Forum

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Well, well, well...  (Read 3832 times)
Tegularius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« on: September 25, 2012, 06:10:28 PM »

This a comment for this page on the website
DXO has procrastinated for so long, that I wrote them off and decided to buy my own OM-D without waiting for their analysis.

I'm glad I did, because I find it an extraordinary camera. The usability and the image quality is extraordinary. I am not surprised to learn it is the best m43 around. It has an extraordinary dynamic range, almost no-existent noise at ISOs lower than 3200 and a magnificent range of colors (I shoot exclusively in RAW mode).

So I am somewhat dissapointed at the overall results shown by DXO. So much so in fact, that I'm begining to doubt about the credibility of DXO testing. Specially after seeing the results of other tests done -with DXO software- with results completely different to those published here.

It sounds all so darn fishy... they wait and wait and wait, and finally, out of the blue, and when the OM-D no longer has any mediatic impact, they decide to release the results of their testing. By now it is irrelevant, save for historical reasons. It is of no real use to their readers.

The worst part is that these results lack credibility. My own experienced is very  different. I own a Sony A77 as well as the OM-D and I have done my own informal testing and comparison with both. The OM-D is far superior -image quality wise- to the Sony in just aboout every aspect. It is hard for me to believe the A77 can be so far ahead in the ranking of DXO.

Not believable, guys.
Logged
Hakeem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2012, 11:04:53 PM »

Well reading your experiences and what other sites posted, I strongly beleive DXOMark ows us some explanation on these delays and some details on their testing process! definately
Logged

Hakeem - A Soft Coder
@ Flickr
Pany GH1, GF3, Oly Pen-EP1, XZ-1, Nikon D5100
Interested in Sony A580, Nikon J1
Waiting for Oly XZ-2, Pany GH3, Nikon D800/ Canon 5D-III
Tomeryaffe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2012, 09:41:05 AM »

Read the post by seta666, and you will get the answer to your question.
The reason that the picture quality look so good to you at ISO-3200, is because its actually ISO-1489! While on the A77 its ISO-2612
 
Logged
Hakeem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2012, 02:21:37 AM »

Well I suggest reading R Butlers  article on ISO / ISO Cheating or if it should be consider cheating or is an interesting technological advancement here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

its much easier to underestand, less confusing, well guided and straight forward IMO. it exaplins the two most common definition of ISOs very well and different camera manufacturer's take on these and personally I am very satisfied with the conclusion that says "all that matters is the final image quality and usability"!

So if you keep calling Oly tht its underexposing at equivalent ISO's, you simply are not getting the point!

Logged

Hakeem - A Soft Coder
@ Flickr
Pany GH1, GF3, Oly Pen-EP1, XZ-1, Nikon D5100
Interested in Sony A580, Nikon J1
Waiting for Oly XZ-2, Pany GH3, Nikon D800/ Canon 5D-III
hesel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2012, 01:30:03 PM »

Why the negative responses to DXO testing?
71 is better than my D300 (67) from 2008 - so, in fact, Olympus has made excellent progress with this iteration.   Remember how everyone 'marvrled' at the D300.  DXO doesn't have an axe to grind & the Olympus tests well.  DPReview basically tests against similar cameras & does all the indepth work on handling & useability - DXO tests sensors & sensors with lenses - that's it.  Technically, they appear to be bang-on.
As to inferring the Oly is 'better' than the Sony A77 - I think you either are comparing jpegs on uncalibrated monitors or don't really have both cameras.  Why would you have two diametrically opposed systems anyway?

Let's everyone compare test data accurately.  71 is great for 4/3rds and obviously a big improvement.  Anyone arguing unfair should look more dispassionately at the results & the commendation DXO gave.  The OM D is a great camera.
Logged
Hakeem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2012, 03:42:40 PM »

well not just better than 5 years old d300 but you may also say same as 7 year old FF 5d!! i guess you should have a look at the discussion in other threads on om-d results, the test results were delayed for some unknown reasons and according to other review web-sites (not just dp-review), like tech-radar (using DXOMark tools) its IQ (not handeling and other stuff) are as good as any APSC to date with DR even better and if you have already gone through those threads and you haven't got the point, you will not get it. And without any doubt D300 is a great camera, used  to be one of my camera crush at the time of its release. But this is almost 2013 and we are still thinking how can pooor micro size sensor compete big APSC DSLRs quality .. what the tooooot!  Roll Eyes
Logged

Hakeem - A Soft Coder
@ Flickr
Pany GH1, GF3, Oly Pen-EP1, XZ-1, Nikon D5100
Interested in Sony A580, Nikon J1
Waiting for Oly XZ-2, Pany GH3, Nikon D800/ Canon 5D-III
Tegularius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 10:57:36 PM »

Right on, Hakeem!

Hesel, let me make clear a couple of things. I do owe an A77 (I don't care wether you believe it or not). I also own the A55, the G1 of Panasonic and two Canon cameras. All that with a nice collection of glasses to match them.

I am very pleased with the A77 overall, although I am disappointed by some things Sony has done (or rather not done) to this camera. For instance the lack of a decent bracketing mode to shoot HDRs (it has a weird bracketing system, but it doesn't take advantage of the very fast shooting the A77 is capable of - I am talking about RAW MODE, which EXCLUSIVELY how I shoot). I'm also not satisfied with the EVF of Sony - it has an excellent resolution but it is far too contrasty and not useful in many situations. The noise (I imagine due to the SLT mirror) this camera produces is noticeable even at ISOs as low as 800; that is a little disappointing but to me not critical. But what I dislike the most of this camera is its bulk and weight -given the fact that it is a mirrorless system. That is fine for some situations, but I can't take it on a trip hanging off my shoulder all day long. That was one of the reasons I was attracted to the Olympus.

I shoot mostly landscapes, and nearly always at the lowest ISO available, so I am not talking of shots done at 3200 (though as I said, the OM-D performance is very decent at this ISO). Again, as I said, I ALWAYS - please read other people's posts more carefully before jumping to conclusions - shoot in RAW. I do have a couple of well calibrated and rather expensive monitors, FYI.


I find that shooting in RAW mode, the dynamic range of the OMD is better than my A77. Again I'm talking at the lowest ISO (50 in the A77 and nominally 200 on the OM-D. There is something some "mushiness" to the A77 images that I don't understand why they happen. By contrast, the OMD gives me wonderfully vibrant, clean and crisp images. A real delight. Naturally, these later appreciations are subjective, but I heard the same exact complaints from other A77 owners, so perhaps there is some objective truth to them.

Again, I've done my own informal testing with these two cameras and results are not as DXO suggests. As Hakeem has mentioned, there are other tests done (with DXO own software!!!), notably that of Tech Radar, which indicate that the OM-D ought to rank higher that it does in DXO's chart. DXO is indeed a reference in the testing of sensors (or has been up to the recent crunch), but we should not take their measurements as gospel. There are other outfits out there how are also credible.

I do not know whether DXO has some axe to grind or not with Olympus or the M43 system. All in all I've always "trusted" DXO evaluations, as they seemed to back my own experiences. But I don't completely trust these latest results. It now seems likely (in the light of the DP Review - DXO merger) that DXO was having some economic problems. Perhaps the review of the Olympus was not done to the older customary standards and was done just to silence the endless user's complaints.

I agree with those that say that DXO should explain to us how they performed these tests, if the methodology was the same used for other products and if the reviewers were the same old seasoned personnel or was done by novices. Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot avoid the feeling that things do not add up.

Regards

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 11:15:25 PM by Tegularius » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines