Early Sony RX1 Test Images

While not RAW, Focus Numerique has posted some JPEGs from the new Sony RX1 and they are pretty good. Unlike the A99 or, ugh, the A77, there is no SLT mirror to get in the way of the light, and as such the ISO performance of the RX1 is right in line with the other camera that uses its sensor, the D600. It is high-priced, certainly, but the RX1 is shaping up very well.

First NEX-6 ISO Comparison With RAW

DSLRCheck, as they always seem to do, is the first out the gate with an ISO comparison of a new camera. Well, what I should say is that they are first out the gate with a useful ISO comparison. Tons of crap websites produce early comparisons with no value.

The biggest point of value is that DSLRCheck usually includes RAW comparisons. And such it is with the NEX-6. Obviously, the NEX-6 does battle with Sony's current king, the NEX-7, and everyone had high hopes that the new generation, 16Mp sensor would perform better than the NEX-7's 24Mp ubersensor.

Sadly, this is not the case. There is nearly a full stop difference at ISO6400, but below that, they compare similarly. It seems to do very well extracting detail at lower ISO, and I will withhold any judgment until a full comparison is complete, but I was expecting superior performance across the board. Most importantly, I was hoping that Sony would bring something to the table that did better against Fuji's truly magical sensor in the X Pro 1 and XE-1.

As the author mentions, this is actually a regression for Sony, since there was no significant difference in ISO performance between the NEX-5n and NEX-7. Disappointing, but again, ISO is only one aspect of sensor performance.

DxO Mark Reviews The Olympus E-PL5; Comes Out Looking Great

Today is a good day for Micro 4/3. The E-M5 proved that a small sensor could get close to larger, APS-C sensors in ISO performance. Even though we all know that they will never be a perfect match, with the gap shrunk to less than half of a stop performance, anyone seeking significant differences in image quality will basically be forced to use full-frame.

Unfortunately, both of the cameras that perform similarly to APS-C, the GH3 and E-M5, are very expensive — over $1,000. That means that there are literally dozens of APS-C cameras that perform similarly for hundreds of dollars less. Micro 4/3 desperately needed a cheaper camera. The E-PL5, while still pricey, sahves $300 from the E-M5, bringing it into a great category.

We already knew that the E-M5 and E-PL5 were appearing nearly identical, and we have the first of the three major publications to prove it. DxO Mark has tested the E-PL5 and it actually rates ever so slightly higher than the E-M5. Not surprising since the E-PL5 has no AA filter, and for a reason as yet unknown to me, cameras without an AA filter, or with an AA-negating filter like the D800E, perform slightly better.

The E-PL5 is absolutely the true successor to the GF1. It only took the Micro 4/3 group three and a half years to produce it.

Olympus Confirms 17mm f/1.8, Fails To Impress Anyone

It's official: Olympus will be releasing a 17mm lens. That gives it a 34mm field of view, and with the E-M5 usually operating at something slightly less than the 4/3 sensor area compliments of its IBIS, that makes the lens near-as-makes-no-difference a 35mm lens. We can already see that the lens isn't terribly impressive optically, with merely good resolution characteristics and severe distortion. So where does that put the lens?

In a not very good place, that's where. Olympus also confirmed the price: $500. This lens is competing with other 35mm lenses that, at times, cost less than half as much. Granted, many of these lenses are awful, but some are not, and Olympus needs to concern itself with those that are not.

Pekka Potka is one of the few to have an overview of the lenses characteristics posted, and he is whelmed. He says it's basically a wash in comparison to the 20mm, but is otherwise disappointed, closing with

Neither [the 17mm nor 20mm] gets nearly [as good as the 12-60mm] at any aperture nor with any fancy sharpening. This is why I will keep on using this zoom and hoping that some day Olympus will learn to make THE REAL 17mm prime lens. Still, I will buy this new 17mm lens because, after all, it is a step forward in my use for reasons illustrated.

Well, that's a ringing endorsement.

Yep, the GH3 Is Using A Sony Sensor

We finally have a RAW comparison of the newest iteration of Olympus' sensor and Panny's new sensor, and the results are as close to identical as one could hope to get.

Obviously, there are subtle differences in the noise patterns, and the Oly appears to be achieving marginally better detail at low-ISO compliments of its complete lack of AA filter. If we're picking nits, and we may as well, the Olympus seems to be retaining color and fine detail slightly better by ISO 12,800. We'll have to wait and see whether the GH3's ISO rating are closer to nominal than the Oly, which was pretty far away, meaning that for every ISO rating, the Panny is slightly more sensitive.

