OM-D E-M5 II, smaller MFT sensor still outperforming 70D

[Aglet]

Well, I don't know if it's really outperforming it by all THAT much, maybe not even a full stop if the iso sensitivities are real. Probably still has an edge over the 7D2 as well.

www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/12

OTOH, if you select the Nikon d5500 you can push that little beast +6EV and have it comparable to the EM52 and 70D pushed only 3 EV. That's some kinda clean.

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?

 

[Loswr]

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?

Keep on sellin' the 70D, of course. Golly gee, I bet it even continues to sell far better than any Oly MILC.

 

[candc]

There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg

It looks like crap to me.

 

[privatebydesign]

There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg

It looks like crap to me.

Stop talking sh!t candc.

Obviously Canon are doomed and Olympus will fly from the mountain top to vanquish all before her with IQ like this. /sarcasm

It is funny, if anybody posted a picture of a Canon file that looked like that they would call us all delusional fanboys who refuse to accept that Canon's days are numbered.

 

[Loswr]

"real world example"

Great example of how to take a poorly composed, distorted, flat and boring image and make the lighting equally flat and boring...in the real world.

 

[Aglet]

There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg

It looks like crap to me.

Stop talking sh!t candc.

Obviously Canon are doomed and Olympus will fly from the mountain top to vanquish all before her with IQ like this. /sarcasm

It is funny, if anybody posted a picture of a Canon file that looked like that they would call us all delusional fanboys who refuse to accept that Canon's days are numbered.

That's a fairly bad example of real world use. Very noisy, horizontal banding evident in some areas. Even if you NR the heck out of it and add lots of local contrast & color enhancements it'd still be quite limited in printable size.

I guess it could be a real world example .. if you didn't have a better camera.
Would the 70D be a better camera in those shooting conditions?... I doubt it.

 

[privatebydesign]

There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg

It looks like crap to me.

Stop talking sh!t candc.

Obviously Canon are doomed and Olympus will fly from the mountain top to vanquish all before her with IQ like this. /sarcasm

It is funny, if anybody posted a picture of a Canon file that looked like that they would call us all delusional fanboys who refuse to accept that Canon's days are numbered.

That's a fairly bad example of real world use. Very noisy, horizontal banding evident in some areas. Even if you NR the heck out of it and add lots of local contrast & color enhancements it'd still be quite limited in printable size.

I guess it could be a real world example .. if you didn't have a better camera.
Would the 70D be a better camera in those shooting conditions?... I doubt it.

I doubt it too. But where we differ is when you take other sensors that don't have as much noise when lifted you consider the shadows that have no colour or tonality to be good enough, I don't, to me grey mush is grey mush, it is useless even if it doesn't have noise and banding.

 

[pwp]

I've been taking my preferred video camera (Panasonic GH4) out on stills shoots where I may benefit having a lightweight third body. Its MFT sensor obviously doesn't even come close to my 5DIII or 1D MkIV files, but I have to say I have been staggered by what it can punch out. I have no hesitation delivering carefully processed GH4 files to clients.

Even as MFT sensors improve, the same technology gains will benefit all formats from MFT (and smaller), to APS-C, to FF and on to MF. This is such a great time to be a photographer.

-pw

 

[privatebydesign]

I've been taking my preferred video camera (Panasonic GH4) out on stills shoots where I may benefit having a lightweight third body. Its MFT sensor obviously doesn't even come close to my 5DIII or 1D MkIV files, but I have to say I have been staggered by what it can punch out. I have no hesitation delivering carefully processed GH4 files to clients.

Even as MFT sensors improve, the same technology gains will benefit all formats from MFT (and smaller), to APS-C, to FF and on to MF. This is such a great time to be a photographer.

-pw

Absolutely agree, I can't believe anybody has cause to moan about anything, this is a golden age, we will not have this kind of choice of quality for long, there has to be industry rationalization at some point.

My EOS-M, that was severely criticized by virtually everybody on release is the best small camera I have ever owned, by a long way, and I too am quite happy to deliver images to clients from it, either as scene setting remote images or just as a general backup.

 

[Aglet]

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?

Keep on sellin' the 70D, of course. Golly gee, I bet it even continues to sell far better than any Oly MILC.

As you state, Canon will probably do nothing about that and still rake it in.

 

[Aglet]

I've been taking my preferred video camera (Panasonic GH4) out on stills shoots where I may benefit having a lightweight third body. Its MFT sensor obviously doesn't even come close to my 5DIII or 1D MkIV files, but I have to say I have been staggered by what it can punch out. I have no hesitation delivering carefully processed GH4 files to clients.

Even as MFT sensors improve, the same technology gains will benefit all formats from MFT (and smaller), to APS-C, to FF and on to MF. This is such a great time to be a photographer.

-pw

Absolutely agree, I can't believe anybody has cause to moan about anything, this is a golden age, we will not have this kind of choice of quality for long, there has to be industry rationalization at some point.

My EOS-M, that was severely criticized by virtually everybody on release is the best small camera I have ever owned, by a long way, and I too am quite happy to deliver images to clients from it, either as scene setting remote images or just as a general backup.

yep, even my little Pentax Q bodies can produce some pretty useable files. LOTS of good options out there today, tho some are still better/different than others.

