What else is new?

Canon EOS M10 vs Samsung NX1 camera review
Canon EOS M10 mirrorless camera test review
Canon EOS M10 mirrorless camera tested at DxOMark

Lensbaby Edge 50 Optic lens
→ Lensbaby Edge 50 Optic lens launched as a separate item, available for pre-order.


→ Many brands are increasing their prices in Canada as a result of the week Canadian dollar (the Canadian dollar has fallen 15% in the last six months). I was told that Tamron is the next company to announce a price increase in Canada.

Zhongyi Lens Turbo Adapters Mark II for Micro Four Thirds cameras
→ Three new Zhongyi Lens Turbo Adapters Mark II for Micro Four Thirds cameras were released (Canon FD - M43 / Minolta MD - M43 / M42 - M43).

This entry was posted in Canon, Lensbaby, Other and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Disqus Discuss

    Wow, the Canon sensor is terrible – definitely not up to modern standards.

    • TinusVerdino

      also not up to more than 5 year old standards of the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000 :p

      • Zos Xavius

        My K-5 IIs is still a very, very good camera. Better than the K-3 even in certain ways.

  • Zos Xavius

    Is there an actual difference between M cameras? It seems like they just slap a new number on them and call it a day. I would imagine most of any improvements are done on the software side. Things like improved AF, etc. I’d be willing to bet money they could make an M1 the same camera as an M10 with a firmware flash.

  • Les

    The weird thing about DxO’s assessment is how far off it is from other tests.
    For instance, a European M10 test shows the M10 having outstanding color on a vectorscope (the only true test of color in film and video), and very good dynamic range, and near-perfect sharpness. Somehow, the fact that it’s got color that’s “clean enough for green screen” (if you know what I mean) doesn’t matter because DxO doesn’t think it has enough bits. I know from personal experience that many cameras that test better (more bits!) have ungradable color with tons of crosstalk, the kind where you can either get a clean skin tone (almost), or a nice balance, but never both.

    My question is: are they testing what matters, or just what’s easy to test?

    ISO stopped being an issue around 2008. Every camera’s got plenty. Dynamic range is only relevant for those who think that pushing shadows 5 stops is a relevant thing (hint: it means you f’d-up your exposure). Color bits don’t mean a thing if your color isn’t clean and accurate. What does that leave us with? An easy-to-quote number that says nothing about how your stills and videos will look. If anything, the numbers are counter-productive; manufacturers use weaker filters so they can pump-up the ISO and bit counts.

    • harvey

      since all the camera tests that DXO does give you numbers in the same categories, it makes it easier to compare cameras. I believe ISO is not about ISO but about noise performance at higher ISOs, dynamic range is important if you shoot in contrastier conditions and want more photo info without having to resort to using HDR/blending techniques.

    • Zos Xavius

      Its so fun to watch you canon fanboys get your panties all in a bunch when someone mentions DXOmark. The fact remains that canon underperforms in every measurable aspect when it comes to image quality. Even aps-c cameras are putting the 5dmk3 to shame. I find claims of “near perfect sharpness” ludicrous considering that the video is coming off a line skipping CMOS sensor that has known problems with moire in video. BTW ISO is being ramped up because the underlying technology that makes sensors is improving and the improved signal to noise ratios are allowing manufacturers to push cameras to where film has never gone before. There is nothing counter productive here. I don’t know what you are talking about regarding filters and bit counts. Your post really makes no sense.

      Dynamic range is very important to landscape shooters by the way who traditionally have had to resort to HDR to squeeze the exposure range of sunsets and other high contrast scenes. I took a shot of a bridge the other day during sunrise and the dark bridge was completely black because I didn’t want to blow out the nice reds in the bright sky from the sunrise. I had to push those shadows at least 3ev to make the bridge match what my eyes had seen. Also in normal shooting no meter is foolproof. Underexposure happens and its always nice to be able to pull out a shot that you would have had to throw away otherwise. Not only that but dynamic range is directly tied to the signal to noise ratio. More DR = Less noise.

      If dynamic range is not important why do people spend so much on graduated neutral density filters to tame their scenes into something that their sensors can actually capture?