Three-quarters through the page, they have a series of photos taken at ISO-200 and then over-exposed in Adobe. It shows a huge boost in dynamic range compared to the GH2. Impressive and much, much needed.

Olympus Readies Another High-Priced Disappointment

Don't ever say that I'm not forgiving. Olympus could burn down Japan and I'd still be saying, "Yeah, well they did make that 75mm lens." When a company truly brings their A-game, I turn into an all-out fanboi.

It is for this reason only that I do not spend the next post eviscerating Olympus for the overpriced 12mm lens and now this, a newly announced, and already disappointing, 17mm lens. I'm going to resist the urge to simply fling invective. I'm going to be measured.

One of the biggest disappointment of the most recent crop of high-quality m4/3 lenses is the extreme amount of distortion. The Panasonic 12-35mm produces distortion of nearly 6% at 12mm. It's even higher than the 14-45mm, and we only forgave that lens because it was so damned cheap.

This is something worth focusing on... no pun intended... because not only are Olympus's 4/3 Zuiko lenses almost free of distortion, but other companies are producing excellent optics for much less money. The 12mm Oly, for example, must compete with the 12mm SLRMagic lens, which costs $300 less, is faster, and produces almost no distortion. Why the hell can't Olympus and Panasonic do the same? Stupidity? Greed? They simply don't give a shit?

The new 17mm is no different. Based on the RAW photos available here, the distortion appears to be well over 5%. This is even more unacceptable when we consider that the Panasonic 20mm is cheaper, smaller, close in focal length, and has still lower distortion.

I understand what they are going for. They want to keep their lenses compact while also providing autofocus. This can be very difficult from an engineering perspective. I get it. But if Olympus is going to sell us concessions in a lens, they damn well better price that lens correctly. $800 for a 12mm lens with distortion that damn-near rips a portal in space-time? Not priced correctly!

I seriously hope that the 4/3 and m4/3 system is eventually, for all intents and purposes, taken away from Panasonic and Olympus. The 2x crop factor seems to be the absolute sweet spot between a smaller sensor and overall performance. Its existence has a good value proposition. If only Panasonic and Olympus knew how to use that to their advantage.

UPDATE:

Even better, it's been confirmed that Olympus will follow in the tradition of its 75mm and 12mm lenses and not include a lens hood. Instead, they will try to sell one for $80. Greedy, shitty, and, oh right, I'm just going to buy a $10 hood on Ebay. Fuck off, Olympus.

First Measured Review Of The Panasonic 35-100mm Lens

Lens reviews are so annoying. We have crappy publications like PhotographyBlog and ePhotozine that rush out worthless reviews that contain literally no useful data. We have small blogs that produce slightly less-crappy reviews, but only ever provide a personal impression of the lens, which is almost useless unless we know that the person writing it has been working in photography for decades. And even then, that can cause problems of its own since photographers are notorious for being intransigent ogres when it comes to change.

So while pixel-peepers and chart-watchers are frequently lampooned by photographers, they are easily more well-founded in their analyses and criticisms than anyone who relies on some person saying that a lens is "good."

Lens Rentals is one of the least-known, but most useful, websites for lens analysis. The reason for this is that when they do a review, they test multiple examples of a lens, sometimes with wild variation between samples. This variation is what tells us to what tolerances a lens is being manufactured. Understandably, some variation is expected. Sometimes the lens mount isn't perfectly parallel. Sometimes a glass element is ever-so-slightly out of alignment. It happens.

But when a lens shows variation of nearly 100 lines on an MTF50 chart, that's cause for concern. The Panasonic holds up well. Not great. Just well. Everything is pretty good. And if the lens cost less than $1,000, pretty good would equal really great. But instead of doing that, Panasonic has priced the lens into the stratosphere. Worse still, the lens will be invariably associated with the GH3, which exists more as a videography tool than a photography tool. And with the 12-35mm well-lampooned and the 35-100mm lampooned even before its release as being useless for video, the X-lens/GH3 combo is caught between two worlds. It's not even a jack of all trades, much less a master of any.

Panasonic isn't being nearly as aggressive as it needs to be to prevent becoming another Sharp. To me, variance of this level, tear-downs revealing internals to be mostly cheap plastic, and extremely high prices indicates a company that is not yet ready to play in the same field as the big boys. It's unfortunate that Olympus is corrupt and incompetent, because they have proven an ability to run with the big boys.