[pingflood]

Sure, but you have to keep in mind that you have people running multiple systems as well as people who may not even own a Pentax anymore, and it is nice for them to be able to chat about other cameras without someone rushing in to defend Pentax' honor within five minutes.

[Rondec]

Sure, but you have to keep in mind that you have people running multiple systems as well as people who may not even own a Pentax anymore, and it is nice for them to be able to chat about other cameras without someone rushing in to defend Pentax' honor within five minutes.

I think it isn't Pentax versus four thirds, it is APS-C versus four thirds. It is really for the same reason that in the Pentax threads, within four or five posts of a new camera thread, there is someone complaining that it isn't full frame. Many folks aren't satisfied with smaller sensors, however good they might be and have to tell everyone about it.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Why even bring up the E-PL2 with a kit lens? Inferior sensor and inferior lens.

Well, the K-x has inferior build, inferior kit lens, inferior AF capabilities, inferior OVF, inferior LiveView implementation, and no customizable controls, so overall I find the E-PL2 a more appealing package. Especially since if I want to use the Tamron 17-50, I can use it on the E-PL2 just as well. You might moan about losing AF capability, but since it was inferior to begin with, it's not much of a loss.

Here are images taken with Pentax lenses on E-PL2:

DA 15:



DA 50-200:



I can't search that HK site, but I am pretty sure you can find a deal for the E-PL2 for less than the one you got for the K-x. And the Olympus kit lens is actually very good, so you don't have to sell it.



I also wish I could resell the Pentax 18-55 lenses for $70 each, but I don't see that happening here in US.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Many folks aren't satisfied with smaller sensors, however good they might be and have to tell everyone about it.

It is particularly hilarious when they are users of small sensors to begin with.

[Rondec]

It is particularly hilarious when they are users of small sensors to begin with.

Well isn't the issue one of a system? The camera body is only one component. What lenses you want/need/can afford is the bigger issue. If what you need isn't available for a particular system (if you need the equivalent of a 14mm f2.8 on full frame, smaller sensored cameras will not be adequate) then you need to go with a system that does offer that. Olympus has built a nice set of primes around a decent body. I would argue that Pentax has done the same (although Pentax has chosen to build slower lenses, in general). For some 95 percent of users, either camera system would work fine.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Well isn't the issue one of a system? The camera body is only one component. What lenses you want/need/can afford is the bigger issue. If what you need isn't available for a particular system (if you need the equivalent of a 14mm f2.8 on full frame, smaller sensored cameras will not be adequate) then you need to go with a system that does offer that. Olympus has built a nice set of primes around a decent body. I would argue that Pentax has done the same (although Pentax has chosen to build slower lenses, in general). For some 95 percent of users, either camera system would work fine.

Yes. Exactly. That is the healthy way to look at it. Comparing formats is splitting hairs as we have amply demonstrated in this thread.

[Unsinkable II]

So to surmise for anyone skipping through to the end of the thread...

- The E-M5 sensor is very good indeed
- The K-x sensor is just as good, and that camera has been available for 3 years
- AF lens choices for the K-x are more plentiful
- If you want to manual focus, the E-M5 has even more lenses that will work on it
- Some people prefer no grip and EVF, some prefer grip and OVF
- If you want F4 FF equivalent DOF zooms on M43, be prepared to pay... even the only 5.6 DOF equivalent standard zoom costs $1,100.
- APS-C (be it Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax) gives you an upgrade path to what anyone born before 1980 is used to: 35mm. M43 is a cul-de-sac (albeit one with certainly good-enough IQ).
- The E-PL2 sensor scores the same as the 2003 Canon 300D. Not particularly relevant in a 2012 DXO performance thread.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

- The E-M5 sensor is very good indeed
- The K-x sensor is just as good, and that camera has been available for 3 years
<snip>
- The E-PL2 sensor scores the same as the 2003 Canon 300D. Not particularly relevant in a 2012 DXO performance thread.

Thanks for getting back on topic. Your summary is wrong on many accounts though. But since this thread is specifically about dxomark results, I'll just comment on those aspects.

So, to properly summarize, the dxomark results show that low light ISO performance of K-x, K-5, and E-M5 holds well until camera settings of a bit over ISO 800, ISO 1200, and ISO 1600, respectively (after converting the dxomark ISO values into actual camera ISO values, to reflect practical use). This gives E-M5 almost a half stop advantage over the K-5 and a full stop over the K-x.

Again:

K-x - ~ISO 800
K-5 - ~ISO 1200
E-M5 - ~ISO 1600

In closing, I will say that it's great to see the benefit that dxomark brought to the photographic community. It used to be that arguments went endlessly over pages including image samples of old luggage or black cats in a dark closet, but we all know that such samples can be doctored and lie. There is nothing like the cold truth of numbers that comes from dxomark testing and they can be used to quickly point the superiority of a system over another. For now, they point the superiority of MFT over APS-C. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? I hold hope for a FF MILC, but I digress.

[Rondec]

Thanks for getting back on topic. Your summary is wrong on many accounts though. But since this thread is specifically about dxomark results, I'll just comment on those aspects.

So, to properly summarize, the dxomark results show that low light ISO performance of K-x, K-5, and E-M5 holds well until camera settings of a bit over ISO 800, ISO 1200, and ISO 1600, respectively (after converting the dxomark ISO values into actual camera ISO values, to reflect practical use). This gives E-M5 almost a half stop advantage over the K-5 and a full stop over the K-x.

