E-M5, 13 stop dynamic range?

TechRadar drops this article on us. It's the first test I have seen using DxO and to be honest I find the results nearly unbelievable. Most still think this is a "tweaked" G3 sensor; after seeing these test results I must say that either that is incorrect, or TechRadar somehow screwed up the testing process. There is simply no way a "tweak" could result in dynamic range so massive it even exceeds that of the Sony NEX-7.

Obviously I am hoping they are right and this is a groundbreaking sensor, but not getting my hopes up until we see some verification from other testers. (More)

"Chimney birds"

These guys are starting to hang out on our chimney and roof ridge again. Lots of chatter in the morning.
(More)

Focus change

For those of us who were working with digital cameras while they were still in their relative infancy (not talking early 90s Kodak SLR monsters, but rather late 90s-onwards, where digital cameras started becoming more common for consumers), it might appear that we have reached a point of "sufficiency" when it comes to camera gear. A decade back each new generation of cameras generally meant a big step forward in some way: resolution, ISO performance, dynamic range, card write performance, frames per second, autofocus performance and so on and so forth. But today, I would argue that for the average shooter the gains from upgrading are diminishing in significance with each new camera released.

Certainly, one can be impressed with the new 36MP D800, the ISO performance of the Canon 1DX, and other niceties that are showing up on the leading edge of digital. However, how much of a difference can these cameras really make to your type of shooting? Today the vast majority of digital images never leave the screen, and of those who make it to print few ever make it to large enough output sizes that the theoretical gains from a newer camera would actually make a visible difference.

Like many, I sometimes get suckered into pixel peeping and comparing ISO 25600 shots at 1:1, and judging that camera X is "clearly" better than camera Y. But if one were to take the very same files, post process and apply appropriate noise reduction, and print them to average print size, would this clearly visible difference still exist? In most cases, no. Furthermore, how many of us really need extremely high ISOs? For those of us who started out shooting film, ISO 1600 was an emergency only option. Now we sit and complain about ISO6400 not being perfectly clean. Has our needs changed so massively, or are these needs merely created by our obsessive pixel peeping and measuring? Sure, shooting in a very poorly lit room with an f/2.8 lens might require very high ISO for a proper exposure at reasonable shutter speeds, but what is wrong with using flash? I see example after example of images that "could not have been taken" with lower ISO, and quite often they are images where a flash could not only have let you used a more reasonable ISO, but actually made the image look BETTER thanks to removing some shadows and harsh lighting.

Again, there ARE EXCEPTIONS of course. Shooting concerts can be one, where you often deal with poorly lit venues that may not allow you to use a flash. Theater performances, ballet etc, as well. But how many of those clamoring for the next greatest high ISO rig will actually use them in this manner?

I think that what we should be looking for today is not the camera with the most loaded spec sheet, but rather a camera that really fits our needs. Today, just about any m4/3, APS or FF camera will be sufficient for the vast majority of the shooters. That leaves us with the option for finding the one we most like shooting with, the one that has the most suitable lens lineup, the one that fits our size needs and price range. While I would surely enjoy shooting a 5D3 or D800, I opted for the E-M5 because it is a compact, capable rig that meets my personal needs, and is small enough that I will be likely to carry it everywhere. And frankly, the performance of say the 5D3 would be completely wasted on me since I never print larger than 13x19 and really don't need useable ISO 25,600. So why pay the higher price and put up with higher weight and size when the end results would not be any better for my shooting?

Who of us really NEEDS these ultra high end cameras? Not saying we should quit buying gear, but maybe that we should all consider what strengths to focus on.

Full disclaimer: I own a 7D and 1DsII and intend to keep them both. The 7D I put to full use for bird and wildlife shooting where the AF performance really makes a big difference. The 1Ds II I can't defend other than having an irrational love for the thing. I really don't need it.
(More)

E-M5 linkapalooza

Some fun reading on the new E-M5!

Four Thirds User samples (jpeg and raw)

Gabrielle Motala's E-M5 "in brief"

DPReview first impressions

Quesabesde's samples including higher ISOs (English via Google Translate

danawa.com's info and samples (Korean)

Fotoactualidad's comparison with Nikon D7000 -- not very indicative of anything IMO since there is no telling how much detail would be blurred due to aggressive NR

Fotopolis' ISO test (More)

The gear we have

Canon 7D (released 2009), Tokina 35/2.8 macro

While it is fun to read and speculate about all the new cameras (and face it, 2012 is a heck of a year for gear nerds, with the D800, 5D Mk III, OM-D E-M5, NEX-7, etc etc being made available), the truth is that most of us likely already own all the gear we really need. People rush to declare gear obsolete as soon as the next great thing is out, yet the now "old" gear continues to work just as well as it did before.



Canon S95 (released 2010)


Canon 10D (released 2003), EF 35/2


Canon 20D, (released 2004) EF 400/5.6L


Canon 1Ds Mark II (released 2005), EF 35/2

(More)

Micro 4/3 glass praised by DXO

DXO Labs have been reviewing some m4/3 glass lately, and the results are pretty impressive. A lot of us prime fans enjoy a basic two- or three lens setup (wide + short tele/portrait, or wide + normal + short tele/portrait is a frequent configuration), and at this point I would say we are quite set at least in this lens mount!

The three lenses that have caught my own interest is the Olympus 12/2, Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4, and Olympus 45/1.8 . In "35mm format" terms that would be 24mm, 50mm and 90mm. 24 might be a bit wide for some, but there is always the 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 to fill the gap there.

Check out what they have to say about the 12/2 for instance: Pitted against the Nikon 1 NIKKOR 10mm f/2.8, this Olympus 12mm holds an overwhelming advantage. Even more impressive is the fact that this lens can compete with much bigger lenses, such as the Canon 24mm L-series mounted on a 7D.

In short, it really does seem that a high-quality, fully micro 4/3 camera-lens combination is perfectly capable of replacing an APS-C combination — and the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 is a particularly high-quality micro 4/3 lens!

Links to reviews below:


Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12/2

Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25/1.4

Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45/1.8

It is certainly nice to see such excellent glass available in this attractive lens mount!

(More)

New E-M5 sample images posted

First "serious" samples I have seen so far, posted at Focus Numérique Looking good! (Note: if you get a popup for username/password it is user 'pavp' and password '33'!)

Of course, if you want this image quality at half the price and don't need all of the niceties of the E-M5, the Panasonic GX1 is always an option. While Olympus refuses to divulge details on the E-M5 sensor, smart money is on it being the same as in the GX1. (More)