minzaw: Why so big the physical size??
There is a segmant of the market that still believes that bigger is better irrespective of sensor size. People that have large hands or that are used to the ergonomics of a chunky design that is big enough to grip firmly love this design. This is one of the reasons why people have not crossed over the compact mirrorless cameras and are still buying traditionally styled DSLRs. Also, a larger camera is peceived to be the tool of a serious or semi-pro photographer and unfortunately many amateurs like to be seen with a big camera around their necks rather than some dinky looking toy (their thinking, not mine). This is possibly why the Panasonic GH3 has grown to DSLR size to capture this market despite its smaller mirrorless heritage.
Cheers
smafdy: I own a lot of cameras, from a variety of manufacturers — Oly among them.
I have to say that Oly is the most innovative camera manufacturer of them all, and the IQ of the 4/3 system is up to par with the larger sensor offerings (my criteria being a full page — roughly 9" x 12" — color separation).
I'll be buying this camera.
I am a big fan of Oly and really admire them for flying the flag of M4/3 and believe that M4/3 is the best compromise between camera/lens size and IQ but for innovation you just can't beat Sony.
Anastigmat: This camera is only about 1/2 an inch narrower than the full frame Nikon D600 and it is not much cheaper. The difference in image quality between a 4/3 sensor and a full frame is huge. The Olympus therefore sacrifices image quality without any benefit in compactness or a much lower price. Olympus fans may swoon over this new toy, but most other photographers will simply walk away.
Here we go again comparing apples with oranges.
As soon as you say anything with the word 'pro' in it pro camera owners get all defensive. Well, Olympus 4/2 lenses are PRO quality and here is the body that best matches those lenses. It may not be FF but neither are the size of the lenses.
Cheers
I bet Ricoh would have liked there GXR to work like this.
If the optics in the QX100 are as good as the RX100 then I am interested and hopefully the price will come down.
Good work Sony.
Cheers
There's noise in them-there hills pardner!
Cheers
Sony are always ahead of the game.
crsantin: Very clever Sony, very very clever. 20 megapixel APS-C with a lens for...$400???That's the initial price too, not the deeply discounted price that comes along at the end of the product's life. The DSLR goes mirrorless. Goodbye micro four thirds, it was nice knowing you.
Hi crsantin
Of course you are right if a buyer only ever uses the kit lens but anyone who wishes to expand their system will welcome the much smaller size of M4/3 lenses.
Doesn't the Sony R1 qualify - the first mirrorless APS-C camera with 5X zoom?
The styling was also fairly unique - not like a DSLR or a superzoom.
Cheers