Again:

K-x - ~ISO 800
K-5 - ~ISO 1200
E-M5 - ~ISO 1600

In closing, I will say that it's great to see the benefit that dxomark brought to the photographic community. It used to be that arguments went endlessly over pages including image samples of old luggage or black cats in a dark closet, but we all know that such samples can be doctored and lie. There is nothing like the cold truth of numbers that comes from dxomark testing and they can be used to quickly point the superiority of a system over another. For now, they point the superiority of MFT over APS-C. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? I hold hope for a FF MILC, but I digress.

Did you get your K5 and OM-D numbers backwards? I don't see any place on the graphs where the OM-D is ahead of the K5 either with regard to SNR or dynamic range.

[Unsinkable II]

Good grief.

Now a E-M5 has a better sensor than a K-5. I've seen and heard it all now.

By the way, I'm not at all wrong on my comments, which is why (for once) you aren't bothering to dispute them. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you came back with "technically FF-capable lenses are not specific to APS-C, only the mount, so they don't count".

I'm joining Jonathan Mac and leaving this thread.

[JinDesu]

The k-x has inferior build quality? Lol? I'd love for you to lend me a EPL-2 and I'll put it through exactly what my k-x has gone through. Then we'll see about build quality.

The k-x is fantastically well built - better than any other entry level from Nikon or Canon even till now. You can mock it's lack of customization and AF (dear lord, it's 6 years old), but to mock it's build quality is just idiotic.

[westmill]

The EM5 has an amazing sensor for its size. it performs as good as a lot of APSC cameras. The K5 has the best of the APSC sensors though. Yes the K5 is better..... BUT ! its hardly a massive difference. It hardly warrants a discussion. Nobody would be dissapointed with the quality of the EM5. Unless you are a pro with clients wanting billboard size pics. I love the extra DOF the four thirds creates. One of the main bennafits is the ability not to need to use such high ISO in the first place to take the same pic. In low light shooting in the real world, the simple act of using a fast lens simply does not work because the amount of DOF is way too narrow. You can shoot four thirds at F2.8 which gives a simlar DOF to F5.6 on full frame or F4 on APSC. This equates too the full frame needing 12800 ISO APSC 6400 ISO and four thirds needing only 3200 ISO for the same pic. This narrows the gap considerably. I chose APSC format because it simply works as the best all around format. I find i need more DOF than less DOF far more often than I need shallow DOF. I can obtain more than adequate shallow DOF when needed with APSC though. So my interest in FF is zero. There will be a select few that are often after easy shallow DOF. Obviously if that is you then FF is the way to go. If your style and preference way of shooting is obtaining background detail or using long lenses then four thirds is the way forward. If you want a middling ground then it has to be APSC. There simply is no single better format, except which is best for the individual.

[Winder]

The EM5 has an amazing sensor for its size. it performs as good as a lot of APSC cameras. The K5 has the best of the APSC sensors though. Yes the K5 is better..... BUT ! its hardly a massive difference. It hardly warrants a discussion. Nobody would be dissapointed with the quality of the EM5. Unless you are a pro with clients wanting billboard size pics. I love the extra DOF the four thirds creates. One of the main bennafits is the ability not to need to use such high ISO in the first place to take the same pic. In low light shooting in the real world, the simple act of using a fast lens simply does not work because the amount of DOF is way too narrow. You can shoot four thirds at F2.8 which gives a simlar DOF to F5.6 on full frame or F4 on APSC. This equates too the full frame needing 12800 ISO APSC 6400 ISO and four thirds needing only 3200 ISO for the same pic. This narrows the gap considerably. I chose APSC format because it simply works as the best all around format. I find i need more DOF than less DOF far more often than I need shallow DOF. I can obtain more than adequate shallow DOF when needed with APSC though. So my interest in FF is zero. There will be a select few that are often after easy shallow DOF. Obviously if that is you then FF is the way to go. If your style and preference way of shooting is obtaining background detail or using long lenses then four thirds is the way forward. If you want a middling ground then it has to be APSC. There simply is no single better format, except which is best for the individual.

Looking at DPR test results the Fuji 16MP in the XP-1 is the best performing APS-C sensor.

According to Fuji the AA filter (which eliminates color morie) also makes it more difficult for the image processor to tell the difference between color noise and color detail. Removing the AA filter produces images with less chroma-noise and more detail.

The K-5II Super might end up the best sensor of the bunch. We will have to wait and see.

[westmill]

Looking at DPR test results the Fuji 16MP in the XP-1 is the best performing APS-C sensor.

According to Fuji the AA filter (which eliminates color morie) also makes it more difficult for the image processor to tell the difference between color noise and color detail. Removing the AA filter produces images with less chroma-noise and more detail.

The K-5II Super might end up the best sensor of the bunch. We will have to wait and see.

Well i kind of put AA filterless in a different bracket sumhow lol. But yes... which is why I intend buying the Fuji x E1 very shortly

[Winder]

Well i kind of put AA filterless in a different bracket sumhow lol. But yes... which is why I intend buying the Fuji x E1 very shortly

Yes. The new Fuji E-X1 with the 14mm, 35mm, & 56mm would cover an awful lot of shooting situations with a very compact and portable package. I want to see some real tests and see if Fuji can continue to improve performance through firmware updates.

I would have sworn that it was a Sony sensor, but Fuji is pretty adamant that they designed the sensor from the ground up with the image processor.