Canon EOS 5D Mark III Shows Noticeable Improvements

Focus Numerique has posted ISO samples of the new Canon EOS 5D Mark III and they show a lighter AA filter, resulting in slightly sharper images overall, and cleaner high-ISO images.

In general, the difference is not large. I would say less than half a stop. But that only tells half the story. The Mark II appears better at extracting high-ISO detail in textures, shadow noise is much lower, and roll off into highlights is better. If the camera cost the same as the old Mark II, I'd call it a resounding success. At a price much more than the Mark II's launch, I still think that it is a worthy camera, but offers little to justify its enormous premium over its older sibling.

Obviously, I'll wait to see what the DxOMark is, because as with Sony's sensors, major advances in dynamic range and color are not always apparent in the final product. The Mark III may yet end up being a fantastic successor to the Mark II.

Early X Pro 1 Comments Are Not Sounding Good

And haven't quite caught it, yet.

43Rumors has an overview on a few hands-on reports from photogs around the world concerning both the E-M5 and the Fuji X Pro 1, two cameras in which I am more than a little interested. None of the reports are good.

Truly, the general consensus on the X Pro 1 is that the autofocus is terrible, which we knew, but that it is also cheaply made. One reviewer mentions that he felt that the X100 was cheaply made, which I disagree with. If it hadn't been for the awful usability issues, I would have loved the tactile feeling provided by the X100. Still, while one opinion does not a consensus make, a few do. And we have a few. This is a huge disappointment for me. I was on the verge of ordering the camera , since I am the kind of photog who will sacrifice ergonomics and usability for image quality.

The E-M5 also disappoints. One reviewer says that the ergonomics are such that getting "the shot" in a particular environment was impossible. This is both disappointing and puzzling since the ergonomics are very good on the G3 and GH2. Another reviewer says that the E-M5 comes alive after having the battery grip installed, but that it is also cheaply made, especially considering its high price.

That said, the Oly doesn't disappoint as hard as the X Pro 1. In fact, there are quite a few good reviews of the camera. My surprise may be because my expectations of the camera had dropped to near-zero after Olympus' refusing to talk about the sensor and the disappointing high-ISO samples. I look forward to the later reviews, but considering the NEX series that is out there, it's a really tough sell for Oly.

Fuji X Pro 1 Lens Test Photos

EPhotozine has posted test shots (here, here, and here) of the new Fuji X Pro 1 lenses and they are quite good.

UPDATE: PhotographyBlog has also posted test images of the lenses. They do a better job of showing off the specific characteristics of each lens. Their focal numbers are 35mm equivalent, so the 18mm becomes 27mm, 35mm becomes 53mm, and the 60mm becomes 90mm. All three lenses impress. The macro is tack-sharp. This one, in particular, shows off the 18mm.

The 35mm f/1.4 is unfortunately soft even in the center at f/1.4. That aperture is not an easy thing to engineer, though, and considering that the lens sharpens up well at f/2.0, we'll give Fuji a pass on what is arguably a small problem. Considering that many other companies produce similar lenses for wildly more money, kudos is due to Fuji.

The wider 18mm f/2.0 is much sharper wide open, but that's not surprising. This lens impresses me more than the 35mm with excellent evenness across the frame. Ideally, having it slightly faster would have been nice for what is the equivalent of a 28mm lens, but f/2.0 is still excellent.

The 60mm macro, which must compete with Canon's excellent EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro, is excellent. It appears to degrade near the edges more the Canon, but vignetting is better controlled. Wide open on Canon's lens produces a loss of over an EV by the corners, whereas the Fuji shows much less than an EV. The test photos also appear to show some flaring from f/8.0 and up. I hope that Fuji includes a hood.

All things considered, the three launch lenses are more than competitive. They are fast, sharp, and well-made. Combined with the X Pro 1 itself, I think that Fuji just hit the big time. If only their camera was cheaper... and had autofocus that didn't suck.

Finally, A Real E-M5 ISO Comparison

Focus Numerique, an excellent if minor photography publication online, has posted an ISO comparison of the new Olympus E-M5, and sure enough, its performance is nearly identical to the Panasonic G3. Aside from much stronger default contrast and sharpening, the images are close to identical. The odd gap between the G3 and the Canon G1X at least appears to have been mostly closed with Olympus' superior processing pipeline.

But, and it's a big but, noise, when even measured on a per-pixel level, appears significantly lower on the Sony NEX-7. That is a twenty-four megapixel camera. That is the key problem that these increasingly crappy Panasonic sensors have: the quality of the photosites themselves is far behind the competition. The NEX-5n is nearly a full stop better. That is unacceptable at the price that Olympus wants. Considering the recent results of the new Fuji X Pro 1, with ISO performance that leaves all other APS-C cameras wanting, Olympus needs to move their pricing downmarket, STAT.

