Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2012, 03:06 PM   #1
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
dxomark reviews the E-M5

Their review includes comparisons with scores of other popular MILCs:

DxOMark - Olympus OM-D E-M5: The best of the micro 4:3 cameras

The advantages of using Sony sensor technology is pretty obvious.

09-24-2012, 03:19 PM   #2
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
Very interesting to see it performs almost identically to the Pentax K-x (baked in RAW noise reduction aside)
09-24-2012, 04:30 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sacramento, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 728
Kudos to the Olympus considering the size of the sensor. Hmm...makes me even more impressed with the Sony RX100 as well. Now I really want to see how the Fuji X-Pro performs... Or hey, what do you know, they're all Sony manufactured sensors.

Last edited by einstrigger; 09-24-2012 at 04:39 PM.
09-24-2012, 04:44 PM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,156
It performs as almost as well as the Canon 5D on the graphs. Not bad at all.

Since Sony is making the 4/3 sensor for the EM-5 that means they are making wafers that would give you almost a 32MP APS-C or a little less than 64MP FF sensor. It is also odd that Panasonic is giving the "no comment" when asked who makes the GH-3 sensor. You would think they would put their stamp on it if they made it.

Definitely wonder what is keeping DxO from finishing their Fuji XP-1 test. They have had the camera for months.

09-24-2012, 05:03 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Definitely wonder what is keeping DxO from finishing their Fuji XP-1 test. They have had the camera for months.
Must have scored really well too.
09-24-2012, 05:07 PM   #6
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Must have scored really well too.
Maybe it's the non bayer layout?
09-24-2012, 06:03 PM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,156
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
Maybe it's the non bayer layout?
Fujifilm Fujinon XF 35 mm f/1.4 R - lens review - Lenstip.com

Lenstip tested the 35mm F/1.4 on the XP-1 and center resolution blows away the K-5 w/31mm Ltd. The 31mm is a pretty sharp lens.
09-24-2012, 07:38 PM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,395
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Lenstip tested the 35mm F/1.4 on the XP-1 and center resolution blows away the K-5 w/31mm Ltd. The 31mm is a pretty sharp lens.
Remember valid direct comparisons across systems with different pixel densities, AA filters etc aren't always possible.

As Lenstip say about the Fujinon35:
QuoteQuote:
That company decided to use a matrix with a specific color filter array (6x6 blocks) Ė it counteracts the moire effect so you donít need to use an AA filter. The lack of such filter makes the MTF50 values (so also the resolution), reached by the Fujifim X-Pro1 much higher than those you get with classic 15-16 Mpix sensors [like the K-5].
If we went with simple resolution numbers from Lenstip or others, we'd be all using micro4/3 lenses...

09-24-2012, 08:32 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Remember valid direct comparisons across systems with different pixel densities, AA filters etc aren't always possible.
The XPro1 sensor and that of the K-5 have the same physical size and the same resolution (16.3MP), so lenstip results are directly comparable. The AA filter removal was meant to improve sensor resolution, so why are you surprised that tests reflect that?

QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
If we went with simple resolution numbers from Lenstip or others, we'd be all using micro4/3 lenses...
Lenstip does not make any statement about the results being invalidated. They just say that the lack of the AA filter leads to better sharpness, which is what the removal of the AA filter was meant to produce.

As for "others", by which I assume you are referring to dxomark, they are scaling their resolution results to the sensor size specifically to allow comparisons cross-format. But then perhaps dxomark are morons as everyone was in agreement here before they published their K-5 test results.
09-24-2012, 09:19 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote

The advantages of using Sony sensor technology is pretty obvious.
So it performs almost as well as my 3 year old K-x?

I'd say the advantages of going one stop up in sensor size is what's most obvious.

I am pleased for Olympus though. It's a neat little camera.
09-24-2012, 09:47 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,156
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Remember valid direct comparisons across systems with different pixel densities, AA filters etc aren't always possible.

As Lenstip say about the Fujinon35:


If we went with simple resolution numbers from Lenstip or others, we'd be all using micro4/3 lenses...
It is directly comparable since they use the same 16MP sensor with the same pixel density.

You realize that the resolution numbers posted by all of the review websites use MTF50 LPMM charts which measure resolution in relation to sensor height? Some simple math and you can roughly convert the numbers for different sensor sizes. Pixel density is a different issue, but the 12MP 4/3, 15MP Canon APS-C and 16MP K-5 sensors all have very similar densities, so you can take resolution tests from one and calculate performance for the other with decent accuracy with simple math.
09-24-2012, 10:50 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
I'd say the advantages of going one stop up in sensor size is what's most obvious.
What is obvious from these results is that APS-C is a rather pointless format. Theoretically, based on sensor size, it should offer a 2/3 stop advantage over MFT. But now we see that APS-C does not offer more than 1/2 stop advantage. Meanwhile, it drags more than 1 stop behind FF.

So if you want a one stop performance gain over MFT, you need to skip APS-C and go FF.
09-24-2012, 11:35 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
What is obvious from these results is that APS-C is a rather pointless format. Theoretically, based on sensor size, it should offer a 2/3 stop advantage over MFT. But now we see that APS-C does not offer more than 1/2 stop advantage. Meanwhile, it drags more than 1 stop behind FF.

So if you want a one stop performance gain over MFT, you need to skip APS-C and go FF.
By your logic M4/3 is also a pointless format, as it doesn't offer a 1 stop advantage over the sensor in the Sony RX100.

That also fits in neatly with my future camera ownership wishes... "my" (actually wife's) existing RX100 (and whatever comes after it) and a K-5-sized FF. Everything in-between can be forgotten about.

Edit: "Everything in-between can be forgotten about by me." I wouldn't presume to say that everything in-between is without merit, it is just superfluous to my particular wants.

Last edited by Unsinkable II; 09-25-2012 at 12:08 AM.
09-25-2012, 12:22 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,349
APS-C is the ideal format for most as it is currently the largest format that allows what most people consider a reasonably-sized and reasonably-priced DSLR or mirrorless camera. The size and price jumps from APS-C to FF are enormous, while there is no real price difference between 4/3 and APS-C. It also provides better wide-angle capability than 4/3, better IQ (even if it is only half a stop, which I'm not sure about), decent control over DoF, and fields of view with legacy lenses that make them still practical (though obviously FF is the ideal for this). Not to mention lenses that are far (FAR) more reasonably priced.
09-25-2012, 12:43 AM   #15
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
APSC will be around for a long time, just less and less in a DSLR body.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dxomark, e-m5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-30 gets DxOMark'd rawr Pentax News and Rumors 14 09-18-2012 05:51 AM
DXOMark reviews DA 35 2.8 Macro Ltd rawr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 07-08-2012 08:03 AM
DxOMark score sebastienva Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 02-04-2012 04:18 AM
DxoMark positively reviews 35mm f2.4 AL rawr Pentax News and Rumors 17 06-02-2011 04:46 AM
kr test su dxomark Gilles70 Pentax K-r 5 11-02-2010 07:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top