      • Les

        No fanboy-ism here, asking an honest question.

        How come DxO marks don’t correspond with real-world results? For instance, cinematographers will tell you that the C300-2 is so far ahead of any Sony cam there’s no comparison. The colors are better, the image looks better, the usability is better, and you get less clipping in the real world.
        If all you know is DxO, this makes no sense at all.

        Who should I trust, leading craftsmen and women who make outstanding images every day, or a number calculated by a piece of software?
        I’m not saying that there’s no enjoyment to be had from test scores. Yourself, Harvey, many others are conclusive proof of that. All I’m saying is that photography is a visual pursuit, you have to trust your eyes. If numbers try to tell you that one imaging chain “underperforms,” how come the results are considered better by so many seasoned professionals?

        • I’m getting real tired of the “if you need dynamic range, you didn’t expose correctly” statements. You must learn that the definition of exposing correctly has changed since cameras got a larger dynamic range. Zos example is great, he needed to underexpose the bridge (main subject) in order to not blow the highlight (the sky), and then raise the shadows in post. You just can’t do that without good dynamic range, unless you use a tripod and take several exposures which is bulky.
          I mean no offense, but when people say “you don’t need dynamic range when you should expose correctly” it’s just a direct evidence that they don’t understand how dynamic range works.

          A correctly exposed _photo_ has the main subject correctly exposed. However a correctly exposed _raw file_ has the main subject somewhat underexposed, in order to save the highlights. Please learn the difference.

          • Les

            Taking a picture under harsh light is not a new problem. The solution is to improve the light, or to wait for it to change, not to do hokey tonal compression (or “single-exposure HDR,” if you prefer). That never looks good: you got the picture, but you may as well delete it because nobody will ever look at it.

            In essence, it’s like having a piano with more keys. It’s a theoretical improvement, but it won’t make the music better. If anything, it makes things worse, because the distraction of desperately trying to push the shadows blinds you to the “big picture:” you are looking at a picture of a bridge in harsh mid-day sun, and your tonalities are awkward because your shadows have been brought-up to the same level as other objects lit by sunlight. That’s not what I try to achieve visually, but you may feel differently.

          • Of course one wouldn’t bring up the shadows to the same brightness as the rest of the image, that would look either like a horrible HDR or a total lack of contrast. But the point is, the more information there is to work with, the more possibilities there are. Your comparision to a piano is slightly different. More keys within the same range of tones would equal more bits (like a 12-bit vs a 14-bit image), but higher dynamic range would theoretically mean an extended range of more darker and brighter tones (or what it’s called, I’m no music expert). Just because you use the dynamic range it doesn’t mean you can’t balance it to create a clear, contrasty photo.

            And greater dynamic range is not an unrealistic thing. Our eyes have far greater dynamic range than any camera, so a greater dynamic range will improve the possibilities to make the photo include the range of light levels that the photographer saw with his own eyes. This is typical in estate photography where you want to keep the light both indoors and outdoors (through windows) balanced.

            If we put it the other way, have you seen what a photo in harsh light from an old camera with really bad dynamic range looks like? Blown highlights and dark shadows, it looks too contrasty.

            Here is just a random before-after from me. If I would have exposed “correctly” then I would have blown the sky and trees. Obviously we can see that it’s heavy edited and can argue whether it’s too much or not, but it got the job done. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/375da7b71665ae2747489650e60fd796b783cf37f353a3d466d7e3e4f599d75e.jpg

    • Marco –

      Pulling exposures is a very useful technique. You can underexpose by one stop, thus capturing lots of details in the highlights, and then pull the shadows only and have a perfect pictures. With canon this is virtually impossible. Even with 6d, ypu just find noise in the shadows.

      Look at what samsung nx1 can do (on dpreview).

  • BP2012

    Once again, every Canon crap got its dxomark results as soon as it is possible. But Pentax flagship camera still doesn’t have dxomark after more than two years after release date. Most of all results are there for more than 6 months but never published by Dxo. What a bunch of hypocrites.

  • Henry

    Tough hearing about the price increases for us Canadians but I suppose it’s inevitable given our dollar’s terrible drop in value. Oh well… thanks for the heads up anyhow!

  • Back to top