On 1/11/2014 5:30 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> ...
>> Then, if you are saying that the RX10 produces images with IQ equal to the
>> NEX-7, I'm politely skeptical until I see
>> examples. That will be possible soon enough, in the Raw versions of standard
>> shots of the major review sites.
> DPReview hasn't done the full formal test on the RX10, but DXOMark
> has, as well as other review sites which probably don't pass the smell
> test for you. The NEX-7, according to DXOMark blows the socks off of
> the RX10 and EM1. Compared to the NEX-7, both cameras suck.
I admit I have a hard time finding much information of use on DXOMark. It's
entirely possible the fault lies with me.
OTOH, what did they actually tell me?
The NEX-7 has one more bit of color depth, 24 vs. 23. What does that even mean?
The sensor is 14 bit; what are these
other bits? Are they talking about some measure of color space? Is one bit out
of 24, 4%, whatever it is, noticeably
different in images?
It has 0.7 EV greater DR than the E-M1. Is that a meaningful difference? Do the
Raw files from both respond the same to
highlight recovery in ACR? Honestly, that can more important than half an EV in
the file.
However they measure Low Light ISO, the NEX-7 is 1/3 of a stop better. News
flash; with these cameras, in this ISO
range, it's hard to tell the difference of a full stop in noise, without some
serious pixel peeping - well, sometimes
even then.
I have a really hard time seeing how these numbers will turn up as significant
in actual picture taking. As with the
Panny 20/1.7 I vs. II tests, I wouldn't be surprised if sample variation is as
large as the differences measured.
Sorry, no blowing or sucking there.
> That means your EM5 does too.
Oh well ....
> Having spent more than a passing bit of time with
> the NEX-7, I would concur. It is a camera that really rocks. With
> properly working reduction optics, I consider it to be a viable
> contender for Schnozz-Bag.
>
> What DXOMark doesn't test is resolution issues. For that, I will lean
> on the various sample images out there that I've seen.
Yeah, it's hard to really quantify image quality. The closest I've come is
downloading standard shots, preferably Raw,
and stack them on top of each other in PS, so I can flip between them at
whatever magnification I want.
I tend to like Dpreview's samples for the wide variety of subject matter, some
of great subtlety, for the availability
of Raw and because I'm very familiar with the test subjects. I know right where
to look for certain differences.
> The RX10 is very much like my A1. The lens is well beyond what the sensor is
> capable of.
Don't I recall that the same lens received reviews as not being quite up to the
job when they upped the sensor MPs?
Probably hallucinating. Certainly not worth researching.
>
>> If not, then you agree with my point, mostly stated in my other post
>> specifically on that point, which is that the RX10
>> is roughly as large and heavy as an ILC kit that will have better imaging
>> performance.
> I totally disagree. You have to go up to APS-C to be significantly
> better than the RX10. m43 ain't going to get you there.
Damn, my memory is really playing tricks on me. Didn't there used to be a
fellow here, some crank, who argued at length
that 4/3 is not really smaller than APS-C? Lots of talk about how the vertical
dimension of 4/3, at 13 mm is not
different enough from APS's 14.9 to make much practical difference in IQ
technology? Didn't he buy an E-1? More
hallucinations? Ah well, I pretty much agreed with him, still do. Went APS-C
for other reasons.
> Start adding up the lenses it takes to make m43 match the 24-200/2.8 equiv
> lens.
I did, with weights! And noted the speed superiority of the f2.8 lens. For me,
the µ4/3 24-100 eq. and 28-200 eq. are
fast enough for pretty much anything out of doors. That is in part because I
like DOF almost all the time. An f2.8 lens
at f8 is no faster than an f5.6 lens at f8. (Back to ISO matters - to me.)
I also gave an option including the Panny 20/1.7, an excellent lens a stop
faster than f2.8, for when speed counts.
> You are all wet, Moose.
Not really. I did go out in some light mist today, the closest thing we've had
to rains in many weeks. Supposed to clear
up tomorrow, sunny all week, nudging 70° F. I hope they are wrong. We did rain
songs and dances Thursday.
>> OK, I have no way of, or interest in, proving or disproving that. But I
>> can't figure out how it makes any difference to
>> anything. The RX10 is a fixed lens camera. It produces what it produces,
>> regardless of the contribution of the various
>> components. And that's all that matters.
> I've gone through several "bridge" cameras. ...
As yet, not my cuppa. One of my brothers had an IS-(1?). I just didn't know
what to do with it. If it's that big, it
should have interchangeable lenses. If the lens is fixed, it should be much
smaller. Just how I work. Maybe I'm a tunnel
guy?
> Oh, and it does video very well. Something that Olympus just doesn't
> give too much of a rip about.
Yeah, I though about that, but for me, still comes first. I've taken a fair
number of short videos, mostly of things in
nature the nature of which isn't clear in a still. I'm not sure what to do with
them, though. I think of them as video
snapshots, but apparently that's come to mean a still from a video. It doesn't
seem to be a medium in common use.
For that, any of these cameras are pretty good, I think. Is the GX7 supposed to
be better? I just don't remember.
Bridge The Gap Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|