FWIW, this just in...

www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D5500-sensor-review-Low-noise-and-class-leading-dynamic-range

the new little Nik spanks the (older but it doesn't seem to matter) 70D from base all the way to 12,800 iso, and it doesn't lose anything there either. AND it has better color response.

I'll take those clean shadows and their lack of tonality(?) over what Canon can provide in that part of the chart ANY day. It sure makes my life simpler in post and that more than makes up for any slight handling advantage Canon bodies may have while taking the shot.
E.g. I like using my 60D with 15-85mm for lots of things. But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
I've found similar advantages with the MFT files I'd processed as well; they don't require much work.

 

[privatebydesign]

Get whatever tools you need to take the images you want when working the way you like. I have been able to earn a reasonable living working with inferior Canon sensors and their 'unusable noise and banding' for quite a while, others need something different for their work or style of shooting, nobody cares.

As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too

 

[deleteme]

But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
I've found similar advantages with the MFT files I'd processed as well; they don't require much work.

Maybe you don't know how to set up your workflow and are getting lucky with Nikon defaults.

 

[Aglet]

But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
I've found similar advantages with the MFT files I'd processed as well; they don't require much work.

Maybe you don't know how to set up your workflow and are getting lucky with Nikon defaults.

maybe I know that using certain tools can mean there's less work required to get to the desired result.

 

[ritholtz]

Well, I don't know if it's really outperforming it by all THAT much, maybe not even a full stop if the iso sensitivities are real. Probably still has an edge over the 7D2 as well.

www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/12

OTOH, if you select the Nikon d5500 you can push that little beast +6EV and have it comparable to the EM52 and 70D pushed only 3 EV. That's some kinda clean.

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?

70D does fine until +3EV push. It is little sharper and noisy.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=nikon_d5500&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_3&normalization=full&widget=205&x=1.043026986223816&y=0.9960443562585123

Every one pushed to +3EV. Even Nikon is missing fine details. Actually Canon shows some details albeit noisy.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=oly_em5ii&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=200_3&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_3&normalization=full&widget=205&x=0.7455469569042883&y=0.5657405743993502

Now, EM52 and Nikon pushed to +5EV and 70D to +3EV. Can some recognize what is EM52 actually captured. What is the point?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=oly_em5ii&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=200_5&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_5&normalization=full&widget=205&x=0.7455469569042883&y=0.5657405743993502

 

[3kramd5]

What is the point?

Unknown

 

[Marsu42]

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?

Canon is going on making a lot of money.

It's no secret the 70d crop sensor is just a very moderate bump up from the old 18mp design, so it's not exactly difficult to best that. And it's well-known Nikon has the edge on low iso. Canon has shown what they can do even with the current sensor tech in the 7d2, the 70d is just a legacy product - though a fine camera of course in absolute terms.

But: With people buying a 70d, how many will really notice? How many are doing heavy shadow pushing in post (if they're doing post at all)? I'd be worried about other things with the 70d like the spot af being crippled on 7d->70d or that 19 af points with the 7d's precision aren't exactly competitive anymore today.

 

[zlatko]

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?

The 70D is a fine camera, so Canon should do absolutely nothing. In the world of real photography, almost no one cares about this pushing 6EV nonsense. That's not how we make photos, and there are much more important things to consider.

 

[zlatko]

There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg

It looks like crap to me.

It is an obsession and it is nonsense. Thankfully, Canon doesn't make cameras for nonsense.

 

[ritholtz]

yep, even my little Pentax Q bodies can produce some pretty useable files. LOTS of good options out there today, tho some are still better/different than others.

FWIW, this just in...

www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D5500-sensor-review-Low-noise-and-class-leading-dynamic-range

the new little Nik spanks the (older but it doesn't seem to matter) 70D from base all the way to 12,800 iso, and it doesn't lose anything there either. AND it has better color response.

I'll take those clean shadows and their lack of tonality(?) over what Canon can provide in that part of the chart ANY day. It sure makes my life simpler in post and that more than makes up for any slight handling advantage Canon bodies may have while taking the shot.
E.g. I like using my 60D with 15-85mm for lots of things. But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
I've found similar advantages with the MFT files I'd processed as well; they don't require much work.

All Nikon/Sony cameras wins this Dxo competition with handsome margin. Even Canon FF cameras come short when compared to these brands crop cameras. Real world comparison reviews throw up some surprising results.
Canon 70d comes very close to matching Nikon d7100 image. But Nikon best crop camera can not match with even 70d when it comes to performance (fps,bufer,focus) and features (duel-pixel, wifi). 70D is a good trade off for people who wants all round camera (stills/video/features) with nice lens to compliment its features using cheap and good STM lens which covers from 10- 250mm (equivalent to 16 - 400mm) for silent focus. All these STM lens improves image,focus and build quality. They are even internal focusing. There is a lot of value in Camera crop system. Canon throws lot of features for crop users except high DR at low ISO which is the same thing with their FF offerings. If this DR is not a issue for all the professionals using Canon FF gear, not sure if it is going to be a issue with 70D target users.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs