DxOMark Starts Reviewing 4/3 Lenses

DxOMark, which has been woefully lacking in 4/3 and Micro 4/3 lens reviews, has decided to fill that hole in their line-up. I'm assuming that the problem wasn't them, but instead was Panasonic and Olympus not sending them production samples. If that was indeed the case, I chalk it up as symptomatic of those two companies' complete disconnect from the photographic world and their resultant belief that only point-&-shoot buyers are interested in their products. As such, there is no need to send samples to a website that deals almost exclusively with the enthusiast/pro segment of the market.

They have only done three reviews thus far, but they are all of very interesting lenses: The Panasonic X 14-42mm, the Olympus 12mm f/2.0, and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. All three lenses perform very well as regards resolution.

The Panasonic is the real surprise. If it was faster, it would be a significant winner, but alas, it's not. It's still a great lens, just slow. I can't wait to see the tests of the Panasonic 14-45mm and 20mm f/1.7, both of which are gems that haven't left my side for two years. The 14-45mm is the best kit zoom that I have ever used and, based on my own tests, is noticeably better than the 14-42mm.

The two Olympus lenses put in the best performance that could reasonably be expected for lenses of their type. The 12mm does better than I expected seeing as I wasn't terribly impressed with its cost/performance ration when I first used it. I enjoy the speed, but when compared to the similarly priced and much wider Panasonic 7-14mm, its sheen dulls a bit.

The 45mm shines again, but their test doesn't tell the whole story. The contrast of the 45mm was where I was truly impressed. I like sharpness, but high-contrast at edges is what truly makes an image pop at most resolutions. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best lenses on the planet, and the Oly stands up well. If you are invested in Micro 4/3 and plan on staying in it, the 45mm should absolutely be in your kit.

These reviews remind me why I like 4/3 and why I think the format has potential. If only the cameras could catch up to the lenses, the system would be truly great.

Panasonic GX1 Gets Real Review

DPReview, the undisputed juggernaut of online camera reviews, has posted its review of the new Panasonic GX1. The sensor was a pretty big disappointment when DxOMark ran it through its test, with a score that barely defeated the now-old 12Mp sensor found in most earlier Micro 4/3 cameras.

DPReview's test holds few surprises. Panasonic has refined all of the practical elements of the camera and delivered the first camera that can be considered a successor to the amazing GF1. They mention a few things that are disappointing to lose, like the drive lever, but ignore the ridiculous placement of an iA button that you cannot reassign to a function that, I dunno', someone might use.

Overall, though, it is apparent that Panasonic did a good job of moving the GF1 philosophy forward. Unfortunately, they needed a lot more than simply moving forward. They needed a leap. The market is very different than the market that greeted the GF1. Sony has really outdone themselves with the NEX-5n and NEX-7, and while the lenses aren't quite as compact, they are of impressive quality. The mirrorless market has moved on quickly, and Panasonic has yet to bring its A-game.

Fuji X10 Gets Its First Real Review

Photography Blog has reviewed the new Fuji X10, and it's everything that we thought it was. It is easily the best compact camera on the market. The lens is very impressive in this review, which was the only element that had me worried. If the lens wasn't up to snuff, then the much-cheaper Olympus XZ-1 would have been a better choice. But no. Fuji nailed it. The lens appears as good as the Olympus.

Glorious, glorious dials.

They express the same concerns that others, myself included, have been expressing. Namely, the camera is quite bulky for a compact, and the price is stomach-turning. Aside from that, though, there is little to fault. The interface is simple and intuitive. There appear to be none of the baffling problems that plagued the X100.

As with the X100, image quality is exceptional. A bonus that I hadn't even noticed but they make a point to discuss is the excellent macro performance. A fun day at the flower house would be well within this camera's ken. RAW files reveal a sensor with excellent noise characteristics. I don't believe this sensor is a current-gen Sony, so much like the X100, Fuji has done great things with a slightly older sensor (You hear that, Olympus?!).

JPEG performance is a mixed bag. Color's looking pretty ho-hum out of the standard color curve, known as Provia. Other than that, the JPEGs show excellent color and detail retention up to ISO800-ish. Past that, detail loss is significant, but that's not really news. It's the fact that ISO800 is more than usable even on this small sensor that is worth noting.

This is a tough camera. At $600, it costs over $200 more than a Panasonic GF2/3 with lens. The sensor in the Panny is larger, but the lens is larger and it is nearly two stops slower. The only noticeable difference between the two cameras' images is noise, and the noise difference is a stop's worth at most. This means that in any given light environment, the Fuji would actually produce superior images. The same goes for the Olympus E-PM1. You could buy the exceptionally good Panasonic 20mm F/1.7, but then you lose the zoom capability. It's a tough choice with no right answer.