As I have reiterated, the weather sealing is a real killer feature for me. As for many people who carry cameras with them at nearly all times, when the rain starts to fall, you either pack it up or enact some ghetto-rig around your camera like wrapping it in a Zip-Loc bag with only the lens peaking out. Less than elegant, to be sure.

Again, I want the E-M5... a lot. It is attractive, elegant, weather sealed, and finally aimed at enthusiasts. If it had been the first camera that Olympus had released, I would be singing a different tune. It would have been a revelation three years ago. But now, it goes up against the soon-to-be-announced Nikon D8000, The Sony NEX series, and Canon doing their own sensor format better than them.

I am begging Olympus to cut ties with Panasonic. Either go whole-hog and actually design their own sensors or buy off-the-shelf units from Sony. Panasonic is giving you its leftovers. This is not real competition. I want this body with a Sony sensor. I want a camera that doesn't require concessions.

P.S. I also want a camera that doesn't have a base ISO of freaking 200.

Fuji X Pro 1 Autofocus Test

An autofocus test has shown up on YouTube, and Cnet's statement that it was sub-par was, sadly, accurate. The tests show it to be among the slowest AF that I've seen, and it is easily the slowest performance of any camera in the price range that Fuji is targeting. While I'm sure that Fuji will hit its targets, I think that their sales could be much better if they dropped the price of the camera by $200 and include a kit with a big discount on the lens. Because at this price, pros won't accept this problem, and enthusiasts have many options.

Still, I can't help but want this camera. I hope that a few months on the market will give them a chance to fix some of the problems. It still won't be worth it, but it will be almost worth it.

First Fuji X Pro 1 Review

Cnet Asia has posted the first major review of the Fuji X Pro 1 and the ISO tests are incredibly impressive.

As we all know, the Sony NEX 5n has an amazing sensor as regards noise levels. It's not the absolute best APS-C camera on the market, though. That honor goes to the Pentax K5. But even then, it compares very favorably to even full-frame cameras. The X Pro 1 blows the NEX 5n out of the water. It's in a different league.

As with the X100, though, not all is well in Fujiland. The autofocus, again as with the X100, is disappointing. They don't specify, but they didn't mention the AF speed on the NEX 5n's review, and I thought that its AF was rather poor. So for them to mention the AF leads me to believe that the speed is noticeably poor.

Unfortunately, there are precious few details that we can glean from this review. Cnet, for all its size, produces some of the worst, most useless reviews on the internet. I cannot wait for DPReview and DxOMark.

The 5D Mark III Confuses Me

Canon announced the 5D Mark III today, and while it doesn't scream "arrogantly clueless" like their abandonment of the mirrorless market and the ridiculous price on the G1X, it certainly doesn't assuage my fears about Canon.

What puzzles me is the price, which comes it at one thousand dollars more expensive than the 5D Mark II when  it launched, and fifteen-hundred more than its current price. Canon has tried to explain this away by saying that the camera is not a replacement for the MkII, but is instead meant to sit between it and the 1DX.

Combined with the revelation that there will be no replacement for the 7D, the 60D replacement will move upmarket, and the 1DX being called a "replacement" for the 1D and 1DS even though we know that a high-resolution studio camera is in the offing, it all gives me the impression of a company that has no idea in what direction it wants to go.

Further compounding this impression is their release of an entirely new system for video, which will have new lenses, yet another SLR-styled camera, and more hyper-expensive accessories. Obviously, Canon does not believe in the maxim that less is more. They believe that more is more, and even more is a lot more.

It's hard for me to totally mock Canon just yet. They are being annoyingly cagey with details about their cameras. We've seen only a smattering of demo photos, and no serious hands-on have taken place. But considering the different philosophies and market strategies exemplified by The D4 and the 1DX, I do not hold out much hope for serious innovation and change.

Compare this to Sony, who has pushed the APS-C market into entirely new territories with the NEX-7 and A77, and their incredible innovation appears primed to continue into the full-frame market. Sony is manufacturing the sensors in all of the best cameras currently on the market. Length-to-length, Sony's system is cheaper than either Nikon or Canon (granted, the recent increase in lens prices goes some way to eliminating this). Truly, Sony is going that one bit farther in every respect.

Canon could have brought it. They could have unified the concepts of the new Canon C-Series with their standard line. But no. They instead chose to further fragment their line-up. That behavior annoys the hell out of me, because it stems from a company that knows that they have their professional market by the balls, and this market will be much more willing to plunk down cash since investment in a competing system would cost more and be more problematic. In economics terms, people who are invested in Canon's system have turned Canon products into inflexible goods.

And because of this, instead of bold steps, we get incremental upgrades, features that should have existed in their previous generation of cameras, and a system designed to milk money from customers, all for a lot more money than last year.

Man, what a deal.