Frank
I think that perhaps we've moved away from the point of my original reply to
Moose's post.
I was merely remarking, perhaps in a rather obscure way, that the E-M5 might
have been given a good writeup by DxO, but that it was still not that good in
the context of cameras of that supposed quality. This is not on the basis of
any sensor size, but merely a comparison between cameras that you or I might
buy.
I've read some of the DPR review, but that's nothing to do with my comment on
Moose's post.
And I'm still tempted, but the E-X1 looks very interesting, especially if it
the right, high-quality adaptors become available.
Chris
On 30 Sep 2012, at 12:02, Frank Wijsmuller <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> These DxO measures show that on the sensor part, m43 camera's like the E-M5
> have become more serious competitors of APS-C then ever before. That is why
> these measures have some relevance. There is no claim of the best m43
> camera outperforming the best APS-C camera, so that shouldn't be discussed
> here.
>
> If you want to know how the E-M5 scored *as a package* then read the
> DPreview conclusion of the E-M5 test: "...The E-M5 can't completely
> overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor,
> compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for
> almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage,
> in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most
> uses. If you're *absolutely unwilling* to compromise on image quality then
> spending twice the money and moving up to the bulk of full-frame is the
> only way of gaining a significant step up from the E-M5...".
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|