As a photography enthusiast, if the camera cost $100 less, I would have little qualms in buying it. For me, the deciding factor, considering that image quality is a wash, is the build. The build quality is excellent, it takes old plunger-style remote shutters, and has all of the manual controls one could want. It FEELS so great! But as it is, since I'm already so invested in Micro 4/3, there is little room for me to rationalize a very expensive, and needless for me, camera.

Olympus XZ-1 Mini Review

I got a chance to play around with the new Olympus XZ-1 through a friend. I'll keep this short and sweet. I never use compact cameras. I have one, a Canon S90, but I almost never use it. I've played around with the newest compacts here and there, but I'm never tempted. But, if I was interested in a compact camera, this would be at the top of my list. The interface is efficient, but nothing that really blows the competition away. Everyone has a competent interface on their cameras, nowadays. The body is well-made, feels good, and everything performs snappily.

No, while all of that is fine, what has impressed me away is the sharpness of the lens. Across the frame, this is easily the sharpest lens on a compact camera on the market. It's fast, and sharp, sharp, sharp. A number of other compacts, like the Panasonic Lumix LX5, are equally sharp in the center of the frame, but that drops off quickly. And woe be you if you try and use the zoom, your image quickly looks as though you took it through a thick miasma. The Olympus' lens never suffers from this.

It is sharper and suffers less distortion than even the Canon G11 (I don't have access to a G12, but they perform very similarly). Truly, this is a marvel of a lens. The camera isn't perfect, though, and its problem runs counter to other Olympus cameras. Whereas Olympus handily outperforms Panasonic 4/3's cameras when it comes to noise, this Olympus is very noisy. ISO100 is highly detailed but, even at this low ISO, noisy. Up to ISO400 can be easily cleaned up in Lightroom (Or Capture One or whatever), but by ISO800, it's getting hard. ISO1600 loses considerable saturation and is so noisy that really Facebook-level pictures are all that you can expect from it.

Still, even at high-ISO, when other cameras are outperforming it, the superiority of the lens means that I see more detail amongst all of that noise. I prefer that over the other cameras. All that said, I'd wait a generation. If Olympus can produce a version of this camera with noise on par with its competitors, they will have, without doubt, the best compact on the market.

Useless Camera Reviews

I just read a review of the new Olympus XZ-1 enthusiast compact. Reviews for it are very positive, with everyone commenting on how the lens is truly a cut above every other compact on the market. Unfortunately, the ISO performance is a cut below all of the other high-end compacts.

What annoys me is how photo review sites gloss over negative aspects of cameras. As with the Olympus E-5, the refrain from the review sites was "it's a great camera, if only its price was a little lower." A little? Just say what you're thinking and we're all thinking, it's a great camera for $1,000. For $1,700 with no lens, it's terrible. A Hyundai Accent is a great car, unless they tried charging $50,000 for it, then it becomes terrible.

As it is with this new compact. They talk about how ISO 1600 is only borderline usable for Facebook-style sizes, and 3200-6400 are useless. But they always say "but don't worry about this, since you won't be using these ISO's much." Screw off! I and everyone I know would use every drop of ISO allowed us. At night, even a decently-lit room requires ISO-1600 to achieve acceptable shutter speeds. Stop glossing over glaring problems with products in an attempt to please sponsors!

Reviewers are essentially critics, and they're meant to be critical. Don't point out issues, then immediately backpedal. Don't tell us to not worry. Tell us the cold, hard truth about a product and let US decide whether we need to worry about an issue or not.

P.S.

This equally applies to websites that simply never mention problems at all and just wax poetic about everything that they get their mits on. Cnet was REALLY bad in this regard. They used to employ a 1-10 scale, where 5 was average. You would then expect all product reviews to average together to, I dunno', five? You would expect that. And you would be wrong. They averaged together to somewhere between seven and eight. That means that they're either lying, or they're not doing real reviews. Cnet didn't help its credibility when, for years, they would list retailers rated at up to five stars. You would, again, expect that this meant that people had really great experiences with these sellers. Again, you'd be wrong. All the star rating meant was that the seller met certain criteria. It had nothing to do with quality. Included in their list of five-star sellers was an army of "Brooklyn Camera Shops."

Those shops are no longer listed. Cnet now has only top-flight, big brand sellers. But we're still talking about a website that, for quite some time, had no problems sending its readers to websites that were borderline frauds. That sort of thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.